"A religious experince is a sponatnious or induced,mental event over which the recepient has relatively little control

mystical experiences which mystics often describe as being ‘passive and active,

personal and impersonal, full and empty, etc.’ This implies that by making such

contradictions they cancel one another out and as a result also the existence of

religious experiences. Swinburne identifies five kinds of religious experiences, two

public and three private. The two types of public are firstly those in which God, or

God’s action, is identified in a public object or scene such as the night sky; and the

second is those that occur as a result of unusual public events. For example, the

appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples.  One of the three private experiences

involved those that an individual can describe using normal language, e.g. Joseph’s

dream that an angel appeared and spoke to him. However this is weakened because

these experiences would only be considered as religious experiences by theists and the

example extracted from Luke would only occur to a theist and not an atheist.

Furthermore an atheist would be highly unlikely to be in a situation where they would

come across reading from the bible and as they have a negative response to religions

they would not necessarily take it seriously. Whereas for theists, mystical experiences

are likely to be the most significant in providing proof of God’s existence because

mysticism is portrayed as “the closest that a human being can ever come to actually

meeting the divine.”

Mystical experiences clearly do not provide evidence for the existence of religious

experiences and therefore they support the quote. This is because mystical

experiences, for example speaking or seeing God in a dream, does not mean he exists

since we can have dreams about unicorns or Father Christmas and we know for a fact

that neither exist. However according to these arguments it would mean they would.

This type of experiences is something that would only be significant in proving God’s

existence to theists which suggests they may just occur because they want it to or they

interpret the figure as God because that is who they would like it to be. This is

supported by Hume who argued that it is always more likely that the testimony of an

event or miracle is incorrect and such testimony is generally unreliable. Furthermore

he stated these examples of religious experiences from different religions cancel one

another out. Alternatively, in Swinburne’s principle of testimony he suggested that “in

absence of special considerations the experiences of others are (probably) as they

report them.” This can be reinforced by his principle of credulity, “how things seem

to be is a good guide to how things are. If it seems…to a subject that x is present, then

probably x is present.”  This asserts that we must accept what appears to be the case

unless we have evidence which suggests we are wrong to do so.

If mysticism occurs everyday then it would in fact become just an experience with no

profound meaning that relates to an omnipotent presence. This is similar to

Swinburne’s principle of credulity; “unless there is some special reason for doubt, we

should accept that how things seem to be is good grounds for belief about how things

are.” This is suggesting that if something happens, then it should be accepted, which

to me seems pointless because I believe that if a mystical experience is from God then

surely it has a purpose. If they occur everyday for no apparent reason this removes its

mystery. Greesley and Scharlslens views are more likely to relate to a religious

experience as it refers to a change in understanding and lifestyle for a purpose.

Perhaps some would say the purpose of religion is making a dramatic change in your

life for a greater good. I do believe, however, that for a religious experience to occur

and for a ‘spiritual force’ to come into play then one must be open to an idea of God

and therefore I maintain my strong belief that a mystical experience must remain

within the mind of the believer.

There are two types of conversion; volitional (which refers to a conscious and

voluntary experience) and the self-surrender, meaning an involuntary and unconscious

experience. Furthermore, there are three examples of conversion experiences

consisting of intellectual, moral and social ones. Intellectual conversions involve

conflicts between two systems of thought, and can often result in the new thought

 being ‘true’ and the old one as ‘false’; this can either be from one religion to another

or to or from a religious system of thought.  Intellectual conversions clearly provide

no evidence for the existence of religious experiences because as human beings we

question everything and therefore our thoughts are continually changing. It is highly

unlikely that when experiencing an intellectual conversion even theists would not

claim to experience feelings of ‘love, power, glory or strength from God’ as Elton

Trueblood defined religious experiences. These types of conversions could

realistically occur on a daily basis and this therefore does not fit the description of

religious experiences being irregular unique and rare. Professor James H. Leuba

(1868-1946) views religious life as “almost purely moral.” A moral conversion

involves a change in one’s lifestyle rather than a system of thought, as an intellectual

conversion does. The story of ‘Swearing Tom’ as told by Robert H. Thouless provides

an example of a moral conversion. Moral conversions are more plausible as an

example of a religious experience because religion can affect and change your life and

therefore it follows that a religious experience would have a similar effect. Thus

moral conversions provide credible support for the existence of religious experiences.

