challanges to religious experience??

kk so i got loadsa stuff on religious experience, what it is, different sorts like mysticism, coperate, conversion, numinous etc an loads people loike williams saying what they think it is BUT when it comes to an argument against religious experience i dont have anything! has anyone got anything to tell me about it?
for example i found this past paper wich i wouldnt have a clue what to write for:
Discuss the suggestion that it is pointless to analyse rel;igious experince.

any suggestions??

also, im not quite cure of the relevance of Happold's types and aspects of religious experience???

any other general stuff on religous experience would be appretiated cus i dnt get it.

thank u muchly!

Reply 1

ohyeahoh

I have no useful reply cause I don't know either.

But maybe you could say something about how for non faith people it doesn't have authority cause they would look for alternative causes.

Well *watches thread*

xxx

Reply 2

Lotte123

Basically you should look at opposers to religion itself such as Freud and Marx. They would dismiss religious experiences because they believe them to be simply products of our unconscious mind. Freud saw religious experiences as a search for comfort and a father figure as a reaction to the hostility of the world - so if someone saw God, they were really looking for comfort from a father figure and so were regressing back to buried memories of their childhood. Marx saw religion as the 'opium of the people', and religious experiences as a sub conscious reaction to alienation within practical lives e.g. lack of fulfilment. An image of God is a projection of a persons most desired qualities such as omnipotence and omniscience, and the image generated so strong that the recipient believes it to be true. Marx also saw religion as a means for the powerful to keep the poor oppressed - promise of afterlife made up for hardships experienced in this life. There's a lot more out there, but hope this helped! :smile:

Reply 3

brown

There are LOADS of challenges! Just to name a few:

- Scientific objections: many naturalistic explanations have been given for religious experience. Epilepsy, for example, has often been associated with religiosity (it is colloquially called 'The Sacred Disease'). Some think that St Paul's conversion experience on the road to Damascus was an epileptic attack: 'his thorn in the flesh'. Dr Susan Blackmore claims that near-death experiences (NDEs) are nothing more than an illusion created by the brain. Zaehner experimented with alcohol, cannabis, LSD and mescaline to simulate mystical experiences.
- Psychological objections: Ludwig Feuerbach held that religious experience was simply the projection of the human imagination, its hopes and desires, on to a mythical concept called 'God'.
- Theological objections: What makes an experience 'religious'? How can we verify religious experience if we cannot even prove that God exists? Conflicting claims: people from all religions have experiences, so how do we know which religion is correct?

BUT it is important to remember that these challenges can also be challenged, and none are conclusive in themselves:

- Corroboration supports the idea that people can have out of body experiences. Pam Reynolds, for example, was pronounced clinically dead yet was able to accurately describe events in the operating room, even the type of drill that the doctors used to open her skull. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds'_NDE.
- Richard Swinburne would apply the principles of credulity and testimony to show that it is reasonable to believe in religious experience. The principle of credulity states that things are usually as they seem to be; the principle of credulity says that people normally tell the truth.

Reply 4

snakepit

That's a plan which I did which overs 3 objections we went over in class....

ReligiousExperience.doc29.2KB

Reply 5

Tegid

That plan is awesome for revision. Nice one.

Your plan talks loads about Richard Swiburn and nothign about William James? Is it advisable only to talk about one philosopher as opposed to opposing/ comparative views of two?

JX

Reply 6

m90

There is nothing wrong with using more than one philosopher - I recommend it actually because it does give you an opposing view. Aslong as it's relevant and you understand the argument and you have enough time, I think it's fine :smile:

Reply 7

vixi1

thank u so much guys!! BIG help.
tar xxx

Reply 8

mark_t

i had typed up a quick essay on it the other day, there are some decent points in here, but also bulk it up with further Freud and Marx and the others said before, it is based on that question that it is pointless to analyse religious experience.

Religious experience is a diverse area in which philosophers and theologians have classified various types into: numinosity, mystical experience, conversion and prayer to name but a few. There has been much cause for analysing religious experience as many believe it illustrates the nature of God and even the human mind. However, difficulties arise when you understand that an interventionist God has instigated such religious experiences, similarly, ordinary language cannot facilitate the metaphysical. Through this fallacious manner, many would propose that it is pointless to analyse religious experience.

William James understood that religious experience was the key into understanding the very foundations of religion, and further, the psychological truths of the human mind, as it uncovers the way in which the mind works at an extreme level. Freud would concur with the need for religious experience to be studied as a science for this reason; however he would focus his research on the idea that the human mind was governed by wish fulfilment – a desire for the psychologically pleasing.
When Paul was on the road to Damascus, he had a blinding vision of Jesus appearing before him, which as a result, converted him into a Christian and he set out to proselytize the word of Christ. James believed there to be four ways in which to understand this event to be a religious experience. Ineffability – the word of Christ hence God, was at such an individual, personal level, that it defied all means of being expressed through language as it was experiential. Secondly, the Noetic quality of this experience was evident as Paul got an insight into the wisdom of God. Thirdly, transience; although the experience only lasted a short duration, it was entirely life changing due to it coming from a higher reality, transcending the norm. Finally the passivity of this religious experience as Paul realised he had taken the wrong path and corrected the errors of his ways. Such an experience brings about a submissive demeanour as true greatness is realised. Through analysing religious experience, James suggests one can qualify whether an event was truly a religious experience and have any legitimacy.
Freud would argue that by analysing religious experience, one can come to certain conclusions, however negated of religious meaning. Freud would interpret Paul’s experience as a self induced illusion, brought about by internalized echoes in his unconscious.
It is clear that both Freud and James would argue that analysing religious experience is not pointless.

