what are some of the more glaring problems with the argument from religious experience?

Two that come to mind are the fact that different people have "revelations" that seem to conflict with one another (Argument from inconsistent revelations), and that the "religious experience" may be explain by biological factors.

Are there any others?

what are some of the more glaring problems with the argument from religious experience?

Two that come to mind are the fact that different people have "revelations" that seem to conflict with one another (Argument from inconsistent revelations), and that the "religious experience" may be explain by biological factors.

Are there any others?

it threatens nonbelievers. that can be seen as a problem. either for them in dealing with their fear or insecurity, or for the people with the experience, having to handle the repercussions of their fear or insecurity, often in the form of condemnation and attacks on their character or mental stability.

Same reason why eyewitness accounts in trials are only useful to back up other evidence, but are not by themselves useful, because they are easily malleable by time, memory, and a person's often incorrect interpretation of their details and significance.

what are some of the more glaring problems with the argument from religious experience?

Two that come to mind are the fact that different people have "revelations" that seem to conflict with one another (Argument from inconsistent revelations), and that the "religious experience" may be explain by biological factors.

Are there any others?
I know what you mean.

Kind of like the medical profession.

One guy wants to operate. Another suggests massage. Another prescribes medication. And yet another is peddling snake oil.

When will these bozos ever get their act together?

what are some of the more glaring problems with the argument from religious experience?

Two that come to mind are the fact that different people have "revelations" that seem to conflict with one another (Argument from inconsistent revelations), and that the "religious experience" may be explain by biological factors.

Are there any others?

Could you elaborate which revelations .

How can you biological explain: our experience during WW2 when the Soviets were 5 km away from us and the Alliedes were 30 km and we wanted to run, and by the Holly spirit was said don't go the Soviets will not overtake stay in this place. ( The folks were not educated , the German news was one sided. ) So what is your intellectual explanation ?

I know what you mean.

Kind of like the medical profession.

One guy wants to operate. Another suggests massage. Another prescribes medication. And yet another is peddling snake oil.

When will these bozos ever get their act together?

I am laughing . Yeah to funny ! They don't call it practicing medicine for nutten . How come they get to practice and the rest of us have to work . Aoooouuups shit . I forgot Musicians get to play for a living . Fuck Yeah

Could you elaborate which revelations .

How can you biological explain: our experience during WW2 when the Soviets were 5 km away from us and the Alliedes were 30 km and we wanted to run, and by the Holly spirit was said don't go the Soviets will not overtake stay in this place. ( The folks were not educated , the German news was one sided. ) So what is your intellectual explanation ?

Dw look at that the 5 and the 3 . Is it recorded in history like that ? Why not 49 or 49.5 . Is the 3 to 5 relationship something easy for the human mind to comprehend ? Or maybe 3 out of 5 . That is an expression common . 3 out of 5 ain't bad . That is the expression.

Could you elaborate which revelations .

How can you biological explain: our experience during WW2 when the Soviets were 5 km away from us and the Alliedes were 30 km and we wanted to run, and by the Holly spirit was said don't go the Soviets will not overtake stay in this place. ( The folks were not educated , the German news was one sided. ) So what is your intellectual explanation ?

Well, it's not my intellectual explanation, but some say they are misfiring neurons, some say it comes from our psychological need to feel love, purpose, security against death, etc. Some studies try to say religious experience is the result of a chemical in your brain and can be reproduced with drugs like lsd, some say that stories like yours are just coincidences.

I'm not sure I buy any of those theories, but those are ones I can remember. Dont shoot the messenger =P.

what are some of the more glaring problems with the argument from religious experience?

Two that come to mind are the fact that different people have "revelations" that seem to conflict with one another (Argument from inconsistent revelations), and that the "religious experience" may be explain by biological factors.

Are there any others?

I don't see any major problems with the argument from religious experience, as long as the one claiming to have it doesn't elevate it to a reason why others should become religious and doesn't further see it as a reason to persecute them.

Of course, it is typical for people who claim to have had religious experience to persecute others in some way or another, presuming themselves to be superior and authoritative over them.


