Religious Experiences Are a Convincing Argument for the Existence of God, Dya?

‘Religious experiences are a convincing argument for the existence of God.’ DYA? (40)

Religious experiences are defined as being subjective experiences that fit within a religious framework. For this essay that framework will be around the Judaeo-Christian God and whether or not experiences related to Him are a convincing argument for His existence. The legitimacy of religious experiences is often the first thing that gets called into question regarding their use as proof for God’s existence. In order to assess whether an experience was genuine or not (but not necessarily proving God’s existence) the philosopher William James came up with four criteria to define a genuine religious experience. After an experience is classified as genuine some then argue that said experience is proof of the existence of God. This is because there have been thousands of cases of them including, and perhaps most believable, the experiences documented in the bible. However, I would argue that the range of experiences experienced by people of different faiths causes a great contradiction between them. Furthermore, other factors both physically and psychologically provide a more scientific and realistic explanation for them.

To answer the question one must understand the nature and criteria for a religious experience laid down by American philosopher and psychologist William James in a series of lectures at the beginning of the 20th century. The four criteria that he proposed were: ineffability, noetic quality, transiency and passivity. Ineffability means that the experience is indescribable i.e. it cannot be described in words. James stated that the experience would bring about states of feelings so different and unlike anything before that is impossible to compare them to ‘normal’, everyday feelings. He described the person having an experience’s mind as entering a mystical state which is ‘negative’ meaning that no words can describe what they’re feeling. Noetic (which means ‘relating to the mind’) quality is where the experience produces insights into the truth unobtainable by intellect alone.’ These truths are both universal and eternal. Transiency means the experience is not permanent and last for a short time only (usually half an hour or so). The experience itself is not perfectly recalled but instantly recognisable if it reoccurs. Although only lasting for a short time the effects of the experience are life-changing and usually leave the recipient with a profound sense of the importance of said experience. Finally, passivity means that the experiencer does not participate actively in the experience. They supposedly have no will of their own because they are under the power of a ‘superior being’ which has led to incidents of alternative personality states like speaking in tongues. If an experience fulfils these four criteria, then James argues that it is a genuine experience i.e. the person who has had the experience is making an honest claim. This does not, however, prove that these experiences are real or divine in origin. This idea of believing someone when they have made a claim about a religious experience is expounded upon by Christian theologian Richard Swinburne who puts forth two principles: the principle of credulity and the principle of testimony. The principle of credulity argues that if someone says they have seen something then they probably have. For example, if we saw a plane in the sky there is a very good chance we did indeed see a plane in the sky and we ought to believe that unless there is a stronger reason to not believe it. Swinburne then says how for claims like that we would rarely question them nor be questioned about making them. We should thus take the same attitude for believing people when they say they have had a religious experience. The principle of testimony argues that, all else being equal, we should believe the testimony of others. Swinburne says that unless we know someone to be a pathological liar or mentally disturbed then their description of a religious experience is probably true. Unless we can prove it wrong then the account of the experience should be believed.

From this definition and verification, it can be argued that religious experiences are indeed a convincing argument for the existence of God. As the only way of knowing about religious experiences is through the accounts of those who have experienced them, examples are therefore the only tool available to back up arguments for and against religious experiences. For proof of God’s existence many Christians look at Saul’s conversion on the road to Damascus as documented in the Bible. Here Saul was travelling on the road to Damascus to persecute some Christians there when he was struck by a blinding light and questioned for his actions by Jesus. Saul was then struck blind for three days before he was healed and thus converted to Christianity and took on the name of Paul. Here perhaps is the strongest argument in agreement with the essay’s title. Arguing against this experience and the existence of God is arguing against the legitimacy of the Bible, specifically Paul’s letters. Unlike other parts of the Bible this story was written by the person that experienced it so there is no argument present for a ‘Chinese whispers’ tale to have been told. Counterarguments put forth have been ideas that Saul was suffering delusions from sunstroke or even that the light that struck had been lightning. The argument that all those you have religious experiences are delusional or somehow deranged does not seem legitimate in the face of the sheer number of accounts of religious experiences out there. For example, the Toronto Blessing where hundreds or even thousands of Christians all had varying degrees of experiences in a church in Toronto. It seems to me almost ridiculous to state that all of these people and the countless others who have had experiences with God are deranged and thus a convincing argument is put forth for His existence.