The Argument From Religious Experience – Jonathan Rowe

Source: sgsphilosophy.webs.com

1. If a person experiences something, then it exists
2. People experience God
3. Therefore God exists

This would seem to be a convincing a posteriori argument, but it is easy to criticise the premises.

First of all, is it really clear that things always exist if people experience them? We know that there are drugs and mental conditions that can give people very convincing experiences of things that don’t really exist. More subtly, the world is full of mirages, optical illusions and opportunities for misinterpretation. For example, the “Electric Brae” in Ayrshire, Scotland is a road that appears to run uphill, but in fact slopes down, so that cars left with the brakes off will appear to roll “uphill”. The fact that a person experiences something would seem to be a good reason to investigate whether it exists, but not a reason for assuming it does.

The second premise is more interesting and forms the subject of this topic. Can people really experience God?

Experiencing God (Directly)

In the Bible and down through the centuries, religious believers have done more than claim to DEDUCE or INDUCE the existence of God. They have claimed to EXPERIENCE the presence of God. These claims fall into two types:

1. Claims to experience God DIRECTLY
2. Claims to experience God at certain moments through aspects of ORDINARY, EVERYDAY experience

Most of the story of the Old Testament concerns encounters between certain individuals and God. In the early parts of the Old Testament, these individuals are the patriarchs who encounter God directly; in the later part they are the prophets who encounter God more indirectly and speak to the people of Israel on His behalf. The most dramatic encounter between man and God is experienced by Moses in the Book of Exodus.

• Read the story of the Burning Bush in full here

This sort of manifestation of God in the presence of human beings is called a THEOPHANY. In the New Testament, there is a shift in the understanding of how God communicates with people.

• “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at various times and in many ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us through His Son” – Hebrews, 1:1-2

Christians came to view the life and teachings of Jesus as the final revelation of God to man, the ultimate theophany. Nonetheless, people have continued to claim to have direct experiences of God in various ways and the Church has tended to view these with suspicion. There have been a number of heretical Christian sects who were rejected by the mainstream Church because of their claims to receive direct communication from God. In ancient times. the Montanistswere such a sect. In the 18th century, the Quakers were treated this way.

The idea of directly experiencing God raises all sorts of philosophical problems, but let’s just look at one. This is the problem of CULTURAL DIFFERENCES. It seems pretty clear that direct experiences of the divine tend to take forms that are culturally specific. For example, in Christian Europe it is not unusual for religious experiences to involve visions of the Virgin Mary [left], but in Hindu India an experience of the divine might involve Ganesh the elephant-god [right]. What are we to make of these differences?

1. Both experiences of the divine are OBJECTIVELY TRUE
2. One experience of the divine is OBJECTIVELY TRUE but the others are OBJECTIVELY FALSE
3. All experiences of the divine are SUBJECTIVELY TRUE but none are OBJECTIVELY TRUE

It is possible that all these religious experiences are objectively true. This means that, in Christian Europe, there really is a Virgin Mary and Christians really do encounter her, but in India there really is a Ganesh and Hindus really do encounter him. This raises countless problems. For one thing, it denies the truth-claims of all the major religions, because it makes their divinities purely local. In this set-up, the Christian God’s authority doesn’t extend to India, much less to Japan. Moreover, the ultimate NECESSARY being proposed by the Ontological and Cosmological Arguments has disappeared. Even the Demiurge suggested by the Design Argument is impossible, because the world seems to be shared by several gods all of whom claim to have created it.

A view taken by the Church Fathers (early Christian writers who formalised Christian teachings) was that the Christian God is objectively true and faithful Christians really do encounter Him, but the gods of other religions are just demons in disguise. This is the view described by John Milton in Paradise Lost: in his epic poem, Satan and his devils are behind all the non-Christian religions. It is a view held by some Christian fundamentalists today. This means that even if a devout Hindu thinks he is experiencing the presence of Ganesh, really this is a demon tricking him. The problem with this view is that it is an invitation to total doubt. If demons can imitate religious experiences in a completely convincing way, how is anybody to know whether they have encountered God or not? Maybe Ganesh is real and the Christian religious experiences are all created by demons? Or maybe it’s the other way round? How could you possibly tell?

