Assess Whether Religious Experience Demonstrates the Existence of God Essay

ghostlike engage got house be dissected into different varieties. Alvin Plantinga contendd that usual checks such as the sun procession should constitute as a phantasmal aim as the sun rise is so inspi sharp-witted and conjures up apparitional dogma out of awe. Some would wall that miracles or extra unexceptional occurrences argon substantiation of graven images founding. If bingle was to regard a bit turning water system into wine peerless would befool it as spectacular and likely cause ghostly belief. some(prenominal) miracles and eitherday occurrences be universal dumbfounds as they ground bailiwick be witnessed by whatsoever(prenominal) cardinal stock-still in that location are to a greater extent private/somebodyal unearthly run intos. Dreams and pots, such as St. Paul on the track to Damascus (where he heard the piece of Jesus), only apply to the person visualising them. These are in like creationner employ as ghostly experiences if you heard the voice of Jesus it would only if be conside fierce a sacred withalt. in that location is also the ongoing seeing that matinee idol is around you, he is guiding you through life, and this again is indescribable scarcely rational vindication for the theist as it connects to the subject of idols omnipresence. at last at that place are also mystical experience as William James explained them these are unpronounceable ( mass non be tramp into words) transient ( actually acuate experience save non readfully a long experience, the effects however can last a lifetime) unresisting (can non be controlled by the recipient role) experiences that are exclusively indescribable. Rudolf Otto described mystical experiences as numinous this is the feeling of awe and wonder when confronted with the deity that is immortal numinous experiences are single of terrifying and compelling mystery. Should ghostlike experiences be the initiation of idols cosmea or a re they solely erroneous events that are centerless.David Hume and A.J. Ayer are well cognise empiricists. They would argue that unless closething trial-and-errorly verified it should not be deemed intendingful so if I was to experience beau ideal that should be keep in linen as meaningful as it is existenti all(a) in ally verified. If I were to see a cat pass across a street I would think to myself that is a cat, no uncertainty would enter my chief I would patently establish that a cat was walking across a street. When one sees/experiences matinee idol why the equivalent sort of logic should not be applied is ridiculous. If I were to see graven image I would think that is graven image no questions asked. Visions of divinity fudge and miracles are falsifiablely confirmable spiritual experiences, Hume and Ayer cannot dismiss these as that would be contradictory to their well established beliefs, hence empirically verified ghostly experiences can be utiliz e a fit ac greetledgment for divinity fudges organism. The sceptics generate to this melodic line is how can we conceive our empirical methods of plea.One could be hallucinating, the only causal agent St. Paul saw perfection was because he was deprived of water and had social pressures from the go up Christian religion. A.J. Ayer celebrated that a at once stick appears bent in water, if our senses can deceive us once they forget deceive us again, we cannot trust empirical evidence wherefore it cannot be utilise as justification for a ghostly experience and definitely cannot be employ to justify matinee idols universe of discourse. to a fault what if the subject of work outd unearthly experience has taken some sort of mind altering dose surely because empirical evidence cannot be used to justify any sort of vision. Finally the sceptic would note that a religious experience is not an ordinary experience, one sees trees everyday unless experiencing God is qui te different. As philosophers we essential view these extraordinary experiences differently and be more analytical into the causes (such as facial expression at the recipient of the experience).In Brian Davies contain An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion he highlights that to reject empirical evidence without any major reason to dis cerebrate is simply absurd. He verbalizes that if one is of sound mind, has nice eyesight and is of reasonable intelligence unless and then in that location isnt really any reason to doubt yourself, we use empirical evidence to make everyday assertions whence it should be no different when beholding God, He also highlights that if it is possible to hallucinate it is also possible to see correctly, although this sounds very basic it does reject the wrinkle from illusion (used by most sceptics to doubt sense data).Sure we can see things that arent really there notwithstanding most of the time we are not hallucinating. Brian Davies also uses the instance of a worldly concern called Fred. He states that Fred is as sickish as a hatter and as rummy as a Lord Fred also regularly hallucinates and because of this not many pot listen to what he has to say. Despite Fred utter(a) delusions it is not aright to say that everything he says is wrong, sometimes he could be sex act the fair play. Davies shut downs that the fact that some deal are prone to get things wrong is not a able reason for another(prenominal)s to suppose that they unendingly get things wrong discern the Lord our God has shown us his rain cloud and greatness, and we devote his voice we take away this day seen God speak with man and man unsounded live This was taken from the antiquated Testaments book of Deuteronomy. ghostlike experience is not a contemporaneous miracle only if one of great age, we all gestate in gravity until now this has only been apparent for 300 years, save something that has been around for millenniums is still questioned. These sightings of God fool been continuous since early Christianity and Judaism before that. This is not an program line about the verifiability of religious experience further simply highlights the possibility of experiencing God and also its importance in justifying the existence of God. This is the argument of John Baillie he argued that religious experience is not just justification for Gods existence but the ultimate justification. Sceptics would reply how do you drive in it is God? How do you admit you did not simply see and old man with a beard?Unless you have seen God before you do not recognise what he/she looks like. Some would argue that you need an agreed method of identifying God, if no such method has been agreed then you cannot sincerely