The Argument From Personal Experience

[Craig]

The Argument from Personal Experience, for those who don't know, is an argument for the existence of God, (or whatever ultimate divine reality one believes to be true), based upon a religious or spiritual experience that one has had. For the purpose of this discussion, we're only going to be talking about the Christian God. Normally, atheists do not take this argument very seriously. One can come up with all sorts of flaws with it; most commonly, it is pointed out that experiences of God are subjective and depend upon a person's interpretation, which does not provide any satisfactory evidence for the existence of God. However, I've encountered a case that has lead me to re-think this argument, and has forced me to take it more seriously than I had in the past.

Christianity holds that once you accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour, and start to have a relationship with him, God begins to work in your life. More specifically, He communicates with you, urging your behaviour and actions towards a certain course. Christians often refer to this as God speaking to an individual, although they do not necessarily mean that one will literally hear a voice in one's head which is God. Rather, they usually mean that God is like a moral urging, a form of conscience which one ought to listen to and follow.

Here's where things get interesting: according to a Christian friend of mine, God will not only communicate and help you with things that you know you struggle with, but also things that you are not even aware of. For instance, she mentioned that she had recently grown distant with one of her female friends, and that she blamed her friend for it. But, when she prayed, God suggested to her that it was her, and not her friend, which was the cause of this rift. She was surprised by this, but upon thinking on it, she realized it was true, and she apologized to her friend. They are still friends to this day. What makes things even more interesting is that my friend's husband is not a Christian, and to my knowledge has no intention of becoming one. However, he can attest to the fact that prior to his wife's alleged realization courtesy of God, she had never given any indication that she realized that she, and not her friend, was the cause of the rift.

Let's return back to the argument. Normally, atheists reject this argument because they feel its insufficient evidence for God. If someone claims that God exists because He has communicated with them and acted as a moral guidance, an atheist can ask "Why is there any reason to believe that this is God, rather than just your own conscience?" But what about cases where God allegedly points out something to a person which that person was not aware of themself?

As far as I can see, atheists only have a few options in criticizing this argument.

1) One can argue that the whole thing was a fabrication. This is not a good argument however, because it ignores the fact that my friend's change in position can be observed by other people, including a non-Christian.

2) One can argue that it was indeed nothing more than her conscience that raised this awareness. But this is problematic too. According to her own account, which can be verified by non-Christians who observed her behaviour, she was convinced that it was her friend who was at fault. Normally, when one is convinced about being in the right, one's conscience does not suddenly "kick in" out of nowhere and suggest that maybe one was wrong. Likewise, the fact that she was surprised at the idea that it might have been her fault suggests that it was not simply a realization that came about from her conscience (unless one wants to argue that she simply lied about being surprised).

3) One can argue that subconsciously, she knew she was in the wrong, but her conscious mind was not aware of this, and through reflection/introspection, she came to realize that which she was not consciously aware of. This is probably the best argument that one can make. However, it is not entirely unproblematic either. For one thing, my friend mentioned she was praying to God when she had her revelation. Praying is not the same thing as reflection or introspection. When one prays, one is asking for help; whereas when one is involved in introspection, one examines and thinks about things and events in one's life. Again, one can argue that she was lying, though in that case, she'd only be consciously deceiving herself.

Any other thoughts or comments?

[AgentM]

Here's where things get interesting: according to a Christian friend of mine, God will not only communicate and help you with things that you know you struggle with, but also things that you are not even aware of. For instance, she mentioned that she had recently grown distant with one of her female friends, and that she blamed her friend for it. But, when she prayed, God suggested to her that it was her, and not her friend, which was the cause of this rift. She was surprised by this, but upon thinking on it, she realized it was true, and she apologized to her friend. They are still friends to this day. What makes things even more interesting is that my friend's husband is not a Christian, and to my knowledge has no intention of becoming one. However, he can attest to the fact that prior to his wife's alleged realization courtesy of God, she had never given any indication that she realized that she, and not her friend, was the cause of the rift.

Let's return back to the argument. Normally, atheists reject this argument because they feel its insufficient evidence for God. If someone claims that God exists because He has communicated with them and acted as a moral guidance, an atheist can ask "Why is there any reason to believe that this is God, rather than just your own conscience?" But what about cases where God allegedly points out something to a person which that person was not aware of themself?

As far as I can see, atheists only have a few options in criticizing this argument.

1) One can argue that the whole thing was a fabrication. This is not a good argument however, because it ignores the fact that my friend's change in position can be observed by other people, including a non-Christian.

