Do we filter what theists say as if the words were completely clear as to their meaning, when in fact they are not.
My point is, that it is possible for the religious person to be talking about something beyond straight forward discussion, such as “the experience of god”.
Since we are talking about an experience, the experience itself cannot be denied and we should not attempt to do so. Rather, we need to understand what elements it is composed of.
Posted: May 18th 2009
George Ricker www
Statements of religious belief may fall into different categories.
For example, the statement, “I believe a god exists” is a statement of belief that is a factual description of an individual’s belief. If we assume the veracity of the person making the statement, then it is true insofar as that person’s state of mind is concerned.
However, the statement “God exists” is a statement of fact that requires supporting evidence. The element “God” must be defined and described in such a way as to be coherently recognizable. It must be based on testable evidence that is verifiable and repeatable.
In the internal narrative of the believer, statements of belief are always true. (i.e. If I state that I believe xyz, then it is true that I believe xyz. That doesn’t mean xyz is true, just that I believe it to be so.)
But when those statements are presented as factual claims about external reality, then they must be treated as all such claims are treated.
Certainly one who speaks of having a “personal experience of God” may be accurately describing something he or she believes to be true. However, personal experience is, by its very nature, idiosyncratic.
That is why anecdotal evidence is not useful in any sort of analysis. There is a huge difference between believing something to be true in one’s own mind and being able to demonstrate that truth to other people.
Posted: May 20th 2009
Eric_PK
Most religious beliefs are statements of fact rather than experience. Sure, some theists talk about experiencing god, but they have a firm underlying belief that god exists.
I think to give credence to an experience that is based on a unjustified foundation makes little sense.
Posted: May 20th 2009
SmartLX www
Statements of religious belief based on personal experiences are factual statements about the world, and they are either right or wrong.
It’s usually correct that a person has had an experience of some sort, unless they are the worst sort of charlatan. Either way, as you say, we can’t disprove that it happened.
The elements or nature of the experience are important to consider, if you’re going to investigate, but the goal is to determine the cause of the experience. Assuming it did happen, it was a product of the claimant’s own mind, or a hoax perpetrated by others, or a real supernatural event. Each of these options has its own implications. Any of them might be the fact of the matter. Only one of them is.
That sounds a bit like Lewis’ Trilemma, I know, but the thing to remember is that a person is not necessarily mad for misinterpreting an experience, and a person is not necessarily evil for telling an untruth. One can be a good, sane, honest person and still not have experienced what one says one did.
Posted: May 19th 2009
logicel
In general, I regard your suggested approach to be OK. However, unless you are a psychological professional, you can only guess at these 'elements.’
When a religious believer goes on and on about their beliefs, I will gently say I am not interested in their religious beliefs, can we discuss something else, like gardening or cooking. I think that is what is so odd about America to folks that live in Europe. In Europe, the society is generally secular, neither atheists or theists talk much about their believing/non believing views.
Posted: May 19th 2009