The Difference Between Making Judgments and Judgementalism

Downtown Monroe

Jesus tells us to stop judging other people. (Matthew 7:1) Here are some thoughts I have about this.

§  We can, and will, make “judgments” in life. This is unavoidable, and is not the thing Jesus warns us against doing. Consider this judgment: Killing people for fun is wrong. I judge that to be “true.” 
Every day we make hundreds of judgments, ranging from moral judgments such as "Sex trafficking is wrong," to “This cup of coffee is too weak,” or "That color looks better on you." When Jesus says “Judge not” he is not referring to making moral judgments or aesthetic judgments or legal judgments or scientific judgments, but is referring to judgmentalism. Judgmentalism is different from making judgments.

§  A “judgmental” person weighs in on the hearts of other people and pronounces, like a trial judge, a verdict. (See James 4.) Such as: “guilty.” Or: ”That person is bad.” Or: "You deserve punishment." A judgmental person sees themselves as both judge and jury over others. Judgmental people feast off making moral and spiritual judgments about the motives of other people. Judgmental people see the worst in others irregardless of evidence to the contrary. Judgmental people make pronouncements without evidence, without understanding and compassion, even in the face of counter-evidence, and even on the basis of manifestly false evidence. Judgmentalism is the bedfellow of gossip and slander.

§  Behaviors can and should be judged, but the human heart is difficult to assess. If someone steals from you it is not wrong to say, “They stole from me; stealing is wrong; therefore what this person has done is wrong.” But why did they steal from you? Here’s where caution is advised. Because you and I do not have access to the human heart. Judge the behavior; refrain from judging the person’s heart. How many times I have been either positively or negatively surprised when a person’s true heart becomes evident. Which leads me to say…

§  I have, at times, assessed the hearts of people incorrectly. When my assessment has been negative I’ve built a case against that person. That’s neither good nor helpful. It breeds bitterness. I have made mountains, not only out of mole-hills, but out of no-hills. 
Consider Proverbs 20:5, which says that “the purposes of a man’s heart are deep waters.” You and I lack epistemic access to the deep waters of another person’s heart. I can’t at times figure my own heart out! How then can I expect to accurately read the hearts of other people? If you wonder why someone did something that affects you negatively, why not ask them rather than put them on trial in your own mind and before others? 

§  If God reveals to you some negative aspect of another person’s heart it is only so that you can pray for them or, with permission, help them. God doesn’t entrust such privileged information to judgmental people.

§  In John 7, in one of his confrontations with the Jewish religious leaders, Jesus asks them to “Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.” They have, again, misjudged Jesus. This is because what is seen with the eyes is not equivalent to what lies in the heart. It may “appear” to me that a person has just given me a nasty look. I should not conclude from this that they have a nasty heart. Maybe, maybe not. 
Many years ago, when Linda and I were dating, one of her friends told Linda that it appeared I did not like this friend because of the look on my face. Linda assured the friend that I did like her and, by the way, that’s how my face normally looks. You can’t judge a book by the cover. 

§  Judgmental people are fearful people. Judgmentalism works as a barrier erected to ward off self-scrutiny. If I deflect attention away from my own sin and failure and get people to look at the surface-appearance of sin and failure in someone else, I can breathe easier. Instead of crying out “Search me O God, and know my heart,” the cry becomes “Judge them, O God, for I know their hearts.” Probably not.

§  It’s hard work being the judge of the world. I have spent too many hours trying to figure out what is going on in the brains of other people. Now I am more and more giving this responsibility to God. What a relief! He calls me to love others, not judge them. God is able to speak into the hearts of all the people I find myself wondering about. In the meantime I will do well to allow him to speak to my own heart, and leave the judging of others to him.

I am asking God for freedom from judging the hearts of others. I can make judgments about things without being judgmental towards people. But note this: one cannot make a reasonable judgment without first understanding. It is foolish to judge without understanding. 

#1 – Understand.

#2 – Evaluate if needed.

***
SEE ALSO:

Judgmentalism Is a Form of Violence 

Judgmentalism and Making Judgments 

Judgment Grows In the Soil of Forgetfulness 

Understanding People Is Superior to Judging People

Understanding and Overcoming Anger

(Monroe County sunset)

(I'm re-posting this, to keep it out there. Don't let anger simmer.)


Dealing with Anger in Relationships

In every good marriage, in every good friendship, in every church, and wherever there are people, feelings of anger happen. I once had a friend tell me, “I never get angry.” My thought was this: here is a person out of touch with what’s going on inside of him. Even God feels anger. Even Jesus felt anger.

When I feel angry, what can I do?  

1. Recognize your anger. “Anger” is the emotion a person feels when one of their expectations has not been met. For example, if I drive across town expecting every light to turn green when I approach, I am going to be an angry person. Because this expectation will not be met. Therefore...

2. Identify your unmet expectation. Fill in the blank: "I am angry because my expectation that ________ was not met."

3. Evaluate your unmet expectation. Is it either: a) godly, reasonable, good, fair; or 2) ungodly, unreasonable, bad, unfair. In my "driving" example above, my expectation was irrational.

4. Reject ungodly or irrational expectations. If, for example, you expect people to clearly understand every word that comes out of your mouth, you are now free to reject this as an irrational expectation. Or, if you have the expectation that other people should never make mistakes when it comes to you, I now free you from that ungodly, irrational expectation.

5. If the unmet expectation is godly/fair, then ask: Have I communicated this to the person I am angry with? If not, then communicate it. For example, my expectation that persons should take off their shoes before entering our living room may be both rational and of God. But if I have not communicated this to others, my anger at the unfulfilled expectation is still real. My expectation that people should know such a thing without being told is unfair.

6. If you have communicated it clearly to the person you are angry with, then communicate your anger this way: Say “I feel angry because my unmet expectation is __________________.

Communicate this in your own way of saying things. Begin your sentence with “I” rather than “You.” For example: “I feel angry…” rather than “You make me feel angry…” Doing it this way asserts without aggressing. For the person who hears this, it does not feel so attacking.

Get rid of irrational or ungodly expectations. As you get free of these things you’ll find yourself less angry.
Remember that from the Christian POV, “anger” is not sin. Ephesians 4:26 says, “In your anger do not sin.” We are not told never to feel anger. There is a righteous anger, and that is not only appropriate but necessary. But when we feel the emotion of anger we are never to sin. In all relationships we are never to be harsh, demeaning, vindictive, or abusive. Remember that  in every close relationship there is anger. The anger-free relationship is a myth, and probably is a sign of unhealth when claimed.

Finally, Ephesians 4:26 says, “Don’t let the sun go down on your anger.” Which means: deal with anger quickly, and in a loving and truthful way. The goal is always restoration of relationship and reconciliation.

I am thankful that only a few times in our 44 years of marriage have Linda I fallen asleep angry with each other. The reason for this is not that we’re some special, exceptionally compatible couple. We are this way because we were taught to do this by godly people who spoke into our lives. We were sufficiently warned about the cancerous bitterness that arises when anger is “swept under the carpet.” We don’t want satan to gain even a toehold in our hearts. We have asked God to help us with this, and He has!

If you have allowed the enemy entrance into your heart because, in your anger, you have sinned, then confess this to God.

Then, receive God’s forgiveness and give Him thanks. 1 John 1:9 says: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 

Acknowledge, before God, that you are a new creation in Christ.

Ask God to help you, and trust that He is now doing so. 

***

Face-to-Face Your Anger and Interpersonal Conflict (Not Facebook It)

Refuse using Facebook or texting or social media to  work out interpersonal conflict. For such things Face-to-Face is best.

Henri Nouwen writes:

"When you write a very angry letter to a friend who has hurt you deeply, don't send it! Let the letter sit on your table for a few days and read it over a number of times. Then ask yourself: "Will this letter bring life to me and my friend? Will it bring healing, will it bring a blessing?" You don't have to ignore the fact that you are deeply hurt. You don't have to hide from your friend that you feel offended. But you can respond in a way that makes healing and forgiveness possible and opens the door for new life. Rewrite the letter if you think it does not bring life, and send it with a prayer for your friend."

Think, and pray, before you text or speak.

***

Using Logic to Manage Anger in Relationships

I would share this with my MCCC Logic students. It's an example of using logic to counsel people, in this case, those experiencing conflict in relationships.

Note: there is a small but growing Philosophical Counseling movement. See here; and here. 