Finally, a social conversion consists of a conversion taking place slowly in the

subconscious followed by a rapid and sudden conscious experience, alternatively

described as a “subconscious incubation’” by William James. -  an example being

the type of conversion witnessed by St Paul on the road to Damascus. A social

conversion experience is very similar to that of a moral conversion, as it likewise

causes change. However, life events can change your life in the same way that theists

claim religious experiences such as conversions do. Nevertheless there is no

distinction between the two and it is possible that what may be interpreted as a social

conversion experience may simply be an experience. Therefore this weakens the

argument and continues to support my view that religious experiences can only be ‘in

the mind of the believer’. Some claim that conversion provides proof that it is not in

the mind of the believer. St Paul was an avid atheist who had such a powerful

experience that changed him from being a man who was totally opposed to religion

and everything that Jesus represented to a man not only with an overwhelming and

complete belief in God but a desire to dedicate his life to God. It is obvious, however,

that this does not exist today and it was simply a symbolic story  thus giving proof to

atheists that religious experiences are ‘all in the mind of the believer.’

Prayer can be defined as an “inward communication with the divine.” Frederic W.

H. Myers believed prayer to be a vital component of the psychological well-being of

many individuals. He defined prayer as the general name for an ‘attitude of open

 expectancy’. Myers believed that prayer is completely subjective, and that we have

very little knowledge as to how prayer operates.

According to R. A Gillbert there are four types of prayer, the first being the prayer of

quiet, which is induced through meditation and contemplation. This state can last

from and few seconds and in some cases can be maintained for several hours, which

indicates it cannot simply exist in the mind, because if it did it would last a few

seconds at the most. The second is prayer of union and it is a more intense and

emotional experience than the previous. The stage of ecstasy (the third type) is

accompanied by a complete loss of sensory perception and of the power to make

voluntary movements. However, it could be argued that through use of recreational

drugs similar feelings could be obtained, and surely theists would not describe this as

a form of religious experience. The final type is spiritual marriage, often described as

the ultimate state of contemplation prayer involving a condition of ‘complete wedding

 bliss’ with God.

St Teresa of Avila, experienced this state of prayer and described the feeling as “….a

sweetness impossible to describe for which reason it is better to say no more about

it.” This for theists would be definite proof of religious experiences and would

strengthen their beliefs, as for them it is an example of further proof of their religious

beliefs which they may liken to their own experience. However, this may not

necessarily apply to atheists since they would expect such a claim from a theist and

they may argue that St Teresa avoided describing the experience she claimed to have

 had or alternatively that it was a fraudulent claim. Nonetheless in a time of crisis

(such as a life or death matter) many atheists would resort to prayer as a final chance

of survival, suggesting that atheists can comprehend the idea of prayer. Some would

argue that surely atheists would not do such a thing if they believed prayer

experiences only exist in the ‘mind of the believer.’ On the other hand, others may

argue against this and suggest they must have some form of  belief in a higher being

in order for someone to hopefully answer their prayer. It is therefore evident that only

 theists pray, since it is a form of ‘communication with the divine,’ and therefore I

maintain the clear view that religious experiences, including prayer experiences, exist

 in the ‘mind of the believer.’ Moreover, prayer is an example of a private experience,

 and as a consequence it is impossible to obtain any form of a empirical evidence

which could be acquired with a public experience, thus weakening the argument

further.

