Religious Experience – Revision
Possible question: ‘Using the evidence of religious experiences to prove the existence of
God is unreliable’.
SWINBURNE lists 5 types:
Public experiences:
1. Ordinary, interpreted experience – e.g., sunsets
2. Extraordinary experience – e.g., near death experiences
Private experience:
3. describable in normal language
4. Not describable in normal language
5. No specific experience (for instance when the whole of a believer’s life is seen in a
certain way).
(1 and 5 are a bit unusual, when we think of a religious experience, we think of things like
miracles etc., not sunsets).
Swinburne uses witnessing evidence: Religious experience CAN be verified
1. The principle of credulity (about you) – maintains that it is a principle of rationality
that if it seems to a person that X is present, then probably X is present. What one
seems to perceive is probably so.
2. The principle of testimony (about others) – maintains that it is reasonable to believe
that the experiences of others are probably as they report them.
Assumes everyone is to be trusted, including ourselves.
Wittgenstein: we see things depending on our view of the world – would say that different
religions see different things e.g., a Muslim would see Allah, a Christian would see God.
Hick: developed Wittgenstein’s ‘seeing-as’ experience as ‘experiencing as’: Both people see
a colourful sunset. One feels touched by the divine as God’s greatness is mediated to them,
another sees an ordinary natural event. A difference of experience, not a difference of fact.
William James: does not specify the cause of the religious experience but identifies the
criteria of a religious experience. RX are real for people but does not necessarily prove
God’s existence.
Shared characteristics of a RX:
Ineffable – feeling so unlike anything else it is not possible to impart or transfer them to
others.
Noetic – states that allow insight into the depths of truth unobtainable by intellect alone
, Transient – cannot be maintained for long periods
Passive – state may be entered through mediation, but state of consciousness is one of
passivity or acceptance and openness, whereby the mystic feels they have been taken over
by a superior power.
Basis of James’ theory: Philosophical Pragmatism
Writes “the true is only the expedient in our way of thinking” – We can never
establish what is ‘true’ in an absolute and infallible way.
Instead, we decide what is true according to what fits or what works best in practical
terms. – pragmatism.
James thus argues that religious experiences express truth in pragmatic terms. They
are true to the extent that they help to improve and make sense of our lives in the
world. (Compare to religious experience as ‘experience-as’ for Hick).
James states that religious experiences are always interpreted within the framework
of the experiencer. A Christian will see Mary, a Hindu would see Ganesh.
The experiencer itself is understood within our own understanding of the world.
So, religious experiences are labelled as religious as a result of being educated into a
framework of belief – e.g., the night sky may be the ‘hand of God’ to a believer but
just ‘beautiful’ to a non-believer.
However, whilst the framework may vary, the experience itself could be real.
Freud: “Religion is a universal obsessional neurosis” - it comes from human need and
human desire – it is just a psychological crutch, nothing more.
Mackie: Experiences are ambiguous, and there are no agreed tests for verifying religious
experiences. Believers may be unreliable in their reporting and experiences may fulfil
psychosocial needs.
Mysticism: an experience which reveals the transcendent – something which goes beyond
normal everyday experiences.
Example:
- St Teresa of Avila - “God establishes himself in the interior of this soul in such a way
that, when I return to myself, it is wholly impossible for me to doubt that I have
been in God, and God in me.”
- Neo-Pentecostal Phenomena – mass hysteria
Otto: A contrast to William James – different selection of criteria for a religious experience
– no language can fully explain the experience of God or any religious experience, as it is
holy and therefore other. Otto’s idea of personal mystical experience makes much of the
idea of the fascination we feel when we love something.
Possible question: ‘Using the evidence of religious experiences to prove the existence of
God is unreliable’.
SWINBURNE lists 5 types:
Public experiences:
1. Ordinary, interpreted experience – e.g., sunsets
2. Extraordinary experience – e.g., near death experiences
Private experience:
3. describable in normal language
4. Not describable in normal language
5. No specific experience (for instance when the whole of a believer’s life is seen in a
certain way).
(1 and 5 are a bit unusual, when we think of a religious experience, we think of things like
miracles etc., not sunsets).
Swinburne uses witnessing evidence: Religious experience CAN be verified
1. The principle of credulity (about you) – maintains that it is a principle of rationality
that if it seems to a person that X is present, then probably X is present. What one
seems to perceive is probably so.
2. The principle of testimony (about others) – maintains that it is reasonable to believe
that the experiences of others are probably as they report them.
Assumes everyone is to be trusted, including ourselves.
Wittgenstein: we see things depending on our view of the world – would say that different
religions see different things e.g., a Muslim would see Allah, a Christian would see God.
Hick: developed Wittgenstein’s ‘seeing-as’ experience as ‘experiencing as’: Both people see
a colourful sunset. One feels touched by the divine as God’s greatness is mediated to them,
another sees an ordinary natural event. A difference of experience, not a difference of fact.
William James: does not specify the cause of the religious experience but identifies the
criteria of a religious experience. RX are real for people but does not necessarily prove
God’s existence.
Shared characteristics of a RX:
Ineffable – feeling so unlike anything else it is not possible to impart or transfer them to
others.
Noetic – states that allow insight into the depths of truth unobtainable by intellect alone
, Transient – cannot be maintained for long periods
Passive – state may be entered through mediation, but state of consciousness is one of
passivity or acceptance and openness, whereby the mystic feels they have been taken over
by a superior power.
Basis of James’ theory: Philosophical Pragmatism
Writes “the true is only the expedient in our way of thinking” – We can never
establish what is ‘true’ in an absolute and infallible way.
Instead, we decide what is true according to what fits or what works best in practical
terms. – pragmatism.
James thus argues that religious experiences express truth in pragmatic terms. They
are true to the extent that they help to improve and make sense of our lives in the
world. (Compare to religious experience as ‘experience-as’ for Hick).
James states that religious experiences are always interpreted within the framework
of the experiencer. A Christian will see Mary, a Hindu would see Ganesh.
The experiencer itself is understood within our own understanding of the world.
So, religious experiences are labelled as religious as a result of being educated into a
framework of belief – e.g., the night sky may be the ‘hand of God’ to a believer but
just ‘beautiful’ to a non-believer.
However, whilst the framework may vary, the experience itself could be real.
Freud: “Religion is a universal obsessional neurosis” - it comes from human need and
human desire – it is just a psychological crutch, nothing more.
Mackie: Experiences are ambiguous, and there are no agreed tests for verifying religious
experiences. Believers may be unreliable in their reporting and experiences may fulfil
psychosocial needs.
Mysticism: an experience which reveals the transcendent – something which goes beyond
normal everyday experiences.
Example:
- St Teresa of Avila - “God establishes himself in the interior of this soul in such a way
that, when I return to myself, it is wholly impossible for me to doubt that I have
been in God, and God in me.”
- Neo-Pentecostal Phenomena – mass hysteria
Otto: A contrast to William James – different selection of criteria for a religious experience
– no language can fully explain the experience of God or any religious experience, as it is
holy and therefore other. Otto’s idea of personal mystical experience makes much of the
idea of the fascination we feel when we love something.