Moving From Self-Hatred to Self-Forgiveness

My backyard - a light at the end of the tree tunnel

There are things in my past that I wish I would have done differently, words I wish I would have spoken, and words I wish I would not have said. I'm thinking of one of my past failures right now. The good news is that I am not hating myself for hurting someone years ago.

If you struggle with self-hatred I recommend Everett Worthington's - Moving Forward: Six Steps to Forgiving Yourself and Breaking Free From the Past. Worthington is Professor of Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University, and a follower of Jesus.

I got this book two years ago and am still slow-cooking in it. I can never hear enough about forgiveness. I need it for myself. And, I need more wisdom in dispensing it to others.

I meet many who cannot forgive their own selves from past failures, whether real or imagined. Un-self-forgiveness is a mental and spiritual assassin. Self-forgiveness, that is rooted in God's great act of forgiveness in Christ, is liberating.

Self-forgiveness will free you from guilt. "Sometimes guilt arises over unrealistic expectations and standards of perfection that none of us can achieve. When you are able to forgive yourself, that weight is lifted." (Worthington, p. 45)

Self-forgiveness will free you from self-blame. "Self-forgiveness frees you from the chattering, accusing voice in your head." (Ib., 46)

Self-forgiveness will free you from stress-related illness. "Self-forgiveness can improve your health, and here’s why. Holding on to self-condemnation elevates your stress, which has been associated with a long list of physical and psychological harm." (Ib.)

Self-forgiveness can liberate you from alcohol misuse. "Forgiveness of the self might be, for alcoholics, the most difficult type of forgiveness to achieve. But if they were able to do so, it could help control their drinking." (Ib., p. 47)

Self-forgiveness can liberate you from accusation. "By bringing our sins to God and receiving God’s forgiveness, we can then forgive ourselves and we can rest in the knowledge that the accusations of Satan are groundless. If we forgive ourselves, we can silence the oppressive voice of the enemy." (Ib., 47)

Self-forgiveness provides freedom for flourishing. "By not being so wrapped up in self-condemnation, you can enjoy more pleasurable and positive experiences." (Ib.)

Self-forgiveness provides freedom for focusing on God. "Instead of being wrapped up in condemning yourself for past failures, you can seek God and enjoy that relationship." (Ib.)

Self-forgiveness provides freedom for focusing on others. "Self-forgiveness allows you to focus on others, with the goal of helping to meet their needs." (Ib., p. 48)

Self-forgiveness provides freedom for health. "Self-forgiveness provides energy and vitality. It supplies both a freedom from the past and a forward-thinking orientation that helps you seek the benefits of exercise, a healthy diet, and energetic work." (Ib.)

Self-forgiveness provides freedom for a better quality of life. "Self-forgiveness can matter greatly in enhancing one’s quality of life." (Ib., 50)

Self-forgiveness provides freedom for peace. "People who continue to wrestle with self-blame are unsettled. They find it difficult to exhale and relax. Forgiving yourself will help you live at peace." (Ib.)

Worthington cites empirical studies that support these conclusions. Why, given the great benefits of self-forgiveness, would anyone choose to wallow in self-condemnation? Why is forgiving ourselves so hard? 

Worthington says there are two kinds of self-forgiveness: decisional self-forgiveness, and emotional self-forgiveness. 

In the first you will no longer seek retaliation against yourself. You will choose to not punish yourself for past failings. Instead, you choose to value yourself. 

In emotional self-forgiveness you replace negative, unforgiving emotions with positive emotions toward yourself. "It is emotional self-forgiveness that cools the heat of anger in your heart; it’s what Corrie ten Boom referred to as “the temperature of the heart .” The emotions that we use to replace negative, unforgiving emotions are empathy, sympathy, compassion, and love for ourselves." (Worthington, p. 52) 

Why are these things so difficult to do?

Worthington cites studies showing that forgiving yourself is different from forgiving others. It is harder to forgive yourself than to forgive others. He writes:

"When you attempt to forgive someone else for an offense, you are adopting the viewpoint of the forgiver. The wrongdoer, of course, is someone other than yourself. However, when you try to forgive yourself, you have to operate from two points of view— both forgiver and wrongdoer. Holding contrasting points of view at the same time is a strain. It is hard to bounce back and forth from one perspective to the other." (Ib., p. 54)

In forgiving someone else we are not with them (for the most part) 24/7. But we are with our own selves  and thoughts all the time. We can't get away from ourselves. This can make forgiving ourselves harder than forgiving others.

