Faith in God vs an Experience of God

In another post Sklansky talked about wanting people to admit that their belief was primarily or wholly based on faith and not reason.
I would take this a step further and say that I don't understand someone accepting a religion on "faith."
The only Believers that make sense to me are those who claim to have had a religious or ecstatic experience of some sort. Those who have had a direct experience of god, although probably clinicaly insane, have a far better grasp on their religion than those who simply accept a teaching, use "reason", or say they just have "faith."
Unless that faith comes with a direct experience of god, I think none of these people have a leg to stand on.
As far as determining what constitutes an experience of god, if you have to ask, you didn't have one. Or at least not one that suits the purpose of this thread.

g

[Lestat]

While some religious believers base their belief on sensory evidence, most base it on testimonial evidence.

There is nothing illogical about forming a belief based on testimony as long as you are comfortable with the reliability of the source. Few Christians for example, feel there is any more reliable source than Jesus Himself or those who have written the scriptures.

Unless you yourself have hands-on experience in the study of evolution, I assume your beliefs about it our based on testimonial evidence. Ditto for whatever you happen to believe about Abraham Lincoln.

There are practical reasons to believe in Abraham Lincoln based on "testimony" as you put it. For myself, I don't choose to come down as being an expert in Evolution, the Theory of Relativity, what happened on 9/11, or anything else I don't have personal experience with.
What I truly know and understand about this world would fit into a thimble. My experience tells me that if I touch a hot stove my hand gets burned. I don't need anyone else's testimony to help me understand that if I drink 12 beers i may puke.
Unfortunately, many people forget about experience and begin trusting others for nearly everything, including religion. It is true that i put my trust in some basic assumptions (such as Abraham Lincoln's existence) in order to function in society.
I do not believe Christianity, Judiasm, or any other religion fits at all into the category of commonly excepted truths.

g

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> My experience tells me that if I touch a hot stove my hand gets burned. </font>

This is mnemonic evidence.

<font color="red"> I don't need anyone else's testimony to help me understand that if I drink 12 beers i may puke. </font>

After having done so once or twice, you probably don't need anyone's testimony. Again, evidence brought about by your own memory is quite convincing. Even if it is sometimes off.


<font color="red"> Unfortunately, many people forget about experience and begin trusting others for nearly everything, including religion. </font>

Surely you hold beliefs which aren't formed by personal experience. Are you at the North pole right now? Would you say it's hot and balmy, or would you guess it's rather cold right now?


<font color="red"> I do not believe Christianity, Judiasm, or any other religion fits at all into the category of commonly excepted truths. </font>

You ARE kidding, right? While you or I might not think it deserves to be, religion is a VERY commonly accepted truth!!

You won't get any argument from me regarding the shaky testimony that many put faith in and form their beliefs from. I'm just pointing out that much of what you're stating, questioning, and implying, needs to be thought out more.

Religion by definition is based off faith. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. If you say there is no leg to stand on if you only stand on faith, then what is science? Science is the pursuit of truth, yet science relies on laws and calculations that cannot be proven. Science itself is built up on faith. Theories continuously change over time and science develops over time. The world was flat and now it's round. How do you know it's round? Have you been to space?

When you touch a stove and you burn yourself, it reminds me of Descartes' famous saying "I think, therefore I am". He brings the example of wax. When it is cold, it's hard, it has a pungent smell, it tastes bitter, and it looks solid. When it is warm, all of these properties change. As a matter of fact, using all five of our senses, we SHOULD arrive to the conclusion that warm wax and cold wax are two different entities. Why? Because warm wax is different in feel, touch, taste, smell, and sight than cold wax. Yet, everyone knows that they are the same thing. We can draw this conclusion because we, as human beings, have consciousness and the ability to think and process information. Therefore resulting in the saying "I think, therefore I am".