yours say you have seen God. Also if God is transcendent of humans and surpasses them in every way then surely we cannot come to to him/her. We dont even know if God is a physical entity to be seen. Brian Davies response to the sceptics argument is despite not having an identification method that is inconsequential, something may be the case even though it does not conform to the examination method, someone can still be intelligent despite getting a U in all their exams.A religious experience can still be justification for Gods existence despite not world satisfying any a priori test method. John Hick presented the argument that our interpretations of events all differ. This dismisses the sceptics claim that there should be some sort of testing method about justifying religious experience. A person may claim to have seen God where as other might argue they have seen the devil, as both(prenominal) are basing this experience on a own(prenominal) a priori perception of God/Devil it pith that if these predetermined perceptions are different they are unmistakablely going to disagree. William James argued that religious experience is extremely personal therefore it fashion different thi ngs to different people.Richard Swinburne and William Alston put forward the argument from credulity. Swinburne argued that if one has seen God one has sufficient justification to look at in God. Unless there is something manipulating this experience there is no reason to doubt a religious experience. Until your religious experience is dis turn upn (through hesitation of evidence such as one was on drugs) then it can and should be used as justification for Gods existence. William Alston proclaimed a alike(p) argument to Swinburnes arguments from credulity. He say people sometimes do get the picture God and thereby acquire justify beliefs about God. He besides believed that religious experience can be used a justification for Gods existence.He said justification about God is prima facie this means one is justified in supposing unless there are strong enough reasons to the contrary. Both argued the religious experience should be frank until parentn guilty. A sceptics retort to Alston and Swinburne would be one should eternally doubt. Like mentioned earlier one could be subject to hallucination, we could be comprehend God when he/she is not really there, you could be of total sound mind however you have a random hallucination due to water deprivation meaning you see God. How can we truly know that our subconscious is not malicious concocting mad religious visions? This is why the sceptic would al ways argue that we should always be indefinite they argue that religious experiences are not indubitable.Richard Swinburne not only proposed arguments from credulity but also arguments from tribute. Swinburne stated that unless you have sufficient reasons to doubt someone claim of religious experience you should consider it true, if a person states they have seen God you have and you have no reason not to believe them you should consider their experience as true. Brian Davies gives the example of a conclave of venturers who see a cat in the Amazon rainforest they go home and tell their explorer buddies they saw a cat in the Amazon rainforest. If a second group of explorers go to the Amazon rainforest and do not see a cat, does that mean the scratch line group were wrong?Of fly the coop not Swinburne would argue you should believe the first group of explorers are there is no reason to doubt their word. The sceptics reply would be why trust the explorers? There could be social/ lord pressures meaning they lied about seeing a cat because they thought it would be beneficial or because they felt pressurised by the group around them, also there could be irregularities with their testimony, maybe all cats in the world are extinct so seeing a cat is very unlikely, or what if one of the explorers said they saw a black cat and another thought they saw a powdered ginger cat.Brain Davies responds to this by noting that people interpret things in different ways (an argument used by the sceptics), two people may see a red Ferrari one may argue th at it is an piteous car where as the other could argue it is a beautiful piece of machinery, they have both seen a car nonetheless have different views/interpretations of what they have seen. So two people may both have seen God however one may think it was God the other might think it was the Devil. Therefore to say there are problems with a testimony because of different interpretations is absurd because the fact is God was there. One can perceive God in as many ways as they want it does not social occasion the only thing that affaires is God was there.Religious experience can be used for religious conversion and religious belief but not necessarily for the existence of God. If one believes they have seen God and as a result of this vision they believe in the existence of God that is fine, but that doesnt necessarily mean God exists from a philosophic perspective. As the sceptic would regularly point out there are many other factors that may have influenced the subject who vi ewed God (such a water deprivation or drug consumption) however on an ordinary basis I feel that a vision of God or some potpourri of numinous experience is sufficient justification for the existence of God and religious belief. On an ordinary level religious experience can justify the existence of God but on a philosophical level it cannot, one cannot claim religious experience to be an objective truth in school of thought, but in ordinary life it is a personal matter and provides justification for Gods existence on a personal level.This is resembling to what William James said in his work Varieties of Religious Experience he believed that religious experience was a very personal matter and is impossible to verbalise but can be used as self justification for Gods existence. He also stated that philosophy is useless in trying to prove a religion true but can show up obvious errors. One must also note that Swinburne, Alston and Davies arguments are not really proving the credibil ity of religious experience but simply defending it against sceptics attack. personally I feel this is fine, why should the recipient of a religious experiences have to prove themselves, however I do feel some of Swinburnes and Davies arguments to defend religious experience are not sufficient. To conclude I feel the sceptics are right in dismissing religious experience on a philosophical level, but as many previous philosophers have highlighted (such as G.E.Moore) scepticism cannot be applied to ordinary life.