Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
CHALLANGES TO RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES - Coggle Diagram
CHALLANGES TO RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES
REASONS WHY THEY ARE DIFFICULT TO PROVE
We only have the word of the individual who claims to have had the experience, as evidence
Some religious experiences are group experiences where the testimony doesn't rely just on one individual
Some experience can be evident through their effects e.g a complete change of lifestyle/more spiritual outlook on life
Swinburnes principle of Testimony- we should accept peoples experiences are probably as they report them unless there are special reasons to think otherwise
They are subjective/private experiences/feelings so they are just 'in the mind'
the fact theyre private doesnt make them false
reports of dreams and emotional states cannot be proved but its reasonable to believe others when they describe their feelings or dreams
They are ineffable: those who experience them cant describe them wwhich means theres nothing real to describe
ineffability is a characteristic f religious experience. making them difficult to compare with other experiences, but doesn't prove them false
There are natural explanations to account for religious experiences
There are contradictory religious experiences so they cannot all be true
humans interpret and express their experiences in ways suited to them
They are so extraordinary and rare as to be unbelieveable- all normal experiences count against them
there are many reports of religious experiences
CHALLANGES FROM SCIENCE
FREUD: "Religion is an illusion"
religion is a wish fulfilment by the unconscious mind
The belief in God is the result of infantile need for a powerful father figure
religion is a projection of our greatest hopes, fears and desires (for protection and security)
religious experiences are simply hallucinations caused by a need to have control over our helpless state
People who suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy are prone to religious visions/experiences
this suggests they are nothing more than abnormal states of the brain
[SHWEITZER] E.G in New Testament, St Paul, his experience (seeing light, sudden falling, temporary blindness) suggest he had TLE
religious experiences could be caused by certain drugs
effects of religious experiences are similar to the effects of hallucinogenic drugs
e.g LSD
people who take them can have intense spiritual and religious experiences
this is further evidence that RE's are nothing more than a product of brain states
RELIGIOUS RESPONSES
Freuds's view that religion and religious experiences are wish fulfilment, is just a hypothesis that cant be tested
its true that people wish to have experiences of God, but is doesnt prove experiences of god must be false
In regard to the challenges that religious experiences are products of the brain such as TLE, or caused by drugs:
if God wanted to give people religious experiences, these have to be processed by the brain because thats the only way to process anything
so there has to be an area of the brain responsible for processing them
we know experienced are processed by the temporal lobe and frontal lobes
these are structures o the brain, therefore through which god can bring about religious ecxperiences
The religious believer would have no difficulty in accepting that as well as receiving religious experiences, the mind can generate them and interact with God
As god s personal, christians dont have to sit around and wait for god to reveal something to them
they can reach out to God themselves
PRINCIPLE OF CREDULITY & TESTIMONY [SWINBURNE]
CREDULITY
We should assume things are cerdible unless we have evidence that proves otherwise
we ought to believe things are as they seem to be until we have evidence that we are mistaken
E.G reliability of claim (have they lied before?)
TESTIMONY
We should assume people are telling the truth unless we have evidence that proves otherwise
(innocent until proving guilty)
in the absence of special considerations (liars, druggies, mental illness), the experiences of others are probably as they report them
CRITICISMS
Swinburne is saying that normal sense experiences are reliable therefore religious experiences are reliable for the existence of God
this is a dubious claim- how can we move from the reliability of the senses to the reliability of mystical/visionary claims abut god
Personal testimony isnt sufficient as absolute proof- even if every single person who had a RE believed ' it was an experience of God, it wouldn't 'objectively' prove God is the right explanation
Diderot: Paris analogy
STRENGTHS:
Consistent with JAMES' pragmatist belief that experiences should be judged by their 'fruits not roots'
transformation is a powerful argument for the genuineness of religious experience
Swinburne does take into account speacial considerations that may influence the reliability of someones testimony