The word numinous is used to describe the sense of being in the presence of an

awesome power and yet feeling distinctly separate from it. Rudolph Otto also used the

 term ‘numinous’ to refer to a being that had an awesome power, believing that

numinous experiences underlie all religions and have three components. These are

often designated with a Latin phrase: mysterium tremendum et fascinans. The

teleological argument suggests that there is design, order and purpose in the universe

therefore there must have been a designer; God. This supports the existence of

numinosity because so many experiences people have in the world (both theists and

atheists) leave them with a sense of wonder and awe - for example this may simply be

due to a sunset, a waterfall, or a spectacular building. However, this does remove the

idea of a personal God which is incorporated into the idea of the classical theistic

God. This is because experiencing a sunset is something possibly thousands or

millions of people would be experiencing at once and therefore it is not a personal

experience with God, which weakens the argument, suggesting they may simply be an

experience. Furthermore, a building is a form of architecture created by man not God.

As a result this experience has not derived from God and thus cannot be classified as a

form of a religious experience and is therefore simply an experience. Others,

however, may argue that God created the world (as described in Genesis) or

alternatively that it had to have been created by some form of a supreme being,

therefore anything experienced in the world is an experience from that being, thus

weakening the quote. However, this suggests that everything experienced in the world

is a religious experience which weakens this argument since religious experiences are

defined as unique and something that occurs sporadically. Some may argue that there

is no evidence that God created the world and alternatively may agree with the

Epicurean Hypothesis, which states that the universe is the result “of random particles

coming together through time to form the current stable universe.”  This supports

my view as it does not rule out the chance of a God existing though if such a being

did it would be transcendent and therefore unable to create what many people

perceive to be a religious experience. Religious experiences consequently do not exist

and therefore solely exist in the mind of the believer.  

For theists, religious experiences strengthen their beliefs and provide further proof for

the existence of God, who they claim provided them with their religious experiences.

However as these experiences are often personal, the claims rely solely on the

individual’s testimony, which can often cause difficulties in terms of reliability. For

example, St Bernadette testified that she had seen and spoken to the Virgin Mary;

others who witnessed the ‘experience’ stated they only saw her talking to an unseen

‘someone’. In such circumstances it is impossible to obtain any form of empirical

evidence, causing others to argue such claims are either a ‘coincidence,’ as suggested

 by Holland, or simply  an ‘experience.’ Moreover, a theist would always be seeking

and hoping for any form of communication with God, and as a result may interpret a

regular and daily experience, such as a sunset, as a religious one, in order to

subconsciously ensure themselves of their beliefs. Whereas an atheist would simply

interpret a sunrise as an ‘experience.’

Finally in many cases, drugs or alcohol can produce very similar effects to a religious

experience. In The Varieties of Religious Experience, (1902) James refers to

experiments using nitrous oxide and anaesthetics, and suggests when mixed

sufficiently with air, these substances ‘stimulate the mystical consciousness to an

extraordinary degree.’ Therefore scientific evidence has proved that such

experiences, similar to those of religious ones, can be caused due to substances. Even

 though there have been many claims of different types of religious experiences, these

problems of verification clearly demonstrate that they are a fabrication of the mind. In

conclusion I continue to share and maintain a similar belief to Freud; namely that

religious experiences are ‘all in the mind of the believer.’

Bibliography

Burns E and Law S, Philosophy for AS and A2, 2004

Cole P, Philosophy of Religion 2nd Edition, 2004

Gale R, The Existence of God, Ashgate, 2002

Hamilton C, Understanding Philosophy for AS Level, 2003

Hay D, Religious Experience Today, Mowbray, 1990

Hick J, Arguments for the Existence of God Macmillan, 1971

 

Jordan A, Lockery N, Tate E, Philosophy of Religion for A Level, 1999

Philips DZ, The Concept of Prayer, Routledge, 1976

Swinburn R, Is there a God, Oxford University Press, 1996

Swinburne R, The Existence of God, OUP, 1979

The Reader’s Digest Association Limited, Great Illustrated Dictionary, 1984

Thompson M, Religion and Science, Hodder and Stougnton, 1991

Tyler S and Reig G, Advanced Religious Studies, Philip Allan Updates, 2002

---