Reading: The Religious Experience

Last time I mentioned that I thought I'd given you enough of a non-reductionist theory of reality to keep you busy and thinking, and I hope reading extra stuff. But there are a few leftover points that I need to make and just append on to what we've already discussed. I just want to make sure that they're clear.

So the first one is that I spoke to you earlier about a principle called sphere sovereignty. It had to do with social institutions, each having its own kind of authority and responsibility, a domain in which it should be sovereign. Parents in a family, for example, the clergy in the church, the owners in business, teachers in the school, and doctors in the hospital or something. So, the basic decisions in those institutions are made by those people that are in authority because of their position, their social position, or their expertise.

Sphere sovereignty was the principle that no one institution is the source of the authority in any other and every type of institution ought to respect the sovereignty of every other type. I even made the point that part of the duties of government under this idea is that it's the government's role to ensure that they all stay within their own sphere and don't bump into somebody else's. It's kind of funny because I admitted that this is not supposed to be a joke. It's supposed to be real, even though the government is the institution that more often than any other has intruded into other spheres and tried to boss them around. But, under the proper idea of this pluralistic kind of theory of reality, where you take things as they are and account for their natures without forcing them all into one reductionist bucket, that's part and parcel of this for the social aspects and how social institutions should relate to one another. So there's a property of proper authority and responsibility in each aspect. There's an aspect of our health, and that has to do with hospitals and doctors' authority. There are aspects of education, and of justice, which is the state's duty, and so forth. Sphere sovereignty, then, is what we propose as a social norm. It's the fundamental norm of the social aspect. So on our chart, our bigger chart with all the different aspects, we would list social norm sphere sovereignty. And that's the main one there since, in this view, like everything else, all authority comes from God.

The authority of the parents in a family, the clergy in a house of worship, and so on, is all delegated authority, and only God has absolute authority. This is not a theory that says God should rule the government. It's not a theocracy. Saying that humans get the authority to act as conferred on them by God does not mean that every decision they make is speaking for God. Very often, unfortunately, people are elected to a position of authority where they are totally unqualified. Most of what they have to say is horrific. Just because they are speaking out of a seat of authority doesn't mean it's right, but the authority has been given to the wrong person who is doing the wrong things with it. The only thing we can do then is go through the proper procedures for removing such a person and replacing them with someone who can better represent the needs of that institution. But even though we recognize that it's part of life, and that we don't get things perfect because we aren't perfect, there's a social norm that should guide our decision-making in the sphere of all the different social institutions. It gives us an important political agenda. The government should enforce sphere sovereignty. I gave illustrations before, so I'm not going to repeat all that now, but that's where sphere sovereignty falls in this.

I also wanted to point out, as a leftover, that I'm not sure I was clear enough about this. There's a kind of cross-hatching in locating the nature of a thing between the list of aspects and the type laws. The list of aspects could look like this: something functions as a subject that is actively in all these aspects and functions passively in the rest. But then there is a type law, perhaps a singular type law, that makes this kind of thing possible. That is, these parts and properties combine in this way, and they form that type of thing.

So we have here the different aspects, the things qualifying function. And then there is a type law that makes it possible for properties of these different kinds to combine and be unified into one thing. And it's this combination that accounts for the types of things. The type laws run across aspects, special laws run within them, and between the two, you get a bead on the nature of the object that you're interested in, the nature you're trying to analyze.

That was another leftover. Let's see, what else do I have here? Oh, yes, there's another implication, a leftover point that I didn't make. Regarding the subject I'm discussing about creation, consisting of many kinds of things, all of which have properties of many different sorts, and their active functions are combined in certain ways that they come out to having this status of a defined nature. But what that means is we're conceiving of the laws, whether they are causal laws, whether they are aspectual laws that hold only among properties of the same kind, or causal laws that deal between one entire thing and another, not just properties. And then there are type laws that allow properties of different kinds to be combined into one thing. All these laws we take to have existed from the beginning.

All these laws, we take to have existed from the beginning of the universe. Now, you may hear people talk about the Big Bang, the start of the universe, the beginning of time, and so on. Some of them, influenced by their theory of reality, assert that the laws of logic, mathematics, and other fundamental principles didn't exist yet. They believe that in the primordial universe, dominated by incredibly hot plasma that later congealed into entities like stars, these laws were inapplicable. In contrast, we argue that from the universe's inception, when God manifested time, space, matter, and the laws governing them, these laws have always been operative.

So, what can we deduce from these opposing views? Did the laws not apply to the universe's early stages due to its chaotic nature, or did they always hold true, guiding the universe's evolution from its hot, dense state to its current configuration? I present the following argument: if the laws of logic didn't govern the universe's early stages, we wouldn't be able to conceptualize it. Logic is fundamental to conceptualization. Similarly, if mathematical laws were absent, no calculations about the universe's infancy would be possible. Thus, those who claim that these laws were inoperative but still purport to describe this epoch are inconsistent in their stance. By discussing, conceiving, or calculating anything about it, they tacitly admit that the laws did apply. In essence, it's self-contradictory.

So, to reiterate, we believe that from the outset, when God initiated creation, space, time, and laws emerged, ensuring that we can conceive, calculate, and discuss even the universe's earliest moments. We reject the notion that God's creation operated outside of law; God is the ultimate lawgiver.

With that clarification, I believe we've addressed the lingering points on this topic. Now, let's move to the next phase of our discussion: the non-reductionist theory of knowledge. Our worldview isn't solely about an intricate theory of reality. We also argue that knowledge isn't monolithic but multifaceted, mirroring the diverse aspects and laws of reality. Hence, we recognize various knowledge types, each with unique characteristics yet interconnected.

So, how do we approach a non-reductionist view of knowledge after having glimpsed a non-reductionist theory of reality? The starting point is our innate capacity for intuition, which isn't some esoteric faculty but simply the ability to recognize truths. Regular sensory perception exemplifies this intuitive capability. For instance, when we look out a window and observe rain, we instantly know it's raining. This recognition, where a fact becomes immediately clear without any intermediate steps or logical deductions, is termed "self-evidence."

However, a clarification is in order: self-evidence doesn't equate to isolated, pristine knowledge independent of prior experiences or training. For instance, a seasoned wildlife guide might easily spot animals that an inexperienced visitor misses. The guide's ability to identify game arises from their expertise, making it self-evident for them but not the novice. Thus, while self-evidence stands as the direct reason for believing something, it often requires background knowledge or expertise to manifest.

In sum, even if previous experiences or training often precede and enable self-evidence, the belief in something self-evident stems from the immediate recognition of its truth.

Our topic for this session is the experience of God. Now, a lot of people are very afraid to talk about that - to discuss religious experience. Well, what is that? In religious experiences, does the furniture fly around the room? What exactly needs to happen for an experience to be labeled as "religious"?

Let's clarify this right now. We already understand what a religious belief is. It's a belief in something, specifically a belief in a divine reality. By divine, we mean the self-existent, represented by that backward capital E symbolizing existence. This self-existent reality generates everything else. In Christianity, this is God — the Creator, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — who brought the entire universe into existence, creating time, space, matter, and the laws governing everything. Different conceptions of the Divine might vary. If the Divine is perceived as form and matter, then the explanations differ. But the essence of religious belief revolves around this concept.

Therefore, it's not hard to define religious experience. A religious experience is any event that generates, deepens, or confirms a religious belief. If an encounter produces in you a belief in something divine, deepens that conviction, or reaffirms it, that's a religious experience. So, it doesn't need to be overtly supernatural. There doesn't have to be a miracle involved. It doesn't have to be a vision of Jesus or Mary to be religious. Sometimes, very ordinary moments confirm our belief in God. We might witness something occurring in just the right way, and we thank God for it, finding our faith reaffirmed. On other occasions, our belief deepens, helping us understand more about God. Then there's the type of religious experience where people come to recognize God when they hadn't before. Such experiences are, of course, crucial, and there are many different types reported over the years.

I'll start by listing those who have experienced union with God. This is a relatively rare experience, but several Christians have written about it. I personally know individuals who claim to have experienced it. They describe feeling wholly enveloped by God, a profound experience many insist is indescribable. The sensation of there being no space between the individual and God, of being completely engulfed by Him, is prevalent in such accounts.

Next, I'll discuss the experience of sensing the presence of God, often the Spirit of God. This isn't universal, but it's more common than one might think. An individual once described to me their experience of trying to read the Bible. They felt a powerful presence enveloping them, initially frightening but later reassuring. Such experiences have been recounted for centuries, often in strikingly similar terms. Not everyone undergoes such encounters, but they are undeniably forms of religious experience. They can either deepen or confirm existing beliefs or trigger new ones.

Lastly, many describe experiences where they perceive something ordinary but suddenly start to see beyond it. They begin to perceive the divine reality through their surroundings. This, too, is a challenging experience to articulate. One person recounted staring at the ocean at night, and suddenly it all seemed transparent, revealing the divine force sustaining it all. At that moment, everything felt less real compared to the sensed divine reality.

This is a glimpse into the myriad ways people experience the divine, each of which is profoundly personal and deeply transformative.

Of course, then there are also visions that people have. Sometimes the vision is of Christ, sometimes it's his mother, or it could be a vision of some saint. These are more straightforward in their description. "It was so and so. And I saw that person in front of me just as I'm seeing you. And that person said this to me." That's also a kind of religious experience.

I guess the main one we think of is the one given to us in the Book of Acts about the conversion of St. Paul. He's on the way to Damascus to persecute the Christians. And Jesus Christ appears to him on the road. "Who are you?" he asks. "I'm Jesus Christ, the one you're persecuting," is the reply. Stunning. But there have been other reports of that sort of thing.

