What is the nature of this argument?
a posteriori, inductive
a priori, deductive
a priori, inductive
a posteriori, deductive
What is the argument in a nutshell?
a direct encounter with God is the best proof of his existence
experiencing the beauty of our world is the best proof of his existence
observing that God created the universe is the best proof of his existence
the definition of God is the best proof of his existence
What is Swinburne's assumption about God and religious experience?
If an omnibenenvolent, omnipotent God exists, then he would wish to interact with his creatures.
If an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God exists, then he would not let his creatures suffer.
If an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God exists, then he would promise us a place in heaven.
What are the four qualities that Schleiermacher believes that all religious experiences share, despite their differences?
ineffability (unable to express the experience in normal language)
noetic quality (revealed truths)
the ultimate (encountering the ultimate being)
wholeness (complete in presence of being)
passivity (outside of the control of the person)
numinous meaning (a sense or taste for the infinite)
finite and infinite (aware that you, the finite, are encountering the infinite)
transcience (short experience)
absolute dependence (dependent on being)
Otto developed Schleiermacher's ideas by coining the term 'numinous' meaning that religious experiences result in a sense of taste for the infinite.
What are the four qualities that James believes that religious experiences share?
finite and infinite (aware that you, the finite, are in the presence of the infinite)
absolute dependence (dependent on the being)
ineffability (cannot express the experience in normal language)
James argus that the best way to judge the validity of a religious experience is to observe the long term effects that it has upon the recipient. How significant is the experience on the person's life?
How does the argument from religious experience work?
Draws an analogous link between the attributes found in creation and the attributes of God to prove that God must exist because he created us.
Draws an analogous link between the everyday experience and our experience of God to prove that God must exist because it is possible and probable to experience him.
Draws an analogous link between the beauty that exists in nature and the omnibenevolence of God to prove that God must exist because it is possible and probable.
Swinburne says that "An omnipotent and perfectly good creator will seek to interact with his creatures and, in particular, with human persons capable of knowing him"
Explain Swinburne's Principle of Credulity.
Swinburne argues that it is a basic principle of rationality that we should believe people when they have an experience of God. We should believe that things are as they appear to be and trust our senses. Swinburne says "If it seems to a subject that X is present, then probably X is present". Swinburne acknowledges that sometimes people are mistaken, but that doesn't mean we should rule out every religious experience.
Swinburne argues that it is a basic principle of rationality that we shouldn't believe people when they have an experience of God. We shouldn't believe that things are as they appear to be and trust our senses. Swinburne says "If it seems to a subject that X is present, then probably X isn't present". Swinburne acknowledges that sometimes people are mistaken, and that does mean we should rule out every religious experience.
Swinburne argues that people usually tell the truth and unless we have good reason not to, we should believe the testimony of other people. We cannot doubt everything that people say to us, nor should we immediately doubt someone who claims to have had a religious experience.
Swinburne argues that people usually don'tt ell the truth and unless we have good reason not to, we shouldn't believe the testimony of other people. We can doubt everything that people say to us, and should we immediately doubt someone who claims to have had a religious experience.
Explain Swinburne's Principle of Testimony.
Swinburne devised the Cumulative Case for God's existence. He said that if we consider all of the other evidence for God's existence, such as the Teleological Argument and the Cosmological Argument, alongside the argument from religious experience, then it seems likely that God exists. Religious experience is not a stand alone argument but part of a collection of arguments for God's existence.
Tick FOUR criticisms of religious experience.
Cannot be subjected to Ayer's Verification Principle. Gale agrees with this view as well.
Wittgenstein's 'seeing-as': If we are religious, we are likely to view the world in a religious way. Therefore, our experiences are automatically tainted with religion. Thus the argument loses credibility across all fields.
Martin: Many people sense the absence of God. This could be used as an argument against God's existence since there is proof that he doesn't exist.
Consider the critiques of religious belief (psychological and sociological). Religious experiences could just be a form of Freud's wish fulfilment or a manifestation to comfort our emotional needs.
Tick FOUR strengths of religious experience.
Critics of religious experience cannot come up with any decisive evidence to explain the experience. God appears as the simplest explanation and as Ockham's Razor says, the simplest answer is often the best answer.
The shared criteria (Schleiermacher, James and Otto) of religious experiences adds validity to religious experience because despite the different faiths and beliefs, there are shared qualities.
Swinburne's Cumulative Case for God's existence has credibility because it draws together a variety of evidence across our world for God's existence.
For the religious believer, this is a strong case since it draws out qualities from human nature, such as trusting our senses and trusting other people (Credulity and Testimony)
Franks Davis: We don't always trust testimony and credulity and there are certain circumstances when it is appropriate to test the sense or other people's experiences because the outcome of being wrong is too significant. For example, a criminal murder trial.
