The Validity of Spiritual Experiences: William Lane Craig

[Brade]

By what objective and non-circular means can we decide which method produced the true spiritual witness and which produced the fraud?

There is no such method. In an earlier post I lumped Craig in with Alston and Plantinga. The last two I consider the fathers of modern religious epistemology. That was a mistake. Craig parts ways with them to the extent he thinks his putative spiritual experiences justify his claims to be certain that his religious views are right. Alston, so far as I can tell, doesn't share Craig's optimism. Rather, the best we can hope for in religion is to defend our beliefs as rational. That is to say, even if it's the case that X is true it may be rational to believe ~X if ones evidence appears to oneself as supporting ~X. If I see a mirage owing to the heat of the day, it may very well be rational to believe "Lo! There's water over there!" even though it's false that there's water over there. Essentially, Uncertain, I agree with you to the extent that I don't believe I'm epistemically justified in claiming that "I know Mormonism is true" or "I am certain Joseph Smith saw God" even while I believe those things and commit myself to Mormon life.

[Sargon]

Thanks, I thought you were going in a completely different direction here. I'd agree substantially with you on this point, after clarification, I just don't accept that the Holy Spirit would falsify a testimony. I think, at best, the Lord would perhaps withhold the testimony, or provide a partial view of the truth to one who's preparation was not, perhaps, complete. I'm not at all sure that this could be called doctrine, but I've certainly heard it taught during my lifetime in the Church.

I would prefer it if the Holy Spirit did not falsify testimonies. It's just a hypothesis that I'm not committed to.

Instead, I tend to prefer something more along the lines of what you just said. We LDS claim to have spiritual experiences that teach us about some pretty specific things, like whether or not the Book of Mormon is true, whether the living Prophet is actually a Prophet, whether the LDS Church as a whole is God's church, and of course about things concerning God the Father and Jesus Christ and the Atonement. Some of these specific things lead logically to accepting as truth much more specific things. For example, knowing by the Spirit that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God logically leads us to believe that the doctrines he taught were correct.

On the other hand, as you said before, I rarely if ever hear anyone of any other faith describe having learned anything by the spirit on that specific of a degree. Instead, it seems the spiritual witnesses they have are of much more general subjects such as that God lives, that he loves us, that we are sinners, that Jesus Christ is the Savior. In fact, Craig only lists those few very general subjects, which do not logically lead one to accept more specific doctrines:

I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit ... will imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion, such as â??God exists,â? â??I am condemned by God,â? â??I am reconciled to God,â? â??Christ lives in me,â? and so forth;

Now, were an Evangelical to claim that he knows by the power of the Holy Spirit that the Bible is true book of scripture, he could logically believe in everything the bible teaches. But, I have very rarely (if ever) heard an Evangelical make such a claim.

Instead, it seems that they only claim divine knowledge for much more general ideas, not specific one. LDS on the other hand tend to testify of having spiritual experiences that confirm much more specific doctrines and ideas as being true.

[Uncertain]

Hi Jason,

Because they work for me.

Well then I personally have no problem with you choosing LDS. I can think of no better reason to join a religion than because it improves your life.

By performing both methods and comparing our own results to theirs.You can have much more certainty with what you experience than the second hand accounts of what others did.

Interestingly enough Craig also makes this argument.

"Why should I think that when a Mormon claims to experience a "burning in the bosom" he is having an experience qualitatively indistinguishable from the witness of the Holy Spirit that I enjoy? I see no reason to think that non-veridical religious experiences are indistinguishable from the witness of the Holy Spirit. One way to get some empirical evidence for this would be simply to ask ex-Mormons and Muslims if their experience of God in Christianity is identical to what they had before their conversion."

(bold added by me)

pg(49)

Except for he apparently believes ex-Mormons who are members of his particular faith tradition. Report their spiritual experiences as "Christians" (I am not sure how he defines Christian apparently he distinguishes them from Mormons which is uncalled for in my opinion). As far more deep and satisfying than what they had as LDS believers. Of course I am certain LDS converts from his religious tradition could be found who report the exact opposite.

