Direct experience vs belief

[LivingWordUnity]

People can be sure of God's existence by direct experience and through reason.

A Posteriori (knowable on the basis of experience):

God led me to his Church. And, in various ways, he lets me know of his continuing presence.

That's the primary way that I know of God's existence.

A Priori (evidence independent of my own experience):

I believe that the evidence for God's existence is right in front of our noses. It's first of all in the fact that we exist and that there are laws in nature, many things that have an intelligent design. And we can know of God's existence because Jesus is the Son of God. He proved it with great miracles, including walking on water, restoring sight to the blind, and raising the dead (most notably his own Resurrection). And these miracles were witnessed by many. Also, his First Coming was foretold by the prophets, and Jesus accurately foretold the future of the Church and the world. No other religion has a founder like that.

"...The crucified Christ is the persecuted just man portrayed in the words of Old Covenant prophecy—particularly the Suffering Servant Songs—but also prefigured in Plato's writings (The Republic, II 361e-362a)."

— Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Jesus of Nazareth Vol. I, p.89
.​

 

[Chris B]

People can be sure of God's existence by direct experience and through reason.
A Posteriori (knowable on the basis of experience):
A Priori (evidence independent of my own experience):

Understood.

And if you had been one of those individuals led by these to Hinduism or Islam, or one of the less prominent systems and positions of faith, once inside and established in such would you not (as many clearly do) have a similarly structured tale to tell showing how you followed both evidence and experienced guidance?

As a separate thought, there is the framework of weighing and interpretation which is not at all standard from one human being to another (But is, I suspect significantly culturally conditioned).
You said "I believe that the evidence for God's existence is right in front of our noses. It's first of all in the fact that we exist and that there are laws in nature, many things that have an intelligent design."
I take what is the same or very similar raw data and do not see our existence or the properties of the natural universe as weight on the "God exists" side of the scales, see little to support the hypothesis of intelligent design and anyway see far too much evidence of *unintelligent* design to include a divine hand in the process of evolution. If there was one, should it not have done better?
How do we get so different a pair of outcomes from essential the same information? It has to come from a layer or two deeper in our minds... the judging and interpretive framework, or hermeneutic which is in use.
Now, where did those come from, and how are they checked for validity, if they are, or even can be?

Chris

 

[MoonofIsaiah]

I did this when I was a kid. Knowing what would happen but wanting the personal experience after mom told me not to touch the hot iron. I touched it. I could feel the heat radiating from the iron's surface but I still wanted to have that touch memory. Just slightly. So I did it. But first I licked my finger to offset the immediate contact.

Now, all these years later as I recall that, is it faith today that brings the memory of that burning on my finger to mind? Or is it a fact that I burned my finger sticking it to a hot iron bottom?

We're weird aren't we? We say god is a spirit . Because the Bible tells us so.
Then we read passages in the Bible that tell us that spirit doesn't think the same way as we do. And we can't think the same way as that spirit does.

Meanwhile, given all that we'll stamp that spirit as property. Our personal denominational doctrinal apologetic explainable, property.
And we do this by saying we believe it told us to live by this set of rules that others like us copied down and gave spirit credit for. Even though we say we believe spirit doesn't think as we do or that we can think as it does, we accept that that spirit wants us to behave just so. We sometimes call it, Spirits laws. God's laws.

We believe this because men told us the Bible says so because a spirit that doesn't think as we think so it can't communicate as we do, told men who don't think as spirit think, what it wanted us to know about its expectations for our mortal moral behaviors. And so that we please its expectations of us.

 

[TreasureHunter12]

Reading through the replies, I wanted to emphasize something maybe that I wasn't emphasizing enough before.

The issue is not the beliefs that we are aware of, but the underlying emotions and beliefs that control us that are in our blind spots, that we are unaware of.

Everyone sees themselves as someone who is open-minded and goes where the truth takes them. However, there are unconscious forces within us that limit or distort our ability to perceive. I'm sure we can all easily think of someone we know that has some kind of character flaw that is painfully obvious to everyone around them but that person is oblivious to it. This person may be able to pick out every small thing that is wrong with others, but they lack any self awareness.

This is an inherent aspect of the human condition. We all think everyone else is less aware than we are, which is why the supply for advice is way out of proportion to the demand. We think we know what we think we know but we are unaware of what we are unaware of.

When may our self unaware person become aware of their flaws? It almost always (tempted to say always) happens when there is some dramatic argument or issue. Next, after the drama has peaked and begins to settle, this person may concede all of their shortcomings that caused the problem and you may think wow, this person at least can see their issues. Then, after everything blows over the unaware person goes back to the usual standard operating procedure.

What happened there? The feelings of pain and distress that surfaced during the incident allowed the opportunity for our self unaware person to glimpse themselves truthfully. It opened up their awareness and broadened their ability to perceive. But once the distress was repressed back down, the self-awareness was lost along with it.

