REVELATION AND
RELIGIOUS
EXPERIENCE
A2: refer to OCR Jordan et al, chs.
REVELATION AND
RELIGIOUS
EXPERIENCE
CHAPTER 6
Arguments for the existence of God
from Religious Experience
WHAT IS
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE ?
non-empirical occurrence - may be ‘supernatural’
‘mental event’ which the individual is aware of
either ‘spontaneous’ or result of ‘training’
result of REX is being ‘drawn into a deeper
knowledge or awareness of God’
experience is not the divine itself but mediates the
divine
each experience is unique and cannot be shared
‘genuine’ REXs improve the individuals concerned
WHAT IS
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE ?
according to
encylopaedia britannica ...1
•Specific
experiences such as wonder at the infinity of
the cosmos, the sense of awe and mystery in the
presence of the holy, feelings of dependence on a
divine power or an unseen order, the sense of guilt
and anxiety accompanying belief in a divine judgment,
and the feeling of peace that follows faith in divine
forgiveness. Some thinkers also point to a religious
aspect to the purpose of life and with the destiny of the
individual.
WHAT IS
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE ?
according to
encylopaedia britannica ...2
•In
the first sense, religious experience means an
encounter with the divine in a way analogous to
encounters with other persons and things in the world.
In the second case, reference is made not to an
encounter with a divine being but rather to the
apprehension of a quality of holiness or rightness in
reality or to the fact that all experience can be viewed
in relation to the ground from which it springs. In short,
religious experience means both special experience of
the divine or ultimate and the viewing of any
experience as pointing to the divine or ultimate.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
•THIS
IS AN ATTEMPT IN THE OCR
TEXTBOOK TO CLASSIFY RELIGIOUS
EXPERIENCES BASED ON THE RESULTS
OF THE EXPERIENCES
Most are ‘mystical’ - a sense of union with
the divine
Many are ‘prayer’ experiences - resulting
from meditation and reflection
‘Conversion’ experiences are life changing
and permanent
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE AS AN
ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
•“There
is not one grace of the Spirit of God, of the
existence of which...Christian practice is the most
decisive evidence. The degree in which our experience
is productive in practice shows the degree in which our
evidence is spiritual and divine.” - Jonathan Edwards
(Treatise on Religious Affections, 1746)
•In
the Affections, Edwards insisted, against the revival
critics' ideal of sober, “reasonable” religion, that “the
essence of all true religion lies in holy love,” a love that
proves its genuineness by its inner quality and practical
results.
WILLIAM JAMES
(1842 - 1910)
Probably the most famous
commentator on Religious
Experience.
Medical doctor, not an orthodox
theologian, but philosophically and
psychologically literate and
sophisticated.
Varieties of Religious Experience
(1902), originally the Gifford Lectures
at Edinburgh in 1901-2.
WILLIAM JAMES
(1842 - 1910)
2
William James, the American philosopher and psychologist, in his book The
Varieties of Religious Experience , differentiated two types of religion
according to the attitude toward life — the religion of healthy-mindedness,
which minimizes or ignores the evil of existence, and that of morbidmindedness, which considers evil as the very essence of life.
He attempted to account for experiences such as conversion through the
concept of invasions from the unconscious
He viewed religious experience as a plurality of saving powers, “a more of the
same quality” as oneself, with which, in a crisis, one's personality can make
saving contact.
The final summary of the evidence — that the varieties of religious
experience point to the existence of specific and various reservoirs of
consciousness-like energies with which we can make specific contact in times
of trouble.
WILLIAM JAMES
(1842 - 1910)
3
He distinguishes existential judgements and value
judgements. The latter can also be considered as
spiritual judgements.
Existential judgements concern ‘primary’ questions of
the nature of reality - origin, content and function.
[Do not confuse this use of existential with its latter use in the
philosophical movement called existentialism where the
emphasis was on value judgements as (latter use) existential
concerns!]
Value judgements concern ‘secondary’ questions and
deal with their meaning, importance and significance
for us.
