David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Religious Studies 34 (3):299-316 (1998)
William Alston has articulated a powerful defence of the claim that mystical perception generates prima facie justified beliefs about God. At the heart of his defence is the claim that mystical perception is 'innocent until proven guilty'; that is, Alston claims that the practice of forming beliefs on the basis of putative perceptions of God should be accorded the same presumptive innocence we accord to other standard ways of forming beliefs like sense perception, memory and introspection. But Alston employs a strategy for defending mystical perception that seems to obviate the possibility of criticizing mystical perception and thus that renders otiose Alston's claim that that practice is innocent only until proven guilty. I argue that this appearance is deceptive; Alston's strategy does not render effective criticism of mystical perception unreasonably difficult. I further argue that granting the legitimacy of Alston's strategy is essential to a fair, measured criticism of mystical perception
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
William Hasker (2010). Alston on the Rationality of Doxastic Practices. Faith and Philosophy 27 (2):205-211.
Peter Byrne (2000). Perceiving God and Realism. Philo 3 (2):74-88.
John Turri (2008). Practical and Epistemic Justification in Alston's Perceiving God. Faith and Philosophy 25 (3):290 - 299.
Daniel Howard-Snyder (1996). Rationality and Theistic Belief. [REVIEW] Faith and Philosophy (3):437-442.
Ulf Zackariasson (2006). A Problem with Alston's Indirect Analogy-Argument From Religious Experience. Religious Studies 42 (3):329-341.
Evan Fales (1999). Can Science Explain Mysticism? Religious Studies 35 (2):213-227.
Nathaniel F. Barrett & Wesley J. Wildman (2009). Seeing is Believing? How Reinterpreting Perception as Dynamic Engagement Alters the Justificatory Force of Religious Experience. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 66 (2):71 - 86.
Evan Fales (1996). Scientific Explanations of Mystical Experiences: II. The Challenge to Theism. Religious Studies 32 (3):297 - 313.
Edward James Dale (2009). An Introduction to the Horizon Model: An Alternative to Universalist Frameworks of Mystical Development. Sophia 48 (3):281-298.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #205,500 of 1,696,221 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #239,051 of 1,696,221 )
How can I increase my downloads?