People claiming "personal" surety of gods existance.

checkyabadself

patrickk wrote: »

I had some experiences which and still do assured me of existence of God and Our Lady and how they bring about healing in our lives.

Having heard claims like this today and quite a few more recently, I`m interested in the psychology behind making claims that "I personally have had it proven to me that god exists by experience" which are often kept private.

It seems strange that some people, smugly claim to be privvy to something that the rest of even their fellow believers are not. I`m intrigued by this train of thought that I`m noticing of late and am curious as to whether there`s some further reading on the subject ?

If anyone has a book/link to check out it`d be great.

Thanks,
Will.

nozzferrahhtoo

The issue for me with these claims, is that the people claiming them are unwilling or unable to describe to me a mechanism to differentiate between their claims, and the claims of people who are personally assured that they were abducted by aliens, ort hat they are Napoleon reincarnated.

People actually get personally offended when you do not just accept their personal assurances as to the truth of the religious claims.

Yet they would stand right by you in rejecting the personal assurances of the claims of Hindus, alien abductees and reincarnates.

So if they can so wantonly reject the claims of others, while expecting others to accept their own… then surely they are aware of SOME mechanism by which to distinguish. Why they are so adamant about NOT sharing that mechanism is… for me… suspect in the extreme.

Galvasean

Having a 'personal experience with God' or what have you is just a kop out way of not having to back up one's BS.

zoomtard

Fundamentally though, it is our personal experience of not encountering any particular deity that leads us to believe that they are not real. Why is the inevitability of personal narrative shaping our worldview only a problem when it shapes it positively?

robindch

zoomtard wrote: »

Fundamentally though, it is our personal experience of not encountering any particular deity that leads us to believe that they are not real.

Chaplain Outs Self As Atheist Shocker!

checkyabadself

Galvasean wrote: »

Having a 'personal experience with God' or what have you is just a kop out way of not having to back up one's BS.

I agree with you, but my point was that these people genuinely dont seem to be lying or BS-ing. They seem convinced and it`s that eh...logic, that I`m curious about.
Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris dont really seem to touch on it. I`m wondering does the mind have a capability of manifesting an entire reassurance mechanism to those desperate for something to be true. A kind of science of wishful thinking, if you will...

28064212

zoomtard wrote: »

Fundamentally though, it is our personal experience of not encountering any particular deity that leads us to believe that they are not real.

...What? That is certainly not true of the large majority of athiests. That's akin to saying I don't believe in penguins because I've never seen one. Personal experience comes into almost no athiests' arguments.

Or do you mean "our personal experience" in the global sense? If so, why is there any reason for believing one particular deity over another? or over aliens? Or leprachauns? I'm pretty sure I can find examples of people claiming 'personal experience' of encountering those too

zoomtard

28064212 wrote: »

...What? That is certainly not true of the large majority of athiests. That's akin to saying I don't believe in penguins because I've never seen one. Personal experience comes into almost no athiests' arguments.

Or do you mean "our personal experience" in the global sense? If so, why is there any reason for believing one particular deity over another? or over aliens? Or leprachauns? I'm pretty sure I can find examples of people claiming 'personal experience' of encountering those too

The question of the existence of God or the validity of dharma or name-your-global-faith-tradition-here is utterly unlike the existence of penguins. To suggest it is is simply to suggest you don't quite comprehend what Jews or Buddhists are proposing about reality.

Whether or not personal experience comes into the explicit content of atheist argument, personal narrative does shape the worldview. None of us have managed what Kant failed and arrived at our destination by pure reason.

In plain terms lads, belief that any specific faith tradition is not true would be tested were we to experience a certain set of encounters that could not be accounted for within our previous life experience, could not be attributed to mental or emotional difficulties expressing themselves psychotically and that did fit within the logic system proposed by that specific faith tradition.

Now, convincing any one else to believe on the basis of your personal experience would be a tough sell. But there is no logical reason to discount narrative formation when it expresses itself positively when we accept it if it is negative.

And Robin, I never said I was an atheist. I simply accepted a point you often used to make to me before the great Boards.ie crash (back when I still had access to the "Excelsior" username) that by believing in the Trinity I am implicitly believing in the non-validity of countless gods.

28064212

zoomtard wrote: »

The question of the existence of God or the validity of dharma or name-your-global-faith-tradition-here is utterly unlike the existence of penguins. To suggest it is is simply to suggest you don't quite comprehend what Jews or Buddhists are proposing about reality.

You stated that personal experience is the reasoning behind athiest's arguments, when it is most certainly not.

zoomtard wrote: »

Now, convincing any one else to believe on the basis of your personal experience would be a tough sell. But there is no logical reason to discount narrative formation when it expresses itself positively when we accept it if it is negative.

Except that's not what athiests do (most of them anyway). Athiests are not accepting either sides of a personal narrative debate. The opposite of someone claiming personal narrative of a deity is not not claiming personal experience, it's claiming that your personal narrative guarantees something else. Those are the two sides to the coin, and athiests dismiss both sides as irrelevant

Zillah

It is an unpopular truth that religious people are, for all intents and purposes, insane.

MrPudding

Zillah wrote: »

It is an unpopular truth that religious people are, for all intents and purposes, insane.

If you look at some of the thingd the religious say it is quite clear that were they not said about a personal religion they would be considered mental.

Talking about an invisible being with superpowers revealing himself to you, and only you mind, and talking to you is a sure sign of being a mentler. Unless of course that invisible being happens to be god, then it is OK. Obviously it has to be your god, all those other people that get visits from other gods are obviously mental. Or maybe satan is misleading them, I can never remember.

MrP

zoomtard

28064212 wrote: »

Except that's not what athiests do

Clarify something for me. It may have changed since I found God, but do atheists have a personal narrative that influences their worldview?

zoomtard

zoomtard wrote: »

Clarify something for me. It may have changed since I found God, but do atheists have a personal narrative that influences their worldview?

Some might, some probably don't.
Atheism is a single position on a single topic, namely a lack in a belief in Gods.
That's the only thing Atheists are guaranteed to have in common.

Zillah

zoomtard wrote: »

Clarify something for me. It may have changed since I found God, but do atheists have a personal narrative that influences their worldview?

Could you clarify what exactly you mean by "personal narrative"? While you're at it, could you explain why your personal narrative involves lying to people on the internet about your beliefs? Is insidious duplicity part of your personal narrative? You sure you're not a Catholic? Cos that's kind of their thing these days.

checkyabadself

zoomtard wrote: »

Clarify something for me. It may have changed since I found God, but do atheists have a personal narrative that influences their worldview?

I have an innate sense of morality and can identify with the golden rule school of thought, I wouldn`t call it a personal narrative though.

As for the "do atheists have a personal narrative that influences their worldview?"...........what was your opinion, before you found god?

28064212

zoomtard wrote: »

Clarify something for me. It may have changed since I found God, but do atheists have a personal narrative that influences their worldview?

Zillah wrote: »

Could you clarify what exactly you mean by "personal narrative"?

^-- This. Your definition seems to jump around

zoomtard

28064212 wrote: »

^-- This. Your definition seems to jump around

I was an atheist before I was a Christian.

My definition can't jump around if it hasn't been offered yet, can it?

Personal narrative is just that, a plain and commonly used phrase meaning an understanding of your self identity over time.

The reason I ask this question and my initial comment in this thread was not to inherently dispute with the general thrust (that "personal" surety is very unconvincing) but to query the way in which we sometimes can think that we have arrived at our views without the heavy influence of our own personal experiences (and our reflections thereon, which together adds up to a narrative).

zoomtard

zoomtard wrote: »

I was an atheist before I was a Christian.

My definition can't jump around if it hasn't been offered yet, can it?

Personal narrative is just that, a plain and commonly used phrase meaning an understanding of your self identity over time.

The reason I ask this question and my initial comment in this thread was not to inherently dispute with the general thrust (that "personal" surety is very unconvincing) but to query the way in which we sometimes can think that we have arrived at our views without the heavy influence of our own personal experiences (and our reflections thereon, which together adds up to a narrative).

My atheism is based on the fact that there is no empirical evidence that God exists.
Can you please explain how this fact can be altered by personal experience?

zoomtard

King Mob wrote: »

My atheism is based on the fact that there is no empirical evidence that God exists.
Can you please explain how this fact can be altered by personal experience?

Sure! It need be no more complex than this:

Precision in your sentence would demand it to be written as "My atheism is based on the fact that I am unaware of any empirical evidence that God exists."

