These are the standard objections to argument #18 on the list provided here...
The Argument
To be fair to the authors, they readily admit that this argument is not evidence for the existence of God. But they have included it in their list so it should be examined. The argument is summarised as follows:
1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the "divine."
2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.
3. Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.
4. God is the object of many of these experiences.
Standard Objections
1. The obvious response to the first premise is "so what"? Many people may claim to have had divine experiences but many make no such claim. Many people share the same experiences but adopt different explanations. Many people claim to have been abducted by aliens. Many people claim many things that many other people find incredible. What we claim to have seen or experienced is not evidence of things that exist outside of our minds. Many people dream they can fly, but they can't fly.
The second problem with the first premise is the word "divine". Many people in different eras and cultures have had emotional experiences which they can't explain rationally, but "divine" is an explanation of that experience, not the reality of the experience itself. The "divine" explanation is provided by a small number of people who already believe in the "divine" and give themselves the religious authority to determine such matters. No one has experienced God without first being taught about God.
2. The problem with the second premise is that it is based on a straw man argument. The people in question need not be "utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience." They are probably describing their experience accurately. But they can be utterly wrong with regard to the "divine" explanation they have adopted. There are many explanations for these experiences which are not "divine".
3. The main problem with the third premise is the unjustified assumption of a "divine reality". There have been a variety of "divine" experiences. If there is just one God, why are there so many mutually incompatible "divine" experiences explained by so many religions? They can’t all be true, so at least some must be false. How do we differentiate? What reasons can one religious believer give to justify their divine experience over the experiences defined by others? Can there be multiple divine realities?
The use of the word "reality" is not qualified. The profound emotional effects these experiences have is real and true - but the "divine" explanation is not necessarily true or real. Apparent "divine" perceptions can have completely natural sources without any divine connections. Mystical experiences can be reproduced in anyone by means of chemical substances, electrical stimulation, hypnosis, oxygen starvation, and many other mechanisms. If at least some of the alleged religious experiences are wholly natural, how do we separate them from the “truly” divine ones? Even if an experience changes lives, that does not prove the experience had "divine" origins. It could be explained by the persuasiveness of the believers or the appeal of the claims.
4. Perhaps God is the object of many of these experiences, but not all. So what is the source of the divine experiences where God is not the object? And when God is the object, it only happens to people who've been taught about God.
No comments:
Post a Comment