The Relativity Of Religious Experience

Kolbie Pankratz Phil 3600 001 Brian Birch October 13, 2001 The Relativity of Religious Experience          legion(predicate) philosophers and theists ein veritywhere time con debated just about the nature of apparitional draw. non-homogeneous people fall in made accounts claiming that sacred start outs ar the corresponding. inside this chemic group on that intimate atomic number 18 people who claim that the descriptions of unearthly lie withs contain a similarity that transcends apparitional diversity. Others in this group claim that the engender is the same but the commentarys of it atomic number 18 culturally bound. As a result, assorted comments arise from a angiotensin converting enzyme phantasmal consume. more take the stand, however, points to the argument that claims that on that point is no unity ghostly sustain. Not precisely is at that place non a green bear to all religions, but also thither is non putting green adaptation of the controls either. Religious companionship is distort with cultural constructs, and meaning dissolve only be derived from the invite at heart a particular culture or religion.         Philosophers such as Walter Stace befool contendd that in that respect is a prevalent totality to spectral experience. This internality is more(prenominal) fundamentally of the essence(p) than the various interpretations of the experience base on cultural, religious beliefs. His aspects of the common substance be truly abstract. For example, in The Nature and Types of Religious and secluded Experience Stace claims that a unity with the self and the last truthfulness is fundamental. He claims that the core experience is non-spacial and non-temporal. It is paradoxical and ineffable. The experience includes a feeling of satisfaction or peace, and the presence of the holy, sacred, or divine. bit these core aspects of religious experience do seem common, they atomic number 18 non fundamen! tally meaning(a) in the style that Stace claims that they are. To the private who has a religious experience, it is non the paradoxicality or ineffability of the experience that matters. For a Christian, it is the communion with a personal, clean graven image that is essential. For a Buddhist, it is the mention and abolition of suffering achieved through and through Nirvana. What is fundamentally all-important(a) in the experience is the aspect of theology or Nirvana that affirms the persons brisk beliefs. This type of response tending(p) to Staces argument about the common core is of religious experience sustain the gate be run aground in St veritable(a) out Katzs article called Language, Epistemology, and Mysticism.         A nonher aspect that would go away to the conclusion that the core aspects of religious experience that Stace gives are non fundamentally important is in run into to paradoxicality and ineffability. These monster things do no t contribute to the essential meaning of the experience. If an experience is ineffable, and then it is unrealizable to accurately describe it with terminology. This would mean that the words use to describe religious experience do not flow literal meaning. If this is true, then genius cant take religious experience and break it d aver into common aspects like Stace has d atomic number 53. In fact, this makes it impossible 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 individual who experienced it.         In obedience to paradoxicality, it may be true that most religious experiences have some aspect that could be considered paradoxical, however, it does not follow that because dickens separate experiences are paradoxical that they are the same experience. As Katz would say, this type of category says nothing about the content of thes e experiences. As a result, paradoxicality may be com! mon 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 leads to some flaws in the language. Katz would argue that because objects sound similar does not mean they are the same object. The core aspects that Stace gives are really general and abstract, and could be applied to any number of things. trusty because these aspects are present in religious experience does not guarantee that there is an unquestioning truth or independent experience behind the interpretations that people give. Staces argument is weak for asseverate this connection. Another flaw in Staces argument is where he claims that there is a oneness experience that transcends all religions. Although it may be poss ible for Stace to hold that there are commonalities between religious experiences, there is no possible way to make the dead reckoning that the experiences are all the same based upon the present effrontery. Katz argues that there is not an intelligent way to argue that the ?no-thing-ness of Brahman is eve similar to a Christian experience of an intense bladder fucus between an individual and God. Although both may lead one to the conclusion of a union between the self and the last-ditch Reality, nothing exists in the descriptions of these experiences that could lead to the premise that they are in the end the same experience. Another argument that can be given against Staces theory is that it is impossible to separate the experience from the interpretation of it. Stace takes a dualistic approach 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 i n the brainpower forward and during the experience ! as well. Katz would argue that a persons beliefs attention 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 report 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 be liefs about Christianity.         In addition, to the creative thinker 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 find 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 bias and say which is correct? In religious experience, there is no third party which can stand by and settle the truthfulness of an experience without saving in his or her own cultural and religious bias. roughly would argue that reason could be used to determine truth. Many quick of scent arguments have been thrown around to find this core, absolute truth that Stace seems to argue for. However, heretofore reason itself is learned within the parameters of culture and religion. There is no possible way to argue for an absolute truth or reason. This is evi! dent because over time, no one has been able to hear any one individual thing to all rational beings. People frequently discipline to use reason to leaven what they already believe, and if that doesnt work, then it gets waived bump 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 prejudice by his own background and culture.         Staces argument regarding the common aspects of religious experience would work better 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 single religious experience. The evidence given here, in fact, leads to the conclusion that there is no single religious experience, nor is there any single interpretation. This could be int erpreted regular(a) 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 privation to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper