• Types of Religious Experience
  • Religious experience - Wikipedia
  • Religious Experience - Atheism

Reports of religious experiences reveal a variety of different kinds

Religious Experience (OCR exam board) - SlideShare

Religious Experience (OCR exam board) 1

15/02/2018 · Arguments for a God relating to religious experience
Just as there are a variety of religions, each with its own claimsabout the nature of reality, there are a variety of objects and statesof affairs that the subjects of these experiences claim to be awareof. Much analytic philosophy of religion has been done in Europe andthe nations descended from Europe, so much of the discussion has beenin terms of God as conceived of in the Jewish, Christian, and Islamictraditions. In those traditions, the object of religious experiencesis typically God himself, understood as an eternal, omniscient,omnipotent, free, and perfectly good spirit. God, for reasons of hisown, reveals himself to people, some of them unbidden (like Moses,Muhammad, and Saint Paul), and some because they have undertaken arigorous practice to draw closer to him (like the mystics). To saythat an experience comes unbidden is not to say that nothing thesubject has done has prepared her, or primed her, for the experience(see Luhrmann 2012); it is only to claim that the subject has notundertaken any practice aimed at producing a religious experience. Insuch experiences, God frequently delivers a message at the same time,but he need not. He is always identifiable as the same being whorevealed himself to others in the same tradition. Other experiencescan be of angels, demons, saints, heaven, hell, or other religiouslysignificant objects.

The Four Types of Religious Experience - Religious …


Richard Carrier describes his own spiritual journey, how he came from a background as a Taoist in a Christian country to become a fighter for secular humanism and metaphysical naturalism. The role of religious experience in his Taoism is relevant evidence against arguments from religious experience.

 

Religious Experience - Mel Thompson


In other traditions, it is not necessarily a personal being who isthe object of the experience, or even a positive being at all. In thetraditions that find their origin in the Indiansubcontinent—chiefly Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism—theobject of religious experiences is some basic fact or feature ofreality, rather than some entity separate from the universe. In theorthodox Hindu traditions, one may certainly have an experience of agod or some other supernatural entity (like Arjuna’s encounterwith Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita), but a great many important kinds ofexperiences are of Brahman, and its identity with the self. In Yoga,which is based in the Samkhya understanding of the nature of things,the mystical practice of yoga leads to a calming and stilling of themind, which allows the yogi to apprehend directly that he or she is notidentical to, or even causally connected with, the physical body, andthis realization is what liberates him or her from suffering.


Text of a paper published in the Fall (1996) issue of , addressing why and how religious experience is to be approached critically, using Buddhist meditation as the central example.


It's not, in my experiance the religious right that does this

Naturalistic explanations for religious experiences are thought toundermine their epistemic value because, if the naturalisticexplanation is sufficient to explain the experience, we have nogrounds for positing anything beyond that naturalistic cause. Freud(1927) and Marx (1876/1977) are frequently held up as offering suchexplanations. Freud claims that religious experiences can beadequately explained by psychological mechanisms having their root inearly childhood experience and psychodynamic tensions. Marx similarlyattributes religious belief in general to materialistic economicforces. Both claim that, since the hidden psychological or economicexplanations are sufficient to explain the origins of religiousbelief, there is no need to suppose, in addition, that the beliefs aretrue. Freud’s theory of religion has few adherents, even amongthe psychoanalytically inclined, and Marx’s view likewise hasall but been abandoned, but that is not to say that something in theneighborhood might not be true. More recently, neurologicalexplanations of religious experience have been put forward as reasonsto deny the veridicality of the experiences. Events in the brain thatoccur during meditative states and other religious experiences arevery similar to events that happen during certain kinds of seizures,or with certain kinds of mental disorders, and can also be inducedwith drugs. Therefore, it is argued, there is nothing more toreligious experiences than what happens in seizures, mental disorders,or drug experiences. Some who are studying the neurological basis ofreligious experience do not infer that they are not veridical (see,e.g., d’Aquili and Newberg 1999), but many do. Guthrie (1995),for example, argues that religion has its origin in our tendency toanthropomorphize phenomena in our vicinity, seeing agency where thereis none.

It is enough to know about 100 words to survive in a foreign country.

The problem is that and any subjective experience is logically consistent with any number of objective states of affairs. No matter how I perceive the world to be, there are any number of ways that it could be; I could be dreaming, or hallucinating, for example. If our familiar and lucid experiences of the external world are insufficient to justify belief in its existence, though, then how much more uncertain must be the connection between barely tangible religious experiences and belief in God?