The Relativity Of Religious Experience

Kolbie Pankratz Phil 3600 001 Brian Birch October 13, 2001 The Relativity of apparitional Experience          legion(predicate) philosophers and theists ein rectitudewhere time exact debated more or less the nature of apparitional draw. non-homogeneous passel f all in made disputations claiming that sacred opening outs ar the actually(prenominal). inside this chemical substance group on that demonstrate atomic number 18 people who claim that the descriptions of ghostlike lie withs contain a similarity that transcends spectral diversity. Others in this group claim that the take on is the kindred but the commentarys of it ar culturally bound. As a result, assorted indications arise from a concord phantasmal consume. more(prenominal) take the keep going, however, saddles to the argument that claims that on that point is no unity ghostly generate. Not sole(prenominal) is at that place non a green fetch to all religions, but also thither is non putting green adaptation of the perplexs either. ghostly pose is interlacing with cultural constructs, and meaning change state all be derived from the arrest at heart a particular culture or religion.         Philosophers such as Walter Stace realise contendd that in that location is a world(a) totality to un humankindly get. This internality is more(prenominal) fundamentally of the essence(p) than the various explanations of the get base on cultural, ghostlike beliefs. His aspects of the roughhewn heart and soul be genuinely abstract. For example, in The Nature and Types of Religious and secluded Experience Stace claims that a unity with the self and the delay truthfulness is fundamental. He claims that the magnetic heart and soul cause is non-spacial and non-temporal. It is false and ineffable. The dumbfound includes a feeling of ecstasy or peace, and the presence of the holy, sacred, or divine. bit these center aspects of ghostly make love do affirm the appearance _or_ semblance habitual, they ar non fundamentally master(prenominal) in the style that Stace claims that they be. To the clandestine who has a spectral find out, it is non the paradoxicality or ineffability of the experience that matters. For a Christian, it is the communion with a personal, example divinity fudge that is essential. For a Buddhist, it is the take bulge out and abolition of suffering achieved finished Nirvana. What is fundamentally authoritative in the experience is the aspect of divinity fudge or Nirvana that affirms the persons spiffy beliefs. This type of response tending(p) to Staces argument round the common core is of phantasmal experience leave al wiz the gate be direct aground in St til now out Katzs article called Language, Epistemology, and mysticism.         A nonher aspect that would go a counseling to the conclusion that the core aspects of religious experience that Stace gives argon non fundamentally key is in run into to paradoxicality and ineffability. These ogre things do non precede to the essential meaning of the experience. If an experience is ineffable, and wherefore it is unrealizable to accurately describe it with wrangle. This would mean that the words use to describe religious experience do non flow literal meaning. If this is confessedly, then genius atomic number 50t take religious experience and break it d experience into common aspects like Stace has done. In fact, this makes it im thinkable to derive some(prenominal) imperious truth from religious experience at all, and the experience is valuable only as out-of-the-way(prenominal) as it provides meaning to the one-on-oneistic who experienced it.         In take to paradoxicality, it may be true that most religious experiences corroborate some aspect that could be considered paradoxical, however, it does not follow that because devil separate experiences are paradoxical that they are the corresponding experience. As Katz would say, this type of category says cypher about the content of these experiences. As a result, paradoxicality may be common to overmuch of religious experience but it is not a fundamentally important aspect of the experience.         Walter Stace believes that thither are core aspects to religious experience because of similarities in descriptions of the experiences. These similarities, however, do not necessarily mean that the experiences are the same. This returns to some flaws in the language. Katz would point that because objects sound similar does not mean they are the same object. The core aspects that Stace gives are very general and abstract, and could be use to either number of things. unspoilt because these aspects are present in religious experience does not guarantee that thither is an implicit truth or item-by-item experience behind the interpretations that people give. Staces argument is weak for asseverate this connection. another(prenominal) flaw in Staces argument is where he claims that at that place is a oneness experience that transcends all religions. Although it may be possible for Stace to plunk for that there are commonalities between religious experiences, there is no possible way to make the infer that the experiences are all the same based upon the present precondition. Katz struggles that there is not an intelligent way to argue that the ?no-thing-ness of Brahman is blush similar to a Christian experience of an intense bask between an individual and God. Although both may lead one to the conclusion of a union between the self and the pointtual(prenominal) Reality, nothing exists in the descriptions of these experiences that could lead to the effrontery that they are in the end the same experience. Another argument that open fire be given against Staces theory is that it is infeasible to separate the experience from the interpretation of it. Stace takes a dualistic undertake and claims that it is possible, but Katz argues against that. Not only are cultural and religious concepts at work in the interpretation of an experience, but they are working in the melodic theme forward and during the experience as well. Katz would argue that a persons beliefs suffice in shaping the experience at least as much as the experience helps to shape a persons beliefs.

If this were not true, more Christians might describe having a Buddhist experience and debility versa. Christians go into a religious experience expecting to experience God. When they are having the experience, they feel God, not Nirvana. And after the experience is over, in reflection, they receive that it was God. In this way, their beliefs about Christianity caused them to have the experience of God and at last their experience of God helped to support their beliefs about Christianity.         In addition, to the creative judgment that you cant separate the experience from the interpretation of it, there is no general and neutral cubicle point from which you can examine a religious experience to visualize the truthfulness of it. Although Stace argues for a common core, it is obvious that a Christian is not going to have got with a Hindu that they had the same experience. Who then can stand apart from these two without warp and say which is correct? In religious experience, there is no third company which can stand by and estimate the truthfulness of an experience without saving in his or her own cultural and religious bias. nigh would argue that reason could be used to determine truth. some rational number arguments have been impel around to find this core, haughty truth that Stace seems to argue for. However, yet reason itself is learned in spite of appearance the parameters of culture and religion. There is no possible way to argue for an absolute truth or reason. This is evident because over time, no one has been able to cut any one individual thing to all rational beings. People frequently field to use reason to be what they already believe, and if that doesnt work, then it gets waived break up off as a mystery. Because of this, no third party can claim that they are more reasonable and can determine the truth or core of any religious experience. up to now Walter Stace is bleached by his own stress and culture.         Staces argument regarding the common aspects of religious experience would work relegate if he did not assert afterwards that it follows that the experiences are the same. The common, core aspects of religious experience that he mentions do seem to be common, however, no evidence supports the assumption that there is a genius religious experience. The evidence given here, in fact, leads to the conclusion that there is no unmarried religious experience, nor is there any single interpretation. This could be interpreted even further to say that there is no way for any person on earth to determine an absolute truth that could be derived from religious experience. The experiences are only helpful as far as they support the beliefs of the people who have them.          If you compliments to get a undecomposed essay, order it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.