Authors
Gregg Ten Elshof
University of Southern California
Abstract
This paper aims to contribute to a defense of the now quite familiar argument from the perceptual model of religious experience 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 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 very briefly summarize the role of PMR in an argument for the rationality of religious belief, state the problem of conflicting religious claims, explain how a widespread assumption about the role of concepts in perceptual experience exacerbates the problem and 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 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, 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 Contemporary Philosophy  General Interest
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 1053-8364
DOI jpr20073246
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,319
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Religious Pluralism and the Rationality of Religious Belief.John Hick - 1993 - Faith and Philosophy 10 (2):242-249.
Religious Disagreement: Internal and External. [REVIEW]Dennis Potter - 2013 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74 (1):21-31.
Numinous Experience and Religious Language.Leon Schlamm - 1992 - Religious Studies 28 (4):533-551.
The Epistemological Challenge of Religious Pluralism.John Hick - 1997 - Faith and Philosophy 14 (3):277-286.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-02-17

Total views
5 ( #1,171,287 of 2,448,685 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #447,034 of 2,448,685 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes