Questions & explanations
1. What is a near-death experience (NDE)?
A near-death experience (NDE) is a set of feelings and visions some people have when they are very close to death or have been declared dead for a short time. Common features include a feeling of peace, seeing a bright light, leaving the body, and meeting deceased relatives. People from many cultures report NDEs, but the details often match their own religious beliefs. For example, a Christian might see Jesus, while a Hindu might see a divine being. Some think NDEs prove life after death, while others say they are caused by brain changes during trauma. NDEs are important in philosophy of religion because they raise questions about the soul and what happens after we die.
2. How does the argument from desire compare to the argument from beauty?
Both arguments use human experiences to point to God. The argument from desire focuses on our longing for perfect happiness, which nothing in this world satisfies. The argument from beauty focuses on our experience of beautiful things, which seem to point to a perfect source of beauty. Both say that these experiences are clues to God's existence. They are similar because they start with something we all feel—desire or appreciation of beauty—and argue that these only make sense if God exists. But they are different: desire is about wanting, beauty is about perceiving. Together, they suggest that God is the ultimate answer to both our longings and our sense of beauty.
3. How does the argument from miracles differ from the argument from religious experience?
The argument from miracles uses external events that can be seen by many people, like a healing. The argument from religious experience uses internal feelings that only the person feels. Miracles are public and can be checked by others, while religious experiences are private. Both arguments say these events point to God. But miracles face the problem that natural laws are very strong evidence against them. Religious experiences face the problem that they are subjective and can be explained by psychology. Both arguments rely on testimony, but miracles have the extra challenge of going against science. Supporters of both say they provide direct contact with God.
4. What is W.K. Clifford's 'ethics of belief' about?
W.K. Clifford was a 19th-century philosopher who argued that it is always wrong to believe something without enough evidence. He said we have a duty to question our beliefs and only accept those supported by good reasons. Clifford believed that believing without evidence can harm others, because actions based on false beliefs can be dangerous. For example, a shipowner who ignores evidence that his ship is unsafe and believes it is seaworthy is morally wrong. Clifford's principle is often summarized as 'it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.' This idea challenges both religious faith and atheist certainty.
5. Can a miracle ever be good evidence for God?
Some philosophers say yes, if the miracle is well-attested. For example, if many reliable witnesses see the same event, and it is recorded carefully, it might be reasonable to believe. Also, if the event happens in a context where God is already believed, it could strengthen faith. But critics like Hume say no amount of testimony can outweigh the strong evidence for natural laws. They argue that human testimony is often wrong, while natural laws are always observed. So even a well-reported miracle is probably a mistake. However, some modern thinkers say that if a miracle is repeated and studied, it could be evidence. But such cases are very rare.
6. What does 'interpretation' mean in the context of religious experience?
Interpretation means the way a person understands or makes sense of an experience. In religious experience, interpretation is shaped by the person's cultural background, beliefs, and teachings. For example, a person from a Christian culture might interpret a feeling of awe as God's presence, while someone from a Buddhist culture might see it as a glimpse of enlightenment. The same event can be understood differently depending on one's framework. So interpretation is not just adding meaning after the fact; it actively shapes what the experience is. This shows that religious experiences are not pure or raw but are always filtered through a lens.
7. Why do some people still believe in miracles despite Hume's critique?
Some people believe because they have personally seen or experienced something they think is a miracle. For them, the experience is powerful and convincing. Others trust the reports of saints or religious figures. Also, some philosophers argue that Hume's view is too strict. They say that if God exists, it's not unreasonable that he might sometimes act in unusual ways. Additionally, modern science doesn't rule out miracles entirely; it just says they are very unlikely. So for believers, faith can override the philosophical doubts. They might also say that Hume's argument assumes natural laws are fixed, but if God exists, he can change them.
8. Compare Clifford's view with the idea that belief in God is a 'leap of faith' as Kierkegaard described.
Clifford says belief must be based on evidence, while Kierkegaard says true religious belief requires a 'leap of faith' beyond reason. Kierkegaard argued that evidence cannot prove God, so faith is a personal, passionate commitment despite uncertainty. Clifford would see this leap as morally wrong because it involves believing without sufficient evidence. Kierkegaard would respond that such a leap is necessary for authentic religious life. The two views represent a deep disagreement: one prioritizes intellectual responsibility, the other the value of faith. Atheists often side with Clifford, while religious believers may favor Kierkegaard.
9. Compare Tertullian's and Kierkegaard's versions of fideism.
Both Tertullian and Kierkegaard say faith goes beyond reason, but they emphasize different things. Tertullian focused on the absurdity of Christian beliefs—like Jesus being both God and man—and said that because they are absurd, they are worthy of faith. Kierkegaard focused on the personal 'leap' of faith, which involves risk and uncertainty. For Kierkegaard, the more objective uncertainty, the more passionate faith becomes. While Tertullian saw reason as an enemy, Kierkegaard saw it as something to be left behind in a subjective commitment. Both reject rational proofs, but Kierkegaard's view is more psychological and individual.
10. Compare reformed epistemology with fideism.
Both reformed epistemology and fideism say that faith does not need rational proof. But they differ in how they view reason. Fideism often sees reason as opposed to faith, while reformed epistemology sees reason as compatible—it just says some beliefs are basic. Fideism, especially Kierkegaard's, emphasizes a leap of faith despite reason, while reformed epistemology says belief in God is natural and rational. Also, reformed epistemology tries to defend the rationality of belief, while fideism sometimes celebrates irrationality. So reformed epistemology is more about showing that faith is reasonable, not that it is beyond reason.
11. How does the argument from beauty relate to the argument from religious experience?
Both arguments use a personal experience—beauty or a religious feeling—as evidence for God. The argument from beauty focuses on the experience of beauty in nature or art. The argument from religious experience focuses on direct feelings of God's presence. Both say that these experiences are not just in our heads but point to something real. However, beauty experiences are more common and can be shared, while religious experiences are rarer and more personal. Both face the objection that they are subjective and can be explained by science. Supporters of both say that the experiences are so powerful that they must be from God.
12. What is divine hiddenness?
Divine hiddenness is the idea that God does not show himself clearly enough for everyone to know he exists. Some people think this is a problem because a loving God would want all people to have a clear sign of his presence. John Schellenberg argues that if God is perfectly loving, he would make his existence obvious to anyone who is open to a relationship with him. Since many sincere seekers do not experience God, hiddenness suggests God might not exist. Others reply that God may have good reasons to stay hidden, like allowing humans to develop faith freely. This debate is about whether hiddenness conflicts with God's love.