Worthington says self-forgiveness is harder because we have "insider information"; i.e., we have information about who we really are. "The fact is, we know too much about ourselves. We know that we are capable of repeating the same wrong even when we know how hurtful it is. We also know that, as much as we profess love for God, we are like Paul who wrote: “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do” (Romans 7: 15). That is, we know the weakness of our will to do the right thing." (Ib., 55)

Self-forgiveness is different and in some ways harder than other-forgiveness because:

1. We live with ourselves 24/7. That is, we live constantly with the one who has hurt us, which is us.

2. We have insider information about our own self that we cannot have when it comes to others.

How, then, can we forgive ourselves? Worthington gives Six Steps to Self-forgiveness. Here you need to read the whole book. But the 6 Steps are:

STEP 1 - Receive God's Forgiveness

• Go to God for understanding (the task is too big to handle alone)
• Go to God with regret, remorse, and repentance

STEP 2 - Repair Relationships

• Take responsibility (you are not the model citizen you'd like to be)
• Confess to any you have hurt (admitting you're in the wrong goes far in turning things around)
• Make amends through responsible compassion (thinking of others can help you make things right)

STEP 3 - Rethink Ruminations

• It's not necessarily helpful to wrestle with the Almighty
• Adjust perfectionistic standards and unrealistic expectations (Worthington shows how to do this. Getting real about yourwelf moves the process forward.)

STEP 4 - REACH Emotional Self-forgiveness

• Worthington shows how to move from saying it to feeling it, using the acronym REACH:

1. Recall the hurt. 

2. Empathize with yourself by considering the reasons that you disappointed yourself. 

3. Give yourself the same Altruistic gift you would give other people— understanding and forgiving. 

4. Commit to the emotional self-forgiveness that you experience in order to … 

5. Hold on to self-forgiveness if you ever doubt that you have forgiven yourself. (207)

STEP 5 - Rebuild Self-acceptance

• Live in the truth that you are deeply flawed and also valuable beyond belief

STEP 6 - Resolve to Live Virtuously

• Live virtuously, but give yourself room to fail

And through it all, remember Galatians 5:1 - "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free."

***

SEE ALSO...

Self-Examine? Yes! Self-Hate? No!

Praying to Be Released From the Punishing Prison-House of Self-Hatred (PrayerLife)

Where God's Love Is Self-Hatred Is Nonexistent

The Orwellianism of DEI

                                                            (Lake Erie, Monroe, MI)

(DEI is now struggling.)

D - Diversity.

E - Equity.

I - Inclusion.

DEI.

Sounds wonderful, right? But if you don't march to the anthem of the DEI ideology, then you're ideas are tossed into an Orwellian memory hole.* 

No, DEI does not mean God (like agnus dei).

What is DEI, in our universities?

"DEI is an effort within the administrative authority of the college to shape the whole institution and all its activities consistent with its ideology.

When coming from the college’s administration, DEI practices essentially gatekeep entry to college faculty, staff and students. Requiring DEI statements as part of the faculty employment process dissuades those who think otherwise from even applying. It stifles discourse by keeping dissenting viewpoints from campus in the first place.:

- Wall Street Journal, 2/12/23 - "DEI Spells Death for the Idea of a University"

Such as - "We don't want speakers like you on our campus."

* A memory hole is any mechanism for the deliberate alteration or disappearance of inconvenient or embarrassing documents, photographs, transcripts or other records, such as from a website or other archive, particularly as part of an attempt to give the impression that something never happened.^[1][2] The concept was first popularized by George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, where the Party's Ministry of Truth systematically re-created all potentially embarrassing historical documents, in effect, re-writing all of history to match the often-changing state propaganda. These changes were complete and undetectable. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole ) 

Trump, Dawkins, Sex, and Gender

 

 

"President Donald Trump on Monday signed executive orders proclaiming that the U.S. government will recognize only two sexes...

It requires that the federal government use the term “sex” instead of “gender,” and directs the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to “require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder’s sex.

