Religious Experience: Argument 1 (Part 3 of 5)

Argument:

1. When subjects have an experience they take to be of x, it is rational to conclude that they really do experiences x unless we have positive reason to think their experiences delusive.

2. Experiences occur which seem to their subjects to be of God.

3. There are no good reasons for thinking that all or most experiences, which seem to their subjects to be of God, are delusive.

4. It is rational to believe that at least some experiences, which seem to their subjects to be of God, really are experiences of God.

5. Therefore, it is rational to believe that God exits.

Revised Premise (1`): When subjects have an experience they take to be of x, and we know how to discover positive reasons for thinking their experiences are delusive, if such reason do exit, then it is rational to conclude that they really do experience x unless we have some positive reasons to think their experiences are delusive.

Seven similar features between SE and RE:

1. Met Conditions:

Conditions must be met both in and out of perceiving subjects, if the perception is to be possible. SE examples: absence of color blindness, blindness, eyes open, lights on, no obstructing objects, object within view. RE examples: ability to recognize God’s voice/presence, genuine search for God, peaceful and quite locations aid in perception, prayer and meditation etc.

2. Noetic Structure:

Experiences are about something (intentionality). Experiences with a noetic structure are experiences of objects which are taken to be outside the subject and which really do exist. SE example: a chair. RE example: an external agent acting upon subject or a long lasting awareness of immediacy and objectivity of an agent.

3. Fulfillment Structure:

Experience has successive law-like relations, which leads subject from vague experience to clear experience. SE example: as one walks closer to a chair, chair becomes more detailed. RE example: initial experiential stage of a vague sense of God’s presence, followed by feelings of joy or peace, followed by clearer apprehension of God’s beauty, guilt of ones wrong doings, followed by conviction and change. Or, possible apprehension of God’s attributes (e.g. benevolence).

4. In the absence of special considerations, the principle of credulity stands. SE example: in the absence of drugs or color blindness, the subject perceives a red wall. RE example: in the absence of drugs, the subject perceives God.

5. Exhibits both a public and private aspect:

Experiences are public in that many different people can perceive them and private in that no one can intrude on the private experience itself. SE example: subject A can see a chair, person B can see the chair, but person B cannot see person A’s perception of the chair. RE example: public apprehension of God, visions of God, with other followed by private perception of God.

6. Part/Whole Distinction:

Subject does not need to ‘see’ all the parts of the object to be able to ‘see’ the object. SE example: standing from above you can see the top of a pencil but not the sides, yet you know it is a pencil and has sides, or a tall building. RE example: having an awareness of God and sensing his beauty while not sensing all of his other attributes.

7. Public Checks:

One can ask others if what they perceive is genuine, ask for descriptions and common features, etc. SE example: asking a friend about their experience of a cat. RE example: the seven aforementioned tests in video (e.g. internal coherence, similarity, associated features/experiences, etc.).

References:

Craig, W.L., & Moreland, J.P. (2009). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pulishing Ltd

Hick, J. (2006) The New Frontier of Religion and Science: Religious Experience, Neuroscience and the Transcendent. Basingstoke, England and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Moreland, J.P. (1987). Scaling the Secular City. Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Book House

Nash, R. H. (1988). Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

Plantinga, A., & Wolterstorff, N. (1983). Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God. Norte Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press

Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), p. 250-521

Schaefer, R.T. and Lamm, R.P. (1995) Sociology (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill

William Rowe, (1982) “Religious experience and the principle of credulity,” International Journal fro Philosophy of Religion, 13, 85-92

Category:

Education

Tags:

• religious
• experience
• argument
• justification
• epistemology
• God
• principle
• of
• credulity
• reformed
• william
• rowe
• argum

[TheGamingWeasel]

Where did you get Rowe's articles?

[telemantros]

William Rowe, (1982) Religious experience and the principle of credulity, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 13, 85-92

I got this article through interlibrary loan from the college that I am a part of.

[Veritas48]

Love the new intro. This series is very satisfying as I rarely see arguments from experience presented to clearly and concisely. Tele, I think you should also respond to some people and pick a fight every once in a while also ;). It allows you to put arguments like this "in play" so to speak. However since you are getting married soon, I will assume that will be enough pot stirring for you to handle for now!

[vbfl920]

I have been thinking the same thing for a while now lol!

Come on Tele, get in the ring!

We need to go on a group date into Dasamericanatheist's Stickam chat.

We had another session around 11pm ET last night. It was great!

I fricken totally wing it in there and it probably sounds like it lol!

[telemantros]

Ha, group date ... don't tell my future wife!

[telemantros]

Thought about 'stirring the pot' ... but I never know who to stir, got some suggestions?

[bloodrunsclear]

You make very succinct and thoughtful arguments.

A voice like yours is needed in the world today.

[52blades]

I dig the philosophy... and the lightning.

[drpsholder]

So, if I show you my REASON(evidence) for holding belief X, and my evidence is faulty and does not really give reason to believe in X............do you still believe I am rational in my beliefs?

[drpsholder]

5. It is a belief, but not rational since the evidence to support this belief is faulty, filled with contradictions, and just plain out silly.

Does a pink paint slatter on my car prove pink unicorns exist? No, and hopefully you don't BELIEVE it does. The evidence is faulty, right?

[drpsholder]

4. Sure you can believe whatever you want, But usually beliefs are usually based on some evidence. Just because someone says that pink unicorns fly around does not make it the truth, but if you want to believe it, go right ahead.

[drpsholder]

Opps, was suppose to say, "My sister, who does NOT live alone, swears..."

[drpsholder]

3. Right, but just like there is no reason to NOT believe them, there is no reason TO believe them either.

Because once you get them to give evidence for their belief, they can provide none.

My sister who lives alone SWEARS that God makes her coffee every morning....but that because she doesn't notice my gdad making it for her. So, NO wonder she believes God did it......she has NO evidence of my gfather doing it, so of course shes not going to believe he does!

[drpsholder]

A car owner may BELIEVE someone is letting small air out of their tires over the course of a few nights.......to make it look like a slow leak, BUT again beliefs do not necessarily PROVE anything. This is not proof of a God, nor would it lead me in the direction of BELIEF in God.

[drpsholder]

1. You can conclude whatever you want. That's the beauty of beliefs. They are unproven; therefore you don't know for sure.

#1 is not proof of a God, nor would it lead me in the direction in believing in one.

[kill1111]

Maybe should get off the computer

get some contacts

shave your unibrow

and stop makin shit about god and leave god alone

and get laid

get off of youtube

and take the head thing off it looks stupid