Donovan: June 2012
Donovan: June 2012
The chief point of the philosophical criticisms of ‘knowing God by experience’ amounts to this. Where popular
religious reasoning falls down is not in taking the sense of God too seriously, but in trying to treat it as a form of
knowledge of God or of anything else. The sense of knowing is never on its own a sufficient sign of knowledge. (That
distinction is a key to many of the philosophical difficulties in claims to know God by experience.)
But if the sense of God fails, in the end, to count as knowledge of God, what is to be said about it? Is it of no further
interest and to be discarded, like a pricked balloon, as being simply a great illusion?
Nothing that has been said here leads to that conclusion. There is no justification for taking such an all-or-nothing view
of religious experience (even though at times both philosophical critics and religious thinkers are inclined to do so.)
1 (a) Examine the argument and/or interpretations in the passage
(b) Do you agree with the idea(s) expressed? Justify your point of view and discuss its
implications for understanding religion and human experience.
a)
In the extract presented from Peter Donovan’s article, Can we know God by Experience, explores the idea that religious believers believe that they have the right to state that they know God, out of intuition, or because they ‘just know.’ This religious opinion is investigated within the article as Donovan unravels the grounds for stating that intuition is enough to validate a religious belief in God. The article states that intuition is a ‘sense of knowledge arising from inner convictions’, yet how reliable is this statement, especially in terms of what knowledge arises? The article is thus an exploration of this statement and how it stands up to the challenges and criticisms made against the notion of knowing out of conviction. The extract included is part of Donovan’s final conclusions on the matter of intuition, and he makes a final stand on intuition and it’s overall stance.
In the article at hand, Donovan has placed intuition in front of the many philosophical criticisms that state that the problem of ‘knowing God by experience’ is not founded upon believers taking God too seriously, but in placing religious experiences as a source of knowledge of God. Even though, there is no support for this view. Throughout the passage, Donovan does not deny that religious experiences are nonsensical or worthless, but he does deny the intuitionist the belief that intuition is sufficient enough to bring about knowledge of God. A religious experience is an encounter with the divine that results in a feeling of something beyond. Otto describes this feeling as the numinous, and coined the phrase mysterium tremedum et fascinans. Subsequently describing how awe-inspiring a religious experience is, and this is what leads religious believers to believe that these experiences lead to knowledge of God.
However, Donovan’s approach is to state that ‘the sense of knowing is never on its own a sufficient sign of knowledge.’ This concept of knowing God via religious experiences must come from somewhere, and according to Buber, of whom Donovan mentions in his article, we known God through I-You relationships, in contrast to being enclosed in I-IT relationships with impersonal concepts. This approach attempts to explain that our relationship with God, is the same as our relationships with other people, therefore we can make comparisons between feelings, just as we are able to understand and know that another person is present and we know them on a emotional level, the same can be said of God. However, Buber is criticised in the article, because the sense of knowing may be mistaken. Similarly, it has been portrayed in media how feelings are often mistaken, our experiences of love with another person may be purely one sided even though we may feel as though we know the partner feels the same, this can be wrong. Thus, just as the religious believers’ intuition may state that they know God, this feeling, although it cannot be disputed that they feel something, they may not be knowing God through intuition.
Buber, states that we should accept the testimony of religious believers and their intuition, but further criticism as mentioned in the article suggests that having an I-You relationship is not sufficient, and that an I- It approach is necessary. From our experiences,we can observe the fundamental relationships between people, because there is empirical evidence, yet in the context of a transcendent being, this cannot be undertaken and therefore results in Donovan’s conclusion that there is no ‘sufficient knowledge’ gained from
intuition of God. Instead, we may take the same stance as Anthony Flew, who uses John Wisdom’s parable of
the invisible gardener to highlight how the religious believer would rather stick to their intuition and belief of
a transcendent being, rather than to accept the criticisms of brute fact. If this is indeed the case, then the
‘sense of God fails.’
