Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    The evidential standard for religious experience should r... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Religious Experience
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The evidential standard for religious experience should require only 'confirming experiential evidence,' not evidence analogous to sense-perception.

    Religious ExperienceTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.William Alston's doxastic practice framework shows that perceptual and religious belief-forming practices are each self-supporting and mutually irreducible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Demanding cross-domain analogical parity privileges one doxastic practice over another without independent justification, committing a form of epistemic imperialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A practice is prima facie justified if it is socially established and yields internally consistent outputs, which mystical experience traditions demonstrably satisfy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.C.I. Lewis argued that any experiential evidence gains justificatory force through its role in coherent networks of experience, not solely through sensory-type causal chains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Religious experiences exhibit internal coherence, cross-cultural convergence, and transformative consistency, satisfying Lewis's network-based evidential standard on their own terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Disanalogists take sense-perception as the paradigmatic standard for all epistemic justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Disanalogists only accept confirming or disconfirming evidence when it is strongly analogous to evidence available for sensory perception.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This equating of evidential standards is too restrictive — the requirement should be confirming experiential evidence of whatever kind is available.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Religious ExperienceTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Perception2 linked

    Related

    A practice is prima facie justified if it is socially established and yields int...C.I. Lewis argued that any experiential evidence gains justificatory force throu...Demanding cross-domain analogical parity privileges one doxastic practice over a...Disanalogists only accept confirming or disconfirming evidence when it is strong...
    +4 moreShow less
    Disanalogists take sense-perception as the paradigmatic standard for all epistem...Religious experiences exhibit internal coherence, cross-cultural convergence, an...This equating of evidential standards is too restrictive — the requirement shoul...William Alston's doxastic practice framework shows that perceptual and religious...

    Similar

    This equating of evidential standards is too restrictive — the require...84%God-sightings (religious experiences) can be evidentially strengthened...83%Confirming evidence need not be of the same kind as evidence available...82%Disanalogists only accept confirming or disconfirming evidence when it...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: mysticism
    View source passageHide passage
    Regarding the bearing of the alleged disanalogies on the Argument from Experience, the disanalogists take the evidential credentials of sense-perception as paradigmatic for epistemology. They equate confirming and disconfirming evidence only when evidence strongly analogous to the kind for sensory perception is available. However, the evidential requirement should be only “confirming experiential evidence,” be what it may. If God-sightings have confirming evidence, even if different from the kin
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit