Personal Religious Experiences - Delusion or Revelation?

[Kuzcotopia]

If someone tells you that they have had a personal religious experience, should believe them? Do you look only to those who have shared experiences similar to your own for evidence, or do you accept them all? What do they have in common? Are there any aspects of personal religious experiences that are shared by everyone who has them, regardless of personal belief?

Most importantly, is there a way for an individual who has had a religious experience to truly communicate that experience with someone who has not if they do not share the same worldview? If you have had one, should it be part of your argument if the other party can never experience it? If you have not had one, should you immediately discount someone else who has?

Richard Swineburne is a well-respected theist who has a great deal to say about the acceptance of personal religious experiences. He argues for two basic tenants:

The Principal of Credulity, quoted from Swineburne: If it seems to a subject that X is present, then probably X is present; what one perceives is probably so.” In other words, we generally see the world accurately, and unless there’s a specific reason as to why, we shouldn’t question what we see. According to Swineburne, for the one who has the experience, if there is no obvious reason to reject the expeience, it should be considered accurate for that person. It would be proof, and would be up to others to actively disprove it (if they can).

The Principal of Testimony, also quoted from Swineburne: We usually believe to have occurred what other people tell us that they perceived occurring. In other words, we should generally believe what other people say, unless there’s a specific reason not to. For those who hear the experience, there should be no reason to doubt it unless they can specifically find a valid challenge to the claim. Lacking a valid challenge, there is no real reason to reject it.

While I don’t want to reprint a book chapter here, I am also amazed at the number of qualifications Swineburne makes when presenting these two ideas. In both principals, he provides scenarios that would reject most claims on the kinds of grounds that I would also think up, i.e. lying, misinterpretations, drug use, brain phenomena, attention seeking, and so on. But not all of them, of course. He believes that many are accurate, and provide evidence of a theistic worldview when accumulated together.

Below is a link to a powerpoint that paraphrases the argument is a quick and easy way (from which I also paraphrased above):

https://www.philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk/files/Swinburne_2.ppt

Anyway, just curious about the discussion we could have on this topic. For many, I'm certain this is all self-delusional nonsense, and for others it is probably the defining moment of a faith. How can these two disparate perspectives interact in a way that doesn't immediately end the conversation? What should the conversation look like?

Disclaimer: I have never personally had a religious experience.

 

[DawudTalut]

If someone tells you that they have had a personal religious experience, should believe them? Do you look only to those who have shared experiences similar to your own for evidence, or do you accept them all? What do they have in common? Are there any aspects of personal religious experiences that are shared by everyone who has them, regardless of personal belief?...................................

Peace be on you.
The apparatus of such experiences is built in everyone at various degrees, and is functional or less-functional for various reasons too..... The purpose is to understand the refined connection with God; when Messengers of God bring message through revelations, common person should be able to understand that such medium exist.

"Dreams are a truly universal phenomenon shared by people of all countries and all ages, yet dreams do not belong to one category alone. Dreams in most cases are a product of human psyche. The way the subconscious deals with the daily inflow of data reflects the concerns and problems that a particular person is facing. Today the study of dreams has gone far beyond the Freudian era of theorization. Much research is being carried out with the help of advanced electronic equipment.

However, from the religious point of view, there are two types of dreams—those which are generated by psychic factors, and those which are of Divine origin and carry a deeper significance. They may portend future mishaps or bring glad tidings. They may reveal information of which the viewer had no knowledge whatsoever prior to that particular dream. Such dreams bring to a sharper focus the probability of the existence of an invisible, conscious, transcendent, External Being who can, if He so pleases, communicate with humans on whatever subject He chooses."
Source:The Nature of Revelation

 

[psychoslice]

For me, if you have an experience of some sort of enlightenment, then that's your experience, you don't have to prove that to anyone else, if you do, then its no longer your experience, its someone else's, you are hoping that another will experience your experience, which they can never do.

 

[George-ananda]

I couldn't open the power point because I don't have Microsoft Word 2010. But none the less I still have opinions. This Swineburne might be too easily persuaded for my taste.

There are a variety of experiences one might call religious. I form my opinion on the whole subject on the quantity, quality and consistency of the reports. Other people I consider basically the same as me and I consider (not blindly accept nor blindly dismiss) their experiences. I have come to believe that many people do have genuine spiritual experiences.

Also there are individuals I have come to believe are spiritual masters that provide me with a framework in which these experiences make sense. Consciousness can be experienced beyond the boundaries of the physical. In fact, the physical limits consciousness to a brain evolved to best allow survival on the physical plane. It is hard to escape a saber tooth tiger when in a mystical moment.

 

[Sunstone]

I tend to distinguish between two kinds of experiences: (1) religious experiences (which are specific to a particular religion. e.g. "I saw Jesus" -- an experience that only people exposed to the concept of Jesus seem to have.), and mystical experiences (which are not specific to a particular religion. e.g. "I experienced the oneness of all things" -- an experience that seems to be cross-cultural and cross-religion.). I assume, however, that the OP is lumping those two kinds of experiences together, and speaking of both as "religious" experiences? Or is it?

