Presentation on theme: "Religious Experience It’s Nature and Significance."— Presentation transcript:
Religious Experience It’s Nature and Significance
Experience and Inference Sense experience is “direct perceptual awareness” of a material being Statements can describe or express the content of our experience Example: “I hear voices in the hallway.” (Alston, SP) An inference is a conclusion drawn from other statements Example: “There are people talking in the hallway.”
Religious Faith Faith shares some qualities with both experience and inference: Like experience, it “feels” and/or is accepted as obvious or certain, although it is not based sensory facts. Like inference, it is an acceptance of that which is not itself directly experienced, although some argue that the object of faith can be demonstrated by reason.
Religious experience Religious experience (Alston, RE) shares some qualities with perceptual experience. Both religious and perceptual experience are modes of “direct awareness” of something. Thus, there is the feeling of certainty that is grounding in the reality of direct awareness. Unlike perceptual experience, however, religious experience is not “of” natural being; it is directed beyond that which can be normally experienced.
Philosophical Questions The Descriptive Task What are the reported characteristics of religious experiences, in all their variety? The Interpretive Task What can we infer about ultimate reality, based on the data of such experiences?
Our Readings on Religious Experience Smart explores both the nature and significance of religious experience generally. Suzuki explains sartori, or the Buddhist experience of the “ultimate nature of things.” Alston and Penelhum debate the significance of religious experience.
Experiential Dimension Ninian Smart and the Varieties and Interpretation of Religious Experience
Numinous Externally oriented; of the “awesome and fearful Other”; dualistic Mystical Internally oriented; of the ultimate oneness and unity of all
Two Kinds of Religious Experience Numinous Externally oriented Otherness Dualistic Mystical Internally oriented Connectedness Non-dualistic Shared Characteristics 1. Smallness of self 2. Limits of the ordinary
Exploring the Experience Some religions emphasize one kind of religious experience over the other. Buddhism No ultimate being or reality Focus on consciousness: attainment of selflessness, peace and Christianity Ultimate Being Outer orientation (before inner cultivation of “union”)
Exploring the Experience Some emphasize an integration of the two. Hinduism Braham – Ultimate reality and objective truth; exists “outside of” created beings Atman – Ultimate reality and subjective truth; exists “within” all beings and is experienced by sentient beings
Exploring the Experience The distinction can create conflict within a religion Mystic visions v. Orthodox interpretations Christian or Sufi (Muslim) mystics challenge the orthodox teaching of: 1.the holiness and otherness of God 2.the idea that salvation flows from “God the other”
The Question of Truth Religion experience has an undeniable subjective effect. Why think it has objective significance? Challenges from psychologists regarding the causes of these unusual experiences (Freud, Fromm, Jung)
Brief Comment about Truth Freud’s theory does not apply universally Fromm’s critique of “numinous experience” is insupportably judgmental Jung reduced religious experience to collective psychology Common problem (according to Smart): Each involves judging a (religious) worldview from a (humanist) worldview – that is, arbitrarily applying the criteria of one perspective to that of another.
Perceiving God Alston on the Significance of Religious Experience
Two Kinds of Perceiving Sensory perception (SP) Rooted in the physical universe Source of claims about the existence and nature of physical things Religious experience (RE) Rooted in the putative spiritual universe Source of claims about the existence and nature of God (and other spiritual phenomena?)
Sensory Perception – Direct Realism 1. the theory that “what you see is what you get.” 2. assumes that the object of perception exists and causes the experience of perception 3. asserts that the perceptual experience caused by the object of perception reliably represents the nature of that object.
Religious Experience – “God Realism” religious experience is a form of experience as experience, it supports the idea that there is a (religious) cause of the experience Religious experience reliably represents the nature of its religious cause: i.e., religious experience provides evidence for the existence and nature of God ( M-Beliefs )
The Justification Argument Based on these similarities, Alston argues that: As sense experience justifies perceptual beliefs (I see a table justifies the claim that “there is a table”) So religious experience ( via something other than sensory qualities ) justifies religious beliefs (I “saw” God justifies the claim that “God exists”)
Standards of Justification Shared perceptions are a basis for claims about objective reality Perception is supplemented by other shared means to construct and verify knowledge Override systems apply those other means Override systems are themselves derived from experiences
Alston’s Analogy SP and RE are significantly alike in that both: Are based on individual “perceptual” experiences Support a wider “world view” based on those same perceptual experiences (doxastic value) Have an “override system” (188)
The Epistemology of Religious Perception (according to Alston) All claims to knowledge must reference an experiential basis of belief religious experience is such a distinctive sort of experiential basis for belief, “like” sensory experience All claims to knowledge must fit into a distinctive range of belief contents (subject matter) Those who have religious experiences tend to report religiously acceptable conclusions from their experiences
The Epistemology of Religious Perception There must be an “overrider system” to correct unjustified “leaps” from experience Not every unusual experience counts as a religious experience, by virtue of religious communities’ own experiences and bodies of belief It is unreasonable to ask of any experiential doxastic system that its beliefs be indubitable.
Yeah, but…. Religious perception seems to assume what it is trying to prove Objection I – we are assuming that there is a God to cause a RE Objection II – different people report different and contradictory claims about what God is or wants Objection IV – there are naturalistic explanations of putative religious experiences
Yeah, but…. Religious perception is significantly unlike sensory perception. Objection III – sense experience varies according to the varied conditions of perception Objection V – RE is not universally available, and its inferred claims are vague or obscure Objection VI – there is no intersubjective confirmation of RE claims
Penelhum’s Response The basic problem is that religious experiences – by Alston’s own criteria – are “religiously ambiguous.” Such experiences can be explained by both SP (naturalist) criteria and RE (religious) criteria Alston’s argument seems to put both on a parity, as he explicitly claims that these “doxastic” systems have epistemic parity.
Penelhum’s Response Other observations: 1. The demand for parity makes us accord (epistemic) rights to apparently incompatible religious systems. 2. The demand for parity makes us accord (epistemic) right to non-religious systems.
Glossary - Alston DoxasticDoxastic – having to do with belief Compare: aesthetic – having to do with the senses; with artistic experience Compare: existential – having to do with meaning; with the purpose of life Doxastic practices – having to do with belief- formation the social and logical conventions and standards through which beliefs are generated and validated