Discuss two criticisms of the argument from religious experience. To what extent is the argument successful in spite of these objections?

Authors Avatar

Religious Experience

  1. Discuss two criticisms of the argument from religious experience.  To what extent is the argument successful in spite of these objections?

The use of religious experience to justify cognitive belief in a personal God has caused controversy amongst theists and atheists alike.  The argument hinges on the principle of credulity; that is, consistency demands that we should treat apparently veridical religious sensory experiences the same as ordinary sensory experiences unless there are special considerations.  This and the principle of testimony thus prove God’s existence; if someone tells you that they have had such an experience, it is usually reasonable to believe them.  Being non-empirical yet an inductive and a posteriori proof, this argument has attracted a variety of criticisms.

One such challenge is the “Naturalistic Objection” which attempts to explain these supposed religious experiences atheistically, be it through psychology or socio-economics.  Freud believed that religious experiences were delusive as God is nothing more than a projected father figure, manifesting in one’s ego or super-ego.  He postulated that this “universal neurosis” was rooted in oedipal anxiety and that religion is its crutch.  Any experience of this God would therefore be a form of wish fulfilment as there is no external referent. Jung was Freud’s protégé but refuted his pejorative stance on religion, hypothesising that religious numinosa is a part of the human condition.  Yet he still maintained that experiences of the divine are our “collective unconscious” recognising symbols and archetypes.  Marx asserted that reports of this phenomenon are designed by the ruling classes to numb the proletariat from revolution.  He saw religion as a stabilising opiate and any suppositious encounter served only to reinforce this “closed” doctrine.  

Join now!

The naturalistic objection does not negate the existence of God according to theists such as Swinburne.  He believes that God can work through psychology, arguing:
1.        an experience of “x” is genuine if the experience is caused by “x”.

2.        If there is a God, then S/He as the first cause is the initiator of events.

3.        Therefore if there is a God, every experience of God is veridical.

4.        Therefore the psychological origin of religious experience is not incompatible with the veridicality of religious experience.

This seems an attractive stance, however Franks-Davis disputes God’s place in this causal change.  As the “first ...

This is a preview of the whole essay