Religious Experiences:

The Argument :Introduction:• ‘Sense of the numinous’ –

Otto, meaning sense of God.• Are someone's senses enough

proof for Gods existence or are they to personal?

Argument:• People claim to have

experienced God directly.• If an entity is experienced, it

must exist.• God is the sort of being that it

is possible to experience.• Some argue for ‘direct

awareness’ – view that God can be known intuitively by the person perceiving him.

• Conclusion: God exists.

Inductive argument:• Premise 1: experience of X

indicates the reality of X.• Premise 2: Experience of God

indicates the reality of God.• Premise 3: it is possible to

experience God.• Conclusion: God exists as so

many have such experiences.

Evidence used:• An inductive and a posteriori

argument based on the evidence of witness and testimonies.

The debate:• Objective (fact for everyone) or

subjective (dependent on personal belief)?

• Because they experience God, you should believe.

St Teresa:• ‘God establishes himself in the

interior of his soul in such a way that when I return to myself, it is wholly impossible for me to doubt that I have been with God and God was with me.’

John Wesley:• ‘I felt my heart strangely

warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation, and an assurance was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine’

St Paul:• ‘Suddenly a light from

heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him ‘Saul Saul, why do you persecute me?’

Conclusion:• Experiences are objective

for the experiencer but subjective to everyone else – cant be!!

Summary:• Religious experiences

examine the pending question ‘is too see to believe?’, the validity of Otto’s ‘sense of the numinous’ and whether intuition can be trusted when attempting to prove God through posteriori experiences.

• St Teresa states ‘it was wholly impossible for me to doubt’

William James:Lifetime:• Studied and wrote ‘Varieties of

Religious Experience’ and found they all shared common factors:• ‘Ineffability’ – struggled to find a

way to explain it.• ‘Noetic’ – gained knowledge

that, to them, was 100% real.• ‘Transiency’ – outside of

themselves, they don’t cause it.• ‘Passivity’ – timeless/lasts ages.

Argued:• ‘Absolutely authoritative’ – to the

people experiencing them and the common factors point to God.

• However, claims it is still too subjective to the person to prove God to others.

Summary:• James is not in favour of religious

experiences being proof of God for everyone as he views it as subjective.

Argument:• Religious experiences are deeply

personal.• But this makes testimonies too

subjective.• Only proves God to the experiencer.• However, for them it is the most

convincing proof there is.• The only thing that is unequivocally

testifies to is that we can experience union with something greater than ourselves.’

Conclusion:• That we should judge the experience

on the impact it has on the person.• To them it is 100% proof as they have

a noetic knowledge.• ‘The result of religious experiences

are the only reliable bases for judging whether it is a genuine experience of the divine.’

Pragmatic Theory:• Judge on the impact• What effect does it have on peoples lives?• Paul Tillich – ‘Ultimate concern.’

Summary of Religious Experiences:• People intuitionally know ‘things’.• So should be able to intuitionally prove God.• Brian Davies – ‘Just as I can reasonably say that

there is a bed in my bedroom because I have encountered it, so I can reasonably say that there is a God, because I have directly encountered him.’

• They just self authenticate.• H. Farmer - ‘It will not be possible to describe the

compelling touch of God other than a compelling touch of God.’

Pragmatic Theory:

R. Swinburne:Argument:• Reasonable to suppose that God

would seek to engage and interact with his creation if he existed.

• Fit with the nature and attributes of God (omnipotent, benevolent) he would be able to interact with us.

• If God exists, we should expect religious experiences to take place (higher probability).

• ‘An omnipotent and perfectly good creator will seek to interact with his creatures and in particular, with human persons capable of knowing him’.

Principle of credulity:• Defends the idea that those

experiencing God should believe intuitively what their instincts/senses are telling them.

Principle of testimony:• He also argues that we should

trust those who give accounts of RE if there is no reason to doubt them.

• Readily admits that known liars, drug addicts and he like should not be trusted.

• ‘In the absence of special consideration the experiences of the others are probably as they report.’

Martin Buber:Argument:• Why God can act in the

world? – in small, day to day experiences, not miracles.

• God can act in the world, through religious experiences.

• To understand this, must understand that there are two types of relationships:

• I-IT – day to day relationships with objects (pens, clothes).

• I-YOU (thou) – relationships with people (deeper).

• Don’t need to verify relationships with items as you know empirically that they exist.

• Can’t verify relationships with friends/families but don’t need to – intuitionally know they are real, so why would God be any different?

Experiencing God:• Best way for God to be experienced is

through other people.• Referred to God a ‘eternal thou’.• So he can/does work through people, with

the experiencer using their intuition.• ’…each thou we address the eternal thou.’• Atheists still have such experiences but do

not recognise them as Gods work.

