Personal experience as a starting point for religious discussion

[Nimrod]

There are many arguments presented to support various religious viewpoints. But is there external "proof"?

Whatever religious viewpoint you have, there are there billions of people who disagree with you. Educated, intelligent people will not accept your viewpoint. Why?
What evidence is there that you are right and everyone else is wrong? What argument can you present that is so powerful that it will change the basic beliefs of anyone who hears it?

What external evidence do you have that supports your beliefs about:

1) The nature of God
2) The nature of our relationship with God
3) The nature of life after death?

There are many philosphical discussions about these points. But the usual "evidence" is, basically:

1) My experience shows me that I'm right.
2) There are many other people who agree with me.

When it comes to beliefs, is it not, ultimately, a matter of personal experience? Isn't a worldview the direct result of someone's experiences in the world?

Aren't our common shared experiences the basis for our relationships? And don't we always have something in common with someone else?

Perhaps that's the starting point.

[guacamole]

There are many arguments presented to support various religious viewpoints. But is there external "proof"?

Proof that would be accepted by another person? Not necessarily likely. Proof that is compelling to us? Sure.

Whatever religious viewpoint you have, there are there billions of people who disagree with you. Educated, intelligent people will not accept your viewpoint. Why?
What evidence is there that you are right and everyone else is wrong? What argument can you present that is so powerful that it will change the basic beliefs of anyone who hears it?

For any kind of persuasive argument to succeed, you need to over come the inherent biases against the message that the speaker has. In some cases even the best evidence cannot over come these biases, for whatever reason. I would imagine that educated, intelligent peolpe don't agree with me for the same reason I don't agree with them (if I may pat myself on the back a bit), because by and large they are educated, intelligent and biased people who won't accept just any message, only a message that strikes them to their core and causes them to see something differently.

In some Christian circles we speak of the action of the Holy Spirit which "regenerates" a person to the point they can understand and grasp the message of the Gospel. Oddly, then, the Holy Spirit is largely responsible for the ability to comprehend and accept the spiritual message to the point of repentance. In that case it's not necessarily possible for this stammering clumsy tongue to present an argument that will strike at the root of anyone's core belief, try as I may, though I am ever willing (and hopefully, alert to the circumstances) to be the able servant of the Spirit if called upon.

St. Paul described his work in this way to the Corinthians:

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach teh gospel-- not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross be emptied of its power." (1 Corinthians 1:17)

He goes on to say, a bit later:

"Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weaker things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--- and the things that are not-- to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God-- that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. There as it is written: 'Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord."

"When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power. " (1st Corinthians 1: 26-2:5)

So in a very real way, God brings people to himself (though they may refuse him).

What external evidence do you have that supports your beliefs about:

1) The nature of God
2) The nature of our relationship with God
3) The nature of life after death?

There are many philosphical discussions about these points. But the usual "evidence" is, basically:

1) My experience shows me that I'm right.
2) There are many other people who agree with me.

And I would add the affirmation of some impartial standard (scripture, tradition or both) to which 1 and 2 are rectified.

I'm extremely skeptical of "experiential" arguments, even from other Christians because I know that it is possible to be deluded or decieved (if by no one other than oneself and one's desires). Number two may be a bit more respectable in the proper circumstances (tradition, perhaps).

When it comes to beliefs, is it not, ultimately, a matter of personal experience? Isn't a worldview the direct result of someone's experiences in the world?

Aren't our common shared experiences the basis for our relationships? And don't we always have something in common with someone else?

Perhaps that's the starting point.

So the real question is: "What authority do personal experiences have for determining spiritual truth?"

In my admittedly limited opinion, personal experiences have no basis for determining spiritual truth apart from a larger context through which the experiences may be viewed.

fwiw
guac.

[Nimrod]

Why do you believe in God?

[Jin-Roh]

There are many arguments presented to support various religious viewpoints. But is there external "proof"?

Whatever religious viewpoint you have, there are there billions of people who disagree with you. Educated, intelligent people will not accept your viewpoint. Why?

"The heart has its reasons for whcih reason has no answer of." -Pascal

What evidence is there that you are right and everyone else is wrong? What argument can you present that is so powerful that it will change the basic beliefs of anyone who hears it?

As a Christian, I say that the matters of persuasion is entirely the due to argument. In fact, I would think that people are stepping outside of scripture if they assert that someone can get to God soley by reason.

What external evidence do you have that supports your beliefs about:

1) The nature of God
2) The nature of our relationship with God
3) The nature of life after death?

There are many philosphical discussions about these points. But the usual "evidence" is, basically:

1) My experience shows me that I'm right.
2) There are many other people who agree with me.