But most importantly, Donovan does not cast aside the significance of religious experiences and intuition, according to the passage there is ‘no justification for taking such an all-or-nothing’ view of religious experience. This is because Donovan does acknowledge that a no-tolerance approach could have devastating effects on our lives, and on these grounds does he contrast with Ayer, although Donovan does not believe in religious experience being sufficient evidence for instance on empirical terms, similar to Ayer, Ayer completely rejects all mention of the metaphysical, and Donovan accepts that there may be alternatives. For instance, when he comments that ‘the sense of knowing is never on its own sufficient’, perhaps if there was alternative sources then the cumulative arguments for a belief in God are sufficient. Similarly, the article does comment that the there is some element of truth, as Buber’s theory of I-You relationships, appears to be complementary to the bible scriptures, especially in the first testament of the bible, where God has a more personal relationship with the prophets.
Moreover, although Ayer’s standpoint is to reject all manners of metaphysics, the significance of religious experiences, does imply that there is something occurring, that may be the reason why religious believers are so convicted to believe that they know God. Donovan does not reject religious experiences, when he talks of the criticisms for intuition, instead he is merely suggesting that not all sensory feelings may be sourced from God. This is comparative with the research that William James concocted. James’ study suggests tat there is some change in feelings, as the experiences may have caused the religious believer to feel the numinous and come out changed, but as on par with Donovan it is not proof for God, it only supports that there is an experience that caused a change.
Furthermore, if the change initiates a positive response within the individual it must be irrational to completely discard the validity of such knowledge. We can observe such occurrences having a positive effect if we look to examples such as Theresa of Avila, her testimony declares that: ‘it is wholly impossible for me to doubt that I have been in God and God in me.’ The conviction also indicates that the experiences must be more profound than our simple day to day experiences, and thus must carry some weight. Therefore, it is clear that for these historical figures that these religious experiences are true for the individual and more than a ‘simple illusion.’ The question, is whether we believe this or not.
To conclude, Donovan has concerned himself with concluding his article on the terms that religious experience are meaningful but by themselves do not offer sufficient evidence to back intuition as a reliable source for knowing God.
But most importantly, Donovan does not cast aside the significance of religious experiences and intuition, according to the passage there is ‘no justification for taking such an all-or-nothing’ view of religious experience. This is because Donovan does acknowledge that a no-tolerance approach could have devastating effects on our lives, and on these grounds does he contrast with Ayer, although Donovan does not believe in religious experience being sufficient evidence for instance on empirical terms, similar to Ayer, Ayer completely rejects all mention of the metaphysical, and Donovan accepts that there may be alternatives. For instance, when he comments that ‘the sense of knowing is never on its own sufficient’, perhaps if there was alternative sources then the cumulative arguments for a belief in God are sufficient. Similarly, the article does comment that the there is some element of truth, as Buber’s theory of I-You relationships, appears to be complementary to the bible scriptures, especially in the first testament of the bible, where God has a more personal relationship with the prophets.
Moreover, although Ayer’s standpoint is to reject all manners of metaphysics, the significance of religious experiences, does imply that there is something occurring, that may be the reason why religious believers are so convicted to believe that they know God. Donovan does not reject religious experiences, when he talks of the criticisms for intuition, instead he is merely suggesting that not all sensory feelings may be sourced from God. This is comparative with the research that William James concocted. James’ study suggests tat there is some change in feelings, as the experiences may have caused the religious believer to feel the numinous and come out changed, but as on par with Donovan it is not proof for God, it only supports that there is an experience that caused a change.
Furthermore, if the change initiates a positive response within the individual it must be irrational to completely discard the validity of such knowledge. We can observe such occurrences having a positive effect if we look to examples such as Theresa of Avila, her testimony declares that: ‘it is wholly impossible for me to doubt that I have been in God and God in me.’ The conviction also indicates that the experiences must be more profound than our simple day to day experiences, and thus must carry some weight. Therefore, it is clear that for these historical figures that these religious experiences are true for the individual and more than a ‘simple illusion.’ The question, is whether we believe this or not.