Quotes:• ‘special kind of knowledge quite different

from our knowledge of them as an object or thing…’ – don’t need to prove relationships with God as with family.

• ‘You relation is immediately broken’ – once you question your relationship with God, it breaks.

• ‘The world is twofold for man in accordance with his twofold attitude’.

Proof:• Don’t need proof – experiences in

everyday life prove him.

H. P. Owen:Owen’s Work:• Intuition is the same as religious

experiences.• Can use our ability to

think/intuition allows us to have a primary awareness of ourselves.

• Can use intuition of finite thing to confirm they are significantly religious.

• However, knows this isn’t the best proof in philosophy but is for experience.

Summary:• Religious experience is a genuine source of religious knowledge. • Religious experiences are not grand events (they are miracles) but

day-to-day events (feeling in church)• Knowledge comes from intuition, not reason or argument.• Intuition is what allows us to make sense of our experiences.• God works through out intuition; inner self.• Through our understanding of the world.• ‘… sense of God’s reality can… be produced by the contemplation of

beauty and order in nature.’

Write up:• Claimed that religious experiences are a

genuine source of religious knowledge, by this he meant away a person experiences God and therefore knows God is real. Just as we use our intuition to interpret the world around us, so too can we use our intuition to know that God is real. God works through intuition (past experiences tells us nothing happens without sufficient reason). Experiences that we encounter are processed through our senses which are interpreted by our intuition. We can use our intuition to interpret the order and structure in nature plus its ‘beauty’ and understanding that it is the work of God. For Owen, religious experiences are God’s way of having a relationship wit us, the only way he can do this is by working through out intuition.

B. Russell: J. L. Mackie:Argument:• Love is just a chemical, physical reaction.• Can not be certain our experience is correct.• The reliability of our ‘sense of intuition’ is not

something to be taken for granted, as an independent guide to genuine knowledge.

• No doubt that we have reliable intuitions in some situations but…

• Not always the case: out intuitive knowledge of other people (which the argument relies on) the feeling that we have profound and certain knowledge may be false.

• Should stick to a priori argument – as uses the brain/reason.

• ‘more groping method of the intellect are in the long run more reliable.’

Argument:• Wrong to draw evidence from people’s claim to religious

experiences – analogies don’t work (Davis – just because he knows there is a bed in his room which he can empirically test (he can go and look) does not prove God).

• There are ‘disanalogies’ between religious experiences and other, normal experiences. Analogies only work if they are comparative, which religious experiences are not.

• Religious experiences have different characteristics from other perceptions, so they should not carry the same degree of authority.

• Not part if the same scheme of shared and verified experiences common in daily life.

Michael Persinger:Argument:• Created an electronic helmet that inducted

‘religious experiences’.• Small electric signals and magnetic

vibrations into the temporal lobes.• Suppressed parts of brain, the sense of

individuality was lost, and rest of James’ points.

• People reported feeling ‘something there’• But couldn’t name it.• Some even reported ‘mystical experiences’.

Summary:• Religious experiences can be induced so are therefore not God, they are

just psychological problems.

Linguistic:A. J. Ayer: A. Flew: (falsification

principle)• To argue one has sensed the numinous, is not to conclude it

to be the result of God.• Not the same as other intuitional experiences or yellow

(language game) as they can be empirically proven within language – intuition of God is different from intuition of other things – not helpful to have an indescribable experience.

• Can not empirically test these experiences, so shouldn’t say anything.

• To also argue that a religious experience is ‘Ineffable’ (James) is to admit that they are meaningless.

• ’the fact that he cannot reveal what he knows or even himself devise an empirical test to validate his knowledge, shows that the state of the mystic intuition is not a genuinely cognitive state’ – fact that Farmer cant explain what he felt is an underlying sign of psychological problem, the fact that you can not test it means it is not a cognitive state you are in.

• Can only ever be subjective, never objective.• Religious believers are bias in outlook, meaning their

testimonies are unreliable.• The believer will not allow evidence to the contrary, as

they continue to believe.• Hard to know the validity of the religious experiences

(can’t disprove Santa) as it just proves just how pointless the argument is.

• If God does not exist, you have no experience of him and therefore by nature religious experiences are not real.

• Can we know it is God? – no way to empirically test it.• ‘in order to say something which may possibly be true,

we must say something which may possible be false.’ – to say for definite that it is the work of God, must prove him but can’t (also can’t not prove him).