There was one by a man who was a very devout Sikh. He was open to any kind of religion, he said, except Christianity. He was put off by that and the claims that a human was also God. He thought that was ridiculous. He lived in India, was acquainted with Hinduism and Buddhism, and had become a Sikh. But he felt there was more to the divine than any of these religions offered. He began to pray, "Oh, divine creator, whoever you are, make yourself known to me." One day, while praying, it seemed like the whole room burst into flame, and Jesus Christ appeared to him. He was told, "Why do you accept everyone but me? I'm the one who has come to bear the sins of the world." Immediately, he became a believer.

Most Christians don't ever have such an experience, I think. I can say that of the types of experiences we've discussed, I've never had any of them. There's another kind of experience we need to mention, Near Death Experiences (NDEs). These have been controversial. Some say they are genuine experiences, while others dismiss them as mere hallucinations possibly due to oxygen deprivation.

I'll share one story of an NDE from a close friend. This friend, a no-nonsense man who served in World War Two, was skeptical of NDEs. Yet, when he had a near-death experience, he claimed to have seen a friend who had passed away recently, giving him information he couldn't have known otherwise.

Now, let's continue with types of religious experiences. One fundamental experience involves seeing the biblical message as the truth about God from God. This can happen in various ways, such as reading scripture or hearing a sermon. But the essence is the realization that the gospel message is true. It's the one experience all believers share.

William James, in his book "The Varieties of Religious Experience," classified these experiences differently than I have. But he concurs that if you've had any of these experiences, you'd find them irresistible and genuine, echoing the concept of self-evidence.

Seeing the gospel as self-evident doesn't mean recognizing every Christian doctrine instantly. It's a cluster of beliefs that varies from person to person, though at its core, it includes or presupposes the realness of God and Christ's incarnation. This cluster can grow over time as one delves deeper into scripture and faith.

In conclusion, there are many ways to experience God: through union, sensing His presence, seeing through creation, visions, NDEs, or simply recognizing the gospel's truth. The experience being self-evident is not isolated but is confirmed by further experiences. It's essential to remain open to these experiences and the profound truths they convey.

What becomes self-evident is first of all, some cluster of teaching. And then that cluster can be added to over the believer's lifetime. But probably, it never includes everything that's taught.

So when I read the gospel, it may be self-evident to me that God is real. Let's put that down. We start with the understanding that God exists, and God has come into history. In Jesus Christ, He has taken on our form of existence, and entered into our life so as to redeem us. Suppose that I read further, that if I believe, I should be baptized. That's the sacrament that initiates a person into the Christian faith. So I read that. But it's not self-evident to me. Then how do I add that to my cluster? It's not added to the self-evident cluster, it's added to the cluster of teachings that I believe, but it's not self-evident. And here's the explanation of that.

What is not self-evident in Christian teaching is accepted on biblical authority. And here's what I mean by that: The collection of writings that we call the Bible is the only place on Earth where the transcendent God is taught. The claims of these writings as revelations from God detail God's relationship to Israel, and they kept a record of that. It's God's relationship to Jesus Christ, and Christians have kept a record of that. It's also contained in the Quran, and Muslims regard that as scripture too. The teachings that appear self-evident are what convince us that these writings have come from God, because it's the only place that teaches everything depends on the transcendent creator. So we accept that God has superintended the scripture to convey his truth. That's why we'll accept some doctrines, perhaps it's baptism or something else, that don't seem self-evident to us. We don't experience them singularly as self-evident truths, but we do experience them as included in the biblical corpus. This writing has God's approval, God's seal of approval, because it's the only place He's revealed. So on the basis of truths that appear self-evident, we also accept the ones that don't seem self-evident on their own, because they're included in this corpus. It's God, we say, who has superintended the scripture to be His message to the world, and therefore we believe it. We accept on biblical authority those truths that don't appear self-evident. We accept the ones that are self-evident because they seem irresistibly true. That's an important clarification of what we mean by knowing God by experience.

I'm a little torn about whether to go on with this because I don't want to introduce something completely new when we've finished discussing something so important. I want to ensure clarity. By the way, I want to add that not too many years ago, one of the national magazines in the United States conducted a survey. They asked people if they attended church regularly. Of those who said yes, 65% of them, in response to the next question, said they had experienced God. There are numerous ways to experience God, and we've discussed some of the primary ones, including recognizing the gospel as the truth about God from God. It's not a rare experience. In fact, almost two-thirds of those surveyed mentioned that they had experienced God, and they recognize that as the foundation of their belief.

To conclude, I would like to emphasize once more that belief in God isn't a hypothesis or a theory. It's not an educated guess we come up with to explain the world around us. It's an experience. Those of us who believe in God do so because we've experienced God in any one of those six ways, and perhaps others that I haven't listed. All have the experience of seeing the gospel to be the truth. And this kind of self-evidence is the real foundation for belief in God.

Now, what I want to discuss in future sessions is the most compelling arguments against belief in God and why those arguments don't succeed.