What is the difference between God talking to you in a dream and dreaming you talked to God?

Extent to which Challenges to Religious Experience are Valid, including CF Davis LO: Analyse and evaluate whether the challenges to religious experience are convincing, including CF Davis’ criticisms

Teach Each Other

Explanations Hume – not impossible for miracles to have occurred, but impossible to prove it. Same for REs LP – RE claims (esp. mystical) are meaningless because they are not framed in terms of logic. They’re not a post, a pri, synth or analy. Flew – No clear criteria against them, so meaningless Psychological – Freud, all REs are expressions of sexual repressions. Delusions! SWINBURNE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Scientific Explanations Physiology and neurology show that REs may have clear materialistic explanations – parts of the brain ‘light up’ during REs which could explain them.

One Further Point… REs are not the same as sense experiences – BUT, we have knowledge of each other through a sense of ‘apprehension’ so we can say the same about God.

Counter Arguments Hume – God is omnipotent. It may be possible for God to appear before us in a religious experience. We can reasonably claim that God does intervene in creation. Biblical evidence may support this (Careful, though – Biblical evidence is not taken literally. Still, examples such as Noah show us that God is actively involved with creation). Ultimately, God has the ability to involve himself with creation, according to the Judeo Christian view of God. What may Hume respond to this counter?

Counter Arguments Logical Positivism – Nature of REs is such that they have their own ‘level’ of reality. (Links to Plato’s forms). We cannot think in terms of a reality beyond ours, therefore we cannot prove these experiences through use of formal logic. One may ask what’s the point of REs then, if we can’t prove them logically. To answer this, we have to change our understanding of what makes something valid. In this case, we’re looking to things such as the effect it has on a person. Swinburne adds to this that the onus is on the sceptic to disprove a religious experience, assuming the testimony is valid (See Swinburne notes!)

Falsification Principle Counters… There is no empirical evidence to support the verification principle - doesn’t meet its own criteria There are many terms that are metaphysical (such as love and beauty) which do have meaning for the users and the effects of these metaphysical terms can be seen through one’s actions (empirically) Vardy argues that the fact that you can’t verify it doesn’t mean that it is meaningless It is not consistent with modern science as many scientific statements such as atoms or forces are not verifiable Historical Statements cannot be empirically verified and are therefore rendered meaningless under the strong verification principle Keith Ward reasoned that God’s existence can, in principle, be verified since God himself can verify his own existence If you apply the weak verification principle then you can justify anything

Counter Arguments Science – Neurological changes associated with Res may mean that the brain perceives a spiritual reality rather than causes it. E.g. Persinger’s Helment may not induce the RE but facilitate it. Effectively, in this case, we cannot be sure of what is the cause and what is the effect. Dawkins tried Persinger’s Helmet (aiming to induce an RE) and he felt nothing…

Counter Arguments Psychological Explanations – Although Freud explores reasons for these ‘delusions’ others claim that Freud is actually talking about the process by which humans encounter an experience. Therefore, prior experiences are not the cause but the process which allows people to even begin to have such REs.

Further Questions Why doesn’t God reveal himself to everyone? If some are caused ‘naturally’ are they all false? Dawkins trying the ‘God Helmet’ and experiencing nothing – is this a strength or a weakness? Why?

Essay Examine the main challenges to Religious Experience. (25 marks) AO1 Monday 13th Feb – due

Counters to CF Davis DRC Issues with ‘proof’ – what does this mean philosophically? Issues with ‘experience’ – we often want to claim that experiences are empirical but MREs are NOT ‘regular’ experiences MREs are experiences of another reality while we’re still in our reality – therefore we cannot empirically prove them.

Counters to CF Davis SRC Swinburne’s testimonies of credulity and testimony. How do these provide counter points? NOTE – Swinburne did not aim his argument at Davis, but it nonetheless applies! What are other 4potential issues with Davis?

Counters to CF Davis ORC Nature of MREs is that is very different to hypothetical situations e.g. aliens of flying antelope. Subjective for what’s unlikely? Any further issues with this?

Plenary – Evaluate. What do YOU think based on evidence? Come up with a line of reasoning regarding religious experience (don’t forget Swinburne!)

Lines of reasoning