2

In other words, what about beliefs rooted in personal experiences that cannot be scrutinized or validated through a rigorous peer-review process? This often occurs in religious, mystical, or spiritual encounters, where the experience profoundly impacts the individual undergoing it. However, these experiences typically lack external validation, except for instances supposedly witnessed by multiple individuals simultaneously (one historically notable example being the resurrection of Jesus, which was purportedly witnessed by multiple observers, with intersubjective agreement among all of them).

If I possess privileged access to certain experiences, yet their nature precludes convincing others or subjecting them to peer review for establishing (worldwide) intersubjective consensus, and yet these experiences remain undeniably compelling, am I justified in trusting them?

A related question I previously asked: Can religious, mystical, or spiritual experiences reveal truth?

Mark
  • 4,725
  • 1
  • 18
  • 50
  • In regards to your last paragraph, maybe, but you shouldn't judge someone too harshly if they don't believe you. You should accept that as the reasonable default for other people. – TKoL Mar 31 '24 at 17:26

2 Answers2

3

Peer-review is a process which the editor of a journal starts to assess the quality of a manuscript which is submitted for publication. The term does not apply to arbitrary methods to testify that a certain event has happened.

Everybody may hold the personal believes the likes. And he/she may interprete his experiences in his personal way. But as soon as the persons claims that his experience points to an objetive fact he makes a truth claim. And such claims need to be checked by others to avoid errors, prejudices or other forms of delusion.

Humans have privileged access only to their own perceptions (subjective first-person stance). Claiming that “their nature precludes convincing others” seems like a method to immunize the personal claim against further investigation and possible refutation.

Certain truth claims from the gospel or from other holy scriptures are typical examples that a text attempts to testify itself – see the answer of @Groovy. Today we cannot decide what the historical truth was.

Jo Wehler
  • 30,912
  • 3
  • 29
  • 94
2

one historically notable example being the resurrection of Jesus, which was purportedly witnessed by multiple observers, with intersubjective agreement among all of them

Bible is correct because it's written so in the Bible! :) Thank you for this classical example of the circular reasoning.

As for "privileged access to certain experiences", any religious adept of any religion will say the same about their own experience. Moreover you can create a new religion from the get go with some Abbabumba God and people praying to him will get same dopamine boosts and "blessings" as Christians and will claim their privileged experiences are real. And yours are demonic possessions or just fakes. Cause it'll be 1) written so in the Book of Abbabumba 2) They'll clearly feel his presence during prayer.

Groovy
  • 637
  • 7
  • 1
    The quran also documents many witnesses to many miracles - ancient witnesses to ancient miracles really can't hold a whole lot of epistemic weight. – TKoL Mar 31 '24 at 18:01
  • 2
    Of course, and I am pretty sure in Islam lots of people use the same argument - it's written in the quran about this miracle, that's why it's true. You don't have to be an atheist to see these are logical fallacies. I am also pretty sure that Lenin's biographies printed in USSR were telling only nice things about him. :) – Groovy Mar 31 '24 at 18:09
  • @Groovy Can you add comments on the question in the title? Should we only believe in things that reach a substantial degree of intersubjective consensus? – Mark Mar 31 '24 at 19:12