There is no empirical evidence for God, to the best of my knowledge. I am not disputing that. But even the idea that you would consider empirical evidence a useful category with which to respond to the God question testifies to your personal setting in a particular locale and context and era.

zoomtard

zoomtard wrote: »

Sure! It need be no more complex than this:

Precision in your sentence would demand it to be written as "My atheism is based on the fact that I am unaware of any empirical evidence that God exists."

There is no empirical evidence for God, to the best of my knowledge.

So again, my stance that there is no empirical evidence for God, remains unassailed.

I fail to see how personal experiences can alter this, when personal experience cannot be empirical evidence.

zoomtard wrote: »

I am not disputing that. But even the idea that you would consider empirical evidence a useful category with which to respond to the God question testifies to your personal setting in a particular locale and context and era.

Not following.
Can you please explain what you are talking about?

amacachi

I love the born agains who find God during/after a mentally traumatic episode or occurrence. I'm not going to bother explaining why. :pac:

MikeC101

amacachi wrote: »

I love the born agains who find God during/after a mentally traumatic episode or occurrence. I'm not going to bother explaining why. :pac:

I like the ones who were not only atheists before they "found" god (where was the fecker, hiding in the closet again?), but they claim they were even more atheist than the most atheist of atheists on the atheism forum. In fact they were the biggest atheist in the WORLD, far more of an atheist than YOU, but they found the light.

In itself there's a miscomprehension of atheism at work there, but it's the condescending "there's hope for you yet" combined with the "some day you'll open your eyes to the love of GOD" attitude that really makes me laugh.

zoomtard

King Mob wrote: »

So again, my stance that there is no empirical evidence for God, remains unassailed.

And my claim that there is very little that juggling cornflakes can do to assist in the autopsy of rabbits is also seemingly invulnerable to challenge.

KingMob wrote:

I fail to see how personal experiences can alter this, when personal experience cannot be empirical evidence.

Right. I agree. But how did you decide that empirical evidence would be a good standard by which to evaluate the existence of God. This view wouldn't have occurred to you were raised in the deserts of Algeria in the 19th Century, in the centre of Budapest in the late 1800s or the leafy suburbs of Dublin in the home of a systematic theologian today.

That it did occur is a function of your life experience. You assessed it within a framework marked out by your life experience and all I am trying to suggest (which is really a very small thing) is that personal experience is always operative in how we come to our conclusions (not just when we are acting irrationally).

checkyabadself

amacachi wrote: »

I love the born agains who find God during/after a mentally traumatic episode or occurrence. I'm not going to bother explaining why. :pac:

I find them to be pathetic. Pathetic in the unfortunate sense. They never seem to give themselves any credit for getting through/over the struggle/heartache that caused them to seek and later reward god for.

mikhail

zoomtard wrote: »

And my claim that there is very little that juggling cornflakes can do to assist in the autopsy of rabbits is also seemingly invulnerable to challenge.

For a moment there, I thought I was reading an atheist's post. That's a fine piece of sophistry there. I'll join you in not believing in the efficacy of cornflake-juggling rabbit coroners, and other such unlikely things, until I have reason to.

But how did you decide that empirical evidence would be a good standard by which to evaluate the existence of God. This view wouldn't have occurred to you were raised in the deserts of Algeria in the 18th Century, in the centre of Budapest in the late 1800s or the leafy suburbs of Dublin in the home of a systematic theologian today.

Ignorance or indoctrination would have retarded his ability to form a cogent thought? Wow.

zoomtard

mikhail wrote: »

For a moment there, I thought I was reading an atheist's post. That's a fine piece of sophistry there. I'll join you in not believing in the efficacy of cornflake-juggling rabbit coroners, and other such unlikely things, until I have reason to.


Ignorance or indoctrination would have retarded his ability to form a cogent thought? Wow.

In Algeria in the 19th Century there would have been the curious culture clash of a post-revolutionary, post-Napoleonic secular republic colonising a territory that had its own rich, divergent intellectual tradition.

In the late 1800s in Budapest, the chemist, economist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi was born.

And in contemporary Dublin, actual Christians (as against scary God-TV types we see on documentaries) in my actual experience (which of course does not amount to an empirical argument but such a standard would render the possibility of "social sciences" irrelevant anyway) very rarely demonstrate the kind of "indoctrination" that is taken as a given in settings such as this.

I actually chose those examples with a bit of care to avoid any simple "indoctrination and ignorance" responses. Your point is totally valid, but it misses mine.

