religious experience
introduction
swinburne
2. historial argument
william james
- conversions
- near death experiences
3 types
- mystical experiences (visions)
if we want to prove they're wrong we should prove them wrong rather than expect them to prove themselves right
you should believe someone who's had a religious experience, unless you can prove otherwise
1. principle of credulity
3 strong arguments for religious experience
criticism - J.L Mackie
they're different
not experiences we can all talk about / share / relate to
don't have as much credibility + authority
religious experiences are different from other experiences of the world
we apply this principle to normal life, why wouldn't we apply this to religious experience?
religious experiences have happened a lot in the past
made a big impact
eg. moses + the burning bush
3. cumulative argument
sheer number of people stand as enough evidence
so many people believe religious experience is true
- noetic - provides some kind of knowledge
- transient - passes quickly
- ineffable - unexplainable
- passive - happens to you (you can't pursue them)
have to satisfy 4 characteristics to be a religious experience
they're not true in the same way as facts
but they can help us make sense of our lives
criticism - A.J Ayerr
which you can't
also can't verify emotions + feelings
religious experience is only meaningful if we can verify them
therefore argues both of these are meaningless
conclusion
provides neutral ground for religious experience to exist
whilst the people who haven't experienced it have the right to question it
william james seems the most accepting of both sides
richard dawkins
payley's argument is based on ignorance
people believe their religious experiences because they don't understand the true cause