It is too big a thing for words and therefore not necessarily understood by those who have not experienced it. Noetic means intellect. It is an experience that is not purely based on emotion, but one that provides an insight into religious truths which have universal or eternal significance. A transient experience short, and cannot be sustained for a long duration of time. The final type, passive, is an experience which the recipient has no control over.
God is so beyond our ability to understand that the only way of seeing the reality of God is to continue saying what God is not, God is more than anything we can say of him. Plotinus, Moses Maimonides, Pseudo-Dionysius and Meister Eckhart support this view – for these philosophers the real God is beyond whatever we speak of as God. Human language causes confusion when it is used to talk about God, as a result we must speak of God only by saying what God is not. Human language is inadequate in describing God – we cannot talk about God. Recognising this reaffirms that God is more than we can ever imagine – he is ineffable, can never be described so we cannot say what they are not.
Such experiences are indefinable; this is due to the fact that, they are so uncommon that it is almost impossible to define the feeling in ordinary terms as. William James in his book expressed the religious experience as ‘offering insight into universal or eternal truths; they are transient, offering a brief intensity and a lingering sense of profundity; and they are passive, that is, the subject experiences a higher power working through them’. In our society, there have been numerous events that provides many examples of saints and mystics who have attempted to describe such events, whether they take the form of observable natural phenomena, dreams, prophecies, spiritual conversion or vaguer sensations of unity, joy or love. In a less dramatic way, we may ourselves have suffered experiences that seem unusually significant or otherwise inexplicable. The philosophical question is how far such experiences provide evidence for the existence of a supernatural power.
The first of these dangers is susceptibility of Americans to extreme individualism, and isolation from the community. Secondly Tocqueville fears that American’s would develop an excessive desire for material things. Moreover, he believes democracy would cause American’s to lose the ability to think for themselves and, instead conform to society. Tocqueville’s final concern of Democracy was that an intense aspiration for total equality would in turn create a society who sacrifices many rights. Tocqueville argues that the only thing which will keep Americans away from these dangers, which would undoubtedly lead to despotism is religion as source of moral education.
31) as he “like[s] not the smell of this ‘authority’” (1. 31). Here, he underscores one of his biggest objections to Parris’ leadership, the reverend’s inability to rule by praise of the Lord and his tendency to rule by fear of Hell; a minister’s influence in society should be more brightening than darkening. Furthermore, in regards to Parris’ leadership, John sees him as a person less concerned about spreading the word of goodness and God and more concerned about material
C. Stoic Philosophers - A stoic is one who tries to avoid any show of emotion, whether anger or joy. II. Pure Christianity Seems Strange & Different To Many Religious People A. (Acts 17:18-20) B. (Acts 16:20-21; Acts 17:6) C. Error, if practiced long enough, makes the truth sound strange.
One could argue that the logical positivists were unsuccessful in arguing that religious language is meaningless because the verification principle has many weaknesses. For example Strong verification is not possible to talk meaningfully about history as no self- observation can confirm historical events. Swinburne stated that strong verification excludes all types of universal statements as there may be a random event that occurs that may mean that this cannot be verified. However, A.J Ayer developed a solution for this which is the weak verification principle. This form of the principle allows for statements to have meaning if the means to which a statement can be verified are known.
If God breaks this, then he is not being omnibenevolent (all good), which is another of his attributes. However lust is far from morally right, so God cannot experience it. Leading on from that, since God is confined to being morally perfect, he has no choice whether he is or not, he can’t be omnipotent. Another aspect of this argument is can God fear? We are either scared of the unknown (e.g death) or something more powerful than ourselves (e.g lions).
← Can religious experiences be “explained away” by science? Definitions: ← An experience with religious significance, e.g. the act of worship in a religious setting ← A person’s experience of something or a presence beyond themselves Arguments for religious experience as evidence for God’s existence There are two different variants on the basic valid argument: The argument from 1st person experience:
Essay 1 Faith and Reason “Reason, aided by Christian faith, reveals truths about the universe and about humans that could never have been reached by reason alone. Conversely, Christian faith needs reason in order to communicate its beliefs clearly, to arrange those beliefs in a more systematic form, to guard it from straying into fanaticism or error, and to provide answers to reasonable objections to those beliefs”(1-2). Many argue that faith and reason are two very different things, when in all reality they both need each other and as Albl states they are actually “inseparable”. I am Catholic myself and I have always learned that authentic Christian faith does not limit human liberty and reason. Instead, faith supports reason and perfection; and reason, illuminated by faith, finds strength to raise itself to the knowledge of God.