When I sit down to write a blog post, I immediately begin to look at the internal mental conent which I wish to express. But it is very unlikely that what I write down will reproduce the mental content exactly as I see it in the minds of others. This raises the question, what exactly is the relationship between what is in our heads and what appears on the page?
Let us suppose that someone is writing about an experience they had. How should we imagine an experience? What is an experience at all? How should we understand what is going on when people say things like: 'My experience has been that Mr. Jones is a very reliable informant.' 'Clowns are so very frightening!' and so on.
Remember the scene in which William Wallace shouts 'Freedom!' after having been gruesomely tortured? In remembering that one probably gets a quick mental image of Wallace's face and then an apprehension of what the scene meant, such as 'perseverance' or 'courage'. So an experience is some view that one has experienced (a mental flash of Wallace being tortured) and then a thought accompanying it. In this way it seems the mental content we pull up when we sit down to write is like a stillframe of whatever the experience was on a movie screen. Then while looking at this mental content, we begin to choose which order of words best describe it. Thus, a person's account of something is a description of the mental content which they are viewing directly.
So most of the time we can use this to understand what we are doing when we sit down to write, since we are focusing on some amount of mental content which we wish to describe. But it also helps us understand what we are doing when we are reading someone else's thoughts. We can imagine the totality of the experience in which they start to examine their internal theatre of experiences, and while viewing one put sentences across the screen which most aptly describe it.
The thought that accompanies some experience will be one that fits within a person's overall interpretation of the world. A lonely person will interpret the professor not calling on them as further proof that they are invisible. The person next to them studies statistics, and thus interprets the professor not calling on either of them as a probable outcome in a class of sixty students. What follows from this is that you can discuss what is the better way to interpret an experience with anyone who has had the same experience as you. Two people have seen the same movie can talk about what it means, or what the election of the new president means for history, or the people could relate on an experience, like how hard it is to open a newly bought CD.
However, if you have not had the experience someone else has had, then it is very hard to talk about the correct interpretation of it. How can I dispute with someone whether England is beautiful if I have never been there? But as long as we know the way things work, that when people see some view they attach an interpretation to it, we can at least picture exactly what is going on when someone is telling us about what they saw. We can imagine from an overhead position them walking all over London, seeing the sights, and while viewing it with their lens of loving European architecture they continually have the experience of 'London is such a beautiful place!', which then becomes the sentence they think best describes the mental content created by walking all over London.
Furthermore, we can imagine all the people in the world as continually having experiences of things which anyone can have experiences of, bowling, the sunset, Italy, Crime and Punishment, and somehow fitting it into to how they see the world. So at least when someone has been somewhere or seen something that we have not, we know exactly what is going on.
It is of course better when you have more experiences, because then you can talk to people about what is the best way to view the experience. This is especially the case if someone thinks one of their experiences would show how your way of interpreting the world is incorrect, because it would not fit. You would see it and have no way of understanding what was going on. If you were looking out the window, and you thought the world was an entirely depressing and gloomy place where only bad things happened, it would not make sense if an ice cream truck suddenly came down the street playing joyous music.
For this reason I think it is good for one to survey all the experiences there are in the world, unless there are strong reasons to suppose that the experience is not crucial to understanding the world and would be a bad experience. But otherwise, it is good to meet lots of different people, to see many sights of nature, see many pictures of outer space, to see many different genres of movies, to learn about history and science and philosophy, to eat up as much of reality as there is, because it is only in this way you will know that your way of viewing the world takes into account everything there is. And in examining each experience, we must always question, what is the best way to view this? How should reality be understood? Does the thing I am now viewing make sense if God exists? And so on, until eventually you will know exactly how your worldview relates to everything there is.
And just like a detective, the facts add up until you more or less have all of the features of the universe and humanity which we all experience in your head. The question then becomes, what makes sense of each one of the things we experience? For surely the true explanation of the world will be able to provide a good explanation for each and every thing we encounter.
Most people do this subconsciously, always interpreting their experience according to an idea introduced to them at a young age. This is especially unfortunate for Christians because it means that over time we confirm the fact that God exists because each and every thing we see makes a good deal of sense given his existence, such as relationships, our need to improve our characters, beauty in nature, that there is a universe at all, and so on, but that by the end of the process of making all of these connections between God and everything we encounter, people do not know what it is they have just done. We don't consciously realize how we have connected things we have seen with the idea of God and seen how coherent a picture it forms. Thus, most Christians are at a loss when people say things like 'There is no evidence for God' while to the Christian, God is a quite evident reality, they just don't know why. This creates the illusion that Christian faith is a blind intellectual leap in the dark, when really it is the best intellectual view we have.
Different worldviews make sense of different facts to varying degrees; the question is which makes sense of the most facts, and how well can they explain everything? If you ask these sorts of questions about other worldviews, you can test them to see if they are true, and if they are not then you can be even more confident in what you believe. Furthermore you can always be happy to talk to anyone about what you believe because you have thought about everything, so there are no hidden reasons they have which might surprise you.
I have gotten quite a bit off track; but I am sure you can see how the idea of an 'experience' being some view of something along with the thought the person has about it, can be applied to what people mean when they describe the reasons for what they believe. When someone says, 'My father died in a car accident when I was ten—there is definitely no God' we know exactly how they connected that experience to what they believe about everything.
And all of this, I am sure, has confirmed the experience to all of you that I like to think, I do not like to be confused, and so on. 
Recent Comments