Arguing from religious experience becomes even more problematic in religious settings that are very hierarchical.
Thus a member who claims to be "more experienced, more advanced" can effectively blackmail and manipulate other members, especially in everyday practical matters.

I know what you mean.

Kind of like the medical profession.

One guy wants to operate. Another suggests massage. Another prescribes medication. And yet another is peddling snake oil.

When will these bozos ever get their act together?

Strawman.


You are conveniently omitting that all major religions consider outsiders
1. to be religiously/spiritually inept/incompetent (and thus unable to make a proper religious choice themselves),
2. to have to depend on members fully.


From some sociological, anthropological, philosophical perspective, religious choice indeed exists and what you say above applies.
But from the perspective of actual religions and their practitioners, religious choice becomes an absurdity.

for the people with the experience, having to handle the repercussions of their fear or insecurity, often in the form of condemnation and attacks on their character or mental stability.

Oh, poor, spiritual, religious, advanced you!
:rolleyes:

Strawman.


You are conveniently omitting that all major religions consider outsiders
1. to be religiously/spiritually inept/incompetent (and thus unable to make a proper religious choice themselves),
2. to have to depend on members fully.


From some sociological, anthropological, philosophical perspective, religious choice indeed exists and what you say above applies.
But from the perspective of actual religions and their practitioners, religious choice becomes an absurdity.
still not clear how the above differentiates itself from the medical profession

still not clear how the above differentiates itself from the medical profession

Issues of spirituality are not as trivial as medical ones.

With medical issues, we can afford a degree of apathy upon witnessing the multitude of possible treatments (and the associated insurance and legal issues). We agree that illness and death are eventually inevitable, so we do something that seems good enough, given the resources we have, and try not to worry any further.
For a lay patient to talk about an "informed medical decision" is a contradiction in terms anyway.

Given what spirituality is about, it is paramount that we make the right choice. Medically, we may even afford to lose a leg or an arm, but to risk eternal damnation for the wrong choice of religion cannot meaningfully be compared to such a risk and loss.

To put forward the idea that the choice of spiritual/religious path should be conducted by personal preferences not only makes the choice trivial (for this way, the issue of whether the path is true or not is completely skirted - which makes the choice absurd and irrelevant), it is also in conflict with the doctrines of the major religions (which directly or indirectly state that personal preferences are not a reliable path to the Absolute Truth).

what are some of the more glaring problems with the argument from religious experience?

Couldn't we imagine an analogous 'Argument from Schizophrenic Experience' that proves the existence of voices inside the walls?

I don't think that anyone doubts that private subjective experience might be totally convincing to the person that's having the experience. It's hard to think of anything that could be more convincing.

But as Signal pointed out, problems arise when it's suggested that one person's private experience should be accepted as good reason for other people to believe in the same things too.

We might be drifting towards some kind of verifiability criterion at this point, the need for some way that other people can experience the same thing for themselves. And that process mustn't be circular, meaning that pre-existing belief in the thing to be verified can't be a precondition for having the verifying experience.

Or alternatively, we would seem to need some kind of credible explanation, some account that absorbs the content of the suspect experience into the context of what we're confident that we already know.

We might be drifting towards some kind of verifiability criterion at this point, the need for some way that other people can experience the same thing for themselves. And that process mustn't be circular, meaning that pre-existing belief in the thing to be verified can't be a precondition for having the verifying experience.

Of course, it could also be argued that any process to experience anything is necessarily circular.

One does not know what salt tastes like until one tastes it. But if one tastes something and doesn't know said thing is called "salt", the experience of tasting it is useless, at least as far as further recognition and relating it to others is concerned - and if we cannot relate an experience to others, how relevant is it, how relevant can it be to us?

