One of the most significant strengths of conversion of religious experience to show God exists is that it can be empirically observed. Conversion leads to one having a greater understanding of God. “Real effects from real causes”- James.
Hick says that God reveals himself at an epistemic distance in order to allow free will. A ‘religious experience is superimposed upon the natural significance of a situation’ meaning that it is not about what the experience is, it is about how you feel. Hick believed there is ‘enough light for everyone that wishes to see’ said Pascal, therefore something one may perceive as normal nature, a beautiful sunshine, another may view as God’s presence. David Hayes book also showed that 25%-45% of people said they claim to experience a superior being. As well Vardy’s ideas of senses relate to Bergers ideas of ‘signals of transcendence’ showing that sometimes the mentally ill see things we cannot. This highlights the strength of numbers.
Otto devised the numinous experience to emphasise the ‘divine power’ experienced by God? The feeling of awe and admiration to a transcendent God is so powerful, it operates around us, not within us. For religious experience to have such as impact on peoples life, it highlights the strength of it for the argument of the existence of God. However some find weaknesses to reject the argument.
An atheist would immediately reject the religious experience argument. Despite conversion, it still cannot be empirically observed. There is no physical proof, and Swinburne and James cannot fully explain to people what a religious experience is like. The concept is subjective, how is one to know whether they have had one or not. Hume says that ‘there is no situation where the answer is simply ‘God did it.’
A major weakness for religious experiences presented by Vardy is the idea that our senses deceive us. We do not always know what goes on around us but sometimes we can hallucinate and makes us think we have experienced something when we haven’t. If our senses deceive us then we can reject the principle of credulity and testimony as we are unable to always accept what people say unless it can be empirically proven.
Another impactful weakness presented by Russel is his scientific ideas. ‘there is no distinction between a man who eats little and sees heaven and a man who drinks a lot and sees snakes.’ We cannot physically prove what people can see, but different minds work in different ways and interpret things differently, especially due to health.
Freud uses the psychological challenge to discredit religion. He describes it as a ‘universal neurotic illness’ in which people turn to religion out of fear of a chaotic world. He also noted that people turn to God seeking for a fatherly figure. This exclaims that people may claim to experience God in order to bring them self-comfort and try to relieve themselves from fear.
Conclusively, religious experience can only be valid in an antirealist sense and not a realist sense. The argument cannot correspond to an object reality. Religious experience cannot be proven, therefore the argument against religious experience is strong enough to reject it.
image- http://kwankaiman.blogspot.com/2013/01/can-religious-experience-provide.html
0 Comment:
Be the first one to comment on this article.