2) One can argue that it was indeed nothing more than her conscience that raised this awareness. But this is problematic too. According to her own account, which can be verified by non-Christians who observed her behaviour, she was convinced that it was her friend who was at fault. Normally, when one is convinced about being in the right, one's conscience does not suddenly "kick in" out of nowhere and suggest that maybe one was wrong. Likewise, the fact that she was surprised at the idea that it might have been her fault suggests that it was not simply a realization that came about from her conscience (unless one wants to argue that she simply lied about being surprised).

3) One can argue that subconsciously, she knew she was in the wrong, but her conscious mind was not aware of this, and through reflection/introspection, she came to realize that which she was not consciously aware of. This is probably the best argument that one can make. However, it is not entirely unproblematic either. For one thing, my friend mentioned she was praying to God when she had her revelation. Praying is not the same thing as reflection or introspection. When one prays, one is asking for help; whereas when one is involved in introspection, one examines and thinks about things and events in one's life. Again, one can argue that she was lying, though in that case, she'd only be consciously deceiving herself.

Any other thoughts or comments?

Seems like more of the same old "goddidit" thing to me, as an atheist. I disagree with your argument that when you are convinced that you are right your conscience can't kick in. Even those who are entirely convinced of something can change their minds and realize that they were wrong at times. Especially if they spend enough time thinking about that particular subject, which it sounds like your friend did. As to the praying thing, she may have been praying but at the same time she was likely thinking about her problem which probably led to her revelation. Really I see no evidence for God in this.

[Atticus]

Seems like more of the same old "goddidit" thing to me, as an atheist. I disagree with your argument that when you are convinced that you are right your conscience can't kick in. Even those who are entirely convinced of something can change their minds and realize that they were wrong at times. Especially if they spend enough time thinking about that particular subject, which it sounds like your friend did. As to the praying thing, she may have been praying but at the same time she was likely thinking about her problem which probably led to her revelation. Really I see no evidence for God in this.While I see your point, I'd suggest a different idea. While this may not be an argument for the existence of God, it IS an argument for the idea that belief in God is good for us. She would perhaps not have had that revelation but for the salutary effect that a belief had on her.

[AgentM]

While I see your point, I'd suggest a different idea. While this may not be an argument for the existence of God, it IS an argument for the idea that belief in God is good for us. She would perhaps not have had that revelation but for the salutary effect that a belief had on her.

Maybe, but there's no evidence that she would not have come to that conclusion without prayer. All that the prayer was was a time for quiet reflection, and she *happened* to think of the situation with her friend. One does not have to believe in God or pray to have that.

I'm not saying that there aren't positive aspects of religion. Merely that we can't put it down as the reasoning for this revelation.

[steveksux]

Personally, I find the argument from personal experience to be unpersuasive.

That's been my experience, anyway.

Randy

[Atticus]

Maybe, but there's no evidence that she would not have come to that conclusion without prayer.Well, except that she didn't. All that the prayer was was a time for quiet reflection, and she *happened* to think of the situation with her friend. One does not have to believe in God or pray to have that.But it was the motivation to do so, at least in this case. I'm not claim that prayer or belief is the only motivation, but it is one--and while there are others, I don't know how commonly they are found by the typical person.

[Groucho]

What if she had prayed to the flying spaghetti god and had the relevation and life change? Would that prove the existence of the flying spaghetti god? If not, then why would you expect it to convince any atheist of your god?

[AgentM]

Well, except that she didn't.

It's circumstantial evidence, at best.

But it was the motivation to do so, at least in this case. I'm not claim that prayer or belief is the only motivation, but it is one--and while there are others, I don't know how commonly they are found by the typical person.

In this person it was the motivation, yes. Other people find other motivations. But I understand your point.

[Atticus]

What if she had prayed to the flying spaghetti god and had the relevation and life change? Would that prove the existence of the flying spaghetti god? It might prove that someone took the flying spaghetti god seriously, but that would be more disturbing than praying the Christian God--particularly to the god-smith who invented flying spaghetti. After all, when people start taking your satire seriously, you really have to worry.....

Imagine if "A Modest Proposal" became a white paper for anti-poverty programs, or The Onion was used for serious inclusion in an academic paper. <<Shivers>>

[Atticus]

It's circumstantial evidence, at best.[....] But I understand your point.I appreciate that. But consider that "circumstantial evidence" becomes "inductive reasoning" when repeated often enough.