Across the country, ideologues who deny the biological reality of sex have increasingly used legal and other socially coercive means to permit men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women, from women’s domestic abuse shelters to women’s workplace showers. This is wrong," the order reads. "Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being." (NBC NEWS)

I agree.

If you don't like this, perhaps take it up with evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins. He can handle it. 

He likes to discuss. And, he knows more about genetics than you do. Me too. ( For Dawkins and theistic geneticist Francis Collins in dialogue, go here.)

Dawkins is still the world's most famous intellectual atheist. His book The Selfish Gene has been used in university biology classes.

Dawkins was interviewed by Piers Morgan. The full interview is here. I find it interesting.

Here's a snippet, on sex and gender.

Piers: They (woke-ists) want to de-gender and neutralise language, but they're doing it from a completely false pretext that you can somehow pretend biology doesn't exist, particularly when it comes to someone's sex. A small group of people have been successful in reshaping swathes of the way society talks and is allowed to talk.

Richard: It's bullying. We've seen the way JK Rowling has been bullied, Kathleen Stock has been bullied. They've stood up to it, but it's very upsetting the way this tiny minority of people has managed to capture the discourse to talk errant nonsense.

Piers: What's the answer?

Richard: Science. There are two sexes. You could talk about gender, if you wish and that's a subjective.

Piers: But when people say there are 100 genders?

Richard: I'm not interested in that. As a biologist, there are two sexes and that's all there is to it.

Piers: Why have we lost that ability to actually have an open and frank debate?

Richard: There are people for whom the word discuss doesn't mean discuss, it means you've taken a position.

Again, If you don't like what Richard Dawkins is saying here, I recommend you take it up with him. I simply report this to you. 

A heads-up. To dialogue with Dawkins, you must understand what he means by 'science' and its limits.

Remember also that Dawkins, as a scientist, despises postmodern thinking.

***

See also, 

"Richard Dawkins Says Science Is Pretty Clear About Sex" ("Sex is a true binary, one of rather few in biology.)

"Richard Dawkins Leaves Atheist Foundation After It Unpublishes Article Saying Gender Based on Biology"

"Richard Dawkins [and Stephen Pinker and Jerry Coyne] Resign From the Freedom From Religion Foundation" 

Religious Experience and the Rationality of Belief in God

 

Flower, in my back yard

One chapter in my book Leading the Presence-Driven Church is called "The Case for Experience." Behind this chapter lie theistic philosophers such as William P. Alston. Alston argues for religious experience as warranted, and rational. 

Here is what this means (I have not included this kind of  heavy lifting in my book!). (Many of my blog posts are written for my own reference, a kind of catalog of ideas important to me.)

Alston claims: If God exists, then mystical experience is quite properly thought of as mystical perception. [If God exists, then we should expect mystical experience.] This is not an argument for God's existence. Alston is showing that it is rational to be a theist.

Alston restricts this discussion to “direct awareness of God.” Which means: Unmediated, not mediated, religious experience. [Alston is interested in direct, not indirect, experience of God.] He writes: 

“My reason for concentrating on direct experience of God, where there is no other object of experience in or through which God is experienced, is that these experiences are the ones that are most plausibly regarded as presentations of God to the individual, in somewhat the way in which physical objects are presented to sense perception, as I will shortly make explicit.” (Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, 52)

Alston is not here referring to becoming aware of God through nature, or through the Bible, or through a sermon. He means something like: “I hear the voice of God speaking to me.” Alston advocates a “perceptual model of mystical experience.” (53) Alston claims mystical experience is like sense experience.

Alston’s view of perception is the “Theory of Appearing.” Which means: 

“Perceiving X simply consists in X’s appearing to a subject S, for example, or being presented to one, as so-and-so. That’s all there is to it, as far as what perception is, in contrast to its causes and effects. Where X is an external physical object like a book, to perceive the book is just for the book to appear to one in a certain way.” (53)

A direct awareness does not essentially involve conceptualization and judgment. Perception consists of something presenting itself to me in a certain way, apart from my conceptualizing it or making judgments about it. E.g, Now I see the computer screen. Directly.

