Religious Experience Theme 3 C Challenges to religious experience

Caroline Franks Davis – they don’t have value as they can be challenged CFD argues there are three categories of challenges to the idea that a reported experience is genuine Description related challenges Subject related challenges Object related challenges What do you think they mean?

CFD Challenges Description related challenges We should be suspicious of descriptions that are inconsistent or if behaviour is inconsistent with someone who has had a religious experience or if it is inconsistent with our knowledge of the world Subject related challenges The ‘subject’ is the person who has had the experience – brainwashed? Drugged? Hypnotized? Object related challenges If we have doubts about the thing that the person claims to have experienced exists – difficult as ideas about what exists vary

Specification content Other challenges and responses Claims of religious experience rejected on grounds of misunderstanding; claims delusional - possibly related to substance misuse, fantastical claims contrary to everyday experiences. Challenges: individual experiences valid even if non-verifiable; claims could be genuine – integrity of individual; one-off experiences can still be valid even if never repeated.

Challenges – for AO1 and AO2 Philosophical and Dawkins Psychological Physiological Theological Vicious Circle Conflicting Claims Anti-realism

Philosophical Challenge Philosophers have challenged the idea that religious experiences are genuine experiences from God. Kant –empiricism A.J. Ayer – verification –see next slide Flew – falsification and leaky bucket challenge Counter arguments Alston Swinburne – principles of credulity and testimony

Ayer, verification The value of religious experiences for others is also challenged by the ‘verification principle’, supported by the British philosopher and atheist A.J. Ayer. This is the principle that a proposition can only be meaningful if it could be verified analytically or synthetically. That is, we could only regard religious experiences as meaningful if we could check their truth through the logical sense of the terms (analytically) or through gathering some body of supporting evidence (synthetically). Ayer is particularly critical of mysticism, because it tries to ascribe significance to a being (God) who, by definition, cannot be meaningfully described. If there is no possible way to check what is meant by ‘God’, then why should we accept the validity of religious experience?

Ayer – a different view “In 1988, the year before his actual death, Ayer choked on a bit of smoked salmon, passed out, and his heart stopped for fully four minutes. When, with the help of medical assistance, he regained consciousness, he reported having a so-called near-death experience—a red light supposedly responsible for the governing of the universe shone, something resembling the River Styx appeared, and other trimmings were included—that found its way into the National Enquirer. He told an interviewer for the Tatler that the experience made him a bit more “wobbly” on the question of the existence of an afterlife. Although this did not in any way qualify his lifelong atheism, it apparently made him, for the first time in his life, responsive to nature. “Freddie has got so much nicer,” his wife said, “since he died.”” Ayer is quoted as having told his doctor that he would have to revise his opinions on life after death and God, since the experience was of his “Creator”. However, many of his supporters claim this was the ideas of a man beyond his intellectual prime and not to be taken seriously

Debating Ayer and Verification In Language, Truth and Logic Ayer claimed that statements about God could not be verified in any way: “if the mystic admits that the object of his vision cannot be described ... he is bound to talk nonsense.” But can religious experience really be criticised as meaningless, for lack of verification? Arguably, there are problems with Ayer’s arguments. Many normal, everyday experiences are not verified either; in social interactions we are used to taking things on trust, unless there are reasons not to. The whole concept of trust assumes that we do not require people to verify everything they say; this is the key point of Swinburne’s ‘Principle of Testimony’. The verification principle itself has been subject to criticism, as it is not a principle that can be verified analytically or synthetically. In that sense, is this statement about the nature of knowledge really in any better position than statements about religious experience?

Flew and the Falsification Principle Religious experiences should have no value to those who have not had the experience as their claims cannot be falsified and are therefore meaningless. Think about the Popper example – astrology and astronomy

No value as based on ignorance Richard Dawkins also has something to say about this debate. In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins tells a story from his student days. He recalls that a fellow undergraduate was camping in Scotland and claimed to have heard “the voice of the devil – Satan himself”. In fact, it was just the call of the Manx Shearwater (or ‘Devil Bird’), which has an evil sounding voice. For Dawkins, this highlights the key problem with personal experiences. They are often used in an appeal to God because people are ignorant of more straightforward physical or psychological explanations for what the perceive. It is an argument based on ignorance. No value as based on ignorance

Possible responses to criticisms William Alston suggests that there is continuity in our experiences, focusing on our ability to check perceptions, detect regularity, share experience, and have common views of public objects between cultures. Religion might well fit into this scheme. Dawkins’ use of a personal anecdote is not revealing of religious experience as a whole. In most cases, testimony or personal experience are not easily deconstructed in natural or psychological terms.

The psychological challenge Freud - delusion Jung - archetype Marx – opium of people Some psychologists hold that religious experiences can be explained by psychological factors, and therefore are not genuine experiences of God and have no value for others. For instance: St Paul’s experience on the Damascus road could have been due to an epileptic fit or may have arisen from subconscious guilt (stoning of St Stephen) Perhaps they are psychological solutions to an emotional crisis e.g. a solution to the anxiety of meaningless the despair of economic and political exploitation (Marx) , the need for a parent substitute (Freud). Could religious experience be explained in terms of voices from an unconscious part of ourselves?  

The psychological challenge Some psychologists hold that religious experiences can be explained by psychological factors, and therefore are not genuine experiences of God and have no value for others. For instance: St Paul’s experience on the Damascus road could have been due to an epileptic fit or may have arisen from subconscious guilt (stoning of St Stephen) Perhaps they are psychological solutions to an emotional crisis e.g. a solution to the anxiety of meaningless (Sartre Webber 31), the despair of economic and political exploitation (Marx) , the need for a parent substitute (Freud). Could religious experience be explained in terms of voices from an unconscious part of ourselves?  

Sigmund Freud (1856-1936) For Freud religion is just wishful thinking The mind creates an illusion as part of its attempt to deal with the ‘outside’ world For Freud religion is a ‘universal obsessional neurosis’ Religion is merely a ‘neurotic illness’ Religion is a way to cope with a chaotic and frightening world Religion is a consolation – i.e. a security blanket Like Marx after him, Freud sees religion as a means to suppress people

Karl Marx (1818-1883) Marx was a materialist philosopher – i.e. he believes only in the here and now! All human activity is rooted in economics Religion removes self determination Religion serves capitalism People have needs – society is organised to meet those needs Society is organised to benefit the few Religion simply serves to maintain this system at the expense of the people

Physiological Challenges Drugs –drugs can be used as an alternative explanation of religious experiences Research – Susan Blackmore

Physiological Challenges - Temporal Lobe Use Peter Cole and Jordan Michael Persinger 98 -99 Prof. R.S. Ramachandran 98 Can you think of any responses to this research? Optional additional points Genes External deprivation What is the temporal lobe? V.S. Ramachandran Ramachandran and the temporal lobe What experiment did Ramachandran use to show the significance of TLE What were his conclusions Michael Persinger and the God Helmet Blackmore discusses Persinger What experiment did Persinger develop to show the significance of the TL? What were his findings/results?

Theological challenge Humans can’t experience God – God is metaphysical and beyond our world of sense experience Why would an all loving God reveal Himself to some and not others Islam rejected all mystical experiences until al Ghazali (12th Century) claimed that mystical experiences involve contact with the divine but the idea of total union with God is an illusion. Sufism is now an established aspect of Islam

Theological challenge What is the general theological challenge to religious experiences? Counter argument 1. Explain how Blik can be used to respond to this challenge

Other Challenges Vicious Circle – Hume and miracles Conflicting claims Anti-realist