To conclude, Donovan has concerned himself with concluding his article on the terms that religious experience are meaningful but by themselves do not offer sufficient evidence to back intuition as a reliable source for knowing God.
b)
The article aims to answer Donovan’s question of whether or not religious experience and initiation are enough or sufficient by themselves to determine the reliability that knowledge can arise from such encounters and how valid the testimonies are. The conclusion reveals that Donovan does not altogether reject the notion of religious experiences, but does doubt their reliability. I do believe that religious experiences are valid arguments for intuition and is convincing proof of an existence of a transcendent being. This has multiple implications on human experience, morality and religion, but I have considered that they can be positive rather than entirely negative.
Contrary to the atheistic belief, I agree that religious experiences can constitute towards knowing of knowledge about God, this arises from the fact that if it were not, then it would not be such a commonplace occurrence to discuss. Similarly, the implications of religious experiences upon religious experience portrays that religious experiences are still taken seriously, for instance St Theresa of Avila had multiple religious experiences and they did result in her receiving knowledge. Because her devout belief in a God was strengthened by the premise of the religious experience she was able to take out of that religious experience, a task or duty, which was to create more sources of religious worship for the people. In which case, you could claim that we do gain knowledge from God out of religious experiences, as we then know what the deity wants from us, as humans.
On the other hand, criticisms of this stance would state, that knowledge of God can not be possible, if we cannot understand the metaphysics. What we believe to think we know is simply mistaken, ironically, even as a theist, Kant was a profound critic of the metaphysics. Instead, Kant proposed that prayers and our attentions to religious experiences are worthless, because we cannot offer anything to a God that would be worth his concern, and thus we would be therefore engaging in a ‘fetish faith.’ If this is the case, then perhaps it indicates that if religious experiences are not useful, then all the rituals and stories within the bible and religion are nonsense concepts. This would fundamentally hurt the structures of many religions, and does not seem proportionate to the amount of religious worshippers in the world, if this opinion is supported.
It is therefore, rational to suggest that religious experiences do have some significance, and I do believe this as the conviction of the individuals who have had these experiences are so strong. This is supported by Richard Swinburne who commented that: ‘an omnipotent creator would seek to interact with his creations.’ This statement not only reinforces that it is natural for God to communicate with us, but validates that religious experiences can be reliable. Similarly, according to Swinburne’s principles of testimony and credulity we should be inclined to believe individuals as there is little reason for why they would wish to deceive others. If we take this account then not only does explain the bible scriptures but it means that for human experience, people can be accepted for who they are, rather than judged because of how incredulous their testimonies sound. Furthermore, if religious experiences are to be accepted then it means that there is the existence of God, which in turn would lead to the notion of an afterlife. In which case, it has plenty of
The article aims to answer Donovan’s question of whether or not religious experience and initiation are enough or sufficient by themselves to determine the reliability that knowledge can arise from such encounters and how valid the testimonies are. The conclusion reveals that Donovan does not altogether reject the notion of religious experiences, but does doubt their reliability. I do believe that religious experiences are valid arguments for intuition and is convincing proof of an existence of a transcendent being. This has multiple implications on human experience, morality and religion, but I have considered that they can be positive rather than entirely negative.
Contrary to the atheistic belief, I agree that religious experiences can constitute towards knowing of knowledge about God, this arises from the fact that if it were not, then it would not be such a commonplace occurrence to discuss. Similarly, the implications of religious experiences upon religious experience portrays that religious experiences are still taken seriously, for instance St Theresa of Avila had multiple religious experiences and they did result in her receiving knowledge. Because her devout belief in a God was strengthened by the premise of the religious experience she was able to take out of that religious experience, a task or duty, which was to create more sources of religious worship for the people. In which case, you could claim that we do gain knowledge from God out of religious experiences, as we then know what the deity wants from us, as humans.
On the other hand, criticisms of this stance would state, that knowledge of God can not be possible, if we cannot understand the metaphysics. What we believe to think we know is simply mistaken, ironically, even as a theist, Kant was a profound critic of the metaphysics. Instead, Kant proposed that prayers and our attentions to religious experiences are worthless, because we cannot offer anything to a God that would be worth his concern, and thus we would be therefore engaging in a ‘fetish faith.’ If this is the case, then perhaps it indicates that if religious experiences are not useful, then all the rituals and stories within the bible and religion are nonsense concepts. This would fundamentally hurt the structures of many religions, and does not seem proportionate to the amount of religious worshippers in the world, if this opinion is supported.
