Critiquing: How Should I Respond to Those Who Claim God Told Them to Do Something?

June 26, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Best Response — Handling Emotions — Scriptural Basis — Decision-Making — Questioning Claims

---

Introduction

The content “How Should I Respond to Those Who Claim God Told Them to Do Something?” from June 26, 2023, discusses the best ways to tactically and tactfully respond to claims that God has spoken to individuals. The content aims to address the emotional and logical aspects of such claims, emphasizing the importance of scriptural support and rational questioning.

Logical Coherence and Fallacies

1. Introduction to the Topic

The initial question focuses on how to respond when someone claims that God has spoken to them. The speaker mentions that these claims often form the foundation of individuals’ relationships with their faith, making it a delicate issue to address.

2. General Approach to Claims

The response strategy suggested is generally to let such claims slide unless they impact leadership or decision-making processes. This approach may appear pragmatic, but it potentially overlooks the need for critical engagement with such claims. Ignoring them can perpetuate unchallenged beliefs that may influence others indirectly.

3. Scriptural Basis and Questions

The speaker proposes three main questions to ask those who claim divine communication:

• What do you mean by that?
• Can you show any place in scripture where this kind of thing happened?
• Why should we believe that this is from God?

While these questions are aimed at clarifying the nature of the claim, they rely heavily on scriptural backing, which might not be convincing to individuals outside the religious context.

4. Testing Claims

The suggestion to compare claims with scriptural instances of divine communication (e.g., angels appearing, visions) introduces a method of validation within a religious framework. However, the argument presupposes the authority of scripture, which is a circular argument since it uses the belief system itself to validate its own claims.

Cognitive Biases and Logical Fallacies

1. Confirmation Bias

The content heavily leans on confirmation bias, where the speaker looks for evidence that supports their pre-existing belief that God communicates in specific, dramatic ways (e.g., audible voice, visions). This bias disregards other possible interpretations of personal spiritual experiences.

2. Appeal to Authority

The reliance on scripture and the assertion that “God doesn’t whisper” represents an appeal to authority. This fallacy assumes that because a source (the Bible) says something, it must be true, without considering other perspectives or evidential standards.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

1. Assertions about Divine Communication

The content states, “God doesn’t whisper when He does communicate. He communicates clearly, and the Scripture is replete with examples of that.” This claim lacks empirical evidence and is based on anecdotal scriptural interpretations. The assertion is presented without considering alternative explanations for personal spiritual experiences, making it unsubstantiated.

2. Promise of Clarity in Divine Communication

The speaker insists that if God has something specific to tell an individual, He will do so clearly. This promise is dubious because it cannot be empirically tested or verified. The content does not provide a method for objectively measuring the clarity of alleged divine communications.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

1. Need for Empirical Evidence

The critique emphasizes the need to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. The speaker’s approach fails to acknowledge that personal anecdotes and scriptural references do not constitute robust evidence. Without empirical verification, the certainty in divine communication claims remains questionable.

2. Potential Testing Methods

To evaluate the alleged promises of God, one could propose controlled experiments where individuals claiming divine communication are asked to predict specific, verifiable outcomes. The results could then be statistically analyzed to determine if they differ significantly from random chance.

Conclusion

The content presents a method for responding to claims of divine communication that heavily relies on scriptural validation and personal interpretation within a religious framework. While it offers a structured approach, it is limited by logical fallacies and cognitive biases, particularly confirmation bias and appeal to authority. The critique underscores the importance of empirical evidence in substantiating extraordinary claims and encourages mapping one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.