James analysed a range of religious experiences, though in particular mystical experiences. William James acknowledged that there was difficulty in completely defining religious experience so he put forward four criteria that he believed to be the characteristics of all religious and mystical experiences. Firstly the experience had to be ineffable in that the experience was beyond proper description; it could not be sufficiently described in words. The experience had to also be noetic, that it was no just ‘feelings’ but a deep and direct knowledge of God, which could not have been achieve though reason alone. The third criteria is transience, meaning it is temporary and cannot be sustained, although its effects may last a long time.
Critically assess with reference to William James, the argument from religious experience. The argument from religious experience seems to state that we can experience God and therefore God must exist, for surely what we experience must be real. William James, American psychologist and philosopher, worked to expand on and validate this topic. James defined religious experience as ‘The feelings, acts and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatsoever they may consider divine.’ He then identified the four types of mystical experiences: ineffable, noetic, transient, passive. An ineffable experience is one that cannot easily be articulated.
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. They are a ‘gift from God’ and leave one powerless. They can be accompanied by some sort of ‘spiritual gift’ such as speaking in tongues. James concluded that religious experiences are psychological phenomenas that occur in our brain and have both a physical and supernatural element to them.
Descartes' argument in the Meditations is circular. Discuss. In trying to prove the existence of God, Descartes will, of course, have to rely on what he can clearly and distinctly perceive, because this is the only way he can know anything. However, Descartes also needs to prove that God exists for us to know what we clearly and distinctly perceive. This leads to the famous objection that he uses the existence of God to establish his doctrine of clear and distinct ideas, and that he uses his doctrine of clear and distinct ideas to establish the existence of God: his argument is circular.
Professor Barbara C. Sproul REL 205 Section 001 5 February 2013 Being or Not-Being Paul Tillich’s “Religion as a Dimension in Man’s Spiritual Life” is his argument against two groups of people, the Literal Theologians and Social Scientist. The Literal Theologians believe that Religion is given by God and he does exist as a being. While the Social Scientist argues that Religion is a man made and God is a being who does not exist. Tillich in the middle of this has a side that he supports and that side is neither. Paul Tillich argues against the literal theologians and the social scientists as well.
“For how could I possibly understand that I doubt, and that I desire, that is, that there is something lacking in me, and that I am not completely perfect, if there were no idea in me of a more perfect being, by comparison with which I could recognize my own shortcomings?”(33). Descartes knows that he himself is not perfect and is always learning, moreover, if there was not a God and he was derived from himself then there would be no room for improvement or learning as he would be born with all knowledge and wisdom and as such not have thoughts about God or a supreme being. Descartes says he would not have the intuition and innate feelings about God unless God himself gave him those feelings. These feelings for Descartes are real therefore he concludes that God is not a deceiver proving his other theory that God is real and God is not a deceiver. “From this it is sufficiently clear that he cannot be a deceiver: for all cunning and deception presuppose some shortcoming, as is plain by the natural light.”(37) In Descartes third meditation he has proven and answered questions that he has set out to prove.
Descartes declares he has to determine if there is a God and if he does exist, whether he can be a deceiver. The reason he has to determine the existence of God and what he is, rests in his theories of ideas. This is because we do not know if there is an outside world and we can almost imagine everything, so all depends on God’s existence and if he is a deceiver. “To prove that this non-deceiving God exists, Descartes finds in his mind a few principles he regards as necessary truths which are evident by the “natural light” which is the power or cognitive faculty for clear and distinct perception.” If arguments is presented in logical trains of thought, people could not help but to be swayed and to understand those arguments. Natural light
Which Aquinas believed reflects the Eternal Law. The Natural Law refers to the moral law of God which has been built into each human nature; however it can be seen by everyone as it does not depend on belief in God as long as you use you reason when faced with a situation then you have done the
It is always difficult to understand and comprehend for anything to exist realistically. For anything else to exist there must be a higher existence. A “Fool’s Objection” gives us the impression that there is no clear and distinct idea of anything being greater because it cannot be conceived. A so as result it is stated that “there is no God”. The rational mind states otherwise.
(Heb. 6:1 faith is the substance of things hope for and the evidence of things not seen. I would answer the Axiological question by saying, “God is the creator of the for universe.” Not only does he creates everything, he is everything. So that means because God is of value, we are of value too.We have to always keep God center. (Exodus 20:3 You shall have no other Gods me.)