Critiquing: How Do We Discern between Our Own Inner Voice and the Holy Spirit Telling Us What We’re Supposed to Say?

February 8, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Inner Voice vs. Holy Spirit — Evidence vs. Faith — Logical Fallacies — Cognitive Biases — Testing Promises

---

Introduction

The content explores the distinction between one’s inner voice and the Holy Spirit’s guidance, discussing theological perspectives and practical implications. This critique evaluates the logical coherence from a secular, evidence-based standpoint, focusing on the arguments presented by Amy Hall and Greg Koukl.

Unsubstantiated Claims

Several claims made in the content lack substantiation and are dubious:

• “The Holy Spirit will give us what we need in the moment” lacks empirical support. No method is provided to objectively verify this claim, making it unverifiable and speculative.
• The assertion that “Jesus has trained them, and then he says, you go out and do this stuff” is based on anecdotal evidence rather than systematic training documentation.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims In a rational discourse, it is essential to substantiate claims with evidence. Unsupported assertions fail to meet the standards of logical coherence and can mislead the audience.

Logical Inconsistencies

The content contains several logical inconsistencies and fallacies that undermine its coherence:

1. Contradiction in Divine Communication:
   • The claim that “the Holy Spirit will bring to remembrance all that I have taught you” contradicts the idea that there is no dictation. This inconsistency is problematic because it creates confusion about the nature of divine communication.
2. False Dichotomy:
   • The content suggests a binary choice between inner voice and the Holy Spirit without considering other possibilities, such as subconscious processing or intuition. This false dichotomy limits the scope of understanding and oversimplifies the issue.
3. Equivocation Fallacy:
   • The term “speaks” is used ambiguously. In one instance, it means direct dictation, while in another, it implies a vague sense of guidance. This equivocation confuses the audience about the exact nature of the Holy Spirit’s communication.

Cognitive Biases

Several cognitive biases are evident in the content, influencing the arguments and conclusions:

1. Confirmation Bias:
   • The speakers selectively cite examples that support their beliefs while ignoring contrary evidence. For instance, they highlight personal experiences of divine guidance but do not consider instances where such guidance failed.
2. Availability Heuristic:
   • The reliance on personal anecdotes and memorable events skews the perception of divine communication. The speakers assume that because they recall specific instances vividly, these instances are representative of a broader pattern.
3. Authority Bias:
   • The speakers often defer to scriptural authority without critically evaluating the evidence. This reliance on authoritative texts impedes independent analysis and critical thinking.

Testing Promises of God

To evaluate the alleged promises of God, a systematic and empirical approach is necessary. Potential methods include:

1. Controlled Experiments:
   • Design experiments where individuals are placed in situations requiring guidance. Compare the outcomes of those claiming divine guidance versus those relying on their judgment.
2. Statistical Analysis:
   • Analyze a large sample of cases where individuals believe they received divine guidance. Assess the success rates and compare them to random chance or educated guesses.
3. Longitudinal Studies:
   • Conduct long-term studies tracking individuals who claim to receive divine guidance. Evaluate the consistency and accuracy of the guidance over time.

Mapping Degree of Belief to Evidence

It is crucial to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. The content fails to do this by presenting strong convictions without corresponding empirical support.

Examples from the Content:

• “There is no place in the scripture where God is attempting to speak and he doesn’t get through to the person that he’s speaking to” is an absolute statement that lacks empirical backing.
• “The Holy Spirit will give you whatever you need” is a vague promise that is not supported by verifiable data.

Critique:

• The speakers should qualify their statements and acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in such claims. They should also encourage critical examination and seek corroborative evidence.

Summary of Main Points

• Unsubstantiated Claims: The content includes several claims without empirical support, which undermines its logical coherence.
• Logical Inconsistencies: Contradictions and fallacies are present, creating confusion and weakening the arguments.
• Cognitive Biases: Biases like confirmation bias and authority bias affect the credibility and objectivity of the content.
• Testing Promises: Empirical methods to test divine promises are suggested but not employed in the content.
• Belief and Evidence: The importance of aligning beliefs with evidence is emphasized, highlighting a gap in the content’s approach.

---

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