Another way to put what I am saying is to quote Marx and his old adage that context creates consciousness. "Reason" is not some Platonic form floating out in the sky somewhere but is subject to change (as evidenced by even a brief examination of Plato!). Our personal experience and reflections on that experience feed into the conclusions that we make.

zoomtard

zoomtard wrote: »

And my claim that there is very little that juggling cornflakes can do to assist in the autopsy of rabbits is also seemingly invulnerable to challenge.

So special pleading then?

zoomtard wrote: »

Right. I agree. But how did you decide that empirical evidence would be a good standard by which to evaluate the existence of God.

Because there has been no other way of evaluating truth that has been shown to be as accurate.

zoomtard wrote: »

This view wouldn't have occurred to you were raised in the deserts of Algeria in the 19th Century, in the centre of Budapest in the late 1800s or the leafy suburbs of Dublin in the home of a systematic theologian today.

Nope, but doesn't impact it's validity.

zoomtard wrote: »

That it did occur is a function of your life experience. You assessed it within a framework marked out by your life experience and all I am trying to suggest (which is really a very small thing) is that personal experience is always operative in how we come to our conclusions (not just when we are acting irrationally).

I'm stating facts here, there's nothing in my personal experiences that alters these facts.
I can demonstrate them as facts or at least point out peoples failed attempts to offer bad evidence and reasoning.

zoomtard

King Mob wrote: »

So special pleading then?

Oh lordie, what does a saint have to do to get these atheists to crack a smile?

King Mob wrote: »

Because there has been no other way of evaluating truth that has been shown to be as accurate.

Your conclusion, as stated above (which is actually fairly sound as such things go and I don't have any real quibble with it) was still arrived at by means other than pure reason. Hence, context, namely your context which amounts to your self-narrative, in some senses shaped and informed this conclusion. This is a minimal claim approaching tautology that I am presenting that in no way hinders or disputes atheism. You are allowed to admit that you are not just an experimentation machine.

KingMob wrote:

Nope, but doesn't impact it's validity.

I am not disputing its validity! Its like you guys can't even imagine that there is any over-lap between theism and atheism and everything has to be a battle. I am not disputing validity. I am merely suggesting that the conclusion is shaped by personal experience (in a way similar to but different from the personal experiences of religious people that lead to their conclusions).

KingMob wrote:

I'm stating facts here, there's nothing in my personal experiences that alters these facts.
I can demonstrate them as facts or at least point out peoples failed attempts to offer bad evidence and reasoning.

It is perhaps a fact that you believe these things. Facts facts facts, so close to truth and so capable of obscuring it.

mikhail

zoomtard wrote: »

... I am merely suggesting that the conclusion is shaped by personal experience (in a way similar to but different from the personal experiences of religious people that lead to their conclusions).

I think your little 'insight' is trite; about as meaningful as arguing that as humans, we're as fallible as the next person.

MrPudding

checkyabadself wrote: »

I find them to be pathetic. Pathetic in the unfortunate sense. They never seem to give themselves any credit for getting through/over the struggle/heartache that caused them to seek and later reward god for.

I genuinely love to hear that people have turned their lives around. I love a good bad boy turned good / success in the face of adversity, but it saddens we when people can't see who was actually responsible.

And another thing, it fcuks me right off when <INSERT DEITY HERE> get thanked for the miracle which saved a babies life rather than the medical team that stood for 14 hours up to their elbows in the kids vital organs trying to fix whatever was wrong.

MrP

zoomtard

The question occurs: why would such an allegedly trite observation illicit such a response?

Tautologies can often be mistaken as trite, but they are rarely objected to by people who raise up reason as their, well, raison d'etre.

From where I am sitting, it is uncomfortable to acknowledge tacit knowledge if we are also trying to scoff at someone's claim from experience because it very rapidly cuts you off from the intellectual high ground.

In response to so brilliant a defence of the role of plausibility structures as I myself offered, you now disparage it as meaningless.

My basic point, as trite as it may be is this: The personal experience of a convert can offer legitimate grounds for drawing a conclusion, while being utterly unconvincing as an argument to others without pre-existing bonds of trust in relationship. However, personal experience informs conclusion formation in all cases, whether that conclusion is rational or irrational. This is an example of the impossibility of any particular human being exercising pure reason which is a common myth proposed and accepted in contemporary discourse.

Voilà! I'll now take my banalities elsewhere and will trouble you no more...