Religious experience l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 28

Religious Experience PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 411 Views
  • Updated On :
  • Presentation posted in: General

Religious Experience. It’s Nature and Significance. Experience and Inference. Sense experience is “direct perceptual awareness” of a material being. Statements can describe or express the content of our experience Example: “I hear voices in the hallway.” (Alston, SP).

Download Presentation

Religious Experience

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Religious experience l.jpg

Religious Experience

It’s Nature and Significance


Experience and inference l.jpg

Experience and Inference

  • Sense experience is “direct perceptual awareness” of a material being

  • Statements can describe or express the content of our experience

  • Example: “I hear voices in the hallway.” (Alston, SP)

  • An inference is a conclusion drawn from other statements

Example: “There are people talking in the hallway.”


Religious faith l.jpg

Religious Faith

Faith shares some qualities with both experience and inference:

  • Like experience, it “feels” and/or is accepted as obvious or certain, although it is not based sensory facts.

  • Like inference, it is an acceptance of that which is not itself directly experienced, although some argue that the object of faith can be demonstrated by reason.


Religious experience4 l.jpg

Religious experience

Religious experience (Alston, RE) shares some qualities with perceptual experience.

  • Both religious and perceptual experience are modes of “direct awareness” of something.

  • Thus, there is the feeling of certainty that is grounding in the reality of direct awareness.

  • Unlike perceptual experience, however, religious experience is not “of” natural being; it is directed beyond that which can be normally experienced.


Philosophical questions l.jpg

Philosophical Questions

  • The Descriptive Task

    What are the reported characteristics of religious experiences, in all their variety?

  • The Interpretive Task

    What can we infer about ultimate reality, based on the data of such experiences?


Our readings on religious experience l.jpg

Our Readings on Religious Experience

  • Smart explores both the nature and significance of religious experience generally.

  • Suzuki explains sartori, or the Buddhist experience of the “ultimate nature of things.”

  • Alston and Penelhum debate the significance of religious experience.


Experiential dimension l.jpg

Experiential Dimension

Ninian Smart and the Varieties and Interpretation of Religious Experience


Slide8 l.jpg

  • Numinous

    Externally oriented; of the “awesome and fearful Other”; dualistic

  • Mystical

    Internally oriented; of the ultimate oneness and unity of all


Two kinds of religious experience l.jpg

Numinous

Externally oriented

Otherness

Dualistic

Mystical

Internally oriented

Connectedness

Non-dualistic

Two Kinds of Religious Experience

Shared Characteristics

1. Smallness of self

2. Limits of the ordinary


Exploring the experience l.jpg

Exploring the Experience

Some religions emphasize one kind of religious experience over the other.

Buddhism

No ultimate being or reality

Focus on consciousness: attainment of selflessness, peace and

Christianity

Ultimate Being

Outer orientation (before inner cultivation of “union”)


Exploring the experience11 l.jpg

Exploring the Experience

Some emphasize an integration of the two.

Hinduism

Braham – Ultimate reality and objective truth; exists “outside of” created beings

Atman – Ultimate reality and subjective truth; exists “within” all beings and is experienced by sentient beings


Exploring the experience12 l.jpg

Exploring the Experience

The distinction can create conflict within a religion

  • Mystic visions v. Orthodox interpretations

  • Christian or Sufi (Muslim) mystics challenge the orthodox teaching of:

  • the holiness and otherness of God

  • the idea that salvation flows from “God the other”


The question of truth l.jpg

The Question of Truth

Religion experience has an undeniable subjective effect. Why think it has objective significance?

Challenges from psychologists regarding the causes of these unusual experiences (Freud, Fromm, Jung)


Brief comment about truth l.jpg

Brief Comment about Truth

  • Freud’s theory does not apply universally

  • Fromm’s critique of “numinous experience” is insupportably judgmental

  • Jung reduced religious experience to collective psychology

Common problem (according to Smart):

Each involves judging a (religious) worldview from a (humanist) worldview – that is, arbitrarily applying the criteria of one perspective to that of another.


