Comments on: Religious Experiences: Providing Warrant for Belief in God

By: God’s “Purposively Available Evidence” «

God’s “Purposively Available Evidence” « — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:55:06 +0000

[...] that is essentially an argument from religious experience (see my own posts advancing this argument here and here). His argument is outlined in The Elusive [...]

By: Religious Experience: Evidence for Beliefs About God «

Religious Experience: Evidence for Beliefs About God « — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:23:14 +0000

[...] more be arguing for beliefs about) God at all? I believe there is a rather strong case. I’ve argued elsewhere that such an experience can grant at least some amount of warrant for belief in God. But I believe [...]

By: Natural Theology 1 «

Natural Theology 1 « — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:11:25 +0000

[...] exists, but rather justify or confirm that belief. In other words, it can function much like the Argument from Religious Experience in providing warrant, not proof, for belief. It’s an inductive argument that seeks to [...]

By: J.W. Wartick

J.W. Wartick — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:16:36 +0000

No, my argument is from Classical Theism. If you want to argue about RE’s within a deistic, or perhaps a pantheistic or other view, feel free to do so. I’m arguing for theism, and so obviously I’m going to use theism as the standard.

You may ask questions like “why does God ONLY seem to use these obscure…?” but I don’t see what relevance this has at all. Certainly it can’t possibly be any kind of analytic statement, for what exactly is the argument supposed to be? How is it that we are supposed to determine how God should choose to reveal Himself?

Your use of the Bible shows some interesting use of eisegesis in interpretation. What about verses like “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:20)?

Finally, your conclusion that “You have to start from God to get to God” seems a little strange, considering how people come to faith. How does someone “without” the presupposition of God “get to God” if they cannot do so?

By: Jude

Jude — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:38:51 +0000

You say they grant added epistemiological warrant for belief in God, but the fact that these states can be induced on their own grants added epistemiological warrant for belief that religion actually IS all in the mind, a conclusion even I don’t want to touch.

Also, you’re presupposing again: “God, on theism, works within nature on many points, so it would make sense that there could be a naturalistic cause for an RE.” How do you know? This is another argument from definition. Basically, because you presuppose that God was/is responsible for anything and everything’s existence and happening and knows all (the “omni-” attributes), by definition even something that seems to have a naturalistic definition could or even must necessarily be caused by God.

Also, this raises another question: why does God ONLY seem to use these obscure, could-as-well-be-random-brain-noise ways of revealing His presence these days? I know about the verse where God supposedly says “I leave you with another comforter/friend [the Holy Spirit],” but if we assume that’s all of God’s presence left, there’s no sense praising God the father or son for what we perceive as miracles.

I think I’m about done with this blog. I’ve learned that no matter how good a debater someone is, if their arguments all start from presuppositionalism, there is no real arguing with them. As one apologist said, “You have to start from God to get to God.” Thanks for the practice; I have never done this before.

By: J.W. Wartick

J.W. Wartick — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:47:00 +0000

You’ve ignored what I’ve said about naturalistic explanations. There’s no reason to think that just because we can figure out the causes or even cause them ourselves, that they are somehow naturalistic to begin with. God, on theism, works within nature on many points, so it would make sense that there could be a naturalistic cause for an RE.

And again, this is another post in which you have either ignored what I said or chosen to misinterpret it. I never say that an RE proves on its own that God exists. At all. The very title of this post contains “Providing Warrant…” I am not saying they are definitive, but that they grant additional epistemological warrant for belief in God.

By: Jude

Jude — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:43:51 +0000

I don’t see this making the case that an experience on its own is proof that God exists. The problem with these is that they’re all subjective, and given the brain’s untrustworthy nature in general (read about malleability of memory, blind spots, saccades, etc) honestly I’m amazed anyone trusts the brain at all. The more we learn about neuroscience, the more it seems the brain just makes a “best guess” at reality. And this is for our animal senses, which are generally pretty pragmatic; we know we can tie our own minds up in mental knots, so imagine the distortion possible inside our own heads.

Also, it’s possible to induce states like these, and even control behavior, using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Again, this does not rule out God’s existence, or even the idea that He may stimulate that specific area of the brain to cause revelations of His presence, but it’s worth thinking about that we can create these states at will too.

All that aside, something this subjective cannot be used as proof or disproof. It’s a form of presuppositionalism, “I believe in God, therefore the fact that these experiences may happen to any number of people should be construed as evidence for God’s existence.”

Basically, certainty does not equal truth. People can be utterly honest and convinced but also wrong; how long did we believe dead bodies generated flies spontaneously in themselves? For any statement to have any predictive, proving, or disproving power, it MUST be vetted logically against the world around us.