[roderic]

The Argument from Personal Experience, for those who don't know, is an argument for the existence of God, (or whatever ultimate divine reality one believes to be true), based upon a religious or spiritual experience that one has had. For the purpose of this discussion, we're only going to be talking about the Christian God.
...
3) One can argue that subconsciously, she knew she was in the wrong, but her conscious mind was not aware of this, and through reflection/introspection, she came to realize that which she was not consciously aware of. This is probably the best argument that one can make. However, it is not entirely unproblematic either. For one thing, my friend mentioned she was praying to God when she had her revelation. Praying is not the same thing as reflection or introspection. When one prays, one is asking for help; whereas when one is involved in introspection, one examines and thinks about things and events in one's life. Again, one can argue that she was lying, though in that case, she'd only be consciously deceiving herself.

Any other thoughts or comments?Why limit the discussion to the Christian god? But ok.
I respect personal experience and value it beyond believing what others say or is 'revealed' in a collection of writings.

3) is the most plausible argument, and gels well with Jungian and transpersonal psychology. One could say that:
a) she tapped into a part of her subconscious which she does not identify with, hence it is perceived as outside herself. Praying opened her for recognising a previous unconscious part, and she would unlikely have allowed this through mere reflection, since she does not own the 'voice' or 'thought'.
b) since she experiences this as something larger than herself, "god" giving guidance, indicates that she might have accessed an archetype, a part of the collective unconscious which is not personal in the strict sense, but part of human experience. These archetypes tend to take form within the cultural context, and the scope of the person's conscious and subconscious parameters, so it could be an angel, god, ancestor, tribal ancestor, bodhisattva and others.

However, this is neither a 'proof' of god, nor does it dismiss the possibilty - archetypes may be regarded as spiritual forces which are larger than the person. The final question as to god's existence remains unanswered, but from a psychological perspective, the perception of god is subjective. What might be interpreted (and at least part of interpreting is subconscious) as the Christian god would likely be Allah or something else in a different part of the world.

[The Big Bog]

What if she had prayed to God and Satan spoke instead and told her that she needed to murder her friend?

Then we'd call her crazy!

[AgentM]

What if she had prayed to God and Satan spoke instead and told her that she needed to murder her friend?

Then we'd call her crazy!

Maybe, if she's hearing voices in her head she's a schizophrenic?

Sorry, I don't actually think that, I just thought I'd throw it out there. :D

[Atticus]

What might be interpreted (and at least part of interpreting is subconscious) as the Christian god would likely be Allah or something else in a different part of the world.Considering that the Christian God and Allah are precisely the same entity, that would be logical.

[Turenne]

2) One can argue that it was indeed nothing more than her conscience that raised this awareness. But this is problematic too. According to her own account, which can be verified by non-Christians who observed her behaviour, she was convinced that it was her friend who was at fault. Normally, when one is convinced about being in the right, one's conscience does not suddenly "kick in" out of nowhere and suggest that maybe one was wrong. Likewise, the fact that she was surprised at the idea that it might have been her fault suggests that it was not simply a realization that came about from her conscience (unless one wants to argue that she simply lied about being surprised).

One cannot verify what another person is thinking by observing their behaviour. That particular philosophy of the mind has rightly been discredited into derision.

With that in mind, either your Christian friend is lying to you in order to help persuade you that God exists, or she was deluding herself subconsciously with relation to her own guilt. Both more likely explanations then God 'speaking' to her.

[Ethos]

3) One can argue that subconsciously, she knew she was in the wrong, but her conscious mind was not aware of this, and through reflection/introspection, she came to realize that which she was not consciously aware of. This is probably the best argument that one can make. However, it is not entirely unproblematic either. For one thing, my friend mentioned she was praying to God when she had her revelation. Praying is not the same thing as reflection or introspection. When one prays, one is asking for help; whereas when one is involved in introspection, one examines and thinks about things and events in one's life. Again, one can argue that she was lying, though in that case, she'd only be consciously deceiving herself.

Any other thoughts or comments?

I would suggest number three is the most logical conclusion, and I would further argue that the counter-argument placed in bold is precisely incorrect. Praying is inherently self-reflective. As with meditation, you are clearing external influences and focusing on internal structure.

Day to day life is increasingly complex and distracting, leaving little time for serious contemplation of internal thoughts or dilemmas. One reason why meditation (prayer) can be helpful is that it allows us to sort through these mental conflicts and find solutions to psychologically stressful situations.

Ethos

[Dangerrmouse]

Auditory hallucinations, while they can be one of a range of symptoms, are not necessarily diagnostic for schizophrenia. It is not uncommon for them to present as a condition on their own, and may well prove manageable without medication, with some adaptation by, and support for, the sufferer.

http://www.hvn-usa.org/

[Ethos]

Auditory hallucinations, while they can be one of a range of symptoms, are not necessarily diagnostic for schizophrenia. It is not uncommon for them to present as a condition on their own, and may well prove manageable without medication, with some adaptation by, and support for, the sufferer.

http://www.hvn-usa.org/

I believe Craig pointed out early in his post that the concepts being offered here are admittedly not auditory in nature.