WILLIAM JAMES
(1842 - 1910)
4
In James’ day many dismissed religious experiences
as the product of a ‘faulty’ mind. James accepted that
‘religion and neurosis’ could be compatible.
Medical materialism seeks to classify everything in
physical terms.
He was impressed by the certainty of the testimonies
of those who had religious experiences. They had a
quality that was “more convincing than results
established by mere logic.”
WILLIAM JAMES
(1842 - 1910)
•WHAT ABOUT
5
INDUCED EXPERIENCES?
Can some religious experiences be confused with
the effects of drugs or alcohol?
Is a mystical state really an induced state of
consciousness or is it something spontaneous?
For the medical materialist these admittedly unique
experiences need to be explained (away?) in terms
that do not make reference to God and the like.
WILLIAM JAMES
(1842 - 1910)
•THE
6
CONCLUSIONS OF WILLIAM JAMES
The religious life centers on the following beliefs
This world is part of something bigger - a ‘spiritual’
world which we think is very important.
Our ultimate purpose is union with that ultimate
‘something’.
Communication / prayer with this ‘ultimate’
produces real effects and allows real work to be
done.
WILLIAM JAMES
(1842 - 1910)
•THE
7
CONCLUSIONS OF WILLIAM JAMES - 2
Religious experiences chiefly produce the following
results
a new enthusiasm for life, often leading to
profound and significant changes
a sense of peace and security, and of great love
for others.
Note that in his conclusions James is now emphasising the
reality of the experiences and their effects.
BUT...
WILLIAM JAMES
(1842 - 1910)
8
•BUT...
•Is
James a Realist or an Instrumentalist in his thinking
about religion. In other words, does he believe that the
God that some people say is the reason for their
religious experiences is really there, independent of
their experience (the realist position), or is the God that
religious folk say they are encountering not real in this
independent sense, though their belief that He is turns
out to be a useful fiction (the non-realist or
instrumentalist viewpoint)?
WILLIAM JAMES
(1842 - 1910)
9
•JAMES
ON THE OBJECTION TO THE ARGUMENT
THAT BECAUSE OF THE VARIETY OF RELIGIOUS
EXPERIENCE IN WORLD RELIGIONS, REX
CANNOT BE EVIDENCE POINTING TO GOD’S
EXISTENCE:
•He
rejected this, saying: “I do not see how it is
possible that creatures (people) in such different
positions (places and cultures) and with such different
powers...should have exactly the same functions and
the same duties. No two of us have the same
difficulties, nor should we be expected to work out
identical solutions.”
WILLIAM JAMES
- 1910)
10
ON(1842
THE OBJECTION
THAT RELIGIOUS
EXPERIENCE IS VERY LIKE EMOTION AND
THEREFORE EMPIRICAL TESTING OF IT IS
USELESS:
•JAMES
•[1]
Emotions are integral parts of religion. It is perfectly
reasonable to admit emotion as evidence. Moreover all
religions elicit similar feelings and conduct in their adherents.
Theories of religion should take this on board.
•[2]
James says there is a ‘science of religion’. Two universal
areas can be identified: (i) a certain ‘uneasiness’; (ii) a
solution to this - a ‘higher being’ NB: for James, not God as
we usually understand the term.
•JAMES
WILLIAM JAMES
ON THE ‘HIGHER BEING’ THAT IS OUR ‘SOLUTION’:
(1842 - 1910)
11
In psychological terms this ‘being’ is our subconscious self
about which we know very little.
The doorway to it is mysticism, prayer and conversion.
The effects of encountering this ‘higher power’ are real. This
unseen world should be seen as real.
If that cause is believed to be God then God exists.
Things that are true tend to improve our lives and religious folk
are generally more fulfilled and purposeful.
OTHER EXPLANATIONS OF
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
The key question is whether religious experiences are
being interpreted correctly.
Those who say that a given REX is evidence for the
existence of God believe that it is God that is the cause
of the REX in some way.