At any rate, I also draw tend to a distinction between the experience itself and its interpretation -- something that I've noticed many people who've had such experiences do not always do. So I'm a little offbeat in the way I view these things, but to my thinking, the experience itself, especially if it is a mystical experience, is generally ineffable, while the interpretation is "effable" (even if and when claiming not to be). Moreover, religious experiences seem to be somewhat more describable than mystical experiences. The reason all that seems important to me is because I am much more inclined to question someone's interpretation of their experience than I am to question whether or not they had such an experience.

There are far too many accounts of religious and mystical experiences from far too various and unrelated sources not to view such things as something that a portion of humanity has had. Moreover, such things are technically distinct from delusions. For instance, people who've experienced delusions almost always "wake up" from their delusion relatively soon after it first occurs and then recognize it as a delusion. But people who've had religious or mystical experiences tend to believe their experience was of a greater or truer reality even years afterwards. For that and other reasons, it strikes me as only reasonable to suppose that religious and mystical experiences are not delusions in the normal sense of the word as used in psychology.

And yet, though they may not be delusions, they are still open to various interpretations. For instance, is it accurate to interpret experience A as an "experience" in the sense that there was a subject or person doing the experiencing? Or is "experience" being used in a different sense here, a sense in which there was no psychologically distinct "I" doing the experiencing? Again, if I say, "I saw Jesus in a vision", is that description of what I experienced an accurate interpretation of my experience, or am I interpreting my experience in terms (i.e. "Jesus") that make sense of my experience to me because I come from a society or culture in which Jesus is associated with the things I actually did experience?

Now, I would suggest that Swinburne might be exaggerating the degree to which humans are typically reliable witnesses to events. First, because some humans appear to be markedly more accurate witnesses than others, and second because all or almost all humans are nevertheless at least somewhat deficient as accurate witnesses. The trouble with both religious and mystical experiences is that both apparently come with an overwhelming conviction that one has witnessed things just as they are, and yet that conviction -- regardless of its power to persuade us that we have truly witnessed or reported things just as they are -- is unlikely in my opinion to be entirely justified. For one thing, it seems to me that, if humans are normally less than completely reliable witnesses to events (and I believe they normally are less than completely reliable), then why suppose any of us suddenly and even without any preparation become completely reliable witnesses to events as extraordinary as religious and mystical experiences?

At any rate, just some thoughts on the OP. I do not claim any degree of expertise in this subject despite having had a nearly life-long interest in it.

 

[psychoslice]

I couldn't open the power point because I don't have Microsoft Word 2010. But none the less I still have opinions. This Swineburne might be too easily persuaded for my taste.

There are a variety of experiences one might call religious. I form my opinion on the whole subject on the quantity, quality and consistency of the reports. Other people I consider basically the same as me and I consider (not blindly accept nor blindly dismiss) their experiences. I have come to believe that many people do have genuine spiritual experiences.

Also there are individuals I have come to believe are spiritual masters that provide me with a framework in which these experiences make sense. Consciousness can be experienced beyond the boundaries of the physical. In fact, the physical limits consciousness to a brain evolved to best allow survival on the physical plane. It is hard to escape a saber tooth tiger when in a mystical moment.

Well said.........and let the tiger bit our head off.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If someone tells you that they have had a personal religious experience, should you believe them?

Yes, but I think it's reasonable to question the assumptions they make about the experience, and the way they interpret it. People often interpret such experiences according to existing beliefs or wishful thinking.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I couldn't open the power point because I don't have Microsoft Word 2010. But none the less I still have opinions. This Swineburne might be too easily persuaded for my taste.

There are a variety of experiences one might call religious. I form my opinion on the whole subject on the quantity, quality and consistency of the reports. Other people I consider basically the same as me and I consider (not blindly accept nor blindly dismiss) their experiences. I have come to believe that many people do have genuine spiritual experiences.

Also there are individuals I have come to believe are spiritual masters that provide me with a framework in which these experiences make sense. Consciousness can be experienced beyond the boundaries of the physical. In fact, the physical limits consciousness to a brain evolved to best allow survival on the physical plane. It is hard to escape a saber tooth tiger when in a mystical moment.

Sorry about the link. I wasn't thinking that all might not have the software to view it. Try this, it's more of a general argument, but it has Swineburne's basic argument too:

The Argument from Religious Experience

I think the crux of his argument is that a single experience is not nearly enough, but if credible, it can be stacked with all the the other credible arguments. Together, they suggest a reasonable conclusion for a theist view. At least that's how I understand it.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I tend to distinguish between two kinds of experiences: (1) religious experiences (which are specific to a particular religion. e.g. "I saw Jesus" -- an experience that only people exposed to the concept of Jesus seem to have.), and mystical experiences (which are not specific to a particular religion. e.g. "I experienced the oneness of all things" -- an experience that seems to be cross-cultural and cross-religion.). I assume, however, that the OP is lumping those two kinds of experiences together, and speaking of both as "religious" experiences? Or is it?

