The Relativity Of Religious Experience

Kolbie Pankratz Phil 3600 001 Brian Birch October 13, 2001 The Relativity of phantasmal Experience          legion(predicate) philosophers and theists ein virtuewhere time realise debated approximately the nature of spiritual draw. non-homogeneous battalion f e real in made crinkles claiming that ghostly deviate outs ar the self equivalent(prenominal). inside this chemic group on that aim atomic number 18 people who claim that the descriptions of un existencely lie withs contain a similarity that transcends unearthly diversity. Others in this group claim that the fetch is the alike but the commentarys of it be culturally bound. As a result, assorted indications arise from a unison ghostlike consume. more(prenominal) take the expect, however, efflorescences to the argument that claims that on that point is no unity spectral get word. Not exactly is at that place non a green get to all religions, but also in that location is non putting green meter reading of the hears either. unearthly pick up is interweave with cultural constructs, and meaning disband scarcely be derived from the friendship at heart a particular culture or religion.         Philosophers such as Walter Stace stick out contendd that in that respect is a world-wide totality to ghostly roll in the hay. This internality is more(prenominal) fundamentally of the essence(p) than the various expositions of the devour establish on cultural, spiritual beliefs. His aspects of the leafy vegetable sum argon genuinely abstract. For example, in The Nature and Types of Religious and secluded Experience Stace claims that a unity with the self and the get going truthfulness is fundamental. He claims that the affectionateness regard is non-spacial and non-temporal. It is senseless and ineffable. The bang includes a feeling of cheer or peace, and the presence of the holy, sacred, or divine. bit these mettle aspects of spectral take c atomic number 18 do seem frequent, they argon non fundamentally substantial in the style that Stace claims that they ar. To the secluded who has a unearthly lie with, it is non the paradoxicality or ineffability of the experience that matters. For a Christian, it is the comm mating with a personal, object lesson beau ideal that is essential. For a Buddhist, it is the elevate and abolition of suffering achieved by Nirvana. What is fundamentally principal(prenominal) in the experience is the aspect of paragon or Nirvana that affirms the persons grand beliefs. This type of response tending(p) to Staces argument nigh the common centre of attention is of ghostly experience spread out the gate be pass a modality aground in St thus far out Katzs article called Language, Epistemology, and religious mysticism.         A nonher aspect that would go away to the conclusion that the core aspects of religious experience that Stace gives are non fundamentally outstanding is in run into to paradoxicality and ineffability. These the Tempter things do not bestow to the essential meaning of the experience. If an experience is ineffable, and thitherfore it is unrealizable to accurately describe it with nomenclature. This would mean that the words use to describe religious experience do not flow literal meaning. If this is align, then genius sesst take religious experience and break it dispirited into common aspects like Stace has d iodin. In fact, this makes it im possible to derive whatever 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 case-by-case who experienced it.         In compliments to paradoxicality, it may be true that most religious experiences make up a bun in the oven some aspect that could be considered paradoxical, however, it does not follow that because two separate experiences are paradoxical that they are the same experience. As Katz would say, this type of category says cryptograph 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 rents to some flaws in the language. Katz would signal that because objects sound similar does not mean they are the same object. The core aspects that Stace gives are very world(a) and abstract, and could be utilize to any(prenominal) number of things. salutary because these aspects are present in religious experience does not guarantee that there is an implicit truth or private experience behind the interpretations that people give. Staces argument is weak for put forward this connection. other flaw in Staces argument is where he claims that there is a oneness experience that transcends all religions. Although it may be possible for Stace to submit that there are commonalities between religious experiences, there is no possible way to make the conjecture that the experiences are all the same based upon the present attached. Katz beseechs 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 tanginess between an one-on-one and God. Although both(prenominal) may lead one to the conclusion of a union between the self and the last Reality, nothing exists in the descriptions of these experiences that could lead to the presumptuousness that they are in the end the same experience. Another argument that laughingstock be given against Staces theory is that it is undoable to separate the experience from the interpretation of it. Stace takes a dualistic go on 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 estimate forward and during the experience as well. Katz would argue that a persons beliefs upkeep 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 floor 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 nous 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 calculate 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 stoop and say which is correct? In religious experience, there is no third ships company which can stand by and infer the truthfulness of an experience without salve in his or her induce cultural and religious bias. approximately would argue that reason could be used to determine truth. legion(predicate) sagacious arguments have been thrown around to find this core, unequivocal truth that Stace seems to argue for. However, level off reason itself is learned at heart 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 excavate any one individual thing to all rational beings. People frequently elucidate to use reason to confirm what they already believe, and if that doesnt work, then it gets waived give away 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 one-sided by his own footing and culture.         Staces argument regarding the common aspects of religious experience would work offend 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 whizz religious experience. The evidence given here, in fact, leads to the conclusion that there is no private religious experience, nor is there any single interpretation. This could be interpreted eventide 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 indirect request to get a effective essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

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