The argument from religious experience

James: What is religious experience? 

In 'The Varieties of Religious Experience' William James argues that there is a 'common core' to all genuine religious experiences:

1. Religious experiences are experiential (experience + observation) - not just thinking about God. 
2. They aren't connected to sense perception - rather they are part of an awareness that transcends the senses. 
3. The person feels they are immediately aware of and connected to God.
4. This spiritual awareness blocks out everything else temporarily - 'mystical union'

For James, religious experience is an immediate sense of the reality of the 'unseen'

-The conceptualisation comes later. 

-This unseen is separable from the visible world.

-We cannot think in any usual terms about it.

In being aware of something 'more' is this 'more' just our own higher self or something objectively real? 

James argues: 

-There is more to us

-But religious experience is a contract with something external to ourselves. 

-This reality is God. 

-Religious experience produces real effects on the people involved.

"God is real since he produces real effects"

The argument

Religious experiences in this context are experiences in which it seems to the person as though they are directly aware of God or God's action. The experiences are similar to perception, which is awareness of something other than oneself. 
However we usually treat perceptual experiences as veridical - other people have similar experiences. 

So why are religious experiences any different? They have similar characteristics to each other.
Therefore, they must also be veridical experiences of something divine, leading to the conclusion that God exists. 

But is there an alternative explanation for the experiences? 

Philosophical issues

Some philosophers have argued that religious experiences are not really like perception, so we shouldn't assume RE are veridical. 

-Sense experience is universal among people, yet only some people experience religious experiences and they rarely happen.
HOWEVER, the frequency of something does not challenge its reliability. 
-We trust perception due to its informative and widespread nature. RE does not share these characteristics, so we shouldn't assume they are veridical. 

-Religious experiences are private and therefore cannot be verified by anyone else like perception. They are often a feeling, and nobody has direct access to others feelings. Feelings can often be misguided, and therefore are not assumed to be veridical. 

-If a RE has no transformative effects, we may doubt it was veridical. Yet if we can see the transformation, we have more reason to believe it. 

Reasons to doubt religious experiences are of God

-Religious experience has produced very different ideas of what the 'divine reality' might be. E.g God (Christian) vs nothingness (Buddhist). 
James would counter that it doesn't produce a theological system but offers an idea of the reality of something spiritual.

-People can experience the same thing but disagree about what they have experienced,
But disagreements between religions don't mean RE aren't veridical. 

-Could be seen as imposing religious ideas onto an emotional experience, and is therefore not an experience of God.
However some religious experiences result in conversion. 

Freud: a psychological explanation

The Future of Illusion - presents a different explanation of what might be happening in religious experiences.

-Argues they could be hallucinations caused by a very deep unconscious wish that human beings have for consolation and reassurance in the face of uncontrollable forces of nature. 
-We want a life without terrors - as children we felt helpless and needed protection. Therefore, God provides a means in which we can feel safe in the face of uncertainty as he is an omnipotent protector. Our relationship with God is like a parental relationship. 

Religious beliefs are "fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind. The secret of their strength lies in the strength of those wishes." 

Freud's explanation accounts for James' RE characteristics:

Hallucinations: Experiences rather than thoughts
Wish: Includes intense feelings that are abstract
Something outside oneself, offering security in response to the wish. 

Objections:

James argues that Freud's theory still offers the possibility that RE are experiences of God.

-The origin of an experience does not affect the truth. An experience must be evaluated by the effects it has. 

-RE come to us from the unconscious which could be a conduit of spiritual reality. 

-If RE are a result of a wish for security, and God exists, our wish to contact him seems realistic.

Freud: RE gives us no reason to think it is an experience of God.