In any case we might just have to agree to disagree on this issue. I personally think the LDS church is a fantastic organization if it works for you or anyone they should join. If it doesn't work then don't join.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

There is no such method. In an earlier post I lumped Craig in with Alston and Plantinga. The last two I consider the fathers of modern religious epistemology. That was a mistake. Craig parts ways with them to the extent he thinks his putative spiritual experiences justify his claims to be certain that his religious views are right. Alston, so far as I can tell, doesn't share Craig's optimism. Rather, the best we can hope for in religion is to defend our beliefs as rational. That is to say, even if it's the case that X is true it may be rational to believe ~X if ones evidence appears to oneself as supporting ~X. If I see a mirage owing to the heat of the day, it may very well be rational to believe "Lo! There's water over there!" even though it's false that there's water over there. Essentially, Uncertain, I agree with you to the extent that I don't believe I'm epistemically justified in claiming that "I know Mormonism is true" or "I am certain Joseph Smith saw God" even while I believe those things and commit myself to Mormon life.

Hi Ba81,

I have very little quarrel with this. Except for I think we may still have some small disagreement over how strong a belief is justified in the universal claims of the church. Like for example that it is the only church with Gods authority. But at the end of the day if commitment to the Mormon life/doctrine is what makes you the best person. Then I believe you are fully justified in being a member. Of course this stems from my belief that God simply does not care what religion a person belongs to.

I myself am a regular attender of my local ward. Over the last year or so I have had a radical change in perspective regarding foundational universal claims of the LDS church. But I still believe the church may very well be the best place for me. I find I am a better person because of the church I think it does a great job at building wonderful human beings. I just find it very difficult for reasons given here plus others reasons I have not yet articulated to accept the exclusive claims of the church (i.e. it is the only church with Gods authority, it's view of the afterlife is the most correct one etc). I participate on this board because I think it would be the greatest tragedy if I lost my belief in certain church claims for trivial or easily explained reasons. And I think it is in these kinds of discussions with knowledgeable and intelligent LDS members that any impurity in my thinking would be burned away. But I hope I am not the cause of anyone's loss of testimony (i.e. lurkers who are on the fence). Although this probably gives myself way to much credit .

In any case I think at least on this issue we are actually very close in our respective positions.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Droopy]

On the other hand, as you said before, I rarely if ever hear anyone of any other faith describe having learned anything by the spirit on that specific of a degree. Instead, it seems the spiritual witnesses they have are of much more general subjects such as that God lives, that he loves us, that we are sinners, that Jesus Christ is the Savior. In fact, Craig only lists those few very general subjects, which do not logically lead one to accept more specific doctrines:

This has pretty much been my general perception of the situation for most of my life. I've always thought that perhaps many Protestants equate this kind of general revelatory experience precisely with denominational correctness, but I'm not sure, given that most Protestants, and particularly EVs, consider all denominations to be part of a larger "body of Christ" that, so long as core ideas are shared, can tolerate a substantial number of doctrinal quirks and variations.

[cksalmon]

"But how is the fact that other persons claim to experience a self-authenticating witness of God's Sprit relevant to my knowing the truth of Christianity via the Spirit's witness? The existences of an authentic and unique witness of the Spirit does not exclude the existence of false claims to such a witness. How, then, does the existence of false claims of the Spirit's witness to the truth of a non-Christian religion do anything logically to undermine the fact that the Christian believer does possess the genuine witness of the Spirit? Why should I be robbed of my joy and assurance of salvation simply because someone else falsely pretends, sincerely or insincerely, to the Spirit's witness? If a Mormon or Muslim falsely claims to experience the witness of Gods's Spirit in his heart that does nothing the undermine the veridicality of my experience."

Hi Uncertain--

I suspect you'll agree: doesn't this just necessarily strike one as a premiere instance of question-begging?

I'm, admittedly, constitutionally unable to follow the Queen in this epistemological card shuffle.

I don't get it.

cks

[Sargon]

Hi Uncertain--

I suspect you'll agree: doesn't this just necessarily strike one as a premiere instance of question-begging?

I'm, admittedly, constitutionally unable to follow the Queen in this epistemological card shuffle.

I don't get it.

cks

CK,

Can you dig up the quote by Craig concerning his trust in spiritual experiences even if he were to see contradictory evidence with his own eyes (i.e. of the ressurrection)?

