Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T20:56:16.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Argument from Religious Experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

D. G. Attfield
D. G. Attfield
Affiliation:
Bede College, Durham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this article is to make yet another attempt to defend and restate as convincingly as possible the argument for God's existence based on religious experience. In its simplest form the argument is an inference from the fact that men experience God to the conclusion that God exists. Experience is always experience of something, it is alleged, and if that something is of the kind to have independent, objective existence and if a given experience is really of that thing, then that thing must exist. The clearest sort of case, where this type of existential argument from experience is used, is that of normal perception: a man sees a tree, therefore the tree exists. The deduction works because the man's seeing is non-delusive. He sees the tree because it is there to be seen.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 1975 , pp. 335 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

page 336 note 1 v. Faith and Knowledge (2nd ed.New York 1966), pp. 113–19, 141–8Google Scholar; in (ed. Vesey, G. N. A.), Talk of God (London 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Ch. 2. Cf. Ibid., pp. 144–7.

page 336 note 2 Cf. Ibid., pp. 144–7.

page 337 note 1 v. Martin, C. B., Religious Belief (Cornell U.P., Ithaca 1959), pp. 64–8Google Scholar; and in (ed.) Flew, A. G. N. and MacIntyre, A., New Essays in Philosophical Theology (London 1955)Google Scholar, Ch. 5; and Ferré, F., Language, Logic and God (London 1962), Ch. 8 and pp. 105–12.Google Scholar

page 338 note 1 Cf. Baelz, P., Christian Theology and Metaphysics (London 1968), pp. 110–112Google Scholar; and generally Chs. 6 and 7.

page 338 note 2 v. e.g. Ayer, A. J., Metaphysics and Common Sense (London 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Chs. 4, 5 and 9; The Problem of Knowledge (London 1956)Google Scholar, Ch. 3; Ayers, M. R. in (ed.) Vesey, G. N. A., Knowledge and Necessity (London 1970)Google Scholar, Ch. 6; Vesey, G. N. A., Perception (London 1973).Google Scholar

page 339 note 1 v. Smart, N., Reasons and Faiths (London 1958), pp. 65–6Google Scholar; A Dialogue of Religions (London 1960), pp. 48 ff.Google Scholar

page 339 note 2 Zaehner, v. R. C., Mysticism Sacred and Profane (Oxford 1957)Google Scholar, passim esp. Chs. VIII, IX, X.

page 339 note 3 On Freud v. Alston, W. in (ed.) Hick, J., Faith and the Philosophers (New York 1964), pp. 63–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; in other psychological theories v. Argyle, M., Religious Behaviour (London 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Ch. 12.

page 342 note 1 v. Smart, , Reasons and Faiths, pp. 28–32Google Scholar; Philosophers and Religious Truth, (London 1964), pp. 130–40Google Scholar; Otto, R., The Idea of the Holy (2nd ed., tr. Harvey, J. W., London 1950)Google Scholarpassim, esp. Chs. I-VI.

page 343 note 1 Cf. e.g. the conclusions of Hick, J., Arguments for the Existence of God (London 1970) Introduction p. xiii and pp. 36, 50–52, 67.Google Scholar

page 343 note 2 e.g. Flew, A. G. N., God and Philosophy (London 1966)Google Scholar, Ch. 6.