Talk:Argument from religious experience

Philosophy: Logic / Religion Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of religion

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Witness argument was copied or moved into Argument from religious experience with [422618934 this edit] on 29 June 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archived discussion (Witness argument)

"Hard to imagine" is an argument from personal incredulity and uncited.

The article in the section "Suggested reasons for accepting the premise" argues (#2) that "It is hard to imagine an evolutionary benefit in having these experiences if they are all, or mostly, false.". This is a classic and is placed there without citing anyone who suggests this is hard to imagine. I can imagine lots of stuff but I really need to cite someone notable to make it stick into Wikipedia. Ttiotsw 10:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Bible (primary source) as cite for example of shared experiences

The bible is cited in the "Suggested reasons for accepting the premise" # 3 i.e. "These experiences often seem very real to the people involved, and are quite often reported as being shared by a number of people[4]." with the [4] pointing to "For example the New Testament speaks of Jesus, after his resurrection, appearing to 10 or more people at once (see eg 1 Corinthians 15:6, Luke 24, Mt 28, Jn 16, Acts 1)."

The bible is a primary source and it is OR for us to use this as an example of these so-called "shared experiences". It can't really be cited like that - someone else has to say it. Ttiotsw 10:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

"and Christianity in particular" -- how so? There are equal proportions of reports of faith-affirming experiences by Muslims, Mormons, Jews, Hindus, etc. Torquemama007 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mormons are Christians. Not according to the "popular" definition, but the truth never was popular, now was it? In any case, Torquemama007 has a point. 99.31.232.61 (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

who is Swinburne?

109.64.5.86 (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solved. Richard Swinburne is the man, since he did write the book "Is there a God?" cited on the page. 99.31.232.61 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I've just merged the page Witness argument into this page (from discussions here). It's the first time I've merged a page; I followed the instructions on WP:MERGE. I hope I've done it right, but if I've got something wrong, could you tell me and fix it, please. ItsZippy (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Witness Argument

I am considering removing the section on the witness argument, as it just restates the initial argument with references to certain religions. Different religious interpretations and examples can be found at religious experience, while the argument for the existence of God is sufficient without reference to the witness argument. If no one objects, I will go ahead and remove the section in a few days; I just wanted to see if anyone had any objections. ItsZippy (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Argument for the existence of God"... "witnesses"... Hmm... Logically, these two sections must go together. Anyone who would come to this page looking for arguments for the existence of God need not look farther than what is given on this page. (Personal conviction, however, is a matter devoted to the individual.) But witnesses are in and of themselves evidence (eyewitnesses, in some cases) for the existence of God. Don't remove the section. 99.31.232.61 (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, by definition, a "witness argument" is an "argument from experience". I'm not sure that the witness argument is actually a distinct argument to the argument from religious experience. I think I shall have a look for sources and see if the witness argument is discussed in distinction to the argument from religious experience. If they are treated as one and the same, we can remove the heading and merge what is relevant into the rest of the article. If they are treated as separate arguments by a number of sources, we can keep the distinction within the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Argument from religious experience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613135307/http://positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9823.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9823.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on improving the page

I'm thinking of gradually improving this page over the next while, but some general thoughts on the page's direction in case people have thoughts/objections:

Different philosophers have put forward different versions and the article should reflect this. I'll start this by making an "Alternate Formulations" section with versions by Swinburne, Platinga, and Alston.
The term "religious experience" covers things which are significantly different from each other. I need a source, but I think we could definitely distinguish 1) revelation (holy texts), 2) miracles (e.g. the claim Jesus appeared to people after his resurrection), 3) mystical experiences (i.e. that anyone could in theory have). This matters because some of the arguments for and against only apply to some of these. I think most of the authors are focused on the third one; miracles already has a separate article.
The suggested reasons for and against should probably eventually be their own sub-sections with explanation, sources, and counter-arguments. Right now they're pretty sloppy.
I agree with the post above that this shouldn't be specific to Christianity, and shouldn't cite the Bible (especially when the relevance, like with the current references, is far from straightforward). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazelle55 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]