Critiquing: What Does a Personal Relationship with God Look Like on a Practical Level?

May 27, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Personal Relationship — Practical Level — Communication with God — Prayer Practices — Faith in Daily Life

---

Introduction

The content in the PDF, titled “What Does a Personal Relationship with God Look Like on a Practical Level?”, addresses questions about how to explain a personal relationship with God in practical terms and the appropriateness of praying to different members of the Trinity. This critique will evaluate the logical coherence of the arguments presented, highlight any logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims.

Logical Coherence and Inconsistencies

The central argument in the content is that a personal relationship with God involves ongoing communication, trust, and practical daily practices. Several points need scrutiny for logical coherence:

Vague Definitions and Explanations:

The content struggles to provide a clear, concrete definition of what a personal relationship with God looks like practically:

“The reason I’m pausing is it seems to me that this wouldn’t be hard to do… there’s an interactive element on a regular basis with God.”

This explanation is vague and does not offer specific actions or behaviors that define this relationship, making it difficult to understand how it is practically lived out.

Inconsistency in Describing Communication with God:

The content suggests that communication with God is both essential and challenging to describe:

“I’m interacting with God and I’m emotionally engaged with God… but relationships in general are hard to describe even human relationships.”

This inconsistency makes it unclear how one can both regularly interact with and find it hard to describe their relationship with God. A more precise articulation of what this interaction entails would enhance clarity.

Ambiguity in Hierarchical Relationship:

The content presents a hierarchical view of the relationship with God but is ambiguous about its practical implications:

“He’s our father and we’re his children. We’re not peers. He’s our Lord and we are his servants.”

While this hierarchy is emphasized, the practical day-to-day application of this relationship remains unclear. Specific examples of how one lives out these roles would provide better insight.

Cognitive Biases and Fallacies

Several cognitive biases and logical fallacies are evident in the content:

Confirmation Bias:

The content selectively interprets religious experiences to affirm the belief in a personal relationship with God, ignoring potential counterexamples or different interpretations:

“There is no scriptural teaching of any sort on what’s called by some people listening prayer… this is non-biblical.”

This reflects a bias toward a particular interpretation of prayer, dismissing alternative practices without thorough examination.

Straw Man Fallacy:

The content sets up a simplified version of other religious practices to highlight the uniqueness of the Christian relationship with God:

“Muslims would not talk about God as being in a relationship with him because… that would diminish God in some way.”

This oversimplification of Islamic theology misrepresents its complexity and nuances, creating an easy-to-dismiss comparison.

Appeal to Authority:

The content relies on authority figures to substantiate its claims without providing detailed reasoning or evidence:

“Someone who’s really good about explaining this is Michael Reeves. He wrote Delighting in the Trinity.”

Citing an authority without presenting the underlying arguments weakens the content’s credibility.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims in the content are both unsubstantiated and dubious:

“The world is literate principally because of Christian missionaries.”

“It’s easier to read Sarah Young. And it’s so sweet… but just the overall concept, I think is problematic.”

These claims are presented without detailed reasoning or evidence, relying instead on rhetorical assertions.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

The content should provide evidence and reasoning to substantiate its claims. In logical argumentation, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Therefore, the content should offer more than assertions; it should present evidence from historical, sociological, and theological analysis to support its conclusions.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

It is crucial to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. This principle, often referred to as epistemic proportionality, ensures that beliefs are held with an appropriate level of certainty based on the strength of the evidence:

Evidence-Based Belief:

Evaluating the strength and reliability of the evidence before forming a belief. Strong, consistent evidence should lead to a higher degree of belief, while weak or contradictory evidence should result in lower confidence.

Critical Examination:

Continuously re-evaluating beliefs in light of new evidence or arguments. This process involves remaining open to revising beliefs when presented with compelling evidence that challenges existing views.

Avoiding Overconfidence:

Recognizing the limitations of one’s knowledge and avoiding overconfidence in beliefs that are not strongly supported by evidence. This humility in belief formation is essential for logical coherence and intellectual honesty.

---

In conclusion, while the content aims to provide a coherent argument for the practical aspects of a personal relationship with God, it exhibits several logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims. A more balanced approach would involve engaging with opposing interpretations, providing evidence to support claims, and aligning beliefs with the available evidence. For further discussion and a deeper dive into these arguments, feel free to continue the conversation in the comments section.