The final view is the most complex and we will treat it more fully later. It suggests that the real nature of God TRANSCENDS cultural ideas and local images, but that people make sense of it in ways that are meaningful to them. Therefore, a devout Christian and a devout Hindu might both have the same religious experience, but one will perceive (subjectively) the Virgin Mary, whereas the other will see it as Ganesh. The religious philosopher John Hick came to this view, called the PLURALISTIC HYPOTHESIS, and suggested an interesting Islamic fable to illustrate it:

• Three blind men were touching an elephant. The first blind man was holding the elephant’s leg. He said, “I think an elephant is like the truck of a great tree.” The second blind man disagreed. While holding the elephant’s trunk he said, “I believe an elephant is like a large snake,” The third blind man believed they were both wrong. “An elephant is like a great wall,” he exclaimed. He was touching the elephant’s side. Each blind man was convinced he was right and others were wrong without ever realising they were all touching the same elephant. Some believe the blind men in this parable represent the major religions of the world, each in contact with the same “elephant” without knowing it. (adapted from God & the Universe of Faiths, 1973)

If the Pluralistic Hypothesis is true, then nobody really has a direct experience of the divine (Hick calls this “the Real”), not even Moses. Everyone “clothes” the divine in symbols, images and forms that are personally or culturally meaningful to them. This raises the most interesting philosophical question of them all: is there anything “behind” these perceptions of the divine? Or, to put it another way, when people have a religious experience, are they experiencing an external “Something” or is it purely an event going on in their own heads?

Indirect Religious Experiences

There are many examples in the Bible of people having encounters with God. These claims are also central to the MYSTICAL TRADITIONS of all the major religions. Intense experiences of this kind often lead to deepening religious faith or a dramatic life conversion.

Less dramatically, other people claim to experience the divine within ordinary experiences – in moments of joy or grief, in love or the beauty of nature. Sometimes this is compared to the ability to appreciate art or music and is thought to depend on a special faculty of apprehension (like art depends on the AESTHETIC faculties). This type of religious experience was explored by the Protestant religious philosopher F.D.E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834). Schleiermacher claimed that, if they stop to think about it, everyone experiences a feeling of total contingency, what he calls “a sense of absolute dependence”. This is a sort of INTUITION that lies deeper than ordinary rational thinking and it is something we can all develop. This intuition gives us an awareness of the reality of God and the truth of religion. Schleiermacher’s ideas are important to understand because:

• He is discussed by Merold Westphal
• Although Schleiermacher is not named, his ideas of religious intuition are central to Peter Donovan’s essay and are criticised by A.J. Ayer
• The “sense of absolute dependence” links to the idea of CONTINGENCY in the Cosmological Argument and the Ontological Argument

Many people have pointed out that Schleiermacher’s “sense of absolute dependence” is not a specifically religious feeling. It’s an awareness of contingency, which will have a religious meaning if felt by a Christian or Muslim but not by an atheist. In other words, the feeling is RELIGIOUSLY AMBIGUOUS.

