Religious Experience Flashcards
Why might religious experiences be a good argument for the existence of God?
- More personal - if it happens to that person then they will be convinced - and G-d is supposed to be personal, so it makes sense that He would appear to someone in this way.
- Strengthens faith - experience that you will remember and will bring you closer to G-d.
- Empirical information- satisfies verification principle. Provides evidenc
- More direct evidence of God - provides evidence for the usually ‘unseen’ (Swinburne cumulative approach).
- Cannot be put into words (via negativa) so makes sense that direct experiences are what can verify God (since he is beyond the limits of human language).
Why might religious experience be a poor argument for the existence of God?
- Experiences are subjective and inductive.
- Not falsifiable: did they experience it or just think they did. Cannot experience other people’s minds, like emotion- can’t be tested. Not guarantee of truth either.
- Can be other explanations for these experiences: mind-altering chemicals e.g drugs, alcohol, ignorance of science, illness.
- Hume (talking about miracles): humans have a natural tendency to exaggerate their own stories, even unintentionally, the teller begins to believe what they said rather than what they experienced.
- Confirmation bias: theists are more likely to see something and associate it with God
- God of the gaps: natural disasters used to be unexplainable so associated with God.
- People often have profound, ‘numinous’ experiences e.g through experiencing art or nature that may be called ‘spiritual’ and does not require religious belief.
- Multiple claims: different religions can’t all be true, so evidence for one religion must be taken as evidence against all the others.
o Pluralism as a solution: Hick differences between religions are just part of the cultural lens we view the world through. James believed that the fact that life-changing religious experiences occurred in all religions showed that they were all part of the same thing.
What are the different types of religious experience?
CONVERSIONS:
- From no belief to belief
- From belief to stronger belief
- From one faith to another
May (often do) involve visions:
- Intellectual vision- brings religious knowledge
- Imaginary vision- strengthens faith
- Corporeal vision – appears externally
Can be:
- Volitional- conscious/voluntary, gradual development of new spiritual habits
- Involuntary- unconscious/self surrender caused by external force
Features of conversion:
- Often fuelled by feeling that there is wrongness in their life (e.g. prison)
- Fuelled by positive change that someone may want to make
- Example of St Paul- formerly Jewish and hated Christians, converted after Jesus spoke to him (some say he had an epileptic fit).
MYSTICISM:
Recipient feels a sense of union with the divine; knowledge is revealed, sense of freedom from limitation of time and space, sense of bliss/serenity. Closest an individual can come with God.
Types of mysticism (according to Happold):
- Mysticism of love and union- being at one with god- no longer wants to feel separate
- Mysticism of knowledge and understanding- urge to understand meaning of life/truths
Aspects of Mysticism (according to Happold)
- Soul mysticism- focuses on finding oneself, not necessarily involving god
- Nature mysticism- God is imminent and can be United with nature
- God mysticism- seeking union with God, becoming God like
How did James say we can identify a mystical experience? What are his arguments for the existence of religious experiences?
PINT (William James) ‘The Varieties of Religious Experience’- 4 characteristics allow to identify something as a mystical religious experience:
- Passivity- complete loss of control, experience is beyond human control
- Ineffability- indescribable- recipient is unable to communicate their experience
- Noetic quality- gaining truths/insight- through intuition/perception instead of knowledge
- Transciency – last a short time, recipient may have trouble recalling it afterwards, but the effects are life-changing.
- James argues that even religious experiences that occur in different regions/ at different times share these 4 similar features, so must stem from the supernatural. (Pluralist argument)
PRAGMATISM ARGUMENT:
- Dismissed notion that RE are mere hallucinations, as they have positive and profound life-changing effects.
- James was interested in the effects of religious experiences on people’s lives and thought that the validity of the experience was dependant on this. He was a Pragmatist: if something is good for us or works, then it’s evidence of the truth e.g alcoholic who couldn’t quit had a religious experience and then gave up alcohol. They had gained power which they lacked before. According to James this is an argument for the validity of the experience.
- e.g Saul to Paul - conversion. Huge impact
What are the criticisms of James’ arguments?
PLURALISM:
- The cross-cultural similarity of RE could have a naturalistic explanation: e.g all human brains hallucinate similarly because they evolved similarly. Can explain RE without need for higher spiritual reality.
PRAGMATISM:
- Medical materialism: religious experiences only happen to those who are unwell (e.g epilepsy/psychological trauma. Similarly, RE may resemble effects of drugs/alcohol, or may have occurred under the influence.
- JAMES REBUTS: if someone is mentally unstable/under the influence, it doesn’t mean that they are wrong. Who are we to say that God would only choose mentally competent people for a RE? “She may find an incomplete mind a more suitable instrument for a specific purpose” - James
What is Otto’s theory of numinosity? What are the criticisms?
- Used the word numinous to refer to ‘being in the presence of some awesome power yet being distinctly separate from it’
- Believed that religion must derive from a being completely separate from this world.
CRITICISMS:
- Then he cannot be personal or intervene.
- Distance from God: does not align with classical scripture.
- If he is completely separate how can we experience him in this world?
How can RE be understood regarding them being a feeling of union with a greater power?
- Schleiermacher: Agreed with Otto that religious experiences are primarily emotional. These emotions are deeper than reason. For Schleiermacher, the experiences are not numinous but are at their core a feeling of absolute dependence upon the divine. It is this awareness of absolute dependence upon a ‘source of power that is distinct from the world’ that is at the heart of religion. Theology arises afterwards as people reflect on their experiences.
How can RE be considered as a psychological effect (illusion)?
