Strengths and Weaknesses of James’s argument from Religious Experience.
APPROACH:
finding a
grounding
explanation for
religious
experience
STRENGTHS
synthetic approach
 plausible common features of religious
experience
 wide evidential base (for his time)
attractive
 makes religious experience seem attractive
 encourages participation in religion as a way
of understanding religious experience
CONCLUSION:
God as
transcendent and
unlimited is a
plausible
grounding
explanation
relevant common features
 the common features do point towards a
transcendent and unlimited being
modest claim
 claims only that people are rationally entitled
to believe that the grounding explanation of
their religious experience is a transcendent
and unlimited divine being (Vardy)
 encourages tolerance of religious belief
WEAKNESSES
ignores differences
 treats all religious beliefs and practices as versions of
expression for the same experience
 can there really be one God behind such varied and
contradictory beliefs and practices?
 very individualistic in his account of religious experience
optimistic
 seems to assume that religious experience is psychologically
and socially constructive
ignores alternatives
 does not consider sociological or psychological alternative
explanations for religious experience
 does not consider religious belief systems without a God in
any detail – tends to find a God-substitute in them
 religious experience need not be caused by a transcendent
God
circular argument
 the interpretation of the experience as religious supports the
belief in the divine and the belief in the divine supports the
interpretation of the experience as religious (Flew)
non-specific God
 in order to include all religious experience the concept of the
divine is so broad that it does not fit any particular religion
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.
STRENGTHS
The argument is a valid deductive argument – if the premises
are accurate then the conclusion must be accepted.
WEAKNESSES
The definition of God can only really be accepted by faith.
And the claim that it is greater to exist than not to exist
assumes that existence is a predicate.
The argument is devotional – it recognises that the only way
to understand God is through faith.
The argument is arrogant - it preaches to non-believers,
telling them they are foolish if they do not share the faith.
The argument recognises that necessary existence is an
attribute of God and uses this to argue for God’s existence.
It is not clear that a claim that it is necessary to think of
God can be used to argue that God necessarily exists in
reality.
The argument is more suited to arguing about God than
inductive arguments – inductive arguments only give
probability and God is not a being that could be probable,
Rather, if God exists then God must exist and the ontological
argument acknowledges this.
The argument only shows that if God exists, then God
must exist. God may have logical necessity, but logical
necessity does not give factual necessity.
The strengths and weaknesses of the ontological argument can be summarised in Anselm’s famous phrase – Faith Seeking Understanding.
The fact that the argument begins with faith and works towards understanding accounts for both its strengths and weaknesses.