Other slides in this set

Slide 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

IF WE AGREE WITH DONOVAN: RELIGION
· We have to test religious statements and see them in relation to
other religious claims, because they are not self-evidently true.
· We should not focus on only one argument / justification in
religion
· There would be no scope for extreme atheism, as religious
experiences could not be dismissed out of hand.
· Religious experiences / encounters may have subjective meaning,
in relation to other beliefs, which fits with arguments about
religious language. Perhaps religion makes sense as a whole.
· Religions would have to be self-critical and examine their beliefs /
teachings. There is no scope for purely individualist claims being
accepted.
· Donovan's arguments strengthens agnosticism, since it allows that
religious experiences are meaningful but do not provide definitive
evidence.
· Religious encounters should not be used to justify harm against
others, or to make narrowly exclusivist claims ­ they are too
uncertain.…read more

Slide 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

IF WE AGREE WITH DONOVAN: HUMAN
EXPERIENCE
· To persuade others of our experiences, it would be necessary to
have some supporting arguments or evidence.
· Our intuitions about other people may be correct, although it is
necessary to anchor them in supporting information / evidence.
· Donovan implies that we should have a balanced, critical view of
the world and our experiences. Personal intuition is not itself
knowledge, but could fit with knowledge claims. Contrast this with
more explicitly scientific approaches…read more

Slide 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

IF WE AGREE WITH H.P.OWEN: RELIGION
· We may reasonably claim that God exists
· It supports religious belief; it suggests that personal faith is valuable
/ correct
· Extremist branches of religion could use intuition to justify faith
claims (nothing could be disproved or invalidated).
· God would no longer be seen as completely transcendent; God
would be available to all.
· If God interacts with us through personal encounter, then why
does he not intervene in our world (problem of evil, etc,)?
· Scriptural claims about direct encounter with God (e.g. Moses)
would seem to be true.
· If all faith were entirely personal / individual, how would this effect
religious conflict or cooperation? It would have profound, but
uncertain implications.
· No reason for atheism / agnosticism…read more

Slide 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

IF WE AGREE WITH H.P.OWEN: HUMAN
EXPERIENCE
· Supports individualism / individualist thought and culture.
· Leads to a rejection of the verification principle in philosophy.
· We are justified in claiming that any of our personal, direct
experience convey `truth'.
· Lead to a conflict with science? Intuition cannot be scientifically
tested.
· Intuitive claims about ethics would also have to be accepted, along
with religion. This leads to a highly subjective ethics…read more

Slide 6

Preview of page 6

Here's a taster:

IF WE AGREE WITH RUSSELL: RELIGION
· Biblical claims of God's encounters with creation may be false, as
personal intuition of the divine seems discredited.
· Religions which are founded upon a personal encounter (Islam,
Christianity) would be dubious, given that we can have no certainty
about such intuitive claims to have met God.
· No highly experiential religious / sects (Pentecostalism,
Evangelicalism) and no religious mysticism
· Religion is not helpful for making judgements about life / the
world.
· Belief in God is weakened generally; personal experience is
questioned. The argument from religious experience is weakened.…read more

Slide 7

Preview of page 7
Preview of page 7

Slide 8

Preview of page 8
Preview of page 8

Slide 9

Preview of page 9
Preview of page 9

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Religious Studies resources:

See all Religious Studies resources »See all resources »