Alternative:S. Freud: Dawkins:

• Psychological need:• Religious experiences maybe the result of man’s desire for

God as the mind has the ability to do this.• Religion is part of a projective system – ideas from inside you

that you project into reality.• ‘universal neurosis’ – regarded as illusionary.• You do feel it, but not God, just your psyche.• Therefore, religious experiences are projections/illusions..• Your desire to have a relationship, with a greater being, a

great father figure onto God.• ‘Mans relation to God could recover the intimacy and

intensity, of a child’s relation to his father’.• No one can deal with this desire, so it is projected onto God.

• Personal experiences often used in an appeal to God because people are ignorant of more straight-forward physical or psychological (water) explanation for what they perceive.

• ‘it is an argument based on ignorance’.• In his book, The God Delusions, he tells a story from his

uni days – he recalls that a fellow undergraduate was camping in Scotland and claimed to have heard the voice of the devil – Satan himself – which is an ignorant claim as they didn’t bother looking for an alternative.

• It was just the call of the Devil bird.

R. Hare: L. Wittgenstein:• ‘Bliks’ - an unverifiable/falsifiable way of looking at the

world (biased in head, a presumed idea)• Theists have religious bliks – way of looking at the world

which is religious (wind=God or wind=science)• Means all experiences point to God.• Those experiences become empirical facts.• Uses example of the ‘lunatic and the Don’.

• ‘seeing as’ - e.g. – pretty/ugly.• Plato’s cave – mistake what we experience, thinking

shadows are people, thinking experiences are God. • Not lying, just misinterpreting/their way of seeing it.• Duck and Rabbit illusion – just see it differently.• Therefore, experiences don’t prove God as they just

misinterpret what they are seeing.

Brain:

Lunatic and the Don:• A certain lunatic is convinced that all dons want to murder him. His friends introduce him to all the mildest

and most respectable dons that they can find, and after each of them has retired, they say, 'You see, he doesn't really want to murder you; he spoke to you in a most cordial manner; surely you are convinced now?' But the lunatic replies, 'Yes, but that was only his diabolical cunning; he's really plotting against me the whole time, like the rest of them; I know it I tell you'. However many kindly dons are produced, the reaction is still the same.

Who against who?Ayer Persinger Flew Hare Wittgenstein Russell Freud Dawkins Mackie

Swinburne

S: verifyA: can’t empirically test as not the same as family relations.

S: principle of testimonyP: shouldn’t trust – psych problems

S: test experience using intuitionF: nothing to test

S: should trust experiencers.H: bliks make testimonies bias – not high prob.

S: experiencers see God through intuition.W: misinterpret

S: experience God through intuition.W: intuition is just a chemical reaction.

S: should trust testimonies.F: shouldn’t – just psyche projecting.

S: should trust testimonies.D: just misassumptions – don’t bother looking for alternative.

S: should trust testimonies.M: RE’s have different characteristics.

James

J: absolute authoritiveA: not – may not be God

J: characteristics.P: not God - replicated

J: absolute authoritiveF: can not not prove God, so not an authoritive.

J: absolute authoritive.H: bliks cause bias testimonies – not an authoritive.

J: noetic knowledgeW: just seeing it differently than others.

J: should trust experiences.R: can’t use intuition in this case.

J: similarities in experiencesF: just how the psyche works.

J: noetic knowledge.D: don’t bother looking for alternative.

J: similaritiesM: different from daily experiences

Buber

B: ‘thou’ relations are proof.A: not the same relation.

B: use intuition as proof.F: biased intuition.

B: experience him in everyday life.P: don’t, just neurosis

B: see God through everyday experiences.H: just think you experience him

B: ‘thou’ relationships W: just think what is happening is God when it isn’t.

B: ‘thou’ relationshipsR: can use other things than intuition to know others, not God

B: experiences God through others.F: just project him onto others to feel better.

B: ‘thou’ relations.D: just nice people – not God.

B: thou relations are same for God.M: dianalogies – not the same

Summary:James:• Important to the person equals

God.

Swinburne:• High probability because of the

huge number of people having experiences.

Buber:• God shows himself in ways we

can understand – through others.

Farmer:• Self-authentication: prove

themselves.

Owen:• God is what makes intuition

work, experiences are interpreted through intuition.

Ayer:• Can not test the experience so does not

prove God’s existence.• The words used in religious experiences

do not prove God’s existence.

Flew:• Does not prove/falsify God as we can not

test the evidence offered to God’s existence.

Persinger:• Religious experiences can be explained

by the brain – helmet.

Hare:• Bias when looking at experiences

because of bliks so could be not God.

Wittgenstein:• Misinterpret what they see – duck/rabbit

Russell:• Impossible to use intuition to prove

God as it is effected by emotion.

Freud:• Project God into existence as need a

guiding father figure.

Dawkins:• People conclude God when they so

not bother looking for another example.

Mackie:• Analogies are wrong – use ones that

can be empirically tested whereas God cannot.