Religious Experience, Conceptual Contribution and the Problem of Diversity

Journal of Philosophical Research 32:235-250 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper aims to contribute to a defense of the now quite familiar argument from the perceptual model of religious experience (hereafter PMR) to the rationality of beliefs formed on the basis of religious experience. The contribution will not, however, come in the form of a positive argument for PMR. Neither will this contribution take the form of a response to key objections to the plausibility of that model. Instead, I wish to argue that there is a widespread assumption about the role of concepts in perceptual experience generally which, when assimilated by PMR, complicates the attempt to respond to the most serious objection to the argument from PMR to the rationality of religious belief—viz. the objection from conflicting religious claims. Again, this paper will not respond to the objection from conflicting religious claims. Rather, it will explain how a common assumption makes that problem worse (or even intractable) and it will offer a positive suggestion about how to avoid that common assumption. Of course, to have shown how not to make a problem worse is not yet to have solved the problem. But, if the argument of this paper succeeds, it is a crucial first step.In what follows, I will (i) very briefly summarize the role of PMR in an argument for the rationality of religious belief, (ii) state the problem of conflicting religious claims, (iii) explain how a widespread assumption about the role of concepts in perceptual experience exacerbates the problem and (iv) offer the beginningsof an alternative account of the role of concepts in perceptual experience and comment on the evidential force of religious experience construed along the lines of this alternative account. Of course, an adequate treatment of the points in (iv) would require far more attention than can be devoted to them here. The primary burden of this paper is to establish the critical point in (iii), i.e., to generate some dissatisfaction with the “widespread assumption,” and to use this dissatisfaction as a motivation for exploring an alternative account of conceptual contribution.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Religious disagreement: internal and external. [REVIEW]Dennis Potter - 2013 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74 (1):21-31.
The Epistemological Challenge of Religious Pluralism.John Hick - 1997 - Faith and Philosophy 14 (3):277-286.
Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith.C. Stephen Evans & R. Zachary Manis - 2009 - Ivp Academic. Edited by R. Zachary Manis.
Reforming Reformed Epistemology.Duncan Pritchard - 2003 - International Philosophical Quarterly 43 (1):43-66.
The epistemology of religious experience.Keith E. Yandell - 1993 - New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-12-02

Downloads
48 (#291,517)

6 months
2 (#658,848)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Gregg Ten Elshof
University of Southern California

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references