In retaliation to this, the thesis of Ockham’s razor may be implied whereby the simplest answer is often the true answer and should therefore be assumed upon. Using this theory would allow us to believe that the argument is in fact logical.
The strengths of the argument can be simplified into three main arguments sub-headed “similarities of experience”, “quantity of experience” and “effects of experience”. Through these arguments philosophers aim to prove the existence of God through religious experience.
The argument from similarities of experience is also known as the inductive argument. If we look at testimonies of religious experience in order to find similar we are able to draw upon a common range of emotions eg happiness, fear and wonder all directed at the divine resulting in a feeling of joyful desire to belong to God. How else would these be feelings similar if they were not all similar experiences that were the work of God? Surely this cannot just be chance or made up. Further than this, Swinburne argues that God is loving and personal, would therefore wish to reveal himself to humanity “an omnipotent and perfectly good creator will seek to interact with his creatures and, in particular, with human persons capable of knowing him”.
However, although there may seem to be similarities, if all the experiences are that of God surely they would be more similar, for example why don’t Hindus see the Virgin Mary?
The argument from quantity is also known as the cumulative argument whereby there are simply too many experiences recorded through time for religious experiences not to be the result of a divine being. David Hay found out that 40% of all people have at some point have an experience that could be described as religious. Vardy however, says we must be wary of this as “the probability of all such experiences must be low, and therefore the quality of the claimed experiences must be proportionately high”. Surely people may have been mistaken? David Hume goes so far as to say “there is not to be found in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good sense, education and learning, as to secure us against all delusion”. Arguably, lots of weak arguments just lead to one large weak argument, not necessarily one strong one. RM Hare talks of religious experience as “bliks”, they are personal interpretations that cannot be proved true for others and are therefore unreliable, no matter how many testimonies you have.
The argument from effects explains how examples and testimonies from the bible eg Paul/Saul, Joan of Arc leading the French armies to victory after visions have had effects that were both powerful and positive, what other explanation is there for these? If religious experience was not a real occurrence as suggested by some philosophers (for example Dawkins - “if we are gullible and claim we have seen or heard a ghost or God...such manifestations are certainly not good grounds for believing that ghosts or angels, gods or virgins are actually there”) then these results would not occur.
It could be suggested that it is the individual’s previous beliefs that affect their experience. Vardy says “if ones preconceptions favour particular types of experience one is more likely to be convinced by reports of them. If one is a sceptic one will need a great deal of convincing”. Anthony Flew agrees with this (“experiences seem to depend on interest, background and expectations of those who have had them rather than anything separate or autonomous”) and Nicholas Lash takes a slightly different yet relevant view whereby he attacks William James and goes on to say that we learn to see RE as a result of how we are brought up. Therefore cannot be used as an argument for the existence of God; “we learn to find God in all life, all freedom all creativity and vitality…each relationship and community”
Yet Davies rejects these arguments. She says that a person in one tradition would tend to use their language and ideas of religion to explain their experiences. Therefore this argument is not a strong criticism of the argument that would lead to its rejection.
Another argument against religious experience as an argument for the existence of God is put forward by John Hick. He suggests that all religious experiences can be explained in non-religious ways - “any special event or experience which can be constituted as manifesting the divine can also be constituted in other ways”. Further than that, we haven’t made all the medical and scientific discoveries to this present day and age, and therefore some testimonies of experience (for example coming back from the dead) may later be explained.
Sigmeund Freud says that religious experiences are a physcological reactions to a hostile world and that religion itself is simply wishful thinking. Can we even recognise the true nature of God if he is transcendent from us? Peter Cole says “God is not material, nor does He have a definite location...can God be recognised?”. Following logic, many people would agree that we usually recognise something from their characteristics, but how would this be applied to God? For example, God is omnipotent – how would we recognise this? Further than this surely God would want to reveal himself to all of creation, why do only some people experience him therefore? Buber and Kierkegaard do however maintain that knowledge of God could be different for each individual, and that if God revealed himself too many times then he could jeopardise free will.
Richard Swinburne finds strengths of the argument with his principles of testimony and credulity. These claim that we do all generally tell the truth and we do not doubt the basic facts about the world; Brian Davies says “we certainly do make mistakes about reality because we fail to interpret our experience correctly; but if we do not work on the assumption that what seems to be so is sometimes so, then it is hard to see how we can establish anything at all”. This is surely a logical theory and applies “innocent until proven guilty” clause used in law courts. Therefore unless we have reason to not believe an individual we should do so. Swinburne gives examples for not believing a testimony as circumstantial eg drugs (but goes on to say he sees no reason to think this restriction typically happens within religious experience), evidence of the person lying, if the experience can be explained in terms other to God, misconception (Swinburne says god causes everything so would cause even perceptions of himself). “In the absence of special considerations, the experiences of others are (probably) as they report them”.
If we do not adopt this approach, we will eventually end up in a “sceptical bog” (Swinburne).
Caroline Frank Davies suggests three different types of challenges to religious experience - description related (where description is inconsistent or self-contradictory, eg virgin Mary vs Vishnu), subject related (person claiming the experience is untrustworthy) and object related (if its highly unlikely what is being claimed to be true is actually real).
The anti-realist challenge is put forward by Nicholas Lash (although he does not maintain that he takes an anti-realist approach) and attacks William James by saying that we learn to see religious experiences as a result of how we are brought up rather than due to random divine occurrences. Therefore cannot be used as an argument for the existence of God. He says “we learn to find God in all life, all freedom all creativity and vitality...each relationship and community”. However Davies would say that a simple person may have as profound an experience as a sophisticated one, and more religious training does not guarantee an experience.
Anthony Flew puts forward the viscous circle challenge and maintains that” experiences seem to depend on interest, background and expectations of those who have had them rather than anything separate or autonomous”. Davies again rejects this criticism as – a person in one tradition would tend to use their language and ideas of religion to explain their experiences. He also goes on to say that religious believers are so convinced of the existence of God nothing will count against it, eg that God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolant despite the examples of suffering and evil in the world.
After these arguments are taken into consideration, it is only appropriate to conclude that the value of this argument to a non-believer is only in as much as it points to another area of human life that might involved a divine being. Hick suggests that “the religious believer is living in terms of a meaning which may prove to be substantially true or may be an illusion; and the naturalistic believer is living in terms of a meaning which may be true or may prove to be an illusion”. There still maintains however, a great number of philosophers and individuals alike who stand in favour of the argument, Swinburne for example, maintains that where all the other arguments for God are combined, a reasonable possibility of God’s existence is created. Surely then, once combined with religious experience, the argument for God’s existence is tipped towards the favourable - “our experience (our own or that of many others) ought to tip the balance in favour of God”.