I have had experience that shows my Christianity is true, and I have a great deal of experience that would lead me to believe that Christianity might be false. I don't rely on just on my experience to tell me whether or not Christianity is true.

I don't rely on an appeal to popularity either.

By the way, can you show us that 1 and 2 have been the main pivots of Theistic discussion over the last 20 centuries?

When it comes to beliefs, is it not, ultimately, a matter of personal experience? Isn't a worldview the direct result of someone's experiences in the world?

Largely, but not entirely.
In a book I'm reading an atheist said, "live and learn" to which a philosopher said, "some of us do it the other way around."

Aren't our common shared experiences the basis for our relationships? And don't we always have something in common with someone else?

Generally yes, but how does this help your case about God?

[Nimrod]

My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

This is precisely my point! The Corinthians were not convinced because of Paul's persuasive arguments. They experienced the demonstration of the Spirit's power through Paul.

How many of the early disciples became followers of Christ because of logical arguments, or theological arguments?

I don't rely on just on my experience to tell me whether or not Christianity is true.
I don't rely on an appeal to popularity either.
By the way, can you show us that 1 and 2 have been the main pivots of Theistic discussion over the last 20 centuries?

1) What do you rely on besides your experience to tell you that Christianity is true?
2) "Appeal to popularity"? My point was: "There are many other people who agree with me." I didn't say the majority of other people. Even if only a few hundred people agree with you (and perhaps most of the people that you admire or that you associate with), then that provides strong confirmation for the validity of your beliefs.
3) Perhaps you can tell me what has been the "main pivot"? Also, perhaps you can show me that "Theistic discussion" has been the "main pivot" of Christianity for the last 20 centuries?

[guacamole]

Why do you believe in God?

Personal experiences, interpreted through the lense of different authorities, have reinforced my belief in God.

[Nimrod]

Thank you, guacamole.

Just to clarify, though ... are you saying that:
1a) You believe in God because of personal experiences AND
1b) Your belief has been reinforced when your experiences were interpreted through the lens of different authorities?

or
You believe in God
2a) because of personal experiences AND
2b) because of the interpretation of those experiences through the lens of different authorities?
IOW, you wouldn't believe in God without the "authority-lens" interpretation?

Also, how did you decide which "authority-lens" to use?

[guacamole]

Thank you, guacamole.

Just to clarify, though ... are you saying that:
1a) You believe in God because of personal experiences AND
1b) Your belief has been reinforced when your experiences were interpreted through the lens of different authorities?

or
You believe in God
2a) because of personal experiences AND
2b) because of the interpretation of those experiences through the lens of different authorities?

Number two seems to be the way I'd put it, although the difference between the two seems very slight.

IOW, you wouldn't believe in God without the "authority-lens" interpretation?

No quite. The authorities inform the experiences, which is, imo, the same for people everywhere.

Also, how did you decide which "authority-lens" to use?

That get's back to the whole "why believe what you believe" question. Partially I think I believe what I believe because it makes sense to me, but also partially, ala St. Paul in the post above, because I have been called and reciprocated that calling in whatever paltry way I was able to do so.

Hey...why doesn't you signature show up?

fwiw
guac.

[Nimrod]

No quite. The authorities inform the experiences, which is, imo, the same for people everywhere.

What is "the same", the experiences?
Are you saying that everyone has the same experiences?
Also, what do you mean by "The authorities inform the experiences"?
And, please let me know how you decide who the "authorities" are.

"Hey...why doesn't your signature show up?"
You mean the one based on your quote: "But the issue isn't even really about choice, but about how one chooses to frame the argument"?
I've chosen not to use a signature.

[guacamole]

What is "the same", the experiences?
Are you saying that everyone has the same experiences?

I'm saying that it is likely that everyone has some sort of authority structure by which they validate their experiences and evaluate new (or old) ideas.

Also, what do you mean by "The authorities inform the experiences"?
And, please let me know how you decide who the "authorities" are.

The authortites inform experiences by helping us to understand what just happened to us:

If I have a vision in which I receive the message that Jesus was married and had fifteen kids who went on to found the bloodlines of the major European noble houses, the authorities help me to understand how to think about the "vision". In this case, if my authority is the NT and traditional Christian thinking, I may end up thinking that I didn't have a vision. Obviously then, with different authorities I may come to wildly different reckonings of exactly what happened.

With respect to choosing authorities, I think that is something that comes out of the first sorts of religious experiences we have and the principles to which we have dedicated our lives.

