Quotes[ edit ] I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted! I have a precursor, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science.
These personal experiences tend to be highly important to the individuals who undergo them. Both monotheistic and non-monotheistic religious thinkers and mystics have appealed to religious experiences as evidence for their claims about ultimate reality.
Philosophers such as Richard Swinburne and William Alston have compared religious experiences to everyday perceptions, that is, both are noetic and have a perceptual object, and thus religious experiences could logically be veridical unless we have a good reason to disbelieve them. Indeed, a drunken or hallucinating person could still perceive things correctly, therefore these objections cannot be said to necessarily disprove all religious experiences.
Martin, "there are no tests agreed upon to establish genuine experience of God and distinguish it decisively from the ungenuine", and therefore all that religious experiences can establish is the reality of these psychological states. Explanations such as the fear of deathsuggestioninfantile regressionsexual frustrationneurological anomalies "it's all in the head" as well as the socio-political power that having such experiences might grant to a mystic have been put forward.
Each is in an abnormal physical condition, and therefore has abnormal perceptions. The hidden assumption in Russell's argument is that bodily and mental states that interfere with reliable perceptions of the physical world also interfere with reliable perceptions of a spiritual world beyond the physical, if there is such a spiritual world to be perceived.
Perhaps this assumption is reasonable, but it certainly is not obviously true. Broad"one might need to be slightly 'cracked'" or at least appear to be mentally and physically abnormal in order to perceive the supranormal spiritual world.
He argues that for the individual who experiences them, they are authoritative and they break down the authority of the rational mind. Not only that, but according to James, the mystic is justified in this.
But when it comes to the non-mystic, the outside observer, they have no reason to regard them as either veridical nor delusive.
Types[ edit ] Depiction of the theophany scene in the Bhagavadgita wherein Krishna reveals his universal form to Arjuna. Just like there are different religions, there are different forms of religious experience.
Indian texts like the Bhagavad Gita also contain theophanic events. The diversity sometimes to the point of contradiction of religious experiences has also been used as an argument against their veridical nature, and as evidence that they are a purely subjective psychological phenomenon.
According to Schleiermacher, the distinguishing feature of a religious experience is that "one is overcome by the feeling of absolute dependence. He described this as "non-rational, non-sensory experience or feeling whose primary and immediate object is outside the self" as well as having the qualities of being a mystery, terrifying and fascinating.
Mystical experiences in which one senses one's own union with a divine presence. The extrovertive way looks outward through the senses into the world around us and finds the divine reality there.
The introvertive way turns inward and finds the divine reality in the deepest part of the self. Non-monotheistic religions meanwhile also report different experiences from theophany, such as non-dual experiences of oneness and deeply focused meditative states termed Samadhi in Indian religion as well as experiences of final enlightenment or liberation mokshanirvanakevala in HinduismBuddhism and Jainism respectively.
Another typology, offered by Chad Meister, differentiates between three major experiences: Charismatic experiences, in which special gifts, abilities, or blessings are manifested such as healing, visions, etc.
Mystical experienceswhich can be described using William James qualifications as being: IneffableNoetictransient and passive. Perennialism vs Constructivism[ edit ] Another debate on this topic is whether all religious cultures share common core mystical experiences Perennialism or whether these experiences are in some way socially and culturally constructed Constructivism or Contextualism.
According to Walter Stace all cultures share mystical experiences of oneness with the external world, as well as introverted "Pure Conscious Events" which is empty of all concepts, thoughts, qualities, etc.
Perennialists tend to distinguish between the experience itself, and its post experience interpretation to make sense of the different views in world religions. Katz meanwhile have argued against the common core thesis, and for either the view that every mystical experience contains at least some concepts soft constructivism or that they are strongly shaped and determined by one's religious ideas and culture hard constructivism.
All religions argue for certain values and ideas of the moral Good.
Non-monotheistic Indian traditions like Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta find the highest Good in nirvana or moksha which leads to release from suffering and the rounds of rebirth and morality is a means to achieve this, while for monotheistic traditions, God is the source or ground of all morality and heaven in the highest human good.
The world religions also offer different conceptions of the source of evil and suffering in the world, that is, what is wrong with human life and how to solve and free ourselves from these dilemmas.
A general question which philosophy of religion asks is what is the relationship, if any, between morality and religion. Brian Davies outlines four possible theses: One example of this view is Kant 's idea that morality should lead us to believe in a moral law, and thus to believe in an upholder of that law, that is, God.
Morality is somehow included in religion, "The basic idea here is that being moral is part of what being religious means. Morality and religion are opposed to each other.
In this view, belief in a God would mean one would do whatever that God commands, even if it goes against morality. The view that religion and morality are often opposed has been espoused by atheists like Lucretius and Bertrand Russell as well as by theologians like Kierkegaard who argued for a ' teleological suspension of the ethical '.Feb 27, · First of all, apologies if I have posted this in the wrong forum since I am unsure if this should be placed in the "Non-Christian Religion" forum (Since Confucianism is oviously Non-Christian) or in the Philosophy section of the forum (There is an ongoing debate on wether Confucianism is a Religion or Philosophy).
At first, the claim that atheism is a religion might sound ridiculous. It certainly can be a surprising claim.
And it’s one that many people, including western atheists, might initially dismiss out of hand. But there’s more to the story here.
There is a case to be made that, in a very re. Quin Shi Huan banned Confucianism along with all other schools, except for the Legalist school or Fa-jia, which was the official government philosophy. Freedom of speech was suppressed, hundreds of Confucian scholars were buried alive and several classic Chinese texts were burnt.
Confucianism: Philosophy or Religion? Like many Asian belief-systems, Confucianism is both a philosophy and a religion. It is one of the more “secular” of Asian traditions, since it has no god or gods, and isn’t concerned with an afterlife, Creation, or a spirit-world.
That is the secret of all culture: it does not provide artificial limbs, wax noses or spectacles—that which can provide these things is, rather, only sham education. Woo 5) In arguing the idea that Buddhism and Confucianism are not only philosophies, it is important to bring up the difference between philosophy and religion: religion is concerned with the source of life and the consequences of our actions in the afterlife while philosophy is not.