Starbuck:
- Religious experiences parallel normal process of finding our identity in adolescence (most conversions occur between 15-24)
- BUT this reduces it to just a psychological phenomenon- fails to address the question of the cause of the experience (could be hormonal fluctuations in the brain)
o People with schizophrenia may hear voices. We are prone to so many perceptual errors that perhaps those who want God to exist actually see him in their imaginings. (Descartes: can’t trust our senses)
(Could rebut this with James: just because they aren’t mentally competent doesn’t mean they are wrong)
How can RE be considered as being a physiological effect?
FEUERBACH:
- Argued the idea of God is a human projection. All of the attributes of God are in our nature - they are human aspirations/desires. We create God in our image - ‘God is man written in large letters’. So RE are human creations of the mind.
- FREUD agreed: RE are projections of our inner emotions and of humanities’ most basic and profound ideas. When someone describes themselves as ‘on the cross’ with Jesus, they are in fact projecting their emotions about suffering, helplessness and separation, along with our desires to be reunited with our parents, represented by God.
REBUTTAL:
- Freud overly reductive in stating all religious people are deluded neurotics. . Hard to dismiss all encompassing hallucinations as being caused by delusory wishful thinking.
- Empirical evidence: Lourdes. Toronto Blessing - corporate RE. can’t be explained by physiological or psychological causes that could only apply to individuals e.g mental illness, drugs etc.
(But could be explained via mob mentality)
How can RE be considered as being explainable via experiments?
o V.S Ramachandran- did an experiment to see what effect religious imagery had on people with temporal lobe epilepsy vs without – found those with condition had greater responses for religious imagery.
This did not dissuade him from believing in God’s existence though – believes God may just want to communicate with people with this condition. James would agree: ‘what right have we to believe nature under any obligation to do her work by complete minds only’. (Medical materialism rebuttal)
PERSINGER:
o Persinger- helmet which stimulates temporal lobe, people had religious experiences while it was on which stopped once removed, dubbed the ‘God helmet’. Shows religious experience is result of physiological occurrences.
- God could create religious experience through manufacturing physiological occurrences. Also doesn’t mean all religious experience is a result of this- just that it’s a possible cause, can’t rule out supernatural causes.
• However use Ockham’s Razor: naturalistic explanation is simpler therefore more likely to be true.
o Russel: ‘if you eat too little you see visions, if you drink too much, you see snakes.’ What we choose to consume (or not consume) has a profound affect on the way we see the world. Mental states are often linked to physical states: deprive someone of sleep and they often have hallucinations.
Customary for people to fast before prayer: perhaps explanation of the revelation of the Quran to Prophet Mohammed.
What are Swinburne’s principles on personal testimony?
Cumulative approach. Takes an evidence-analysis based approach: if we experience something/someone tells us they experience something, it is evidence (not proof) for it probably being true:
them.
- Testimony: the majority of the time people tell the truth so we can trust them unless there is compelling evidence on the contrary. We rarely question people’s claims e.g that they had fruit for breakfast. If our default position was to doubt everything that was said to us, conversation would be impossible. Doubters should be tasked with proving their doubt, rather than the other way around.
What are the criticisms of Swinburne’s approach?
- Pros:
o Swinburne’s theory actually would reject a lot of religious experiences: often we do have ‘reason not to believe’ someone e.g come from a known liar, or psychological/physiological influences. If we do have naturalistic evidence e.g someone was fasting, we do have evidence to the contrary and should not consider it evidence for God.
Swinburne saying that we shouldn’t dismiss someone’s experiences when there’s no reason not to believe them. - Criticisms:
o Religious experience is not a testimony of ordinary experience, where there are unlikely to be observational errors and can be described clearly. Swinburne puts them in the same category, unlike Otto and James. People may not be able to define their experiences, opens up opportunity for mistake.
Saying ‘I saw God’ is not like saying ‘I had fruit for breakfast’. Extraordinary claims arguably require extraordinary evidence: testimony is not enough. Burden of proof lies with the experiencer, not the doubter.
o People might be ‘truthful’ in so far as they believe themselves to be honest, but doesn’t mean that have correctly interpreted reality, cannot be a reliable account for God.
Can trust someone’s sincerity but not be convinced: sincerity of belief is not validity of belief. Cannot share someone else’s experience, cannot know how they have drawn their conclusions. Many people believe things sincerely e.g very possible that many of the members of the Toronto Blessing did truly believe they had encountered the Holy Spirit: this does not mean it ‘actually’ occurred.
What are the challenges to religious experience from philosophy?
- If God is beyond human understanding it could be impossible for humans to experience god
o Kant argues finite humans cannot experience an infinite god – we only experience the world through our 5 senses (which are often mistaken). - Theists would argue God is capable of anything, including communicating with finite beings
- Catholic Church: religious experience has to be tested against Church testimony and scripture to make conclusions about its authenticity on a case-by-case basis.
What are some case studies of religious experiences?
- St Teresa of Avila (vision): experienced visions of Christ, once saw an angel pierce her heart with a spear and became elated and felt the love of God. She felt she had been chosen to share in the pain of Jesus.
- Julian of Norwich (visions): was healed on her deathbed of a serious illness after exxperiencing a series of visions of Christ’s suffering.
- Toronto Blessing (mysticism of love and union):
o Corporate religious experience: can’t be explained by physiological or psychological causes that could only apply to individuals e.g mental illness, drugs etc.
o Psychological group dynamics: mob mentality/group delusion is a well-agreed upon phenomena. Applies to non-religious spheres too e.g witch hunting in Middle Ages. - Revelation of the Quran to prophet Mohammed (mysticism of knowledge and understanding)
