On Atheists As Poor Friends or On Experience vs. Reason
While some people certainly base too many of their beliefs on experience alone, experience is a valid source of knowledge when coupled with other methods, notably reason.
If I experience some strange event, it is expected that I weigh the event against other foundational knowledge and test my senses. Am I crazy? Is my vision faulty? Am I just hearing things? Am I hallucinating? Was I dreaming? Is someone tricking me?
To not do this would be foolish and gullible.
However, it may be that there is no logical reason to expect that my senses are faulty. In such a case, it is only fair to assume that the experienced event really did occur -- at least until evidence can be shown to the contrary.
Experience is often looked down upon as an epistemological method. But if one considers the scientific method and the historical method, both rely on the experience of the investigator. For a non-historian, belief in historical knowledge is really belief based on authority. We trust that what the historian tells us is true, because he or she has investigated. We often forget that those investigations really on experience -- both of the investigator and also of the historical players being investigated. The same is true for science; as a non-scientist, one must trust the experiences, the observations and interpretations, of the researcher.
Now, atheists love to claim that they are reasonable people, that it is unreasonable to believe in a God. They claim that science has disproven God or at least any need for Him. Their beliefs rely heavily on science. Yet not all atheists are themselves scientists. This means that atheists must trust what scientists tell them about the scientists own experiences. And no atheist has performed all of the world-changing, paradigm-shifting scientific experiments him- or herself. Yet atheists will tell you that they know God cannot exist. Did you do the experiments yourself? I ask. Then how do you know?
They must admit that they trust a source that they consider to be authoritative. Fair enough.
Here is what is unfair:
Most of us who have good friends, when interviewed about our friendship, would agree that part of the good friendship comes from trust. We trust each other. If a good friend tells me a story and insists on its validity, I believe him or her -- that he or she really did experience what was claimed. That's what friends do. I think this is a fairly universal trait of friendship. (It is certainly a trait of love.)
Now, if one reads my user info, it will be seen that I state why I believe what I believe. I am a theist (as opposed to a deist) primarily for experiential reasons; that is, I believe that experiences have occurred in my life that I cannot explain by reasons other than the supernatural. I'm a fairly reasonable guy. I have an above average IQ. I am, in fact, a young scientist. No, I am not infallible, but I am reasonable. And I am honest.
I have friends who are atheists. I feel quite hurt by them in that they are so quick to discount my experiences. How is it that they are willing to accept so quickly as truth the testimony of men they have never met (such as scientists) and reject the testimony of a friend they would claim to trust? Why are they able to so easily deny the possibility of first-hand knowledge, yet hold tightly to knowledge that has passed through many unknown people?
If I experience some strange event, it is expected that I weigh the event against other foundational knowledge and test my senses. Am I crazy? Is my vision faulty? Am I just hearing things? Am I hallucinating? Was I dreaming? Is someone tricking me?
To not do this would be foolish and gullible.
However, it may be that there is no logical reason to expect that my senses are faulty. In such a case, it is only fair to assume that the experienced event really did occur -- at least until evidence can be shown to the contrary.
Experience is often looked down upon as an epistemological method. But if one considers the scientific method and the historical method, both rely on the experience of the investigator. For a non-historian, belief in historical knowledge is really belief based on authority. We trust that what the historian tells us is true, because he or she has investigated. We often forget that those investigations really on experience -- both of the investigator and also of the historical players being investigated. The same is true for science; as a non-scientist, one must trust the experiences, the observations and interpretations, of the researcher.
Now, atheists love to claim that they are reasonable people, that it is unreasonable to believe in a God. They claim that science has disproven God or at least any need for Him. Their beliefs rely heavily on science. Yet not all atheists are themselves scientists. This means that atheists must trust what scientists tell them about the scientists own experiences. And no atheist has performed all of the world-changing, paradigm-shifting scientific experiments him- or herself. Yet atheists will tell you that they know God cannot exist. Did you do the experiments yourself? I ask. Then how do you know?
They must admit that they trust a source that they consider to be authoritative. Fair enough.
Here is what is unfair:
Most of us who have good friends, when interviewed about our friendship, would agree that part of the good friendship comes from trust. We trust each other. If a good friend tells me a story and insists on its validity, I believe him or her -- that he or she really did experience what was claimed. That's what friends do. I think this is a fairly universal trait of friendship. (It is certainly a trait of love.)
Now, if one reads my user info, it will be seen that I state why I believe what I believe. I am a theist (as opposed to a deist) primarily for experiential reasons; that is, I believe that experiences have occurred in my life that I cannot explain by reasons other than the supernatural. I'm a fairly reasonable guy. I have an above average IQ. I am, in fact, a young scientist. No, I am not infallible, but I am reasonable. And I am honest.
I have friends who are atheists. I feel quite hurt by them in that they are so quick to discount my experiences. How is it that they are willing to accept so quickly as truth the testimony of men they have never met (such as scientists) and reject the testimony of a friend they would claim to trust? Why are they able to so easily deny the possibility of first-hand knowledge, yet hold tightly to knowledge that has passed through many unknown people?