2.2 Influence of religious experience as an argument for the existence of God Flashcards
Some scholars have used religious experience as an argument for the existence of God - an inductive, a posteriori argument
It could be argued theism is more plausible than physicalism (the argument that the mind is physical and that mental states are, in some form or other, physical states; the mind is not ontologically distinct from the physical.
Reasons to SUPPORT the argument of Religous Experience for the existence of God.
- Substantial numbers of ordinary people report having had such experiences, in all cultures.
- These experiences are a posteriori and rely on empirical evidence.
- Experiences often have significant effects on peoples lives - including in the acts of self sacrifice.
- Seem very real to the people involved.
Reasons the argument of religous experience for the existence of God FAILS
- The problem’s of verification remain
BUT Swinburne argues - an OMNI- God would seek to interact with his creations, particularly with religious believers capable of knowing him.
Swinburne’s FIVE PART CLASSIFICATION
1 - experiences of God through a common sensory object e.g. sunset
2 - experiences of God meditated through uncommon sensory object e.g. experience of Moses @ burning bush
3 - Experiences of God through an object that can be described empirically e.g. in Acts, Peter’s vision of a cloth filled with non-kosher animals
4. Experiences of God meditated through a private object that cannot be described empirically e.g. Teresa of Avila’s claims to have felt the mystical presence of Jesus.
5. Experiences of God not meditated through any empirical object.
There are both cognitive (factual) and non-cognitive (non-factual) elements in these categories of experience.
Swinburne Quote
‘How things seem to be is good grounds for a belief about how they are’.
Swinburne’s principle of credulity
Our experience is normally reliable, so on the balance of probability, experience can be trusted as being more likely to be true than not. We should trust our perceptions about our experiences of God.
Swinburne’s principle of testimony
People normally tell the truth. If someone says they are having an RE, then we should accept the balance of probability and blieve them.
WEAKNESSES of Swinburne’s argument.
- Atheist’s would deny his views on the probability of a God. Both principles fall apart as a means of verifying religious experiences as experiences of God. If Atheist’s have an equally strong conviction why should be not accept their testimony?
- People are not as trustworthy as Swinburne assumes. People have good reason to lie and we cannot guarantee people tell the truth.
- We can’t compare statements about everyday empirical experiences with statements about non-cognitive mystical experiences. They CANNOT BE VERIFIED.
- We cannot be sure witnesses aren’t mistaken (they might have deceived themselves or the experience might not have come from God)
Swinburne’s CUMLATIVE ARGUMENT
- None of the arguments on their own prove the existence of God BUT together they make an argument that CANNOT BE DENIED.
BUT this is logically flawed. Taking low probabilities and adding them together does not make them more probable.
We can’t conclude the existence of a classical God.
Swinburne makes the assumption that God wants to interact with his creation and religious experiences are a manifestation of this, but there is not proof…
PSYCOLOGICAL CHALLENGES TO RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
Psychologists commonly CHALLENGE religous experience.
FEUERBACK-the idea of God is a human projection and all the attributes we give to God are in our nature, we have made God in our own image.
FREUD IN RESPONSE- agreed and suggested that human religious behaviour is caused by childhood insecurities and a desire for a father figure. For Freud, RE are HALLUCINATIONS, similar to dreams and our deep desires.
PHYSIOLOGICAL CHALLENGES TO RELIGIOUS EXPEIRENCE
Possibility of neuropsychological mechanisms underlying RE.
Patients who suffering from temporal load epilepsy are likely to experience strong religious sensations and to hallucinate religous figures.
The LIMBIC SYSTEM in the brain has been linked to profound mystical feelings - feelings of awe/wonder/presence of God. BUT this is with how the brain functions and nothing to do with God.
Michael Persinger (professor from Ontario)
- Argues that consciousness and spiritual experiences can be explained by physical processes and science.
- Produced the so-called ‘God helmet’ a device that uses magnetic fields to generate religious experiences in volunteer subjects.
- He claims that magnetic fields can produce a variety of the sensations that mirror RE.
- Leaves the open question does the brain PRODUCE or PROCESS the experience. Is the brain hardwired to process RE?
KANT’S OBJECTION
Argued we can only experience things in the EMPIRICAL REALM.
While there may be a reality beyond our experience, we cannot logically prove the existence of God.
RE is undermined by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and cannot provide satisfactory evidence for the existence of God.
The problem of interpretation
Religous experiences rely on the subjective experience (feeling of presence of G) rather than on objective truths that can be tested.
RE tends to be described in the terms of peoples existing faith. E.g. a Christian might interpret the experience as being caused by the Holy Spirit where as a Muslim might have a DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION.
John Hick on Religous Experience
Expanded Wittgenstein’s ‘seeing as’ and suggested when we experience the world through our senses we are ‘experiencing as’.
Anything we experience is shaped by our beliefs, culture and upbringing.
RE a kind of experiencing as - experiences human life and history as an encounter with God. An additional perspective on life that the non-religious believer does not have.
ALL EXPERIENCES ARE SUBJECT TO INDIVIDUAL INTERPRETATION
