Atheists/Agnostics: Is personal experience the best way of knowing for oneself?

Question

If not, then at what point can one accept that his experiences are true and come to conclusions through them? How do we know anything? Isn't causality itself grasped through our experiences? If this is not the best way of knowing, then what is, and why?

If so, then shouldn't we be open to something seemingly beyond science and logic? From what I've read and seen, most of us (not all) haven't had any experiences that were convincingly "supernatural." We like to poke fun at the theists for accepting something that cannot be perceived, but many of them say they have experienced "God" themselves. I don't want to get into a discussion about which Gods/gods, if any, could exist, but can we truly say for certain that they are wrong? Yes, we can come up with a scientific explanation for it in most cases, but does that mean the scientific explanation is the only real one?

I see that throwing strict empiricism out the door opens up problems, but are there problems if we don't, at times?

Personally, I would be skeptical of my experiences, but if I had them while not in a state of intoxication, drowsiness, etc, it would be hard to dismiss it as nonsense. I feel that, at this point in my life, strict logic and science have done well because I have not felt any such experiences. But what if I do? What should be done?

Sorry for so many questions. I didn't realize I had asked so many.

dze: Yes, I fear (not really fear, but there's slight uneasiness) that that is the case. On the other hand, no one can really pass on an experience to another person, so of course non-believers won't accept whatever a believer says. This is where believers should be compassionate, since it is the non-believers who have supposedly not had the "grand experience."

SuperAtheist: As nondescript said, isn't everything a personal experience? Even logic is based on what is observed. Does that mean it is universal law, or is it just the best way for many of us to live and understand the world?

Monica: The theists were an example. I'm talking about a general God-concept; as I said, I don't want to discuss which Gods/gods are possible. Perhaps no book says what is "true," if there is anything out there.

At any rate, didn't Hume bring up the idea that causality could just be illusion, too? I might be wrong.

AuroraDawn: Yes, I mentioned all of that already. And, like you, I have had no "brushes with the supernatural." I am merely raising the possibility and asking if we would really be open to it or if we would condemn our own experiences.

nondescript: Again, I'm trying to leave out typical God concepts. The supernatural functions just as well without contradicting itself, though of course I would wonder how the supernatural could interact with the natural. Then again, if I do not know or even understand the supernatural, I can't say what it can or cannot do.

Monica: Of COURSE I'm skeptical of the supernatural; I haven't even had an experience that could even qualify as similar to one.

"As for the rest, why should I give serious consideration to any god-concept? I know what gods are (ancient fairy tales), so why should I have to consider that something like that might be true, and especially why should I consider the fact that I can't observe any facet of this god to be a point in favor of its existence?"

God - and the problem, again, is defining it - may exist regardless of the corrupt ways in which we view it. I was really trying to keep it to the supernatural, so it was a mistake to bring up theists, but I think it functions similarly enough. I also never asserted that you should consider anything to be in favor of its existence. What I'm getting at with this question is hypothetical, i.e. what would you do if you had such an experience? Perhaps I should ask it that way as a separate question, since I ranted on and on.

Monica (Continued): As I see it, an atheist and agnostic are the same in practice but slightly different in theory. Now we're a little outside of the question, but that's okay. I accept that there may be no God, and I accept that, if there is, I certainly can't know what it wants of me, if anything, from my experiences thus far. Because of this, I live as if there is no God, though I am willing to hear out other sides. With no logical or scientific evidence, no one can prove to me that God exists; without any personal experience, I can't even begin to believe that God does.

That's all.

Let me re-phrase the sentence, "I haven't even had an experience that could even qualify as similar to one."

That should be: "I haven't even had an experience that could even be considered as unusual from a purely rational perspective, at least not to my knowledge."

Answer 1

This is a good question. For me, my experiences are a big factor in determining what I believe or not because it is all I know so far. My judgement or conclusions come from my experiences. It is my truth. This is not to say that someone else's experience is invalid because it is/was different from mines. I don't poke fun at someone when they state they have experienced God because maybe they have. The only thing I know is that I haven't and therefore do not believe in a God.

Lastly, yes, I am open to something else beyond science and logic, but until that happens, science and logic is all I have to go by on.

Answer 2

David Hume: 1
Moreth: 0



We aren't just poking fun at theists because they believe in something for which they have no evidence whatsoever. We're poking fun at them because they're making an invisible friend out of a character from ancient books.

Those ancients thought the heart was the center of thought and that the brain was nothing. They thought the world was flat. They thought burning livestock would bring prosperity and rain. Why, then, should we expect them to be right about the origin of life, the universe, and everything? They can't even get basic meteorology right.


Edit: I just meant what Hume said on being skeptical of the supernatural.

As for the rest, why should I give serious consideration to any god-concept? I know what gods are (ancient fairy tales), so why should I have to consider that something like that might be true, and especially why should I consider the fact that I can't observe any facet of this god to be a point in favor of its existence?

