Tuesday, September 07, 2021

The case against the argument from religious experience

 A critique of the argument from religious experience, from John Danaher. 



Kevin said...

This comes across like a slightly more sophisticated rationalization as to why even personal experience of miracles would not convince Dawkins of the existence of God, as he would be more inclined to believe any miracle as the work of an advanced alien race or a mass hallucination.

A much more interesting question than what DOESN'T count as evidence of God, is what DOES count, and why.

Martin said...

Here's a thought I've been toying with, and I'd like to know if anyone has written on this kind of thing. Back in my new atheist days, part of my atheism was because of the fact that I could not experience God directly in any way, so I inferred he ain't there. But now in my very agnostic classical theism days, I toy with the idea that since God is not an empirically detectable being, there cannot be any direct sensory experience of him (i.e. no religious experience). God presents himself to us in a way that is characteristic of us humans: our intellect. So we can know God exists not through sensory data, but through intellectual data. Ergo, the philosophical proofs are the way to know God exists.