Discuss the view that religious experiences can point to the existence of God
A religious experience usually refers to non-empirical experiences where you are in
contact or receive information passed from God. These can occur in many forms
including conversions, visions and mystical experiences. Religious experiences do
not provide a basis for a belief for God or a greater power, as scholars such as
Richard Swinburne, AJ Ayer, Dawkins and Anthony Flew to both appose and
support my view. However, it should be acknowledged that due to the subjective
nature of religious experiences and the varying types, it could be argued that some
religious experiences provide a more solid basis for belief in God than others.
Richard Swinburne’s principles of Testimony and Credulity, if true, lead us to the conclusion that
we should accept religious experiences as providing a basis for belief in God or a greater power
as people would be telling the truth. Unless we have strong evidence that an individual is
hallucinating or that they are lying we have no basis to reject their proposed experience.
The principle of Credulity simply states that if someone has said they have seen something,
such as God, then they most likely have. It is rational to believe what they said to be true.
The principle of testimony goes on to argue that people will usually be honest, and we
should believe with them unless we have reason not to. However, just because someone
believes to be truthful in their claim doesn’t necessarily mean that their claim automatically is
true. For example, mistakes in human rationality may mean there are simple
misinterpretations or misunderstandings which cause people to think they have had direct
encounters with God when this is not the case An example of this kind of mistake can be
seen in Richard Dawkin’s “Devil Bird” story, where a couple camping in Scotland were
woken, supposedly, by the voice of the devil himself, however it was actually a “Manx
Shearwater” whose shrieks had earned it the nickname Devil Bird. As a result of the flaws in
human perception it could be argued that religious experience cannot provide us with a
basis for belief in God. However, while one individual may experience a flaw in rationality, it
is less likely in corporate religious experiences that everyone will simultaneously make an
error in judgement. As a result, we must now assess whether corporate experiences can
provide a firm basis for knowledge of God’s existence.
Corporate experiences, where a group of individuals all experience the same thing can suggest
that there is some validity to the event. The Toronto blessing (1994) is a case commonly used
when in conversation of religious experiences. In this event, hundreds of individuals were all
manically laughing, crying and rolling on the floor. They all proposed that they’d all experienced
the same overwhelming emotion that lead to them acting in this way. This event is supporting the
view that religious experience can provide a basic belief in a powerful being. On the other hand,
this can be disproved with an example of mass hysteria, where they all believe they are
experiencing the same thing when in fact they are mostly repeating behaviour they are witness
too. 2 Thessalonians 2:9 says “(Satan) will use all sorts of displays of power…that serve the lie”
implying that, from a religious viewpoint, there may be room to doubt the validity of corporate
experiences. Furthermore, I would argue a crucial flaw concerning the validity of religious
experiences is that they are impossible to prove and
A religious experience usually refers to non-empirical experiences where you are in
contact or receive information passed from God. These can occur in many forms
including conversions, visions and mystical experiences. Religious experiences do
not provide a basis for a belief for God or a greater power, as scholars such as
Richard Swinburne, AJ Ayer, Dawkins and Anthony Flew to both appose and
support my view. However, it should be acknowledged that due to the subjective
nature of religious experiences and the varying types, it could be argued that some
religious experiences provide a more solid basis for belief in God than others.
Richard Swinburne’s principles of Testimony and Credulity, if true, lead us to the conclusion that
we should accept religious experiences as providing a basis for belief in God or a greater power
as people would be telling the truth. Unless we have strong evidence that an individual is
hallucinating or that they are lying we have no basis to reject their proposed experience.
The principle of Credulity simply states that if someone has said they have seen something,
such as God, then they most likely have. It is rational to believe what they said to be true.
The principle of testimony goes on to argue that people will usually be honest, and we
should believe with them unless we have reason not to. However, just because someone
believes to be truthful in their claim doesn’t necessarily mean that their claim automatically is
true. For example, mistakes in human rationality may mean there are simple
misinterpretations or misunderstandings which cause people to think they have had direct
encounters with God when this is not the case An example of this kind of mistake can be
seen in Richard Dawkin’s “Devil Bird” story, where a couple camping in Scotland were
woken, supposedly, by the voice of the devil himself, however it was actually a “Manx
Shearwater” whose shrieks had earned it the nickname Devil Bird. As a result of the flaws in
human perception it could be argued that religious experience cannot provide us with a
basis for belief in God. However, while one individual may experience a flaw in rationality, it
is less likely in corporate religious experiences that everyone will simultaneously make an
error in judgement. As a result, we must now assess whether corporate experiences can
provide a firm basis for knowledge of God’s existence.
Corporate experiences, where a group of individuals all experience the same thing can suggest
that there is some validity to the event. The Toronto blessing (1994) is a case commonly used
when in conversation of religious experiences. In this event, hundreds of individuals were all
manically laughing, crying and rolling on the floor. They all proposed that they’d all experienced
the same overwhelming emotion that lead to them acting in this way. This event is supporting the
view that religious experience can provide a basic belief in a powerful being. On the other hand,
this can be disproved with an example of mass hysteria, where they all believe they are
experiencing the same thing when in fact they are mostly repeating behaviour they are witness
too. 2 Thessalonians 2:9 says “(Satan) will use all sorts of displays of power…that serve the lie”
implying that, from a religious viewpoint, there may be room to doubt the validity of corporate
experiences. Furthermore, I would argue a crucial flaw concerning the validity of religious
experiences is that they are impossible to prove and