There is a lot of talk on this forum about truth and what is true. However, the focus is misguided. The conventional way everyone goes about this is to focus on their beliefs, what they know, and then to analyze their reasoning for it. This is not productive. The focus should be on the possibility that our perception might be limited or distorted in some way we are unaware of.

The default reaction is to say that I acknowledge the possibility that I may be unaware of certain things, but there is nothing I can do about it. These people just stay within their bubble and you get the type of interactions you see wherever religion is discussed. The person who truly prioritizes truth is constantly focused on the idea that there may be important information that they can't perceive. They doubt and are constantly skeptical of themselves.

When they find themselves in a painful situation that gives them that glimpse into their unflattering blind spots, they are trained and prepared for it.. And they pounce. They feel for their pain and go deeper into it because they are willing to sacrifice whatever it takes for truth.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Definitely helps, but not essential unlike the pain part.

Essential? I'm not so sure. Many people seek treatment because of the shame, insecurity, unfulfillment, etc., that they feel, and there are methods that have some success by promoting the positive reinforcement of reducing those feelings through abstinence. But, whatever.

 

[Tree of Life]

When we put our hand on a hot stove, pain tells us to remove it. When we haven't eaten in awhile, our hunger pain signals for us to go get food. Pain calls for us to act or make a change. It doesn't say to continue course or remain complacent. Can you see this?

Now, when are the times when we are the most open minded about our belief system? It's almost always during times when we experience pain right? The deeper that we are hurting, the more likely we are to contemplate the big questions (Is this really all there is to life, why are things the way they are, is there a God). Even if you aren't a religious person and don't think much about, enough suffering will make you start asking those questions.

Christianity teaches the way to properly exercise faith is to continue to believe when faced with doubt. When times are tough, that is when you should double-down and dive deeper into your Christian beliefs. Other religions have similar teachings.

However, this ignores the idea that pain calls for action and change. If all that was required of us was to stay the course in the face of doubt, then doubt could come at any time. It could come when we are thriving, but this isn't how it works. Doubt and pain come at us together. There are two messages: one message calls for change and the other message indicates what to change.

Which should we listen to? Should we trust a belief system or should we trust our direct experiences? Is faith about staying with what is known and comfortable? Or is it about going into uncertainty and darkness, trusting that you'll find your way?

If you follow this logic too closely then you'll never exercise and you'll die. You'll never endure anything painful. When I'm exercising my body says: "STOP! THAT'S PAINFUL!" But then my mind says: "Keep going, bro. You need this." If I choose to endure the pain then I will burn fat, build muscle, and be happier and more healthy.

Likewise the Bible teaches us to rejoice in our afflictions because they produce endurance and healthy character.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I will use car insurance as an analogy. Most people who drive and have car insurance probably take it for granted until the day when they get into an accident, and they need it. The insurance was always there, but the car accident was what reminded them of their need for it. In my experience, I always feel closer to God in times of suffering. But it's not just a feeling. It's also because of various signs that let me know that God is there. But it also happens that many people go the other way. They think that God has abandoned them during a time of personal crisis or tragedy, and they reject God because of it. The two criminals who were crucified with Jesus is a classic example of difference between these two reactions to suffering.

The Crucifixion of Jesus

Luke 23

26 And as they led him away, they seized one Simon of Cyre′ne, who was coming in from the country, and laid on him the cross, to carry it behind Jesus. 27 And there followed him a great multitude of the people, and of women who bewailed and lamented him. 28 But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never gave suck!’ 30 Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us’; and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ 31 For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?”

32 Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. 33 And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left. 34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments. 35 And the people stood by, watching; but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!”36 The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him vinegar,37 and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” 38 There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews.”

39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingly power.”43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”​

 

[TreasureHunter12]

If you follow this logic too closely then you'll never exercise and you'll die. You'll never endure anything painful. When I'm exercising my body says: "STOP! THAT'S PAINFUL!" But then my mind says: "Keep going, bro. You need this." If I choose to endure the pain then I will burn fat, build muscle, and be happier and more healthy.

Likewise the Bible teaches us to rejoice in our afflictions because they produce endurance and healthy character.

Yeah, the OP is flawed. I tried to present it with logic, but it doesn't work. Read my last post.

 

[royal priest]

When we put our hand on a hot stove, pain tells us to remove it. When we haven't eaten in awhile, our hunger pain signals for us to go get food. Pain calls for us to act or make a change. It doesn't say to continue course or remain complacent. Can you see this?

Now, when are the times when we are the most open minded about our belief system? It's almost always during times when we experience pain right? The deeper that we are hurting, the more likely we are to contemplate the big questions (Is this really all there is to life, why are things the way they are, is there a God). Even if you aren't a religious person and don't think much about, enough suffering will make you start asking those questions.