When you burn your hand on an oven, how is that truth? Because your nerves tell your brain it hurts? How do you think and have consciousness? How do you learn not to touch the stove anymore in the future. I don't see how that is supposed to represent truth.

[Lestat]

Science most certainly isn't built upon faith.

I don't know about the wax story, but I do know that Descartes was in the process of trying to determine if anything really existed. He noticed whatever he contemplated there was one thing which there was no getting around. His thoughts existed. Hence, "I think, therefore I am".

[ QUOTE ]
When you burn your hand on an oven, how is that truth? Because your nerves tell your brain it hurts? How do you think and have consciousness? How do you learn not to touch the stove anymore in the future. I don't see how that is supposed to represent truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Truth is knowledge. Knowledge is evidence. When you burn your hand on a stove you have sensory evidence that it hurt. Evidence = Knowledge = Truth.

So all evidence in the world has to fit in a little box called "The Five Senses"? If it cannot be explained or experienced in the realm of the five senses, then it is not fact?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
So all evidence in the world has to fit in a little box called "The Five Senses"? If it cannot be explained or experienced in the realm of the five senses, then it is not fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I know about philosophy (which isn't much), you shouldn't even always trust your five senses to conclude that something definitely does or doesn't exist. You can't see, feel, taste, hear, or smell gravity, but I'll bet you won't be jumping out of any 10 story windows. Or maybe you're due to take a flight somewhere and will have to board the plane without any sensory evidence it can fly without crashing. [Edit: Not the best example since I'm sure you've SEEN planes fly, but I've had no sleep and you get my point.]

So we collect evidence for our beliefs from three main sources. 1. Sensory, 2. Testimony, and 3. Memory. My whole point is that it IS possible to form a "rational" belief using any one of them.

[ QUOTE ]
You can't see, feel, taste, hear, or smell gravity, but I'll bet you won't be jumping out of any 10 story windows....
So we collect evidence for our beliefs from three main sources. 1. Sensory, 2. Testimony, and 3. Memory. My whole point is that it IS possible to form a "rational" belief using any one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are ways that I personally navigate the world from a practical perspective without attaching "belief" to it. Whether that is accepting the traditional view of gravity when climbing a staircase, or relying on the concepts of aerodynamics when boarding a plane.
I think you may be confusing practicality with belief. I have no problem navigating the world in this way without attaching a belief system around the truth or fiction of concepts which I personally cannot know to be true.
The hot stove is something I have experienced and believe. If i begin touching hot stoves and finding they dont burn me, or someone shows me how to do such a thing I would begin to question that belief.
The testimony of others may make me question a particular set of assumptions i have, but it would NOT help me to form belief systems unless I too had personal experience with it.
Back to the question of God and Religion. My initial statement was that unless someone had a direct, personal experience of god I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
This still holds. The testimony of a bunch of people telling me hot stoves don't burn their hands, and then others saying it does, and meanwhile I personally dont even know if stoves exist--I would NEVER take something like that on testimony...
Experience does point the way.

g

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I think you may be confusing practicality with belief. </font>

I don't believe I am (pun intended). Look up the definition of belief. I suspect you have many more beliefs than you ever realized. If you did not actually believe a plane could stay in the air, I doubt you would ever board one. If you didn't believe your wife could remain faithful, you wouldn't have married her. Etc. etc.

Beliefs don't pop out of thin air. There is a reason for every belief you hold. Even those beliefs that you deem so trivial you are not willing to even recognize them as true beliefs.

<font color="blue">Back to the question of God and Religion. My initial statement was that unless someone had a direct, personal experience of god I don't think they have a leg to stand on. </font>

We've come full circle. I think I have shown that you do not need a personal experience to hold a rational belief. You have many beliefs for which you have no personal experience. You're just incorrectly coining them as something other than beliefs.

Btw- I'm an atheist and fully understand what you're trying to say. I'm just pointing out that you're presenting a very flawed argument. You need to find a different path. Experience is NOT the only way to arrive at a rational belief.