Thanks.

James

[cksalmon]

CK,

Can you dig up the quote by Craig concerning his trust in spiritual experiences even if he were to see contradictory evidence with his own eyes (i.e. of the ressurrection)?

Thanks.

James

Hi James--

If memory serves, this is what I was referring to prior.

Best.

Chris

[Uncertain]

Hi Uncertain--

I suspect you'll agree: doesn't this just necessarily strike one as a premiere instance of question-begging?

Hi cksalmon,

As is no surprise I do agree.

I'm, admittedly, constitutionally unable to follow the Queen in this epistemological card shuffle.

I don't get it.

cks

You and me both my friend. Now we need to go and convince those stubborn Mormons .

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Brade]

Hi cksalmon,

As is no surprise I do agree.

You and me both my friend. Now we need to go and convince those stubborn Mormons .

All the Best,

Uncertain

Haha. You'll find no disagreement from this Mormon. I don't claim to know my spiritual experiences are authentic. All I claim is that I've had putative spiritual experiences that justify my belief in Mormonism. I suppose, to borrow a little philosophical jargon, I could say I've been "appeared to Mormonly." What I believe may turn out false, nevertheless, I've been epistemically responsible by believing my best evidence. Just as sombody would be justified in believing in mirages, rather, the content of a mirage, under certain conditions even though a proposition derived from the mirage like "There's water over there" would be false.

[Sargon]

Haha. You'll find no disagreement from this Mormon. I don't claim to know my spiritual experiences are authentic. All I claim is that I've had putative spiritual experiences that justify my belief in Mormonism. I suppose, to borrow a little philosophical jargon, I could say I've been "appeared to Mormonly." What I believe may turn out false, nevertheless, I've been epistemically responsible by believing my best evidence. Just as sombody would be justified in believing in mirages, rather, the content of a mirage, under certain conditions even though a proposition derived from the mirage like "There's water over there" would be false.

ba81,

I think I can identify with this sentiment. Please, how do you understand Moroni's promise that by the power of the Holy Spirit we may "know" the truth of all things?

[Brade]

ba81,

I think I can identify with this sentiment. Please, how do you understand Moroni's promise that by the power of the Holy Spirit we may "know" the truth of all things?

Well, first of all, I'm not convinced all the prophets were trying to be very philosophically precise in their pronouncements. Just by context it sometimes seems like when some prophets are speaking about knowledge, they probably mean something more like belief and when some are speaking about belief they probably mean something more like knowledge. That's really neither here nor there with respect to this specific issue. But, assuming Moroni means "to know" with all the philosophical baggage that's attached to that word, he could be taken to mean that a life of following ones best "spiritual" evidence will eventually lead one to sure knowledge of the "truth of all things." That, I take it, is what Alma's discourse is mostly about.

So, essentially, I agree with Moroni. I think we can know the truth of all things by the Spirit, or, to put it more carefully, by a life of following putative spiritual experiences. However, I don't believe that's necessarily because the content of putative spiritual experiences always accurately represents what's "out there", or more than likely because we simply interpret it through the glass of our own experiences and preconcieved notions. I think in the end God will reward those that have done the best they could with the evidence they had, whether the story of Mormonism is true and it's doctrines accurately tell us what's "out there" or not.

Of course, it get's a little tricky when we narrow the scope of the issue down even more. Moroni's promise is about a very specific proposition. Is this book true? He says it is and that the truth of that proposition, that the BoM is true, will be confirmed by the Holy Ghost, by spiritual experience. Does a spiritual experience settle the matter? I think it depends on the spiritual experience. But, I'd say, generally, the answer is "No." At least not the spiritual experiences most of us cite in favor of the BoM's truth. Rather, in the absense of any other evidence as to the authenticity of the BoM if I have a spiritual experience that, to my rational mind, appears to indicate the truth of the BoM, that's a good enough reason to go on as if the thing were true. It doesn't settle the matter. But with nothing better, and with an experience that feels like you were appeared to, as opposed to creating it yourself, it seems to me to be the right thing to say one is justified in that belief. That holds just as much for the person that has an experience which tells them the book is false.

[Uncertain]

Haha. You'll find no disagreement from this Mormon. I don't claim to know my spiritual experiences are authentic. All I claim is that I've had putative spiritual experiences that justify my belief in Mormonism. I suppose, to borrow a little philosophical jargon, I could say I've been "appeared to Mormonly." What I believe may turn out false, nevertheless, I've been epistemically responsible by believing my best evidence. Just as sombody would be justified in believing in mirages, rather, the content of a mirage, under certain conditions even though a proposition derived from the mirage like "There's water over there" would be false.

Hi Ba81,

Well it certainly can be rational to believe in something that is wrong for the right reasons if that makes any sense. I think your mirage example put it better. I personally do not believe the state of the evidence is such to determine which of all the competing religious claims best represents how the universe really is. In addition to some of the issues outlined in this thread. I think this conclusion is supported by the great diversity of religious thought. Each religion with its adherents firmly convinced the evidence points to their particular tradition as the most true one. Apparently the evidence is such no consensus can be reached. In such a situation I believe the appropriate approach is utilitarian. That is pick the religion (or lack of religion) that fits best with you and your family. And hope that if you chose incorrectly God (if he exists) will be understanding and there will be no negative repercussions. Something as I already mentioned I personally believe.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Brade]

Hi Ba81,

Well it certainly can be rational to believe in something that is wrong for the right reasons if that makes any sense. I think your mirage example put it better. I personally do not believe the state of the evidence is such to determine which of all the competing religious claims best represents how the universe really is. In addition to some of the issues outlined in this thread. I think this conclusion is supported by the great diversity of religious thought. Each religion with its adherents firmly convinced the evidence points to their particular tradition as the most true one. Apparently the evidence is such no consensus can be reached. In such a situation I believe the appropriate approach is utilitarian. That is pick the religion (or lack of religion) that fits best with you and your family. And hope that if you chose incorrectly God (if he exists) will be understanding and there will be no negative repercussions. Something as I already mentioned I personally believe.

All the Best,

Uncertain

I think if you havn't had a convincing spiritual experience to tip the balance one way or another then you're probably taking the best approach and if you carried this method out to the end of your life and I didn't see you in heaven I'd be pretty ticked off.

But seriously, I agree with you. If it weren't for the fact that I've had spiritual experiences that convince me enough to go the Mormon route I wouldn't be Mormon. It's just that in the experiencing of these experiences it felt as if they were coming from seomthing external from myself and they were supporting specific propositions unique to Mormonism. Could I have colored the experiences with my own thoughts and beliefs? Sure. Could it just have been some strange physiological response? Sure. I think, as a reasonable person, I ought to not completely dismiss those possibilities. Nevertheless, the experiences appeared to me in a sufficiently convincing way such that I feel perfectly justified claiming to believe Mormon things and behave in Mormon-ish ways.

I feel the same about my sense perceptions. I can't completely rule out the possibility that I'm not a brain in a vat or that I'm not dreaming or being decieved by an evil demon. However, that doesn't stop me from believing I'm in a room with a computer and a piano and so on.

[Sargon]

I think if you havn't had a convincing spiritual experience to tip the balance one way or another then you're probably taking the best approach and if you carried this method out to the end of your life and I didn't see you in heaven I'd be pretty ticked off.

Ditto!

But seriously, I agree with you. If it weren't for the fact that I've had spiritual experiences that convince me enough to go the Mormon route I wouldn't be Mormon. It's just that in the experiencing of these experiences it felt as if they were coming from seomthing external from myself and they were supporting specific propositions unique to Mormonism. Could I have colored the experiences with my own thoughts and beliefs? Sure. Could it just have been some strange physiological response? Sure. I think, as a reasonable person, I ought to not completely dismiss those possibilities. Nevertheless, the experiences appeared to me in a sufficiently convincing way such that I feel perfectly justified claiming to believe Mormon things and behave in Mormon-ish ways.

I feel the same about my sense perceptions. I can't completely rule out the possibility that I'm not a brain in a vat or that I'm not dreaming or being decieved by an evil demon. However, that doesn't stop me from believing I'm in a room with a computer and a piano and so on.

I like this. Thanks for your thoughts on Moroni's promise, also.