As religious experience is a diverse and relative area of philosophy, when evaluating and analysing, one must search for the theories of truth. A miracle is a type of religious experience as it is attributed to the supernatural power of God. Moses parting the Red Sea is one example, whereby God violated the laws of nature, as proposed by David Hume’s violation concept. By applying the correspondence theory of truth, one would dismiss the credibility of this miracle as it does not correspond with anything else; it is entirely unique as it violates all the laws of nature. Equally, the coherence theory would refute any validity of these claims as it does not conform to the nature within a given system, it is an inconsistency.
However, not all miracles necessitate the need for a God. Sutherland would propose that a change for the better in the most unlikely of people is the true form of a miracles power; such would be the form of a conversion. Thouless illustrates this by his story of ‘Swearing Tom’. Tom lived a profane and godless life, however, he experience a religious event, whereby religious ideologies became the habitual centre of Tom’s energy. By applying the pragmatic theory of truth which focuses on the consequences of accepting such religious experience, one would validate the truth and importance of such an event as the outcomes were beneficial.
Conversely, empiricists such as Ayer and Carnap would suggest that analysing any form of religious experience was entirely fruitless, as there is no empirical validity in any of the claims. Any statement void of objectivity, hence all metaphysics, was based on opinion, and therefore meaningless.

Kierkegaard was right in saying that ‘there is no “objective way” of reaching God”, deeming religious experience as subjective. Contrary to Ayer and Carnap’s view, many would argue that due to its subjective nature, it pushes the mind to further conceptualize the higher realities of metaphysics and eventually God. Therefore not only is not pointless to analyse religious experiences, it is necessary to gain a full understanding of reality in all senses of its word.

Other Points on religious experience

It is very important to remember that the experience itself is not a substitute for the Divine, but a vehicle that is used to bring people closer to the Divine.

Marx understands that religion is the “opiate of the masses”, which is a form of social control that dulls the pain of oppression for the proletariat preventing them from seeing what needs to be done to prevent this exploitation. Mystical experiences are an outward manifestation of this drug induced state.

Freud  offered a secular explanation for religious experiences. It is a reaction to a hostile world where we feel helpless so we seek a father figure, which leads to the projection of God.

Voltaire  agrees with Freud’s claims, and states that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

The objective/subjective distinction

“Kierkegaard was a philosopher”
“Kierkegaard was a great philosopher”

The key difference between the two illustrates this distinction.
The first = clearly objective which is open to testimony (verifiable or falsifiable).
The second = clearly subjective, a private decision based on personal conviction.

Religious experience is based on subjectivity, because there are no objective criteria which can be applied to judge reports of religious experience.
Religious experience will always be open to interpretation but the lack of uniformity between the different reports of religious experience makes it diffuse.
Kierkegaard was right in saying that, ‘there is no “objective way” of reaching God’.

Principle of Credulity  Swinburne
Accept what appears to be the case unless we have evidence suggesting otherwise.

Incredulity Theory  CB Martin
Until we have great proof of such an event, we should disbelieve their testimony.

A believer of God would suggest his involvement in human affairs perfectly understandable, acceptable and to be expected as God is personal.
Hick  epistemic distance suggests that God doesn’t intervene too frequently as this would jeopardise our free will, he just bridges a gap between human and the ‘Divine’.
These areas are not open to empirical scrutiny / rational justification as they are based on metaphysics or the non-empirical. The problem is that these areas are accessed far more easily by believers rather than non-believers.

Trying to classify religious experiences

Numinosity (Rudolph Otto) is a sense of being in the presence of an awesome power, yet feeling distinctly separate from it  where religion derives from.
However the separateness of God from human makes it feel impersonal.
Buber stressed existence of a personal relationship regardless of the concept of Numinosity.
Kierkegaard supported Buber  God can only be known through, ‘a leap of faith’.

Mystical experience  versatile, illustrating the degree of experiences, from trivial aspects of religion to an ecstatic experience.
A mystical experience is gaining knowledge of the ‘ultimate reality’, a sense of freedom from the limitations of time, and a unity with the Divine.

Conversion  is a regeneration of the ‘truth of the Divine’. On a personal level, you gain an understanding of faith and God.
If a permanent shift in the focus of a person’s aim can be observed, this is some sort of conversion. If the emotional excitement which inspired this shift was religious, = religious conversion. Religious ideologies become the ‘habitual centre’ of that person’s energy.

Starbuck  result of conversion = happy relief and subjectivity.
Leuba  religious life = purely moral.
Thouless gives the example of moral conversion – “swearing Tom”.