A more specific type of intuition – and a more specifically religious one – is discussed by Rudolf Otto (1869-1937) in The Idea of the Holy (1923). Otto argues, like Schleiermacher, that religion is based on personal experience. This is an experience of what Otto calls “the Numinous“. Numinous experiences are mysterious and produce reactions of AWE and WONDER. Otto’s idea of the Numinous is very clearly explained by C.S. Lewis:

• “Suppose you were told that there was a tiger in the next room: you would know that you were in danger and would probably feel fear. But if you were told “There is a ghost in the next room,” and believed it, you would feel, indeed, what is often called fear, but of a different kind. It would not be based on the knowledge of danger, for no one is primarily afraid of what a ghost may do to him, but of the mere fact that it is a ghost. It is “uncanny” rather than dangerous, and the special kind of fear it excites may be called Dread. With the Uncanny one has reached the fringes of the Numinous. Now suppose that you were told simply “There is a mighty spirit in the room” and believed it. Your feelings would then be even less like the mere fear of danger: but the disturbance would be profound. You would feel wonder and a certain shrinking–described as awe, and the object which excites it is the Numinous.” – The Problem of Pain (1940)

Another excellent account of someone experiencing the Numinous comes in (odd though it may seem) the central chapter of Kenneth Grahame’s The Wind in the Willows called “The Piper at the Gates of Dawn“, when the Rat and the Mole meet the god Pan.

• ‘Rat!’ he [Mole] found breath to whisper, shaking. ‘Are you afraid?’ ‘Afraid?’ murmured the Rat, his eyes shining with unutterable love. ‘Afraid! Of Him? O, never, never! And yet— and yet— O, Mole, I am afraid!’ – The Wind in the Willows(1908)

Experiencing the numinous produces attraction and repulsion at the same time. It’s not a RATIONAL experience but, argues Otto, experiencing something as numinous leads to the conclusion it is holy and this, says Otto, is at the core of all religions. Otto’s ideas about the numinous are important for this course because:

• Although he does not name Otto, the person A.J. Ayer refers to as “the Mystic” would seem to be someone claiming to have experienced the Numinous as Otto defines it
•  Peter Donovon’s discussion of religious intuitions includes numinous experiences, though he also does not name Otto explicitly

Religious philosophers have responded to Otto’s ideas in different ways. David Hay in Religious Experience Today (1990) finds Otto’s idea of the Numinous too ambiguous and gives his own definition to the term, using numinous to describe a more specific experience of God, rather than just anything which is “mysterious, terrible and fascinating”. Hay describes a sense of “merging” with the rest of reality and suggests that this is the basis of mystical experiences. J.C.A. Gaskin inThe Quest for Eternity (1984) takes a different approach, making a distinction between a NUMINOUS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE (which is what Hay is describing) and a more general type of numinous experience.

This general type of experience can by illustrated by a quote from Albert Einstein:

“The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious… a knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate… it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude.”

Einstein’s idea of “the mysterious” actually sounds closer to Schleiermacher’s idea of “a sense of absolute dependence” or an awareness of contingency. Gaskin points out that these PEAK EXPERIENCES are felt by all sorts of people and don’t have to be interpreted as religious. In fact, they are often found in poetry. You might enjoy an example like Composed Upon Westminster Bridge, September 3rd, 1802 by William Wordsworth, where an early morning view of the city of London produces in the poet (and in some readers) what must surely be a numinous experience of some sort. Gaskin uses the term NUMINOUS AGNOSTIC for these sort of intense but religiously ambiguous intuitions.

In conclusion, it’s not clear whether Otto’s idea of encountering the Numinous is a direct or an indirect experience. Hay’s redefinition seems to be a direct experience, but Gaskin seems to be saying that numinous experiences are indirect, since they can be interpreted non-religiously. One of the key features of a direct experience of God ought to be (surely) its unmistakeability!

Conversion Experiences

One of the most dramatic conversion experiences is described in the New Testament, when Saul (later Paul) of Tarsus has an encounter with the Risen Christ that changes his life.

• Read the account of this experience here in Paul’s words (Acts 22:3-10)

The writer William James describes these sort of experiences as follows:

• “To be converted, to be regenerated, to receive grace, to experience religion, to gain an assurance, are so many phrases which denote the process, gradual or sudden, by which a self, hitherto divided, and consciously wrong, inferior and unhappy, becomes united and consciously right, superior and happy, in consequence of its firmer hold upon religious realities” – The Varieties of Religious Experience (1901)

Paul fits James’ description in some ways: he became a changed man, even changing his name, and dedicated his life to founding the Christian faith. In one respect Paul is unusual: he was already religious, a devout Jew, when he had the experience. It’s important to remember that Paul is a historical figure and his conversion a historical fact, but what caused it?