My religious experience I feel is making its presents known for all to witness . As I struggle to deal with the grips it has on me from my first recollections I am constantly astounded no one else can see the the correlations. Or to your self the constant bombardment of parallel, or peripheral noise that confirms the notion. Alice lives in wonder land and can not seem to get a grip of what reality is . Like Me new friend Russ Fletcher and a statement he made today about how the secret fertility bunny is not going to bring anything to the table. I almost felt like it was a direct challenge to Me personally . It was so strange cause the verbiage ( I don't remember exactly ) triggered something in Me by association. Mirror reflections of perfect chains of sequence . A lot like me special Math and its correlations of numeric equivalences.

Anyway who cares , It is so hard just to see your self that it is almost impossible to see someone else peripheral white noise. So although I have not given up on it as some of you can tell from Me delusional posts there is more to ones life then them selves . As the song sings " You can please your self but someones gona get it

Of course, it could also be argued that any process to experience anything is necessarily circular.

One does not know what salt tastes like until one tastes it. But if one tastes something and doesn't know said thing is called "salt", the experience of tasting it is useless, at least as far as further recognition and relating it to others is concerned - and if we cannot relate an experience to others, how relevant is it, how relevant can it be to us?

I'm Trying signal . It is in the minutia movements of everything . A dictating stream of information and it is coherent from my point of view . Whether it is truly a birds eye view , well that is still to be determined . I am starting to make some headway I think . Big names are starting to come out in support of me and the music professors efforts . Hey We got a blog now . Yeah We got the domain name sowed up too . Wood for Haiti is becoming Viable . I can smell World Salvation just around the corner . Will it blow up and die , or get gut shot and live in agony for years . I hope not! I pray for success as do many . It feels real ? I think it is . It is very hard to put the finger on something not tangible . Best Made Plans and all that

Oh, poor, spiritual, religious, advanced you!
:rolleyes:

ass.

Issues of spirituality are not as trivial as medical ones.

With medical issues, we can afford a degree of apathy upon witnessing the multitude of possible treatments (and the associated insurance and legal issues). We agree that illness and death are eventually inevitable, so we do something that seems good enough, given the resources we have, and try not to worry any further.
For a lay patient to talk about an "informed medical decision" is a contradiction in terms anyway.

Given what spirituality is about, it is paramount that we make the right choice. Medically, we may even afford to lose a leg or an arm, but to risk eternal damnation for the wrong choice of religion cannot meaningfully be compared to such a risk and loss.

To put forward the idea that the choice of spiritual/religious path should be conducted by personal preferences not only makes the choice trivial (for this way, the issue of whether the path is true or not is completely skirted - which makes the choice absurd and irrelevant), it is also in conflict with the doctrines of the major religions (which directly or indirectly state that personal preferences are not a reliable path to the Absolute Truth).
Actually it usually works the other way.

The less trivial an issue is, the greater emphasis of discrimination on the matter.

Actually it usually works the other way.

What works the other way?



The less trivial an issue is, the greater emphasis of discrimination on the matter.

Obviously, as I pointed out.

I don't know what you are opposing.

What works the other way?




Obviously, as I pointed out.

I don't know what you are opposing.
if we can make heads and tails of the medical field, there's no reason why something else that holds greater gravity suddenly loses traction

if we can make heads and tails of the medical field, there's no reason why something else that holds greater gravity suddenly loses traction

What is going on?
Why are you twisting around what I say?

what are some of the more glaring problems with the argument from religious experience?

Two that come to mind are the fact that different people have "revelations" that seem to conflict with one another (Argument from inconsistent revelations), and that the "religious experience" may be explain by biological factors.

Are there any others?

it is when those ppl with their experiences explain that it gives them authority to speak for God into others lives.

IOW..I had a revelation, now all who hear me must do as i tell them cause I am the only one who has had a revelation.:rolleyes:

i do not give value to the term inconsistent revelations, because i believe God will give you what you need, this is a personal revelation and is not meant to be utilized as a generic revelation meant for everyone..(what he wants for me,is different from what he wants for you)

what are some of the more glaring problems with the argument from religious experience?

I think the biggest problem is that 'religious' experiences are categorised as being distinct from other other experiences, like alien abduction, or hearing voices in the head, and this somehow lends then an expectation of credibility.

Seems we recognise other forms of mental illness, just not this one.

