If Donovan were right…?

H. P. Owen “Mediated Immediacy”: We see a person, we hear the voice, we feel the touch – empirical knowledge We make conclusions about the person’s mind, character and personal qualities – metaphysical knowledge We see nature, we hear Scripture, we feel the presence – empirical knowledge We make conclusions about God’s character and qualities – metaphysical knowledge

B. Russell Feeling certain and being right: We see a person, we hear the voice, we feel the touch – empirical knowledge We make conclusions about the person’s mind, character and personal qualities – that can be entirely erroneous We see nature, we hear Scripture, we feel the presence – empirical knowledge We make conclusions about God’s character and qualities – that are not properly KNOWLEDGE

M. Buber I-It and I-You: We see a person/nature, we hear the voice/Scripture I-It relationship: detached, utilitarian, provides empirical knowledge, subject to rational analysis I-You relationship: a holistic dialogical encounter at the intuitive level

P. Donovan Donovan 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…

P. Donovan Mediated Immediacy, H.P. Owen Religious experience is a valid source of the knowledge of God Feeling certain and being right, B. Russell No empirical knowledge can be derived from religious experience I-It and I-You, M. Buber A personal encounter with God is a fundamental human experience, but it is by definition not empirical

P. Donovan If Owen were right and religious experience were a source of knowledge Religion would flourish BUT we would have to concede that not all knowledge is empirically verifiable, which would undermine science If Russell were right and no knowledge could be derived from religious experience Science would flourish BUT we would have to concede that religious experience is unreliable, which would undermine religion If Buber were right and the I-You experience of God were independent of the I-It empirical knowledge Religion would flourish ALONGSIDE science

Same as Russell’s critiques of Owen Critiques of the I-You Same as Russell’s critiques of Owen The sense of the encounter may be false Feeling 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”.

The same as Russel’s critiques of Owen Critiques of the I-You The 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.”