William James seems to suggest a PSYCHOLOGICAL explanation, involving the conscious and unconscious mind coming into some sort of harmony. This is reinforced by Paul’s later description of the same event where the Risen Christ says to Paul “It is hard for you to kick against the goads”. This expression (the modern version is “kick against the pricks”) refers to wounding yourself by kicking against a sharp cattle prod. The implication is that Paul was at war with himself until his conversion experience brought him inner peace. This theory was put forward by the great psychologist Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) who argued that Paul’s hatred of Christianity was something he felt ashamed of but couldn’t admit to himself. On the road to Damascus, Paul was so overwhelmed by guilt and self-hatred he was affected both emotionally and physically (he fell to the ground and went blind). Only then could this personal crisis be resolved. A very different explanation was offered by D. Landsborough in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry (1987) in which he argued that Paul’s experience, with the bright light, loss of normal bodily posture, a message of strong religious content, and his subsequent blindness, suggested “an attack of temporal lobe epilepsy, perhaps ending in a convulsion … The blindness which followed may have been post-ictal.” In other words, there might be a biological explanation, involving an epileptic seizure.

Both of these theories are just speculation and both offer a NATURAL explanation for what Paul would have experienced as a supernatural encounter. However, they don’t rule out religious interpretations. God might work through natural processes, and personal crises or epileptic seizures might be tools that God uses to communicate with us.

Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne  suggests a different way of looking at this. Swinburne argues for the PRINCIPLE OF CREDULITY, which means that the person who has had the religious experience is in the best position to interpret it:

• “Religious perceptual claims deserve to be taken as seriously as perceptual claims of any other kind” – Is There a God? (1996)

In other words, Swinburne is warning us against a REDUCTIVE interpretation of conversion experiences. A reductive explanation ‘reduces’ the event to a merely psychological or medical complaint. Reductionism like this is central to most atheist interpretations of religious experiences.

But is Swinburne’s Principle of Credulity the best way to examine claims of religious experiences? Surely sometimes the person who has had the religious experience is not in the best position to interpret it. For example, in 1981, Peter Sutcliffe [right] was convicted of murdering 13 women over the previous decade. The Press dubbed him “The Yorkshire Ripper” but, in his defence, Sutcliffe claimed that, while he was working as a gravedigger, the voice of God came from a gravestone and told him to kill these women because they were prostitutes. Instead of taking his claims at face value (which would seem to be what Swinburne is recommending) the court diagnosed him as suffering from PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA. Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness where the sufferer loses contact with reality and the most common symptom is “hearing voices”.

To help you come to your own view, try some of these links:

• Augustine of Hippo famously converted to Christianity and became one of its greatest thinkers and saints. His experience, which he described in his Confessions, is an interesting one and mirrors his hero, St Paul.
• John Wesley, who went on to found the Methodist Church, was converted from a conventionally earnest brand of Christianity to something more powerfully emotional
• C.S. Lewis experienced a more intellectual conversion from atheism to Christianity, though he claimed the experience left him “dejected” rather than joyful

• American heiress Patty Hearst was kidnapped by a gang called the Symbionese Liberation Army. In captivity, she enthusiastically joined her captors and converted to their ideology. Psychologists call this phenomenon “Stockholm Syndrome”. (Time Magazine).
• In contrast, atheist writer Christopher Hitchens was dying from cancer but insisted there is no way he would convert to a belief in God or the Afterlife and urged viewers to disbelieve any rumours about this. He suggested that, if he were to convert, it would be because he’d lost his mind in the advanced stages of the illness.