Religious Experiences

[Theo]

A discussion on religious experiences has started on from my introduction thread, so I thought I'd start a specific thread on that subject here in the Religion forum.

Here are some of the key questions relevant to this topic:

• What conclusion (if any) can be made about the authenticity of religious experiences?
• In what respect are our usual five senses comparable to the "sensus divinitatis" or spiritual/supernatural "senses" in general?
• How is the existence of religious experiences best explained?  Is there a plausible and evidenced evolutionary account of them (and if so is it incompatible with theism?)
• Can theism be justified on the basis of personal experience of God?  (Is it possible, therefore, that theism is properly basic [on modest foundationalism]?

I'll post my thoughts soon.  Look forward to yours!
Theo

[Asmodean]

What conclusion (if any) can be made about the authenticity of religious experiences?

What do you mean by authenticity? Subjectively to the person experiencing the things, it probably does feel authentic most of the time - just like a shizophrenic's voices are real to him (Not saying that EVERYone to ever have a "religious experience" is psychotic)

In what respect are our usual five senses comparable to the "sensus divinitatis" or spiritual/supernatural "senses" in general?

Our common senses are used in order to facilitate those "other" senses along with an unhealthy load of impressionability and jumping to conclusions.

How is the existence of religious experiences best explained?  Is there a plausible and evidenced evolutionary account of them (and if so is it incompatible with theism?)

Psychoses, seeing patterns and corelations where there are none, lies... Yeah, many things that can be attributed to religious experiences can, at their core, be explained by evolution - namely that of human central nervous system.

Can theism be justified on the basis of personal experience of God?  (Is it possible, therefore, that theism is properly basic [on modest foundationalism]?

No. Seeing the light in the end of the tunnel does not, in any way, equate to the existence of a deity - or anything, for that matter - beyond it. An unexplainable or just unexplained experience does not justify making up a god.

[PoopShoot]

What conclusion (if any) can be made about the authenticity of religious experiences?

With no way to verify the authenticity of religious experiences, no conclusion can be drawn from them other than a personal assumption.

In what respect are our usual five senses comparable to the "sensus divinitatis" or spiritual/supernatural "senses" in general?

Such a sense must first be demonstrated and shown to interact with the supernatural, which is impossible current means of verification.

How is the existence of religious experiences best explained?  Is there a plausible and evidenced evolutionary account of them (and if so is it incompatible with theism?)

Religious experiences are identical to hallucinations, not only in subjective reporting of the experiences, but on brain scans as well.  There are a variety of triggers for hallucinations.  Some cases, like temporal lobe epilepsy or schizophrenia, are genetic anomalies that are hard to select against due to the way they manifest not being fatal prior to reproduction.  Other causes, such as intentional monoamine overload (either through drug usage or through transcendent meditation) are a side effect of the way the brain functions normally when interfered with.  There is no way to show that these phenomena weren't initiated by a god.

Can theism be justified on the basis of personal experience of God?

Theism?  yes.  Evangelism?  No.  People believe all sorts of things for personal reasons, it's when these ideas are shared with other people as facts that the need for proper demonstration comes in to play.