At any rate, I also draw tend to a distinction between the experience itself and its interpretation -- something that I've noticed many people who've had such experiences do not always do. So I'm a little offbeat in the way I view these things, but to my thinking, the experience itself, especially if it is a mystical experience, is generally ineffable, while the interpretation is "effable" (even if and when claiming not to be). Moreover, religious experiences seem to be somewhat more describable than mystical experiences. The reason all that seems important to me is because I am much more inclined to question someone's interpretation of their experience than I am to question whether or not they had such an experience.

There are far too many accounts of religious and mystical experiences from far too various and unrelated sources not to view such things as something that a portion of humanity has had. Moreover, such things are technically distinct from delusions. For instance, people who've experienced delusions almost always "wake up" from their delusion relatively soon after it first occurs and then recognize it as a delusion. But people who've had religious or mystical experiences tend to believe their experience was of a greater or truer reality even years afterwards. For that and other reasons, it strikes me as only reasonable to suppose that religious and mystical experiences are not delusions in the normal sense of the word as used in psychology.

And yet, though they may not be delusions, they are still open to various interpretations. For instance, is it accurate to interpret experience A as an "experience" in the sense that there was a subject or person doing the experiencing? Or is "experience" being used in a different sense here, a sense in which there was no psychologically distinct "I" doing the experiencing? Again, if I say, "I saw Jesus in a vision", is that description of what I experienced an accurate interpretation of my experience, or am I interpreting my experience in terms (i.e. "Jesus") that make sense of my experience to me because I come from a society or culture in which Jesus is associated with the things I actually did experience?

Now, I would suggest that Swinburne might be exaggerating the degree to which humans are typically reliable witnesses to events. First, because some humans appear to be markedly more accurate witnesses than others, and second because all or almost all humans are nevertheless at least somewhat deficient as accurate witnesses. The trouble with both religious and mystical experiences is that both apparently come with an overwhelming conviction that one has witnessed things just as they are, and yet that conviction -- regardless of its power to persuade us that we have truly witnessed or reported things just as they are -- is unlikely in my opinion to be entirely justified. For one thing, it seems to me that, if humans are normally less than completely reliable witnesses to events (and I believe they normally are less than completely reliable), then why suppose any of us suddenly and even without any preparation become completely reliable witnesses to events as extraordinary as religious and mystical experiences?

At any rate, just some thoughts on the OP. I do not claim any degree of expertise in this subject despite having had a nearly life-long interest in it.

I wasn't making a distinction, I just want to know how to communicate with those who claim them. But yes, I suppose there should be a distinction.

If it's specific in a way that confirms a particular belief, I might consider that less credible than a general claim of "something larger," or a more general experience free from interpretation.

Does the act of vocalization of the experience must somehow qualify it, or maybe diminish it? I know that when I describe a dream to another, I find myself applying logic to the experience, and explaining what was happening in the dream as if it were a narrative that I could understand. As I talk about it, I already know that isn't quite right, but I can't just randomly spout out images without some linking storyline to make it sensical. Maybe its true with these experiences? In the process of explaining it, narratives and familiar symbology emerge from the act of trying to make sense of it? And if that is what these experiences are, then what common threads do all of them have?

And as for the listener, since they only get the narrative interpretation, are they really able to understand or interact with the ideas of the experience at all?

I really wish I could have one, then I could probably speak from a place other than speculation.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sorry about the link. I wasn't thinking that all might not have the software to view it. Try this, it's more of a general argument, but it has Swineburne's basic argument too:

The Argument from Religious Experience

I think the crux of his argument is that a single experience is not nearly enough, but if credible, it can be stacked with all the the other credible arguments. Together, they suggest a reasonable conclusion for a theist view. At least that's how I understand it.

Theism can be reasonable. But, this is assuming a standard of deduction that not everyone is going to share. For example, someone is visited by Darwin in a vision. Is it Darwin, or is it satan, in disguise? Is someones experience of ''oneness', actually ''god'', or is their experience from some bad pizza they ate? The methodology of determining these things is going to vary.

 

[roger1440]

A religious experience is usually a mystical experience seen through the vail of religious concepts or some sort of theology. The very best example I know of is the conversion of the Apostle Paul. Paul believed in God. Paul therefore experienced his vision through the vail of his belief system.

 

[George-ananda]

I think the crux of his argument is that a single experience is not nearly enough, but if credible, it can be stacked with all the the other credible arguments. Together, they suggest a reasonable conclusion for a theist view. At least that's how I understand it.

I can't speak for Swineburne, but that is kind of how I see it. I would add a couple more things too. Also, so-called paranormal experiences affect my view similarly. One event (even those providing verifiable evidence or even independent witnesses) would not convince me, but a whole body of such phenomena considered for quantity, quality and consistency can affect my worldview. Combined with the fact that such religious and paranormal experiences are just part and parcel of the worldview of one of mankind's great wisdom traditions (eastern/Indian) provides a convincing argument to me as to the nature of reality.

I believe that with enough spiritual effort we can experience this ourselves and it no longer would be a hypothesis but our reality. Until then the eastern teachings are just the best hypothesis in accordance with the evidence. From my considered study of the paranormal I no longer consider the standard materialist worldview a viable hypothesis.

I have come to believe many spiritual masters have what Carlos Castenada called 'second awareness' and can tell us of things beyond our 'primary awareness'.