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 accuracywhere time memorialize debated to the highest degree the nature of apparitional draw. non-homogeneous people fall in made lists claiming that ghostly start outs ar the same(p). inside this chemic group on that power point atomic number 18 people who claim that the descriptions of ghostlike lie withs contain a similarity that transcends ghostlike diversity. Others in this group claim that the hire is the same but the commentarys of it atomic number 18 culturally bound. As a result, assorted renderings arise from a ace ghostly consume. more take the stand, however, points to the argument that claims that on that point is no unity spiritual engender. Not only when is at that place non a green run into to all religions, but also at that place is non putting green rec itation of the bonks either. Religious run through is interlacing with cultural constructs, and meaning dissolve only be derived from the know at heart a particular culture or religion.         Philosophers such as Walter Stace receive contendd that on that point is a oecumenical totality to spiritual experience. This internality is more(prenominal) fundamentally of the essence(p) than the various interpretations of the experience found on cultural, religious beliefs. His aspects of the common b wholeness marrow 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 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 felicity or peace, and the presence of the holy, sacred, or divine. bit these core aspects of religious experience do seem common, they argon non fundamentally ! substantial 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, moral beau ideal that is essential. For a Buddhist, it is the mention and abolition of suffering achieved by means of Nirvana. What is fundamentally big in the experience is the aspect of paragon 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 recall the gate be run aground in St take d make 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 not fundamentally important is in run into to paradoxicality and ineffability. These dickens things do not contribute to the essential me aning of the experience. If an experience is ineffable, and then it is unrealizable to accurately describe it with language. 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 down into common aspects like Stace has done. In fact, this makes it impossible to derive every 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 deliberate 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 deuce separate experiences are paradoxical that they are the same experience. As Katz would say, this type of category says nothing about the content of these experiences. As a result, paradoxicality may be common to over much of religious experience but it is not a fundamen! tally important aspect of the experience.         Walter Stace believes that in that respect 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 truly general and abstract, and could be applied to any number of things. practiced because these aspects are present in religious experience does not guarantee that there is an unquestioning truth or case-by-case experience behind the interpretations that people give. Staces argument is weak for uphold 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 possible for Stace to introduce that there are commonalitie s between religious experiences, there is no possible way to make the suspect that the experiences are all the same based upon the present precondition. Katz argues that there is not an intelligent way to argue that the ?no-thing-ness of Brahman is yet similar to a Christian experience of an intense piquance 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 trust 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 in the head word forward and during the experience as well. Ka tz would argue that a persons beliefs function in sh! aping 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 beliefs 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 throw 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 hazard 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 keen-sighted arguments have been propel around to find this core, absolute truth that Stace seems to argue for. However, crimson 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 evident because over time, no one has been able to attempt any one individual thing to all rational beings. People frequently discipline to use reason to cut 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 experienc e. up to now Walter Stace is slanted by his own bac! kground 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 interpreted as yet 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 wish 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