"Hey...why doesn't your signature show up?"
You mean the one based on your quote: "But the issue isn't even really about choice, but about how one chooses to frame the argument"?
I've chosen not to use a signature.

Bummer....I'll just have to get famous some other way...


fwiw
guac.

[Nimrod]

I'm saying that it is likely that everyone has some sort of authority structure by which they validate their experiences and evaluate new (or old) ideas....
With respect to choosing authorities, I think that is something that comes out of the first sorts of religious experiences we have and the principles to which we have dedicated our lives.

Good points!

We initially interpret our various experiences and formulate our ideas and beliefs within some authoritative structure, and, to some extent, we remain bound to those deep-seated beliefs. Since each person's experience is different, it is any wonder that there are so many religious beliefs?

But can we agree on an absolute, external authority, and can we agree on the nature of that authority?

I suggest that, whether we agree or not, what each us really has, what we know (as surely as we know anything), is our experience. Saying that something is real without having experienced it (no matter how many words we use, no matter how eloquent our rhetoric), just isn't enough.

Now, I can choose to share my experiences with you ... or not.

[guacamole]

Good points!

We initially interpret our various experiences and formulate our ideas and beliefs within some authoritative structure, and, to some extent, we remain bound to those deep-seated beliefs. Since each person's experience is different, it is any wonder that there are so many religious beliefs?

But can we agree on an absolute, external authority, and can we agree on the nature of that authority?

I suggest that, whether we agree or not, what each us really has, what we know (as surely as we know anything), is our experience. Saying that something is real without having experienced it (no matter how many words we use, no matter how eloquent our rhetoric), just isn't enough.

Now, I can choose to share my experiences with you ... or not.

And yet curiously, despite its universality, experience isn't enough by itself. There seems to be a trend in all organized systems of thought that insists that experiential knowledge is somehow of an insufficient nature compared to other forms of knowledge...

fwiw
guac.

[Nimrod]

Well, I didn't say that experience is enough. I said it's a starting point.

There seems to be a trend in all organized systems of thought that insists that experiential knowledge is somehow of an insufficient nature compared to other forms of knowledge...

Your comment is almost comical in its rich vagueness.

1) "There seems to be" according to whom?
2) What is the evidence for this trend?
3) How long has this trend been going on?
4) How does a trend "insist"?
5) When you say "all organized systems of thought", do you mean compared to "disorganized systems of thought"?
6) What's a "system of thought" and where can I find one?
7) How is experiential knowledge "insufficient" compared to other forms of knowledge?
8) Are these other forms "of a sufficient nature"?
9) What are these other forms of knowledge?
10) How is any of this related to religious beliefs?

[Jin-Roh]

1) What do you rely on besides your experience to tell you that Christianity is true?

The birth of the Early Christian Church, Evidence by Design, the Res, the laws of thermodynamics, a prophecy here and there, the fact that we even ask these questions...etc etc

2) "Appeal to popularity"? My point was: "There are many other people who agree with me." I didn't say the majority of other people. Even if only a few hundred people agree with you (and perhaps most of the people that you admire or that you associate with), then that provides strong confirmation for the validity of your beliefs.

I don't think I said Majority either. There are many people who share my beliefs (or at least close to it) who I do not admire, as well as there are those who I do.

3) Perhaps you can tell me what has been the "main pivot"? Also, perhaps you can show me that "Theistic discussion" has been the "main pivot" of Christianity for the last 20 centuries?

You made the assertion:

But the usual "evidence" is, basically:

1) My experience shows me that I'm right.
2) There are many other people who agree with me.

So the burden of proof is on you. All that "Theistic discussion" means is discussion about God. There has been more than Christianity here. Deism, Pantheism and even Atheism come to mind here.

Thank you for your responce.

[Nimrod]

The birth of the Early Christian Church, Evidence by Design, the Res, the laws of thermodynamics, a prophecy here and there, the fact that we even ask these questions...etc etc

1) Evidence by Design and the Laws of Thermodynamics are arguments for the existence of God, not for the truthfulness of Christianity. (BTW, do you understand the Laws of Thermodynamics? Perhaps you do.)
2) The birth of the Early Christian Church, on its own, means nothing. (besides the fact that it was the Christian Church that was "born", not the Early Christian Church). Many churches are born. Do you believe in all of them? If you actually mean the growth of the Early Christian Church, there is still no direct connection with the truthfulness of Christianity.
3) The Resurrection is only relevant if Jesus is alive today. So it's today that matters, not 2,000 years ago.
4) A prophecy here and there. How many prophecies were there and how many of them have been fulfilled?
5) The fact that we even ask these questions. See #1 above.

So much in just a few sentence fragments ...