There are many examples of people who have converted because of a religious experience
Schleiermacher: religious experiences are self-authenticating
The problem of other minds means religious experiences will never be proven
Religious experiences seem to give people a new kind of knowledge or understanding
Religious experiences should not be dismissed because their effects can be tested
Religious experiences seem to be ineffable
St. Paul’s experience may have been explained by epilepsy
The Toronto Blessing affected thousands of people in similar ways
Religious experiences are always described in specific cultural or religious terms
Religious experiences are usually transient but have long-lasting effects
It is reasonable to expect a loving God to want to interact with us
The Toronto Blessing led to strange behaviour that doesn’t seem appropriate for God
Schleiermacher put too much emphasis on the subjective
A transcendent, non-physical God cannot be perceived with the senses
Religious experiences can be physically induced so cannot come from God
The methodology of Persinger’s experiment is questionable
Nicky Cruz’s conversion could be explained by guilt
Freud attempted to explain all religious experiences in naturalistic terms
Lots of people have reported similar religious experiences
The principle of credulity
Starbuck wrote about the similarities between conversion experiences and normal teenage identity formation
Religious experiences are too varied to come from one source (God)
Swinburne is only asking us to trust what we should probably question
The “voice of God” is just our superego (conscience)
James wasn’t trying to use religious experiences to prove that God exists
St. Paul was converted from a persecutor of Christians to an influential saint
The principle of testimony
William James thought the test of religious experiences was in their effects
Otto wrote that God is both attractive and dangerous – mysterium tremendums et fascinans
The crisis involved in conversion experiences could be explained psychologically
God is transcendent so can never be fully described or explained
Religious experiences are different to normal experiences
Conversion experiences could be explained psychologically
Russell: “The fact that a belief has a good moral effect upon a man is no evidence of its truth”
People who have had religious experiences report feeling calmer and more connected to other people
It is hard to separate factors that might explain specific religious experiences
More people having the same religious experience increases its validity
Religious experiences are too subjective to provide objective proof
We cannot always trust our senses
Experiences of God are just wish fulfilment and illusion
