Riffing on a comment made in response to my post about the validity of religious experiences , I have a question to ask you folks.
If I have a mystical experience (or some other theophany), I say that I experienced some aspect of the Holy Trinity. A Hindu might say that he experienced Vishnu or Ganesh. A New Ager might say she saw a ghost. A conspiracy nut might say he was abducted by aliens. Let's assume for a moment that everyone who claims to have had a religious/mystical experience has actually had one. How do we know who's attribution is correct? Specifically, how do we Christians know that we are experiencing God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit? What proof have we that we are more right than the equally convinced adherents of other religions?
Discuss.
Wesley J.Smith, author of several books including Consumer’s Guide to a Brave New World
The post itself is little more than a link to an article, but the comments are quite interesting. A raving and drooling commenter (who reminds me of someone…) "debates" with Smith. It’s quite amusing.
In the course of religious study, it is easy to become very attached to the idea of "seeking out" God. The emphasis is often placed upon logical reasoning and scientific research. There are, however, other ways of finding (or not finding, whichever the case may be) God. I am in particular referring to mystical/religious experiences. In these experiences, the subject believes that God has shown Himself to him/her. No intentional steps need be taken to induce these experiences. In fact, they are quite often unexpected and/or uninvited. These experiences often lead to those who have them to believe that God in some form exists.
Specifically, religious experiences are stated to be analogous to sensory experiences and therefore veridical. The following is an example of a simple argument for God's existence from analogy.
Religious experiences should be considered to be analogous to sense experiences in cognitively relevant aspects and therefore a type of valid perception. (premise)
When one perceives something, one generally has good, though not certain reason to think that the thing perceived objectively exists. (premise)
Someone who is the subject of a religious experience generally has good, though not certain, reason to believe that God exists. (conclusion from premises)
I will concede that the argument as stated is somewhat inadequate. For instance, there are no explanations for why the premises hold. However, I have seen no explanations or contradictions which defeat it to my satisfaction. These weak arguments against the analogical argument for the veridicality of religious experiences are the subject of my criticism.
"They fail to read clearly the signs of the times who do not see that the hour is coming when, under the searching eye of philosophy and the terrible analysis of science, the letter and the outward evidence will not altogether avail us; when the surest dependence must be upon the Light of Christ within…." – John Greenleaf Whittier (1807-1892), Quaker poet