religious experience

introduction

swinburne

2. historial argument

william james

3 types

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

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