Others argue that there is another explanation for the
experience than God. Note here that there are people
who believe in God who may be sceptical about every
claim that a particular REX is about God. You do not
have to have an a priori atheism to be open to other
explanations of some REXs. There may also be
compatible or complementary explanations of a given
experience.
SIGMUND FREUD
(1856 - 1938)
Atheist outlook possibly fed by his own experiences of
anti-semitism, warped Catholic rituals as a child and
education of a materialist kind;
psychological/biological/materialist perspective
dominates his thought.
Religion is seen by Freud as a psychological
obsession.
REXs are essentially illusions; projections of our
wishes and insecurities. God is a substitute for one’s
estranged parent. Religious language disguises our
real condition of being psychologically unsettled and
seeking wholeness.
Ludwig feuerbach (1804-72)
KARL MARX (1818-83)
&
For Feuerbach religion is man made and a way to cope
with our ‘alienation’ - our ‘separation’ from the truth about
our existence. Religion is a fantasy - ‘an expression of
our alienation’.
For Marx, religion is famously ‘the opium of the people’.
Our alienation is to be understood socially and
economically. Marx claimed that his theories were
‘scientifically’ arrived at and that there were ‘laws’ behind
changes in history - his dialectical materialist view
developed from Hegel. Within the capitalist phase of
history we are materially oppressed and religion falsely
offers us comfort.
KARL MARX (1818-83) -[2]
But man is active and productive and
alienation can be overcome by a ‘productive
activity’ in which we find fulfillment in our
labours. Industrialised capitalism alienates
men from the means of production.
Communism is coming - inevitably and/or as
we bring it about - “workers of the world unite” -
Hegel
Man is essentially a social being. Social
conditions determine our lives and (19th cc
capitalist exploitation of the workers!) this can
be pretty awful. Marx wrote, “It is not the
consciousness of men that determines their
being, but, on the contrary, their social being
determines their consciousness.”
KARL MARX (1818-83) -[3]
•MARX’s ACCOUNT
OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE:
There is no God - ‘God’ is a projection of our
imagination.
You cannot therefore experience God in a so-called
‘religious experience’ because there is no God to
experience.
Religion is founded on an illusion.
RICHARD SWINBURNE
Swinburne was until 2002 one of the Oxford
university professors of theology. His book The
Existence of God is widely regarded as one of
the best of the standard discussions of the topic.
Chapter 13 is the one pertinent to our concerns.
Swinburne concludes: “On our total evidence,
theism is more probable than not.” Swinburne’s
approach is cumulative - it is all of the lines of
evidence and arguments put together that he
finds convincing.
RICHARD SWINBURNE - 2
Swinburne’s definition of Religious Experience
is: “... an experience which seems to the subject
to be an experience of God (either of his just
being there, or doing or bringing about
something) or of some other supernatural thing.”
[The Existence of God, 1991]
Notice the emphasis on the subject’s point of
view. This leads on to Swinburne’s famous pair
of principles:
The Principle of Credulity and
The Principle of Testimony.
RICHARD SWINBURNE - 3
The Principle of Credulity is summarised by
RS as, “If it seems to a subject that X is
present, then probably X is present; what one
perceives is probably so.” This flies in the face
of scepticism. This is effectively saying, “This
is what I experienced and you must believe
me unless you can prove otherwise.”
RS accepts that this is not a charter for the
gullible. There are criticisms of naive credulity.
It is widely held that there are four major
critical lines here which provide ‘limitations’ of
the Principle of Credulity.
RICHARD SWINBURNE - 4
•
Four challenges to the Principle of Credulity:
1. Circumstances leading to unreliable reports eg.
use of drugs, or an unreliable subject eg. a liar.
2. The recipient of the experience did not have the
ability to correctly interpret the experience eg. a
very young child.
3. If it is possible to show that whatever was
supposedly experienced was not there.
4. If it is possible to show that what was supposedly
experienced was there, but did not cause the
experience.
RICHARD SWINBURNE - 2
The Principle of Testimony: the assumption
here is that people usually tell the truth. In
RS’s words, “We usually believe to have
occurred what other people tell us that they
perceived occurring.”
He concedes that there may be circumstance
in which you do not accept the testimony at
face value of course.
On page 84 of the OCR text there is a kind of
decision tree attempting to summarise all of
P of C says accept your perception unless [a] one of 4 key
challenges applies or [b] positive grounds show it to be
mistaken
No valid challenge from
[a] or [b]
There are valid
challenge(s)
from [a] or [b]
P of T says I should accept your statement
unless I can show how it is mistaken
No valid challenges
Valid challenges
Accept experience as
genuine. It could be used to
argue for existence of God
Experience is
inauthentic. Not a basis
for showing God exists
CHALLENGES TO
SWINBURNE’S ARGUMENT
NB: RS is fully aware of these challenges and accepts that his
position is not showing any irrefutable proof of God’s existence,
merely that there is a cumulative case to be made.
DESCRIPTION RELATED CHALLENGES: If the
subject’s description is suspect it is no basis as
evidence.
SUBJECT RELATED CHALLENGES: If the subject is
not reliable the testimony is weakened.
OBJECT RELATED CHALLENGES: Doubts about the
nature or reality of God may make it harder to agree
with the interpretation of the REX that is offered. Some
also note that RS’s definition of REX is limited.
SUBJECTIVE relates to
what the subject thinks.
What his point of view or
opinion is, rather than
some externally
constrained facticity.
OBJECTIVE relates to the
nature of the object being
considered. An objective view
is constrained by what is, in
fact, the case.
THE OBJECTIVE / SUBJECTIVE
DISTINCTION
NB: The example
given in the OCR book, p86, is
not the best:
Kierkegaard was a philosopher [objective]
Kierkegaard was a great philosopher [subjective]
There are criteria to distinguish between mere
philosophers and ‘great’ philosophers which
arguably makes greatness more than a subjective
issue.
Think in terms of a possible spectrum:
FEEL
subjective
VALUES
private
view
?FAITH?
sun
KNOW
objective
FACTS
public
testable
?REASON?
THE OBJECTIVE / SUBJECTIVE
DISTINCTION
Is it the case that no
objective criteria can be applied to REX to
ascertain their merit, authenticity or anything else? Are critics
of REX out to debunk their genuineness as encounters with
God?
Subjective entails interpretation and is not scientific,
intellectual or empirical.
Just because you perceive the experience to be religious
doesn’t make it so. Psychopathology and mistaken
judgement must be considered.
Other causes than divine intervention, such as
psychological ones can explain even positive changes in a
person claiming a REX. “If God did not exist it would be
necessary to invent him” - Voltaire. Conversion is “a reaction
to a hostile world” - Freud.
AN EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENT FOR THE
EXISTENCE
OF GOD FROM RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
•We need to recognise the range of ‘theories of truth’ involved in
all of the above, in particular:
Correspondance - presupposes an external reality to which
our theories must correspond. For some the postulate that
God is real is problematic.
Coherence - truth is about relating ideas to other well
established truths within a system of thought. But there are a
number of internally consistent, coherent theories. The key
question, contra coherence alone, is whether they fit the way
the ‘world’ is.
Pragmatism - focusses on the consequences of accepting
the experience. Truth is about what works.
Should we require all three theories for a satisfactory
account?
CONCLUSION
REX arguments for God relate to people and their
experience of the world, unlike the abstract
classical arguments. This makes them more
accessible and perhaps understandable.
A key disadvantage is the less than empirical
nature of them, at least in terms of scientific testing
criteria.
Swinburne argues for the cumulative worth of all of
the lines or argument. Flew famously dismissed
this, “If one leaky bucket will not hold water, that is
no reason to think that ten can.” Caroline Franks
Davis retorted by suggesting you can stack the
buckets so the holes don’t overlap. Weaknesses