Originally posted by sonship
I think I have shared enough for now. I do not like to throw my experiences out cheap.
You have already discarded one precious experience by the wayside. I see no reason why you will be more receptive to another experience.
It is ok. I'd rather say that God firstly speaks to us with the words of the Bible. He will not say to me what is contrary to ...[text shortened]... u don't believe in is not the God that I believe in.
Glad your wife is happy. And you too.
I did not read your experiential sharing, sonship—deliberately, in order to remain neutral and impersonal (I started to, but stopped myself). I do understand your point about sharing such things though—and, in fact, have been subject to a “bait-and-switch” game more often by fundamentalist Christians on here than anyone, when it comes to apparently sincere questions of one’s personal experiences (though, not that I recall, by anyone currently posting on here).
Here, however, is what I see as the general problem with taking such experiences (mine, yours, anyone’s) in an evidentiary way:
If either (1) the particular content (including the putative source), or (2) the forcefulness, of personal experiences, could be considered self-validating, then nobody would ever be fooled by a mirage.
We can be fooled by beauty; by beautiful, moving and provocative stories (including, but not limited to, myth); by unsought thoughts that arise in our minds; by powerful psychological experiences—etc., etc., across the board. There apparently is evidence that people are generally more moved to believe this or that proposition by powerful metaphors than by reason.*
That is the force of reason: both you and I must (in my view) accept it in the face of self-interpreted personal experience.
None of this is intended to diminish aesthetics (the harmonious and beautiful) in our lives. Nor your personal story. But the
facticity, in terms of content, of the stories that we tell ourselves (and that have been told to us)—as opposed to the aesthetics, or the moral, or the philosophy—has to be decided by reason (logic) and empiricism (here: repeatable, independent and disinterested observation).
My personal experiences are not,
per se, evidence of anything outside themselves—they are completely self-referential, and cannot reasonably be considered as self-validating—unless and until subjected to logic and empiricism. Their aesthetic impact, however: that is mine to appreciate and enjoy.
____________________________________________________________
* I have no citation; this was stated to me recently by a Christian scholar that I happen to know personally. I wouldn’t press the point without further research, and would not expect anyone to accept it willy-nilly.
EDIT: Though I responded to sonship here, I really mean this as a general post.
Communication with God.
26 Jun '13 18:54
Back to Top