(November 14, 2012 at 9:54 pm)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: Isn't he just stating the argument from religious experience but in more words?
Something like:
1. When people experience X they have good reason to believe X exists unless they have reason to think otherwise. (Experiences are treated as innocent until proven guilty)
2. Experiences occur which seem to their subjects to be of God.
3. There are no good reasons for thinking all or most experiences which seem to their subjects to be of God are delusive.
4. It is rational to believe that at least some experiences which seem to their subjects to be of God really are experiences of God.
5. It is rational to believe that God exists.
This forces you to acknowledge that Hindus, Zoroastrians, Muslims, etc that claim to have personal experiences of their god have good reason to believe they exist.
Unless of course you are going to play the 'special pleading' card.
1. When people experience X they have good reason to believe X exists unless they have reason to think otherwise. (Experiences are treated as innocent until proven guilty)
2. Experiences occur which seem to their Hindu subjects to be Shiva.
3. There is no good reasons for thinking that all or most experiences which seem to their subjects to be of Shiva are delusional.
4. It is rational to believe that at least some experiences which seem to their subjects to be of Shiva really are experiences of Shiva.
5. It is rational to believe Shiva exists.
I'm sure glad that's cleared up.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
