Argument from Personal Experience

[TheMaw]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DId4mZsTiWE&feature=related

Starts at 1:04

I was wondering what you guys thought of Craig's use of Personal Experience as a final argument in his debates. While he says it isn't an argument, I have a hard time swallowing that, considering he states that, "It's the claim to know God wholly apart from arguments." But if you tell someone, "I know God exists because I experienced him," is that not an argument?

I'm also not fond of the fact that William Craig would forgo his proofs as they can, "lead one away from God". The whole point of the debate is to present logical and rational arguments, but instead would forsake them all for an argument that claims you can know God simply by feeling him, which of course requires no actual evidence. A person of another religious faith could say that they felt their God(s) through them. There is literally no way to differentiate between the two. What also irks me is that Craig claims if you sincerely seek God then he will make himself known to you. But there have been individuals who HAVE done just that, but have found nothing. I also think it would help if Craig defined a religious experience as the term can be very broad. Not to mention that while some may call a certain even a religious experience, another may call it a natural phenomenon.

What are your thoughts?

 

[lrkun]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DId4mZsTiWE&feature=related

Starts at 1:04

I was wondering what you guys thought of Craig's use of Personal Experience as a final argument in his debates. While he says it isn't an argument, I have a hard time swallowing that, considering he states that, "It's the claim to know God wholly apart from arguments." But if you tell someone, "I know God exists because I experienced him," is that not an argument?

I'm also not fond of the fact that William Craig would forgo his proofs as they can, "lead one away from God". The whole point of the debate is to present logical and rational arguments, but instead would forsake them all for an argument that claims you can know God simply by feeling him, which of course requires no actual evidence. A person of another religious faith could say that they felt their God(s) through them. There is literally no way to differentiate between the two. What also irks me is that Craig claims if you sincerely seek God then he will make himself known to you. But there have been individuals who HAVE done just that, but have found nothing. I also think it would help if Craig defined a religious experience as the term can be very broad. Not to mention that while some may call a certain even a religious experience, another may call it a natural phenomenon.

What are your thoughts?

Let me start by defining the word Subjective.

Subjective is define as

2. Especially, pertaining to, or derived from, one's own consciousness, in distinction from external observation; ralating to the mind, or intellectual world, in distinction from the outward or material excessively occupied with, or brooding over, one's own internal states. [1913 Webster]

http://www.dictionary.net/subjective

-oOo-

3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal , compare objective 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4 a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease> , compare objective 1c
5 : lacking in reality or substance : illusory

subjective. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Retrieved August 2, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective

-oOo-

Personal experience is subjective. It means we can not test it, because only he experiences it. In a way, we have to take his word for it. Consequently, his credibility will have to be very good, because he may or may not tell the truth.

 

[TheMaw]

Well I know what subjective means.

While people are going to have subjective experiences, even if they see the same event (some may think a particular thunderstrom is natural, others may claim it stemmed from a divine being), the actual experience will be objective. That is it will either have been stemmed from natural sources, or a supernatural source. Not both. God either exists, or does not. Craig himself doesn't actually KNOW it was supernatural...he only feels that it was.

 

[lrkun]

Well I know what subjective means.

While people are going to have subjective experiences, even if they see the same event (some may think a particular thunderstrom is natural, others may claim it stemmed from a divine being), the actual experience will be objective. That is it will either have been stemmed from natural sources, or a supernatural source. Not both. God either exists, or does not. Craig himself doesn't actually KNOW it was supernatural...he only feels that it was.

It is not a subjective experience, it is a personal experience. Both do not mean the same thing.

Personal experience, being subjective, refers to a subjective fact. That his experience is purely particular to him.

 

[TheMaw]

I think you misunderstand my point. You can claim that your experience stems from either a natural source or a supernatural source. But where it ACTUALLY stems from is either Natural or Supernatural. Not both.

So for example my friend and I saw a comet passing overhead late one night. My personal experience towards it was Natural, it was a simple comet. My friend's personal experience towards it was that of a religious experience. She felt it was a sign from God. However the true explanation for the comet either stems from naturalism or supernaturalism. Not both.

 

[lrkun]

I think you misunderstand my point. You can claim that your experience stems from either a natural source or a supernatural source. But where it ACTUALLY stems from is either Natural or Supernatural. Not both.