Christianity teaches the way to properly exercise faith is to continue to believe when faced with doubt. When times are tough, that is when you should double-down and dive deeper into your Christian beliefs. Other religions have similar teachings.

However, this ignores the idea that pain calls for action and change. If all that was required of us was to stay the course in the face of doubt, then doubt could come at any time. It could come when we are thriving, but this isn't how it works. Doubt and pain come at us together. There are two messages: one message calls for change and the other message indicates what to change.

Which should we listen to? Should we trust a belief system or should we trust our direct experiences? Is faith about staying with what is known and comfortable? Or is it about going into uncertainty and darkness, trusting that you'll find your way?

I'm reminded of the addage, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger." It seems your speculation may seek to answer, in what sense are we made stronger? Suffering is a test of character. Moreover it is a test of faith relatively speaking. Whether faith in a friend, family member, or god of whichever religion; it could be faith in an ideal, or philosophical approach, or simply faith in oneself for that matter. Any one of these sources of strength or confidence is tested under the force of suffering. And if we survive the suffering, then we grow in our confidence in the particular source of strength which caused us to endure through to the end.
So, to answer your question as to one's response to tough times, if we were to apply that addage to the answer, then we could conclude that, if we endured the suffering, then change will take place through having become stonger in our confidence and conviction that our source of strength is genuine and trustworthy.

 

[Chris B]

I'm reminded of the addage, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger."

Which is untrue. It can leave you weakened or crippled, for a start.

 

[royal priest]

Which is untrue. It can leave you weakened or crippled, for a start.

You are right that the addage is not universal, there are also many that are changed for the worse. Much of it depends on the perspective of the one going through it. For instance, two people may be involved in a car accident. Both come out of it crippled from the waist down. One of them focuses only on the negative aspects and is overcome with deep depression resulting not only in the crippling of their legs, but also having their hope crippled of ever being happy again. Meanwhile, the other person focuses on the positive aspects and is filled with a thankfulness that, in spite of their new handicap, actually enables them to live with a sense of fulfillment. In either case, the suffering of experience will effects a change.
Now, in the event of lingering difficulty associated with a tragic event, the source of one's strength is further tested. The factor that the difficulty of a trial and test of one's confidence in source of strength is measured by one's perseverance through the duration of the trial. That is where hope comes in. And regarding change, it is said that hope inspires industry.

 

[Chris B]

You are right that the addage is not universal, there are also many that are changed for the worse. Much of it depends on the perspective of the one going through it.

...That is where hope comes in. And regarding change, it is said that hope inspires industry.

Ah. hope. The last thing left on Pandora's box... ... of all the ills and woes of the world.

I know a lot of people run on hope.
I'm generally suspicious of hope, and prefer to do without it unless it is something of genuine substance and reliability.
Then it's a nice thing to have around.
Hope that fractures or evaporates or simply fails to deliver as hoped for, now that is nasty stuff.
Yes, I know this tends to be a minority perspective.

 

[royal priest]

When we put our hand on a hot stove, pain tells us to remove it. When we haven't eaten in awhile, our hunger pain signals for us to go get food. Pain calls for us to act or make a change. It doesn't say to continue course or remain complacent. Can you see this?

Now, when are the times when we are the most open minded about our belief system? It's almost always during times when we experience pain right? The deeper that we are hurting, the more likely we are to contemplate the big questions (Is this really all there is to life, why are things the way they are, is there a God). Even if you aren't a religious person and don't think much about, enough suffering will make you start asking those questions.

Christianity teaches the way to properly exercise faith is to continue to believe when faced with doubt. When times are tough, that is when you should double-down and dive deeper into your Christian beliefs. Other religions have similar teachings.

However, this ignores the idea that pain calls for action and change. If all that was required of us was to stay the course in the face of doubt, then doubt could come at any time. It could come when we are thriving, but this isn't how it works. Doubt and pain come at us together. There are two messages: one message calls for change and the other message indicates what to change.

Which should we listen to? Should we trust a belief system or should we trust our direct experiences? Is faith about staying with what is known and comfortable? Or is it about going into uncertainty and darkness, trusting that you'll find your way?

My wife has a disease which gives her pain every moment of everyday. She is on pain meds around the clock. Often, the pain renders her incapacitated. Yet, I have never heard her complain against God. Instead, she constantly affirms, "this is for my good." This is the hope of the Scriptures. Has she ever wanted to die? Yes. But she is content enough because hope in God enables her to be so.
This does however effect change in her faith in God. But not for the worse as you suspect. This is because Gospel hope is a special work of God produced not by ease, but difficulty:
Romans 5:3-5
James 1:2-4
1 Peter 1:5-7
Psalms 119:71

 

[SkyWriting]

Ok, so if you were faced with direct experiences of reality that were in opposition to your current belief system, you would still trust your belief system?

