2 H. P. Owen “Mediated Immediacy”: We see a person, we hear the voice, we feel the touch – empirical knowledgeWe make conclusions about the person’s mind, character and personal qualities – metaphysical knowledgeWe see nature, we hear Scripture, we feel the presence – empirical knowledgeWe make conclusions about God’s character and qualities – metaphysical knowledge
3 B. Russell Feeling certain and being right: We see a person, we hear the voice, we feel the touch – empirical knowledgeWe make conclusions about the person’s mind, character and personal qualities – that can be entirely erroneousWe see nature, we hear Scripture, we feel the presence – empirical knowledgeWe make conclusions about God’s character and qualities – that are not properly KNOWLEDGE
4 M. BuberI-It and I-You:We see a person/nature, we hear the voice/ScriptureI-It relationship: detached, utilitarian, provides empirical knowledge, subject to rational analysisI-You relationship: a holistic dialogical encounter at the intuitive level
5 P. DonovanDonovan is not an original thinker. Throughout the article he sets out somebody else’s arguments and ends up agreeing with Buber.Therefore, depending on the section you get the implications of the text can be radically different:If Owen were right…If Russell were right…If Buber were right…
6 P. Donovan Mediated Immediacy, H.P. Owen Religious experience is a valid source of the knowledge of GodFeeling certain and being right, B. RussellNo empirical knowledge can be derived from religious experienceI-It and I-You, M. BuberA personal encounter with God is a fundamental human experience, but it is by definition not empirical
7 P. DonovanIf Owen were right and religious experience were a source of knowledgeReligion would flourish BUT we would have to concede that not all knowledge is empirically verifiable, which would undermine scienceIf Russell were right and no knowledge could be derived from religious experienceScience would flourish BUT we would have to concede that religious experience is unreliable, which would undermine religionIf Buber were right and the I-You experience of God were independent of the I-It empirical knowledgeReligion would flourish ALONGSIDE science
8 Same as Russell’s critiques of Owen Critiques of the I-YouSame as Russell’s critiques of OwenThe sense of the encounter may be falseFeeling certain vs. being right“Experience of” includes “knowledge about”An experience has to be contextualized in some specific way“Experience of” is not in itself “knowledge about”“Experience of” adds to but does not in any way replace “knowledge about”.
9 The same as Russel’s critiques of Owen Critiques of the I-YouThe same as Russel’s critiques of Owen“The criticisms do nothing at all to show that awareness of God is illusory.They simply suggest that even if it is genuine it cannot, by itself, solve all the problems about whether or not we have good reason for belief in God.”