Perceiving god l.jpg

Perceiving God

Alston on the Significance of Religious Experience


Two kinds of perceiving l.jpg

Two Kinds of Perceiving

  • Sensory perception (SP)

    • Rooted in the physical universe

    • Source of claims about the existence and nature of physical things

  • Religious experience (RE)

    • Rooted in the putative spiritual universe

    • Source of claims about the existence and nature of God (and other spiritual phenomena?)


Sensory perception direct realism l.jpg

Sensory Perception – Direct Realism

1. the theory that “what you see is what you get.”

2. assumes that the object of perception exists and causes the experience of perception

3. asserts that the perceptual experience caused by the object of perception reliably represents the nature of that object.


Religious experience god realism l.jpg

Religious Experience – “God Realism”

  • religious experience is a form of experience

  • as experience, it supports the idea that there is a (religious) cause of the experience

  • Religious experience reliably represents the nature of its religious cause: i.e., religious experience provides evidence for the existence and nature of God (M-Beliefs)


The justification argument l.jpg

The Justification Argument

Based on these similarities, Alston argues that:

  • As sense experience justifies perceptual beliefs (I see a table justifies the claim that “there is a table”)

  • So religious experience (via something other than sensory qualities) justifies religious beliefs (I “saw” God justifies the claim that “God exists”)


Standards of justification l.jpg

Standards of Justification

  • Shared perceptions are a basis for claims about objective reality

  • Perception is supplemented by other shared means to construct and verify knowledge

  • Override systems apply those other means

  • Override systems are themselves derived from experiences


Alston s analogy l.jpg

Alston’s Analogy

  • SP and RE are significantly alike in that both:

    • Are based on individual “perceptual” experiences

    • Support a wider “world view” based on those same perceptual experiences (doxastic value)

    • Have an “override system” (188)


The epistemology of religious perception according to alston l.jpg

The Epistemology of Religious Perception (according to Alston)

  • All claims to knowledge must reference an experiential basis of belief

    • religious experienceis such a distinctive sort of experiential basis for belief, “like” sensory experience

  • All claims to knowledge must fit into a distinctive range of belief contents (subject matter)

    • Those who have religious experiences tend to report religiously acceptable conclusions from their experiences


The epistemology of religious perception l.jpg

The Epistemology of Religious Perception

  • There must be an “overrider system” to correct unjustified “leaps” from experience

    • Not every unusual experience counts as a religious experience, by virtue of religious communities’ own experiences and bodies of belief

  • It is unreasonable to ask of any experiential doxastic system that its beliefs be indubitable.


Yeah but l.jpg

Yeah, but….

  • Religious perception seems to assume what it is trying to prove

    • Objection I – we are assuming that there is a God to cause a RE

    • Objection II – different people report different and contradictory claims about what God is or wants

    • Objection IV – there are naturalistic explanations of putative religious experiences


Yeah but25 l.jpg

Yeah, but….

  • Religious perception is significantly unlike sensory perception.

    • Objection III – sense experience varies according to the varied conditions of perception

    • Objection V – RE is not universally available, and its inferred claims are vague or obscure

    • Objection VI – there is no intersubjective confirmation of RE claims


Penelhum s response l.jpg

Penelhum’s Response

The basic problem is that religious experiences – by Alston’s own criteria – are “religiously ambiguous.”

Such experiences can be explained by both SP (naturalist) criteria and RE (religious) criteria

Alston’s argument seems to put both on a parity, as he explicitly claims that these “doxastic” systems have epistemic parity.


Penelhum s response27 l.jpg

Penelhum’s Response

Other observations:

  • The demand for parity makes us accord (epistemic) rights to apparently incompatible religious systems.

  • The demand for parity makes us accord (epistemic) right to non-religious systems.


Glossary alston l.jpg

Glossary - Alston

Doxastic – having to do with belief

Compare: aesthetic – having to do with the senses; with artistic experience

Compare: existential – having to do with meaning; with the purpose of life

Doxastic practices – having to do with belief-formation

the social and logical conventions and standards through which beliefs are generated and validated


  • Login