So for example my friend and I saw a comet passing overhead late one night. My personal experience towards it was Natural, it was a simple comet. My friend's personal experience towards it was that of a religious experience. She felt it was a sign from God. However the true explanation for the comet either stems from naturalism or supernaturalism. Not both.

I don't claim anything. I'm just telling you what the term means from your first post in relation to Craig.

So I'm wondering as to why you say that I claim it's either from a natural source or a supernatural source or both. I don't recall writing these things.

 

[Aught3]

Personal experience could be evidence for a personal belief but there is no way that someone's experience should convince another person. I'm guessing that's why Craig says it's not an argument.

 

[TheMaw]

I don't claim anything. I'm just telling you what the term means from your first post in relation to Craig.

So I'm wondering as to why you say that I claim it's either from a natural source or a supernatural source or both. I don't recall writing these things.

I didn't say it was you specifically. I used the word "You" as in "anyone"

Personal experience could be evidence for a personal belief but there is no way that someone's experience should convince another person. I'm guessing that's why Craig says it's not an argument.

But should it be used as a way to convince yourself? Craig takes a step farther then belief and states it is a way to know God.

 

[lrkun]

But should it be used as a way to convince yourself? Craig takes a step farther then belief and states it is a way to know God.

That is his opinion.

 

[TheMaw]

but he states it is a fact

 

[lrkun]

but he states it is a fact

Which is his opinion.

 

[TheMaw]

I don't see what is so hard to understand. He states that you can know God as a fact simply through an experience which may or may not have actually originated from the Supernatural. Opinion or not, this is not a rational way to debate.

 

[lrkun]

I don't see what is so hard to understand. He states that you can know God as a fact simply through an experience which may or may not have actually originated from the Supernatural. Opinion or not, this is not a rational way to debate.

First, I am not debating with you.

Second, just because he says this is so, you immediately believe him? I guess you trust him a lot.

Third, I just addressed the issue of what an argument from personal experience is.

 

[TheMaw]

Forget it.

 

[lrkun]

Forget it.

Look, if you wish to advocate Craig's position, you can do so by demonstrating how he knows that it is a fact.

Personal Experience which is a subjective fact. Is not something you can rely on as sufficient proof or evidence. To illustrate it:

A has a migrane. B does not have a migrane. A tells B that her head hurts. B will have no idea what A is talking about.

The issue is whether or not B should believe A. Since B does not understand what a migrane is, he'll have to either believe it, doubt it, or reject it.

This is how I view the knowing part. Just because Craig experienced said religious experience, which is a fact according to him, does not make it a reason, which should convince me that god exists or that I'll have a religious experience.

 

[borrofburi]

Personal experience is not an argument. I would go so far as to say that personal experience is not even an argument for oneself, at least not for such excessively fantastic claims as "proof of god's existence"; and I would do this by saying people are very fallible... I could go find my list of reasons not to trust other people, nor necessarily yourself, if you'd like.

 

[TheMaw]

Look, if you wish to advocate Craig's position, you can do so by demonstrating how he knows that it is a fact.

I am NOT advocating Craig. I think that is blatantly obvious in the opening post alone.

Personal experience is not an argument. I would go so far as to say that personal experience is not even an argument for oneself, at least not for such excessively fantastic claims as "proof of god's existence"; and I would do this by saying people are very fallible... I could go find my list of reasons not to trust other people, nor necessarily yourself, if you'd like.

I agree, which is why it baffles me when Craig attempts to use it as a sort of proof for an individual.

 

[lrkun]

I am NOT advocating Craig. I think that is blatantly obvious in the opening post alone.

Okay, I stand corrected.

 

[Neil86]

I reject personal subjective experiences as evidence of anything supernatural. If it is a mundane observation then I will probably accept it unless there are reasons to believe otherwise. But for more spectacular claims objective evidence is required. I have had a personal experience of seeing a ghost, but still disbelieve in them, the human mind is just too fallible for personal experience to be acceptable.

 

[RedYellow]

^Yeah I made a thread about my seeing a 'ghost' as well. The point was to say that arguements from personal experience are essentially a way of saying that anything you percieve in your mind ultimately determines the nature of external reality. It's vanity at it's purest. You have to trust your personal perception on some level, certainly, but you can't know you're getting the whole picture if you dont weigh it against external information that might contradict or put into perspective the things you percieve.