What is going on?
Why are you twisting around what I say?
Why are you now avoiding your previous suggestion that addressing problems in the medical field, unlike the religious field, can be greeted with a degree of apathy which therefore makes the inevitable variety less troublesome?
:shrug:

Why are you now avoiding your previous suggestion that addressing problems in the medical field, unlike the religious field, can be greeted with a degree of apathy which therefore makes the inevitable variety less troublesome?

I am not avoiding that. What makes you think I do?

The way I see it, the problem with religion is that it is infinitely important, while simultaneously human discernment is irrelevant to it.

I know of no religion that would hail human discernment as being the tool for discovering which religion is the right one.
Instead, all religions that I know of dismiss human discernment as being inherently insufficient.

Medical decisions can be approached with a degree of apathy; in fact, given the variety, the inherent legal and insurance issues (medical choice in a society that has systems of health care, social security and retirement funding is something quite different than medical choice in a society where these do not exist), such apathy is to a great extent inavoidable (unless, of course, one apriori sides with a particular branch of medicine).

But in religious matters, one has to put one's whole heart into it, this is the whole point of religion - there is no room for apathy.

I am not avoiding that. What makes you think I do?

The way I see it, the problem with religion is that it is infinitely important, while simultaneously human discernment is irrelevant to it.

I know of no religion that would hail human discernment as being the tool for discovering which religion is the right one.
Instead, all religions that I know of dismiss human discernment as being inherently insufficient.

Medical decisions can be approached with a degree of apathy; in fact, given the variety, the inherent legal and insurance issues (medical choice in a society that has systems of health care, social security and retirement funding is something quite different than medical choice in a society where these do not exist), such apathy is to a great extent inavoidable (unless, of course, one apriori sides with a particular branch of medicine).

But in religious matters, one has to put one's whole heart into it, this is the whole point of religion - there is no room for apathy.
Its hard to comprehend how one can approach any philosophical issue (religious or otherwise) without discernment.
:shrug:

Its hard to comprehend how one can approach any philosophical issue (religious or otherwise) without discernment.


I never said one can.

However, people of religion are commonly expecting us (even doctrinally so) to believe we have zero powers of discernment, and that we must, ad hoc, accept whatever we are told by those (presumed) religious authorities.

I never said one can.

However, people of religion are commonly expecting us (even doctrinally so) to believe we have zero powers of discernment, and that we must, ad hoc, accept whatever we are told by those (presumed) religious authorities.
then your opening sentence for this post tends to contradict the rest for a start ....

then your opening sentence for this post tends to contradict the rest for a start ....

I contend that proselytizers of various religions are asking us to do something that cannot be done intentionally; that their request is contradictory in itself.

i don't think the experience is so much the problem as much as the interpretation. for instance, one may have some very spiritual experience or ephiphany and 'interpret' it through their religious lens. this creates a problem in that if another has an experience, though of course not exactly the same because no two experiences or epiphanies will be exactly identical but will be variable, one or both will insist their interpretation is wrong or that often occurs.

as an example, two people may have the revelation that the world would be better if it was more tolerant or compassionate. one may believe it was jesus or only jesus who can impart that wisdom or is responsible for their understanding and another may think it was another god or deity or may not even subscribe to a religion etc.

Birch's point is a good one.

'Religious experiences' may not all be extraordinary experiences in the same sense of 'extraordinary'.

There's often the suggestion that the experience is a revelatory experience of an extraordinary (and arguably supernatural) object.

But in many cases, real-life religious experiences are just experiences of mundane everyday objects that are being interpreted in new and unusual ways, or are suddenly accompanied by new and very extraordinary emotional feeling.

And it's probably true that people acquire most of the interpretive principles that they use to convert their religious experiences into words, or even to recognize the experiences as 'religious' in the first place, from whatever religious tradition they already belong to.

Birch's point is a good one.

'Religious experiences' may not all be extraordinary experiences in the same sense of 'extraordinary'.

There's often the suggestion that the experience is a revelatory experience of an extraordinary (and arguably supernatural) object.

