An argument put forward by Richard Swinburne, who formed the ‘cumulative argument’ agrees with the aforementioned statement. He states that if you add all the theories for the existence of God – Ontological, Moral, Teleological, Cosmological... etc – they in turn provide a reasonable probability that there is a God. However, none of the arguments by themselves prove the existence of God. Given this basis, Swinburne goes on to put forward an argument. First of which is the Principle of Credulity, by this Swinburne is saying that what seems to be true – probably is true. If we seem to understand that an experience is of a divine nature – it probably is. The second is the Principle of Testimony, in this Swinburne states that – we should believe people unless the person is known to be unreliable. If someone is to experience a private religious experience, unless they are known to be unreliable we should not question them. Swinburne states that if we do not maintain these two factors, we become sceptics and end up in a ‘sceptical bog.’ He stated that we should therefore allow religious experience some credulity unless there is some evidence against them.
Both Davies and Swinburne’s arguments are inductive. An inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be false. Thus, the conclusion follows probably from the premises and inferences. Thus both agree with the statement.
However, there are also arguments against the statement and thus religious experiences. There are three main types of criticism. These can be categorised into description, object and subject related. Description related challenges discuss claims the experience something when the description is self contradictory or inconsistent. Such challenges can be defeated by showing that there is no real contradiction or inconsistency – the idea of God does not include any contradiction. Subject related challenges discusses experimental claims because the person claiming the experience is unreliable or, for instance, has not had the proper training to correctly evaluate the experience. Davies maintains, however, that in the case of religious experiences a very simple person may have as profound an experience as a more sophisticated one. Further, even much religious training or guidance by a spiritual master does not grantee that a religious experience will result. Object related challenges state that if, on the basis of background evidence, it is highly unlikely that the thing claims is to be experienced was present. Then the claim might be dismissed. The Loch Ness monster might fall into this category.
Anthony Flew is an example of a philosopher who disagrees with this statement. He produces the vicious circle challenge and asks, why do people only have religious experiences within their own religion? He states that people go to religious places and have visions of their own religion. A Christian goes to Lourdes and has a Christian experience. Wouldn’t it be more convincing for a devote Christian to have a Hindu experience? A counter argument from Caroline Franks Davies states that: people will use language from their own religion no matter what they were seeing. For example, I could see the goddess Kali with her multiple arms and think it was a Devil or Jin. However, it is important to realise that some of the gods are greatly specific – e.g. Hindus gods are blue or have seven arms – they are in different forms. It is impossible to say that they do not relate.
Another argument which sees the invalidity of religious experiences is that of conflicting claims. In this theory we see that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) validated Islam, Paul validated Christianity, Guru Nanak validated Sikhism, Moses validated Judaism, Siddhartha Gautama validated Buddhism etc. Does this mean that they validate nothing? It states that we cannot just use a Religious experience to make a claim because every religion makes a claim – other evidence is needed. However, there is a counter argument to this. In this we question – what if all religions are just different ways to one God? – Maybe each religion will just take you to God through a different path. But, it is important to note that religions are so different – so how can they all really be the same? They are all extremely different and contradictory – e.g. Is Christianity similar to Hinduism? No.
Another counter argument to the statement is named as the psychological challenge. This theory questions if the part of the brain (ego or super ego) makes you have religious experiences. Are they real, or is the brain just acting out the necessary step in order to make you ‘feel better?’ When you are ill the body releases hormones to make you feel better –
can the body similarly copy this with religious experiences. Usually who people have religious experiences are often in a ‘bad way’ and may ‘seek for a religious experience. However, we cannot presume that everyone who has a religious experience is at psychological unrest. Also, if this was the case – why doesn’t everyone at psychological unrest have religious experiences?
The final counterargument of the statement is known as the realist and anti realist challenge. William Jones who puts forward the realist challenge states that there are varieties of religious experiences. He states that a person encounters a religious experience, which then leads to the reading of holy books, which leads to the learning of doctrines and thus the final understanding of God. This argument can be used as proof for God as religious experiences occur without ‘conditioning’ – without any prior thinking about God. However, the anti realists approach by Nicholas Lash states that the chain of events does not start at a religious experience. Instead, we think of God and then read Holy books, we go on to learn doctrines and then in turn have religious experiences. This argument, however, does not prove the existence of God. It is indoctrinated within a religion – meaning we have to think about God first.
In conclusion, I believe that the argument will fail to convince and atheist, unless they themselves experience it. It is hard to understand and empathise with an idea you disagree with when there is no real proof. A.E Taylor states that: ‘As an artist is trained to see art everywhere – a religious person is trained to see God everywhere.’ By this Taylor is stating that it will take a religious person to understand a religious experience – whereas, if an atheist was faced with the same situation – they would easily come to other conclusions. Therefore, I conclude that religious experiences may strengthen the faith of believers – especially those who have experienced one – However, they will fail to convince an atheist due to their many alternative explanations.
