3C- Challenges Flashcards
(9 cards)
What did Frank’s Davis suggest
Argues for cumulative case of God’s existence
Presents 3 main philosophical challenges of religious (mystical) experiences in ‘the evidential force of religious experience’
What are Franks Davis’ 3 challenges
Description related
Subject relation
Object related
Describe Frank Davis’ challenge of description related
When any event described as experience of ‘God’ claim is being made without any support of empirical evidence- so not valid
Ineffable
Any claim of experiences is self contradictory with normal everyday experience
She believes RE are merely a misunderstanding by the recipient
Example: account logically inconsistent eg saw world in size of a hazelnut
Relate to verficationists
Describe Frank Davis’ challenge of subject realted
RE’s are unreliable as subject may be suffering from mental illness/ delusions from substance abuse and experience hallucinations
Not in position to fully understand what they’re experiencing so claims are dismissed
Example: Ian McCormick stung by a jellyfish- Fatima: appeared to children
Describe Frank Davis’ challenge of object related
Focuses on source of RE- she believes claims of RE, as recipient claims, are so unlikely as to be entirely untrue
Object is the divine
Idea God has been experienced is no more likely than seeing an 8 foot green alien or flying antelope- unlikely to believe alien so why would we believe claim of God
Concept too otherworldly
Explain the challenge of grounds of misunderstanding
Sense deception- Descartes= can’t rely on senses
Example seeing an angel is flickering shadows
Explain the challenge of delusion
Psychology- Feuerbach- religion= self worship
Freud- neurosis- manifestations of the
repression of sexual urges- a desire to return to the womb
Winnicott- RE is like a child under 5 carrying a cuddly toy (they’re a comforter)
Explain the challenge of verificationists
Mystical experiences are subjective- impossible to verify- its based upon personal judgement
Vienna circle- claims lack empirical evidence (and aren’t analytic or synthetic) so are considered meaningless
Flew’s falsification principle- religious believers don’t count anything against their belief and so all religious statements are meaningless- parable of the gardener
Religious experiences are not treated to rational enquiry
What are some responses to challenges
Claims could be genuine if individual has integrity eg
Swinburne - POC (person should be believed), POT (stories should be believed)- these only work if no special cases
Individual experiences can still be valid even if not verifiable- VP FP- eg statement ‘i love you’
Inge- suggested Mystics themselves are justified on believing through there experiences- gave the example that if a dozen honest men tell me they have climbed the matterhorn it is reasonable to believe the summit is accessible, but this doesn’t mean i am likely to get there myself
