Journal of Philosophical Research 32:235-250 (2007)
|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|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gregg Ten Elshof (unknown). Religious Experience, Conceptual Contribution and the Problem of Diversity: How Not to Make the Problem Worse. :235-250.
William Coleman Williams, Perceptual Disanalogy: On the Alstonian Analogy Argument From Religious Experience.
S. Mark Heim (2000). Saving the Particulars: Religious Experience and Religious Ends. Religious Studies 36 (4):435-453.
Dennis Potter (forthcoming). Religious Disagreement: Internal and External. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion:1-11.
Ulf Zackariasson (2006). A Problem with Alston's Indirect Analogy-Argument From Religious Experience. Religious Studies 42 (3):329-341.
Johannes Roessler (2009). Perceptual Experience and Perceptual Knowledge. Mind 118 (472):1013-1041.
John Hick (1997). The Epistemological Challenge of Religious Pluralism. Faith and Philosophy 14 (3):277-286.
Bruce Reichenbach (2012). Religious Experience as an Observational Epistemic Practice. Sophia 51 (1):1-16.
Colin Jerolmack & Douglas Porpora (2004). Religion, Rationality, and Experience: A Response to the New Rational Choice Theory of Religion. Sociological Theory 22 (1):140-160.
Duncan Pritchard (2003). Reforming Reformed Epistemology. International Philosophical Quarterly 43 (1):43-66.
Keith E. Yandell (1993). The Epistemology of Religious Experience. Cambridge University.
T. M. Crowther (2006). Two Conceptions of Conceptualism and Nonconceptualism. Erkenntnis 65 (2):245-276.
Michael D. Barber (2008). Holism and Horizon: Husserl and McDowell on Non-Conceptual Content. Husserl Studies 24 (2):79-97.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads3 ( #202,107 of 549,671 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?