Arguments from experience

[Ħ]

Are they really valid?  I'm talking about religion mostly, but I guess it applies to all beliefs.  For example, "I believe in Christianity because I've felt the Holy Spirit" or "I believe in atheism because I have never experienced God".

I think that arguments from experience are worthless to outsiders, seeing as no one can confirm nor deny them, but I wonder how much arguments from experience are worth to yourself.  Should you believe what you believe based on your experience?

[Dr. DTVT]

I think your statement should be limited to non-observable experience.  The real issue isn't whether the sensation is real, its about interpretation of the experience.  The church interprets this as God coming over you.  A psychologist might suggest that it is bio-feedback so that you validate the experience in your own mind.

[GuineaPig]

The main problem (other than that human beings can experience all kind of physical effects that they might interpret as divine, or that human beings are notoriously poor witnesses of anything) is the one you mention: it applies to all beliefs.  An argument from experience (or I guess lack of experience for the athiest) is not more or less compelling than any other.

A good analogy for this would be getting localized anesthesia.  Presumably you've gotten it in your gums or something if you've ever had a tooth pulled, or braces installed, or whatever.  Your mouth or gums feel numb and frozen; but that's merely the effect of an agent on your central nervous system.  No one else can feel that when touching your mouth.

[William Wallace]

I think your statement should be limited to non-observable experience.  The real issue isn't whether the sensation is real, its about interpretation of the experience.  The church interprets this as God coming over you.  A psychologist might suggest that it is bio-feedback so that you validate the experience in your own mind.

I think that's why arguments should be based on evidence accessible to all. If the experience is open to everybody then it can be used to support a certain position; otherwise I don't care what people feel. The public library has done more for my faith than any alleged "Holy Spirit experience." 

[ElliottTamer]

I think you could divide Arguments from experience in two distinct groups, one of which has rhetorical value and another that, in my opinion, doesn't:
-Not valid: Experience equaling feeling. You may believe in God because of things you felt, but that does not carry any weight with anyone else. This kind of experience is extremely subjective: you can feel it's quite cold outside while I find the weather perfectly pleasant. So both our arguments (yours: that it is cold; mine: that it is not) are not valid. What is valid for any discussion would be the actual temperature coupled with how windy and/or sunny it was.
-Valid: Experience equaling what you've personally known. If you come from a poor family and become a millionaire, your personal experience shows that you live in a society where climbing up the social ladder is a real possibility. Similarly if you have been happily married for 50 years that shows how relationships can be both satisfying and long-lasting.

[reo73]

I think personal experience arguments are only as valid as the other person is willing to accept them.  I think they are extremely valid to the person who holds them because not everything in the human experience boils down to the scientific process (though some would like it to).

[Rathma]

I think trying to convince people by talking about your experience actually works a lot of the time. In this case it's not really the content of your experience that's important though, but the way you present it that really convinces people.