Ethos

[Izdaari]

I don't find the argument from personal experience to be useful for convincing atheists. Personal experience with God has confirmed my own faith in countless ways. But in my experience, there is no argument that's useful for convincing atheists.

Oh, there is evidence in abundance, but none of it will ever be good enough for them. IMO, taken as a whole, the evidence is strong enough that it would likely prevail with a jury in a civil court case, based as they are on the standard of "a preponderance of the evidence", but in the end the decision to believe or not is an act of will. Convinced skeptics have decided not, and generally are impervious until their will changes. That change comes by God calling them, and until they hear Him, argument is utterly useless except as an amusement or an intellectual exercise... and I don't care for argument for the mere sake of argument. If I want to play games, I prefer chess or role playing games.

[marv]

It seems that things hinge on the word "believe".

I'm an atheist (not to be confused with Atheist). To the extent that believing in a deity benefits one's life and enhances their contribution to society, I'm for it. My wife of 28 years is a devout Southern Baptist. We have no problems.

Incidently, Allah, or al-illah as adapted from the ancient Arab pantheon, is NOT the same as the Judeo/Christian god. But that's a more proper topic for another thread.

[Atticus]

Incidently, Allah, or al-illah as adapted from the ancient Arab pantheon, is NOT the same as the Judeo/Christian god. But that's a more proper topic for another thread.I think you're mistaken--in fact the idea of a pantheon is anathema to Islamic principles--but I've made a thread for that discussion. Please make your fuller argument there: http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1092045#post1092045

[roderic]

I don't find the argument from personal experience to be useful for convincing atheists. Personal experience with God has confirmed my own faith in countless ways. But in my experience, there is no argument that's useful for convincing atheists.I agree so far.

Oh, there is evidence in abundance, but none of it will ever be good enough for them. IMO, taken as a whole, the evidence is strong enough that it would likely prevail with a jury in a civil court case, based as they are on the standard of "a preponderance of the evidence", but in the end the decision to believe or not is an act of will. Convinced skeptics have decided not, and generally are impervious until their will changes. That change comes by God calling them, and until they hear Him, ...This I find a rather arrogant statement.
If there was evidence to prove the existence of 'god', I am sure we would have heard of it by now - I don't think it's the "will" of skeptics which is in the way.

I have come across plenty of evidence which shows that there are forces beyond our understanding, but none of it points conclusively at a supreme being in charge, even less in the direction of any particular god amongst the many believed in.

Personally, I have had a number of spiritual experiences which deepened my interest in Buddhist philosophy and cosmology, but it is not something I would attempt to use to convince anyone. It is a personal 'truth', which has not been shown to be false, and it is private - my choice. I would not expect my personal beliefs to be generally accepted and be part of a state-run education system, but, however, I have chosen to live in a predominantly Buddhist country. :)

[Izdaari]

I agree so far.

This I find a rather arrogant statement.
If there was evidence to prove the existence of 'god', I am sure we would have heard of it by now - I don't think it's the "will" of skeptics which is in the way.
Arrogance is one of my virtues... but I try to be arrogant in a humble way. Or is it humble in an arrogant way. :p

I have come across plenty of evidence which shows that there are forces beyond our understanding, but none of it points conclusively at a supreme being in charge, even less in the direction of any particular god amongst the many believed in.
I agree about the very general evidence, the modern physics and cosmological stuff. It might be enough to get me to panentheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism) but no further. For specific evidence for the Judeo-Christian God, what I find most convincing is the life of Christ, the historical and textual evidence and the numerous prophecies he fulfilled. There are of course all kinds of alternate theories concerning him, but IMHO none stand up under close examination. My best suggestion for further reading may seem odd: the Author's Note by Anne Rice to her historical novel, Christ the Lord, which is a terrific read anyway.

Personally, I have had a number of spiritual experiences which deepened my interest in Buddhist philosophy and cosmology, but it is not something I would attempt to use to convince anyone. It is a personal 'truth', which has not been shown to be false, and it is private - my choice. I would not expect my personal beliefs to be generally accepted and be part of a state-run education system, but, however, I have chosen to live in a predominantly Buddhist country. :)
I too have warm fuzzies for Buddhism, and I've found a fair bit in Zen that I can use.

[Dangerrmouse]

I believe Craig pointed out early in his post that the concepts being offered here are admittedly not auditory in nature.

Ethos

Thank you, but I was responding to AgentM and Turenne's posts from the previous page.