Alston focuses on nonsensory experiences. Why? Because God is understood as a purely spiritual being. Because God is purely spiritual, “a nonsensory experience has a greater chance of presenting Him as He is than any sensory experience.” (52) • Alston says: “I shall refer to nonsensory experience as “mystical experience.” (52)

“Mystical perception” is the kind of perception that experiences God. “Mystical experience” refers to “supposed nonsensory experience (perception) of God.” (52)

Alston admits that many people will find this idea incredible, unintelligible, and incoherent. He doesn't think experiences should be limited to sensory experience. What idea? The idea that there could be something that counts as a presentation like a sense perception but is without any sensory content.

Alston asks: “Why should we suppose that the possibilities of experiential givenness, for human beings or otherwise, are exhausted by the powers of our five senses.” (52)

So, contra logical empiricism (the idea that experiences are real only if they are seen, smelled, touched, tasted, or felt), Alston is arguing:
i. That mystical experience is the right sort of experience to constitute a genuine perception of God if the other requirements are met.
ii. That there is no bar in principle to these other requirements being satisfied if God does exist.

You can’t argue for the validity of such experiences without assuming such experiences. That’s the nature of doxastic practices. Doxastic practices are properly basic beliefs. You can't argue for them. They are “properly basic.” For example, we can’t argue for the reliability of our sense perceptions without using sense perception. 

What does Alston mean by this? Elsewhere he writes: 

"The supposition that there is a physical world (that there are physical things spread out in space, exhibiting various perceivable qualities) is constitutive of the practice of forming particular beliefs about particular physical things on the basis of sense experience in the way we usually do. (Call this "perceptual practice".) ... [I]n learning to form physical-object beliefs on the basis of sense experience we are, at least implicitly and in practice, accepting the proposition that the physical world exists (and that we are aware of it in sense experience). Thus the question of the rationality of this belief is the question of the rationality of perceptual practice."
oOr, to cite another example of doxastic practice: We can’t argue for the reliability of logic without using logic.

So, our arguments for the reliability of these basic doxastic practices exhibit epistemic circularity. But should we then be skeptical and not trust in our sense perceptions or in logic? Alston argues that it is reasonable to continue to engage in those doxastic practices which are well established socially and which would be psychologically difficult to avoid. Therefore we should continue to regard our sense perception, memory, introspection and faculties of rational inference as generally reliable.

We describe mystical experiences by using comparative language. This is, in essence, no different than using comparative language to describe sense experiences. Mystical experiences are described like sense experiences; viz., by using comparative language.]

Alston concludes: "If my arguments have been sound, we are justified in thinking of the experience of God as a mode of perception in the same generic sense of the term as sense perception. And if God exists, there is no reason to suppose that this perception is not sometimes veridical [true; representative of] rather than delusory." (57) 

Alston, therefore, thinks religious experience is justifiable and rational.]

*****
From “Mysticism,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

“Is a person warranted in thinking that his or her experiences are veridical or have evidential value?”

This is the question Alston is answering “yes” to.

The Doxastic Practice Approach

“William Alston has defended beliefs a person forms based on mystical and numinous (in the terminology of this entry) experience, specifically of a theistic kind (Alston, 1991). Alston defines a ‘doxastic practice’ as consisting of socially established ways of forming and epistemically evaluating beliefs (the “output”) from a certain kind of content from various inputs, such as cognitive and perceptual ones (Alston, 1991, 100). The practice of forming physical-object beliefs derived from sense perception is an example of a ‘doxastic practice’ and the practice of drawing deductive conclusions in a certain way from premises is another. Now, Alston argues that the justification of every doxastic practice is “epistemically circular,” that is, its reliability cannot be established in any way independent of the practice itself. (See Alston, 1993) This includes the “sense-perception practice.” However, we cannot avoid engaging in doxastic practices. Therefore, Alston contends, it is rational to engage in the doxastic practices we do engage in providing there is no good reason to think they are unreliable. Now, there are doxastic practices consisting of forming beliefs about God, God's purposes for us, and the like, grounded on religious and mystical experiences such as “God is now appearing to me.” Such, for example, is the “Christian Doxastic Practice.” It follows from Alston's argument that it is rational for a person in such a practice to take its belief outputs as true unless the practice is shown to be unreliable. Thus we have an affirmative answer to question (Q1).”