Of course I would question my beliefs. That how we learn and grow.
That's how I got where I am.

 

[SkyWriting]

My wife has a disease which gives her pain every moment of everyday.

We all are. But that's life.
No pain comes from a morphine overdose and no heartbeat.

 

[Chris B]

Pain telling us at least something needs to change is significant though isn't it? With our hand on the hot stove, the pain is saying not to keep our hand in place. Likewise, with our belief system in question, isn't the pain also signaling to us that something needs to change regarding it. It's less obvious but isn't that insight there?

Usually, but not necessarily.
It depends on whether your worldview or belief system insists that pain is always wrong.
With the autonomic alert system, that's pretty reliable and of settled statue within its limited scope.
Beyond that it's not so clear.
There are beliefs where self-inflicted or accepted pain is a good (despite it not being pleasant)
For penance, for demonstration of dedication, for rites of passage.

And a large number of people see pain and suffering as merely secondary consequences to the achievement of more important goals. Ask any rower or mountaineer.
Ask Ranulph Fiennes, whose desire to explore has cost him a range of fingers (and I think, toes) over a spread of expeditions.
Pain and suffering as a side-issue.

I know I've been there a few times, for different types of physical and non-physical pain.

And then (through thoughts of karma or otherwise) there are those who think that pain and suffering is their rightful lot, even to the point where seeking to avoid it would be wrong.

The philosophical pain which can promote thought and re-evaluation is, at least for me, dissonance.
Where what I observe or immediately think or feel is at odds with what I thought was a genuine and true understanding of the world.
That can hurt some people a lot whilst others are effectively immune from it, having systems or modes of belief which are never under stress (again, there's more than one way of doing that.)

 

[TreasureHunter12]

Yeah, I was attempting to make the case that introspection can be a logical effect of pain. But I've decided that it isn't logical. I'm still saying the idea that painful experiences are intended to encourage a specific type of introspection is still valid - it's just not based on logic.

 

[Chris B]

I'm still saying the idea that painful experiences are intended to encourage...

Hmm. I'm not sure "intended pain" fits with at least my idea of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent deity.

Could nothing less traumatic be arranged by any such? "Incredibly mysterious ways" and "higher thoughts" may be invoked, but while almost impossible to disprove they sit very very comfortably, and suspiciously so, as evasions and easy universal defences.

How about burning writing into a handy wall other such suitable surface?
The message would get through to most after a few occasions.
There's even precedent.
(A few might manage to argue for "the psychic power of one's own subconscious", but that's humans for you.)

"Intended pain"? That's worrying.

 

[Chriliman]

Hmm. I'm not sure "intended pain" fits with at least my idea of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent deity.

Could nothing less traumatic be arranged by any such? "Incredibly mysterious ways" and "higher thoughts" may be invoked, but while almost impossible to disprove they sit very very comfortably, and suspiciously so, as evasions and easy universal defences.

How about burning writing into a handy wall other such suitable surface?
The message would get through to most after a few occasions.
There's even precedent.
(A few might manage to argue for "the psychic power of one's own subconscious", but that's humans for you.)

"Intended pain"? That's worrying.

We use intended pain to correct our children. We rebuke them and spank them when they do wrong, with the intent of teaching them what is right so they'll benefit in the long run. From their perspective they are suffering as a result of being punished, but later they realize why because we explain to them that what they did was wrong and they can then learn from it and improve and do what's right in the future.

I don't see why God wouldn't treat His creation in a similar way. Not wanting to inflict evil suffering, but only good suffering which teaches us what is right because we are wrong. If He doesn't inflict good suffering then we'd never learn what is right.

 

[TreasureHunter12]

Hmm. I'm not sure "intended pain" fits with at least my idea of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent deity.

Could nothing less traumatic be arranged by any such? "Incredibly mysterious ways" and "higher thoughts" may be invoked, but while almost impossible to disprove they sit very very comfortably, and suspiciously so, as evasions and easy universal defences.

How about burning writing into a handy wall other such suitable surface?
The message would get through to most after a few occasions.
There's even precedent.
(A few might manage to argue for "the psychic power of one's own subconscious", but that's humans for you.)

"Intended pain"? That's worrying.

Most people make the mistake of practicing religion from the third-person perspective. They start from the right place -- what do I need to do -- but then they try to create the whole picture to answer that question. They come up with their conceptualization of God, deduce what God wants based on those characteristics, then answer the original question of what to do. In short, they try to take shortcuts, the path of least resistance.

Religion should be practiced entirely from the first-person perspective. It should rely completely on direct experience and never on beliefs.