Logic vs Experience

[Ben_Sinner]

There are philosophies out there that believe that Truth can only be known by one experiencing it. This is argument made by those who’s beliefs can’t be backed by logic. They will say "You won’t understand it until you experience it. You can’t know it by using logic."

These beliefs are common in religions who rely on mystical experience over dogmas. This is usually done through meditation and other things. These people experience reality and how it is outside the “matrix of illusion we live in with our flawed logic.”

In Christianity and most Western philosophy in general, if something isn’t logical or contradicts logic…than it’s false. So my question is, how do we rebuke a religious assertion that is based off a mystical experience? How can we show that “experience” is not the end-all-be all of discovering what is True?

 

[fhansen]

There are philosophies out there that believe that Truth can only be known by one experiencing it. This is argument made by those who’s beliefs can’t be backed by logic. They will say "You won’t understand it until you experience it. You can’t know it by using logic."

These beliefs are common in religions who rely on mystical experience over dogmas. This is usually done through meditation and other things. These people experience reality and how it is outside the “matrix of illusion we live in with our flawed logic.”

In Christianity and most Western philosophy in general, if something isn’t logical or contradicts logic…than it’s false. So my question is, how do we rebuke a religious assertion that is based off a mystical experience? How can we show that “experience” is not the end-all-be all of discovering what is True?

Ultimately God will be a direct experience though, an experience that doesn’t contradict but rather transcends-goes beyond-what reason can arrive at on its own. ‘Now we “see” as through a glass darkly, but *then *we will see face to face’ (1 Cor 13:12). But some have been given glimpses of that vision in the here and now-and so be it; their testimonies can serve to bolster our own confidence in the reality and awesomeness of God. And even faith is said to at least be the dim foresight of that ineffable experience that we intend to achieve in the next life, even if very dim in comparison.

So while there are surely a great number of phonies out there (anytime someone boasts of their experiences or points to them as being the last word in defining spiritual truth, they should not be trusted), it’s still not either/or, logic only or experience only, but can certainly be both/and, at God’s discretion depending on how He determines to mete out His graces. And genuine mystical experience will always support dogma, never disagree with it. In any case we don’t use reason alone to arrive at belief in the Christian God to begin with; supernatural help-*grace-*is essential.

 

[ffg]

Experience with Truth is the stepping stone to reasoning it.

If someone does not experience it, they can be told about it over and over again, but they will not see it, because they are using the senses that we have for this material world.

If God is, and If He desires to make Himself (Truth) available to be known, then ALL people can logic that there is another way to experience Him than with our senses which are made for the material world.

If someone experiences, they still have the freedom to reject or accept the experience (God / Truth).

So - what is the desire of each person’s ‘heart’?

Consider - Going into Baptism or Reconciliation people don’t necessarily consider what coming out will be like. They can be told over and over, there is a difference - ‘bricks off the back’ experience.

But does that information mean anything other than ‘the person felt good after’ to one who has not experienced it?

Then they experience, then they know.

 

[Bookcat]

This is usually done through meditation and other things. These people experience reality and how it is outside the “matrix of illusion we live in with our flawed logic.”

Is reality a “matrix of illusion”?

Some things can yes be. We agree in theory that someone can have embraced a wrong idea. But is reality a illusion itself? No that would be rather contrary to experience and reason.

In Christianity and most Western philosophy in general, if something isn’t logical or contradicts logic…than it’s false. So my question is, how do we rebuke a religious assertion that is based off a mystical experience? How can we show that “experience” is not the end-all-be all of discovering what is True?

Coming to know truth - not illusion- can involve both reason and experience. That is very much understood and live by Christians.

But what is truth in the mind?

Truth in the mind is the conformity of the mind with what is. With what is outside of the mind.

Tis about knowing reality.

But some suggested experiences are not experiences of reality of things - such as dreams, LSD acid trips etc.

Not all experience is of reality. This is true too for someones ideas that come about some “mediation”.

Christians know well both reason and logic and experience…and events that transcend our finite understanding.

We know yes logic and experience.

We know the author of logic and the creator of reality and His Divine Revelation.

We know the witness of the all those who encountered the Risen Christ and talked with him and touched him and watched him eat fish…his resurrection and true life in him.

 

[YoungApologist3]

This situation is similar to proving that we must use faith to an atheist. One could say to an atheist (one who only believes what logic says), “prove to me, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that your spouse loves you.” They can’t. They must rely on faith to some extent.

These people advocate for their beliefs based solely on their experience. One could ask them why you should trust their experiences above someone else’s. Unfortunately, however, these people must have a change of heart in order to be converted. The best thing to do is to pray for them, keep being their friend, and show them what being a good Catholic is about.

 

[Rhubarb]

Logic has limits. It relies on premises that have to be taken as given. I don’t see why our epistemology has to be either/or. Can’t it be and/both?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Logic has limits. It relies on premises that have to be taken as given. I don’t see why our epistemology has to be either/or. Can’t it be and/both?

Logic certainly has limits. So does experience.

Logic can be confirmed by experience. Experience can be confirmed by logic.

In either case, the heart and the brain ought to work together, as you say.

It is when either one is closed to the other that the trouble begins.

Think Aquinas, Augustine, and Pascal.

Then think Freud, Einstein, and Russell.

Which set of three could be said to have a closed heart with respect to the experience of God?

 

[minkymurph]

There are philosophies out there that believe that Truth can only be known by one experiencing it. This is argument made by those who’s beliefs can’t be backed by logic. They will say "You won’t understand it until you experience it. You can’t know it by using logic."

These beliefs are common in religions who rely on mystical experience over dogmas. This is usually done through meditation and other things. These people experience reality and how it is outside the “matrix of illusion we live in with our flawed logic.”

In Christianity and most Western philosophy in general, if something isn’t logical or contradicts logic…than it’s false. So my question is, how do we rebuke a religious assertion that is based off a mystical experience? How can we show that “experience” is not the end-all-be all of discovering what is True?

It depends what ‘truth’ you are trying to discover.

If the ‘it’ in the equation is a mystical experience, there is only so much one can know or understand about another’s professed mystical experience. It is possible to relate to someone else’s experience up to a point using logic, but unless we too have had the experience only up to a point as we are not them. Even where we have experienced the same thing or something similar, we did not experience it as them, or necessarily in the same circumstances accompanied by the same ‘baggage’ for want of better phrase. By ‘baggage’ I mean our disposition, culture, previously held views, life experience etc.

We all view experience through our own personal lens and apply our own logic. None of us possess flawless logic or the ability to interpret our experiences flawlessly. If someone believes they have had a mystical experience by which they came to know truth, it is truth for them, but others who have not had such an experience or have but for would interpret the experience differently are obviously going to be skeptical. My response would be, ‘I believe you believe this is truth, but I reserve my right to skepticism.’

In terms of the truth’s that are not of this world, I would say they cannot be known by logic alone other than up to a point. We can know divine truths through use of logic, but we know and experience them on a higher level when we encounter and engage with God.