Rex 2 Flashcards
Kant’s opinions on religious experiences
objects - problem of interpretation
why does kant object religious experiences
he is a materialist
we can only experience things in the physical world
if another realm exists, we can’t experience it
Hick’s view on religious experience
favours it, it’s valid for the individual
every experience we have is a private subjective interpretation which has equal validity to that of anything else
Who’s idea does Hick build on
Wittgenstein’s idea of perception
what is Wittgenstein’s idea of perception
people see things differently depending on how they interpret what’s infront of them
what illusion does Hick use
duck/rabbit illusion
what did Wittgenstein draw a distinction between
‘seeing’ and ‘seeing as’
we ‘see’ shapes, lines, textures
we identify what we are looking at as ‘seeing as’
what does Hick expand on and how
Wittgenstein’s distinction between ‘seeing’ and ‘seeing as’
he applies it to all senses
we we are experiencing the world, we are ‘experiencing as’
What does Hick’s view link to and why
Hare and Bliks
because our experience of reality is shaped by our beliefs, culture and upbringing
+
the way we experience it is shaped by our beliefs, culture and upbringing
religious experience is a type of ‘experiencing as’
how does ‘experiencing as’ link to religious experiences (Hick)
+ e.g.
the religious person experiences human life and history as an encounter with God
as well as the physical world and other people
e.g. thanking God for the kindness of another human, linking it to an experience with God
Dawkins quote about religious experience
if we are gullible, we don’t recognise hallucinations and lucid dreaming for what it is and we claim to have heard or seen a ghost or an angel or God
Dawkins’ view on religious experience
if we understand mental illness, we should reject religious experience
compared religious experience with psychosis
what does Dawkins agree with
psychological and physiological responses
religious experience as an argument for the existence of God P1
there are compelling reasons for believed that claims of religious experience point to, and validate spiritual realities that exists in a way that transcends material manifestation
religious experience as an argument for the existence of God P2
according to materialism, nothing exists in a way which transcends material manifestation
religious experience as an argument for the existence of God P3
according to classical theism, god endows human beings with the ability to perceive -although imperfectly -
religious, spiritual, and/or transcendent realities
through religious, spiritual, and/or transcendent experiences
religious experience as an argument for the existence of God C
therefore, to the extent that P1 is accepted, theism is more plausible than materialism
What’s Swinburne’s justification for religious experience
an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God would seek to interact with his creation
what does Swinburne use to deal with issues of verification
5 part classification
what is Swinburne’s 5 part classification
common public sensory object
uncommon public sensory object
through a private object that can be described empirically
through a private object that can’t be described empirically
non mediated through any empirical object
what do the first three of Swinburne’s 5 part classification have in common
mysticism, empirical nature, cognitive
what do the last 2 of Swinburne’s 5 part classification have in common
no empirical nature, purely non-cognitive
what is examples for the first three of Swinburne’s 5 part classification
common public sensory object - e.g. sunset
uncommon public sensory object - e.g. Moses and the burning bush
through a private object that can be described empirically - e.g. Peter seeing animal filled cloth
what is examples for the last 2 of Swinburne’s 5 part classification
through a private object that can’t be described empirically - e.g. teresa of Avila and penetrating sword
non mediated through any empirical object - e.g. Nicholas of Cusa perceiving God as a non-bodily spirit
why should religious experience be valid for Swinburne
principle of credulity - our experience is normally reliable
principle of testimony - people normally tell the truth
weakness of principle of credulity and principle of testimony
intoxication, mental illness
what is Swinburne’s cumulative argument
one argument on it’s own does not really prove God’s existence, but putting them together makes an undeniable one
who opposes Swinburne’s cumulative argument and how
Flew’s leaky bucket argument
stacking a load of leaky buckets doesn’t make a bucket fine - putting together a load of weak arguments doesn’t make it strong
for religious experience
Schleiermacher
Saul’s conversion
Hick - Wittgenstein, Hare
Swinburne
Against religious experience
Feuerbach Freud Jung Physiological explanations Persinger - Granqvist Kant Dawkins