But in many cases, real-life religious experiences are just experiences of mundane everyday objects that are being interpreted in new and unusual ways, or are suddenly accompanied by new and very extraordinary emotional feeling.

And it's probably true that people acquire most of the interpretive principles that they use to convert their religious experiences into words, or even to recognize the experiences as 'religious' in the first place, from whatever religious tradition they already belong to.

that is brilliant . Yes I agree . I don't my personal experience is going to stop anytime soon cause like you said it is a different way of seeing and hearing your surroundings. Conveying that is the thing hence forth " Literature"

I got to add something . We all play the game , we all play our roll in the passion play . I they to consider why it happens and why the world call out in this bizarre parallel interpretation. Why do I personally hear my name being called in music . Beethoven had the same affliction I am sure by the history that is recorded about his life. I read the last passage of psalms this morning . It keeps coming up in a wierd way that just like normal every day
coinkidink. My bible is in my truck that way if I am waiting for some one or something like that I got it to occupy Me mind . I like reading it . Any way the wind keeps blowing it open to that same spot . Probably a natural result of the wind tunnel in the truck and the wait of the paper that causes it to come to rest at that state . All fine and daddy , no big deal . What do the pages say . They say praise God with singing and all types of musical instruments , Stringed instruments , cymbals , etc.

Anyway I struggle with it still. It is paralyzing. The calling is hard to face . The mountain is tremendously high . I come up with conclusion !
The ancients came up with a plane to build a new vassal state. They targeted a set combination of inflictions and then based language on a specific out come . I don't know ? I can't even begin to explain it .
Humans past and present Build Me . Minister to Me. I think it is the Holy Me's the Sumerians talk about. Not that I am any different than anybody else . Cause I'm not but I can't help but think " If you can see life from the vantage point of a holy Me then you could start to understand my delusions of grandeur. You might even start to see your own vassal state as grand

Religious experiences are difficult phenomena for science, since they usually reach the boundaries of scientific capability. Without capability there is no hard evidence. Let me give an example of something that is very common, that is experienced by all, yet can't be fully proven by science. This is connected to limited capability.

If someone was having a dream, we can monitor the brain and brain waves and infer the dream state. If the person in the experiment was to awaken and tell us the specifics of their dream, there is no way to prove what they say is true, since there is no machine that can record all the specifics of the dream. A specific dream can not be proven, even if this phenonena happens billions of time each day and will all know it exists. Science would have to say, there is no hard proof for these details, therefore it does not exist based on any hard evidence we can generate.

The human mind is a frontier where the scientific method starts to break down. We only have some tools based on second person data collection, whereas the hard data would need to monitored from the inside; through the mind's eye.

If someone had a religious experience within the mind, like a semi-dream state, science can not prove it, even if it existed as common experience like a dream. If it was common enough, science might be able to hook the person to a machine and see how the brain activity is varying. It may infer something from that, but the specifics of the experience are out of reach. Therefore there is no data to prove this inner reality existed other than altered brain waves. It is not like the tools are there and there is no proof. Rather no tools means no proof. There is a difference but there is spin to make it appear the same.

The human mind is a final frontier but needs an upgraded science approach to address in a more objective way. Say we could induce a well trained scientist into a religious state, so he can observe the phenomena from the inside. His buddy's who trust him to be objective, will use the traditional second person tools for secondary data.

The inside scientist will use his conscious mind and training as the primary analytical tool, making note of all the details from his inside experience, that outside machines will miss. The inside person is the only scientist who would have anything rational to say based on direct data. The others can all pretend.

An analogy is trying to infer what is on the bottom of the ocean, while having science stay on the ship, at the surface of the ocean. We can use sonar and other ools, but these analytical limitation can not tell all the details. If it is not on the sonar, it is not there since it lacks proof.

To do it right, someone has to get into a diving bell to take a real look, and not just relay on limited surface machines. They would have to be able to use the diver as an analystic tool, with hope his training and power of observation is calibrate for objectivity. He reports the data he collective in his mind like a computer print-out.