RE: Argument Against Religious Experience as Validation
November 2, 2013 at 7:07 pm
(This post was last modified: November 2, 2013 at 7:08 pm by Lion IRC.)
[quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='536313' dateline='1383365904']
[quote]
"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit, in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenicating way of knowing Christianity is true, wholly apart from the evidence."
[/quote][/quote]
WLC isn't saying that you should be convinced by the Witness of The Holy Spirit. He is saying that he is.
The personal experience of something real cannot be invalidated by an atheist claiming it never happened. How would you know that a persons experience of sensus divinatus was false or fake?
The fact that theists of various religions interpret their experience in differing ways does NOT mean that none of them are real. (Science doesn't always produce unanimous agreement on the data either.)
When the atheist says...I never heard God or sensed a divine experience, I'm not skeptical of THEIR claim. I believe them!
[Quote]...And because I feel like being a bit of an asshole, I'll throw this on the spot argument in there:[/quote]
Great intellectual approach you have going there. That typifies the emotional basis for so much of what passes for counter-apologetics. Atheists get angry at the argument from intelligent design. Why? It's a purely intellectual question of cosmology. The Kalam argument isn't an argument for one particular religion but anti-theists go nuts trying to refute even the possibility that intentional causation might be a real factor in the origin of events 13.7 billion years ago.
[quote][quote='Argument Against Religious Experience as Validation']
P1) Personal experience alone, of any phenomenon, doesn't give justification for claiming knowledge of the nature, workings or cause (NWC, shorthand) of that experience. (premise)
P2) If one knows of a phenomenon purely through a personal experience of it, they do not have justification for claims of knowledge regarding that phenomenon's NWC. (conditional)
P3) The "witness of the Holy Spirit" is a personal experience. (premise)
C) Therefore, the supposed experience of the Holy Spirit alone cannot be adequate justification for claiming knowledge of the NWCs of that experience. (conclusion, from 1 - 3)
[/quote]
This fails outright at the first premise.
Science is based on the experience of scientists reporting stuff to others who weren't there. We either have to believe their reported testimony or put it to the test by repetition. I can't fly to the moon, so I have simply take on faith what is said by others who claim to have been there.
You say....oh but Lion IRC, divine experience isn't repeatable like science.
But it is. William Lane Craig is not the only person to have had first-hand direct experience of what Christians call God.
[quote]
"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit, in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenicating way of knowing Christianity is true, wholly apart from the evidence."
[/quote][/quote]
WLC isn't saying that you should be convinced by the Witness of The Holy Spirit. He is saying that he is.
The personal experience of something real cannot be invalidated by an atheist claiming it never happened. How would you know that a persons experience of sensus divinatus was false or fake?
The fact that theists of various religions interpret their experience in differing ways does NOT mean that none of them are real. (Science doesn't always produce unanimous agreement on the data either.)
When the atheist says...I never heard God or sensed a divine experience, I'm not skeptical of THEIR claim. I believe them!
[Quote]...And because I feel like being a bit of an asshole, I'll throw this on the spot argument in there:[/quote]
Great intellectual approach you have going there. That typifies the emotional basis for so much of what passes for counter-apologetics. Atheists get angry at the argument from intelligent design. Why? It's a purely intellectual question of cosmology. The Kalam argument isn't an argument for one particular religion but anti-theists go nuts trying to refute even the possibility that intentional causation might be a real factor in the origin of events 13.7 billion years ago.
[quote][quote='Argument Against Religious Experience as Validation']
P1) Personal experience alone, of any phenomenon, doesn't give justification for claiming knowledge of the nature, workings or cause (NWC, shorthand) of that experience. (premise)
P2) If one knows of a phenomenon purely through a personal experience of it, they do not have justification for claims of knowledge regarding that phenomenon's NWC. (conditional)
P3) The "witness of the Holy Spirit" is a personal experience. (premise)
C) Therefore, the supposed experience of the Holy Spirit alone cannot be adequate justification for claiming knowledge of the NWCs of that experience. (conclusion, from 1 - 3)
[/quote]
This fails outright at the first premise.
Science is based on the experience of scientists reporting stuff to others who weren't there. We either have to believe their reported testimony or put it to the test by repetition. I can't fly to the moon, so I have simply take on faith what is said by others who claim to have been there.
You say....oh but Lion IRC, divine experience isn't repeatable like science.
But it is. William Lane Craig is not the only person to have had first-hand direct experience of what Christians call God.
