If you are like me, you have encountered countless individuals who “argue” for their point-of-view based on some experience, rather than providing good reasons.  These people just know that they know that they know what they believe is right because of some experience that brought them psychological confidence that they are right.  While this approach to the issue of truth is endemic in Pentecostal circles, it is not limited to us by any means.  Mormons, Baptists, Hindus, Muslims, and just about every other religion today claims to have had an experience, and argue that their experience justifies the validity of their truth-claims.  When two people claim to have had an experience, and both use that experience to give validity to their opposing truth-claims, either one or the other is right, or both are wrong.

So how do we adjudicate between competing truth-claims if experience cannot do the job?  We do so by use of the rational faculties God has endowed us with.  You know what I’m talking about.  We use them everyday.  When you cross the street you use your mental faculties to discern truth from error so that you do not become road-kill.  The same ways we go about discerning truth from error in the physical world can be applied to spiritual ideas as well.  Simply put, we must have good reasons to believe what we do, and good reasons to reject those beliefs contrary to our own.

While this is all good and dandy, what do you say to the individual who refuses to give you rational evidence in support of his truth-claim?  What do you say to the individual who insists that his experience validates his claims, and that no other proof is necessary?  Here is something I have come up with:

“It’s very convenient for you to claim that you know you are right and I am wrong because of your experience.  It’s convenient because it allows you to make a lot of claims to truth without having to substantiate those claims with solid evidence (assertions rather than arguments).  By appealing to the private and subjective rather than to the public and objective you have set yourself above critique.  The only way a claim to truth can be evaluated to determine if it is indeed true is if evidence is presented that is readily accessible for both parties involved.  If no appeal to public evidence is provided, then no meaningful discussion can transpire.  When no evidence is provided to evaluate it becomes nearly impossible to determine whether your claims to truth are true or false.

To appeal to experience and/or special knowledge is an advantage in that it provides an easy way out of having to defend your beliefs against criticism, but it’s also a liability in that it prohibits you from being able to persuade anyone else that you are right…unless of course you expect others to simply accept your words on blind faith!”

In the end, the common claim that “I just know that I know that I know” isn’t good enough.  It may be enough for the knower himself, but it lacks the necessary element to convince others: public evidence.  In the end, something more than an experience or personal psychological certainty is needed if we wish to convince others of what we think is true.