Answer 3

Obviously you are an agnostic. If I had doubts about what I believed, then I would be an agnostic. But I am an atheist and I believe that there are no supernatural experiences. Therefore, when someone tells me that they have experienced one, I would have to doubt the truthfulness of what they say. I have never experienced the supernatural in any way. So my personal experience tells me that it's not true. You (or anyone) can have all kinds of supernatural experiences, but if I don't share the experience, why should I believe you? Since these experiences can be mental abberrations or brought on by religious hysteria, on what grounds could I possibly agree with their authenticity?

atheist

Answer 4

I feel very much the same way...

As an example, let's take the phenomenon of Near-Death-Experiences...

Many who have experienced a NDE have reported very similar thoughts and sensations; 'floating above their own body', 'going down a dark tunnel and seeing a bright light', etc..,
--- and there those among them who were rabid atheists before their NDEs who are now staunch believers in God,... in that they feel that their NDEs have allowed them to experience a sliver of a Heavenly afterlife...

of course, - science has several explanations as to what NDEs most likely are.
One explanation is that a NDE is a natural hallucination generated by a dying brain, - perhaps as an evolutionary tool which allows one who is dying to do so without alarming or frightening the herd; such as when a elephant leaves to die, - so as not to slow down the herd...

That said,...
... several years back some doctors were working on this patient's brain, presumably in some sort of treatment for a neurological disorder.
The patient, who was fully conscious during this probing, said that at one point during the probe's stimulation of a particular area of his brain that he experienced visions quite similar to those described in NDEs.

Given this, and more to your question at hand,...
... is a NDE a 'personal experience', - or can it be fully explained through the rationality of science?

... Or is it both?...
For, even now, whenever I read an article where some doctors have managed to elicit NDE hallucinations in someone, I ask myself:

- "Did the doctors create the NDE hallucinations with the use of their drugs and/or procedures,...
- or did they, by using those same drugs and procedures,...
...inadvertantly open that patient's own personal doorway...
- to God?" -

P.S. I apologize for the length ( it got away from me)...:-)
-

Answer 5

I, personally, don't care what they believe. Or what they may or may not have experienced. Good for them if they're happy and find joy in their experiences. But their experiences have little to no bearing on my life, or my experiences, or my reality.

I think you are straying into the power of the subjective. Sure, God touched them. They know it, it's real. To them. I have no problem with them believing wholeheartedly in that. But I have no intention of basing my reality on that. What they experienced was subjective and personal. It wasn't objective and factual, or there would be physical proof.

I can see beyond science and logic in my life. But I don't demand that anyone believe me or live by my revelations. I have a higher respect for individuality and objective truth than that. It doesn't lessen my experiences. But it does mean that I can't ask others to conform to my reality.

I give others only the objective, scientiffically verifiable and repeatable explanation. It's the only way we can all stand each other.

Answer 6

Can we say they are right? No we can not.

Can we say they are wrong? No we can not.

Can we say they are probably wrong? Yes we can.

The claims you mention made by many theists are incredibly improbable in an evidence-based world. Add to that the claims that have been falsified and you increase probability even more. Then we're back to the adage that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I fear you are heading down the Post-Modern "there is no absolute truth" path, as if the entire universe is only what you personally understand it to mean. As if observable and repeateable phenomena simply cease to exist if you aren't there to experience them.

Answer 7

I'm a very simple person. I don't believe in things without a good reason. If God exists, he has never given me a reason to believe in him. I don't claim to know anything absolutely except that I am incapable of knowing everything. Maybe someday science will be able to prove the existence of God. But not now.

Answer 8

You only know what you are exposed to.

I don't "blame" anybody for their beliefs, they know what they've heard/seen.

The touchy-feely Christian stuff where they felt the "spirit" and all that is just emotions building up, along with other quite natural processes...

Without this empiricism, how would one correctly choose Christianity in the first place? If you say its the spirit, then you admit that God has ALL of the control... in which case nothing matters anyways.

Answer 9

You might consider that the same machinery that allows you to enjoy a nice dish of ice cream allows you to experience God.

This neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, but does tend to suggest that "personal experience" is the only experience available.

Answer 10

I have not had any other experiences, except personal ones. Part of that experience is our listening to the experiences of others. However, experience, as you pointed out, is faulty. Therefore, we have to try to weed out the chaff from the truth. To do this, we try to get a wide range of experiences from many people and compare them.

As far as "gods" go, we know that there are many contradictory gods made by many various societies. We also see strong evidence that all gods are man-made and man is prone to make them. When we try to gleen truth from the glot of information we receive, we look for consistency. We assume that reality is independent of our view of it and is, therefore, relatively unchanging. But when we look at religious experience, we find mush. There is just not much of substance in their claims. They rely too heavily on emotional attachment to ideas.