It is therefore, rational to suggest that religious experiences do have some significance, and I do believe this as the conviction of the individuals who have had these experiences are so strong. This is supported by Richard Swinburne who commented that: ‘an omnipotent creator would seek to interact with his creations.’ This statement not only reinforces that it is natural for God to communicate with us, but validates that religious experiences can be reliable. Similarly, according to Swinburne’s principles of testimony and credulity we should be inclined to believe individuals as there is little reason for why they would wish to deceive others. If we take this account then not only does explain the bible scriptures but it means that for human experience, people can be accepted for who they are, rather than judged because of how incredulous their testimonies sound. Furthermore, if religious experiences are to be accepted then it means that there is the existence of God, which in turn would lead to the notion of an afterlife. In which case, it has plenty of
implications of human experience as then Tillich would be correct in saying that it is of ‘ultimate concern’
that we pay attention to God.
Despite this, it is also naive to accepts that all testimonies are true, and especially so if we think of Swinburne’s two principles. Not all religious experiences are true, and I can observe the many discrepancies that critics may have of religious experiences. Some critics have argues that religious experiences are a part of religion that has overshadowed the progress of society, and Freud goes so far as to call it a ‘universal neurosis.’ In which case, if we do reject the notion of religious experiences as fanatical delusions, then the implications for morality according to Dawkins and Sharpe would mean that we would be free from our delusions and able to be moral for morals sake, rather than muddying the waters and being moral out of a fear of a deity.
However, not all people agree with this atheistic approach to religious experiences and its implications on morality. Richard Harries, the previous Bishop of Oxford, said that if we had a disregard for the importance of the church, and the ties between God and religious experiences, then our movement to a secular society would result in a complete breakdown of society. Where morals are no longer coveted as they were in the old days, and in some respects, this does have implications on human experience. If as according to what Aquinas stated about natural moral law, our own human laws are passed down from eternal law and the decalogue, which resulted because God interacted with a prophet. Surely, to reject this part of history that involves a religious experience would be denouncing the structure of morality and society as we know it? This, in my eyes indicates how important religion has become in our society, so much so, that we often do not realise.
To conclude, I do believe that there is a set importance in religious experiences and what knowledge they offer to us, be it human experience or religious and moral. Therefore, I do declare that religious experiences are good, although I do agree with Donovan on the grounds that religious experiences on their own are not enough to defend religion, and with other proofs, the argument for the existence of God, could be strengthened.
Despite this, it is also naive to accepts that all testimonies are true, and especially so if we think of Swinburne’s two principles. Not all religious experiences are true, and I can observe the many discrepancies that critics may have of religious experiences. Some critics have argues that religious experiences are a part of religion that has overshadowed the progress of society, and Freud goes so far as to call it a ‘universal neurosis.’ In which case, if we do reject the notion of religious experiences as fanatical delusions, then the implications for morality according to Dawkins and Sharpe would mean that we would be free from our delusions and able to be moral for morals sake, rather than muddying the waters and being moral out of a fear of a deity.
However, not all people agree with this atheistic approach to religious experiences and its implications on morality. Richard Harries, the previous Bishop of Oxford, said that if we had a disregard for the importance of the church, and the ties between God and religious experiences, then our movement to a secular society would result in a complete breakdown of society. Where morals are no longer coveted as they were in the old days, and in some respects, this does have implications on human experience. If as according to what Aquinas stated about natural moral law, our own human laws are passed down from eternal law and the decalogue, which resulted because God interacted with a prophet. Surely, to reject this part of history that involves a religious experience would be denouncing the structure of morality and society as we know it? This, in my eyes indicates how important religion has become in our society, so much so, that we often do not realise.
To conclude, I do believe that there is a set importance in religious experiences and what knowledge they offer to us, be it human experience or religious and moral. Therefore, I do declare that religious experiences are good, although I do agree with Donovan on the grounds that religious experiences on their own are not enough to defend religion, and with other proofs, the argument for the existence of God, could be strengthened.
Comments
Post a Comment