Religious experiences are all illusions

The testimony of other people about what they have experienced is much the same. Problems for Theistic Philosophers, New York: Others see Phillipsfor examplefollowing Wittgenstein, have tried to give an explanation of the strangeness of religious language by invoking the idea of a language-game.

A second challenge to religious-experience claims comes from Wittgensteinian accounts of language. While this may account for some of the unusual aspects of religious language, it certainly does not capture what many religious people think about the claims they make.

The Logical Positivists claimed that language is meaningful only insofar as it is moored in our experiences of the physical world. For Jung, religious experience was an irruption of unconscious contents into the conscious mind, threatening its stability, and bringing numinous feelings of awe and wonder.

While this may account for some of the unusual aspects of religious language, it certainly does not capture what many religious people think about the claims they make.

The testimony of other people about what they have experienced is much the same. To say that an experience comes unbidden is not to say that nothing the subject has done has prepared her, or primed her, for the experience see Luhrmann ; it is only to claim that the subject has not undertaken any practice aimed at producing a religious experience.

In fact, we typically treat them as foundational, in need of no further justification. The "numinous" experience has two aspects: Naturalistic explanations for religious experiences are thought to undermine their epistemic value because, if the naturalistic explanation is sufficient to explain the experience, we have no grounds for positing anything beyond that naturalistic cause.

Zaehner has identified two distinctively different mystical experiences: Zaehner has identified two distinctively different mystical experiences: Plantinga offers a different kind of argument. No indescribable experience can be publicly confirmed No individual, isolated and private experience can be publicly confirmed.

The notion of "religious experience" was used by Schleiermacher and Albert Ritschl to defend religion against the growing scientific and secular critique, and defend the view that human moral and religious experience justifies religious beliefs.

Another type is the religious experience that comes through sensory experiences of ordinary objects, but seems to carry with it extra information about some supramundane reality. He used the Greek word psyche for mind, which has connotations of soul, and he bleieved that what we call mind — consciousness — is a tiny part of the the psyche which is mainly unconscious.

Differences of object certainly make differences in content, and so make differences in what can be said about the experiences. Not all of these can be correct. Eventually, that approach to language fell out of favor, but some still use a modified, weaker version to criticize religious language.

Seeing reality that way extinguishes the fires of craving, and liberates the meditator from the necessity of rebirth Laumakis— Other experiences can be of angels, demons, saints, heaven, hell, or other religiously significant objects.

It is only known by experiential acquaintance. Such experiences are easy to dismiss as hallucinations, but the subjects of the experience frequently claim that though it is entirely internal, like a hallucination or imagination, it is nevertheless a veridical experience, through some spiritual analog of the eye or ear James and Alston cite many examples.

Religious delusion

The term "spiritual awakening" may be used to refer to any of a wide range of experiences including being born againnear-death experiencesand mystical experiences such as liberation and enlightenment.

Braithwaitefor example, understands religious claims to be expressions of commitments to sets of values. I am always uploading new materials as and when I cover them with my students so it is worth checking regularly. One answer to that question is what is often called the Argument from Religious Experience: Types of Religious Experience Reports of religious experiences reveal a variety of different kinds.

A person capable of being possessed is sometimes called a medium. Mysticism and Religion, New York: For Ayer, the problem of the ineffability of religious experience led to his dismissal of its meaningfulness: First of all, as Gellman points out, most such explanations like the psychoanalytic and socio-political ones are put forward as hypotheses, not as established facts.

Religious experiences are in all relevant respects like sensory experiences; sensory experiences are excellent grounds for beliefs about the physical world; so religious experiences are excellent grounds for religious beliefs. How can non- believers accept the reports of people who claim to have encountered the deity or its emissaries when there are so many alternative explanations for those reports which would provide strong reasons to reject the claim that the reports are truthful and accurate?

Therefore, it is argued, there is nothing more to religious experiences than what happens in seizures, mental disorders, or drug experiences. While the experience of nirvana is essentially the realization of a kind of insight, it is also accompanied by other experiential elements, especially of the cessation of negative mental states.

This argument can be based upon the fact that since we know about some believers for whom this argument is correct their reports for religious experiences are nothing more than illusionswe assume that perhaps all such reports may be illusions. Suggested reasons for accepting the premise[ edit ] Some principal arguments that have been made in favor of the premise include: The proponent of the naturalistic explanation as a defeater owes us some reason to believe that his or her argument is not just another skeptical argument from the veil of perception.

Since concepts and language always involve distinctions, which always involve duality, the insight so gained cannot be achieved conceptually or expressed linguistically.Feb 07,  · “Religious experiences are an illusion of the mind”: Student’s Work On February 7, June 5, By Aimee Horsley In Essay Tips and Techniques, Philosophy New Spec This is an example of what I would class as a good introduction.

The statement asks us to explore different opinions on the validity of religious experiences; an important issue for Christians, or anyone of faith, because most people’s faith is built on either a personal experience of God or a belief in the capacity of God to communicate through such experiences, as in the Bible/5(1).

A religious experience is a non-empirical occurrence that may be perceived as supernatural. It is a spontaneous event undergone by an individual, however may be induced as a result of intensive training and self-discipline.

Religious Experiences are all Illusions

One answer to that question is what is often called the Argument from Religious Experience: Religious experiences are in all relevant respects like sensory experiences; sensory experiences are excellent grounds for beliefs about the physical world; so religious experiences are excellent grounds for.

Oct 31,  · So religious experiences are not alone in that they are illusions. The problem with religious illusions is that if the experience is unusual enough it is common for people to take that as a sign that they are somehow special and more important than wsimarketing4theweb.com: Resolved.

‘Religious experiences are all illusions.’ Discuss. Most arguments for the existence of God are ‘a posteriori’, seeking to move from experiences within the world to the existence of God rather than relying on the definition of God to prove his existence. Religious experience is an.

Download
Religious experiences are all illusions
Rated 4/5 based on 94 review