Philippa asked:

Can religious experience really count as a legitimate source of knowledge?

============

Yes, of course. Absolutely. The question is, what kindof knowledge. Most people, especially in the
past, have accepted what their senses have presented to them as reality. Thus, when someone has
had visions, say, of Krishna, or Buddha, or Allah, or Zeus, or the Virgin Mary, they have accepted
those visions as either literally real or at the very least as manifestations caused by that god. We are
now, in some cultures, becoming a little more sophisticated than that, and are questioning the
emotional, environmental, and neurological basis for religious thoughts, visions, and so forth. And so
the kind of knowledge we are obtaining is psychological, neurological, and ethological. Why do
humans have such experiences? What purpose have they served, in the course of the evolution of
humanity and of cultures? It is questions like these that are just beginning to be asked (although
Freud and others at the turn of the last century asked similar questions also) in the context of
contemporary empirical studies. You might take a look at:

Young, A.W. "Wondrous Strange: The Neuropsychology of Abnormal Beliefs." Mind and Language
15, no. 1 (2000): 47-73.

Giovannoli, J. The Biology of Belief: How Our Biology Biases Our Beliefs and Perceptions:Rosetta
Press, Inc., 2000.

Shermer, M. Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions
of Our Time.New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1997.

Steven Ravett Brown

In traditional societies (which are still the majority in our world today) it is "politically incorrect" to claim
that religious experience is not a legitimate source of knowledge.

In Western societies (which are dominant in our world today), especially in some academic circles, it
is often "politically incorrect" to claim that religious experience is a legitimate source of knowledge.
However, seminars, colleges and universities teach legitimately religious studies and theology, which
are knowledge based on or coming from the religious experience of founders of religion, religious
reformers and other religious personalities.These academic institutions deliver recognized diplomas
and degrees.

This is the answer if by legitimate you mean according to the law, lawful. But if by legitimate you
mean authentic, valid, the answer would be; Why not?

Jean Nakos

The ancients would have said that it was the ONLY legitimate form of knowledge!! Since then we
have had thousands of years of intellectual and intelligible growth and development whereby we can
reflect on the understanding and insights of the ancients. The problem of knowledge is one of the
most central in philosophy, so much so that it has its own 'branch' Epistemology. And knowledge
takes many forms, whether it is mathematical, scientific, philosophical etc. and even religious. Plato
would have said that 'knowledge' of the Forms, which only comes about through contemplation of the
transcendent universe and is an 'ascent' into the intelligibility of the Forms, which is the 'real' world,
would constitute a 'religious' knowledge, since real things are being known. Those who profess a
'theistic' belief, i.e belief in a deity, would suggest that knowledge is only 'true' when the deity is
known. But since the deity is 'beyond' the historical and temporal sphere and cannot be truly known in
a limited, existential way i.e. within the finitude of creature, it necessitates a 'movement beyond' the
temporal into the a-temporal world. How is this to come about? Most 'religions' have some sort of
doctrine of contemplative transcendence, an experiences of ecstasy (Greek. Ek-stasis, to stand
outside the self), where they claim that in this movement outward and 'upward' the unknowable
transcendent is 'known' intelligibly in 'truth.' So God (or whatever name we give our divine
transcendent principle) is known only in the mind, or the soul since it is these which can transcend the
limitations of the temporal world.

To those who experience this, they would claim that the knowledge obtained here, is a real, truthful
and, thus, legitimate, as any form of knowledge. Testing the veracity of these claims is a different
matter, and for those who hold a theistic belief, certitude or proof of validity or veracity is not central
— for they believe that faith (which itself cannot be verified) is the guarantee of certitude. Given this,
we can say, that it is a legitimate experience of knowledge, provided that we exist from 'the cave' of
what passes for knowledge, but which is only a shadow of the truth. It is the search for truth, however
it is defined, that constitutes the preoccupation of philosophy, science, and religion all of whose
knowledge are legitimate.

Fr Seamus Mulholland OFM

It can. But does it?

Ken Stern

I can see what you mean in the broad sense of knowing things, but philosophically you might be hard
pressed to describe what you mean by "legitimate knowledge." Is knowledge of things and events in
an alleged material world more legitimate than alleged religious knowledge? I cannot know a 'real'
world, I can only presume it is out there from the sense data I receive. The world that I say I
understand/ know consists only of sense data, I have no access to the 'thing in itself,' i.e. whatever is
causing the sensations in my mind. In fact, the mind itself is not actually known, and there are several
theories of what it might be and what it does. Therefore, how can we assert that it cannot access
knowledge from another dimension?

As each mind is an 'island,' although we presume that we are all receiving identical sense data, there
is no way in which we can prove it; how do I know that when I see the colour which I call blue that it is
the same colour that other people are seeing? When I hear what I call the sound of church bells, is it
the same sound that others are hearing? Actually, from the scientific point of view, there are no
colours in the world, the bells though swinging are silent, both the colour and the sound exist only in
the mind; that also goes for scent, taste and tactile sensations: the thing in itself has none of these
properties, the mind itself exists in a colourless, silent, tasteless, scentless, feelingless world. If this is
not so then biology, physics and chemistry are feeding us a load of old rubbish.

So who is to say that religious experience is not 'real' in the same sense as just outlined? As I have
no contact with another person's mind, how can I honestly prove that a religious or mystic event they
claim to have experienced is anything other than a true experience? That some mind that receives
knowledge through sense data, could possibly receive knowledge from another source and in a
different way! It is not unusual to hear talk of a sixth sense, and many claim to have experienced such
a sense.

How many of us make an actual attempt to discover this alleged sixth sense? Most are quite happy to
allow the materialist philosophy, called science to dominate our lives and to accept without question
any theory proposed as fact, therefore, if science says there is no such thing as 'real' mystic
experience, despite the fact that people claim to have them, then because the scientific theorists are
held in such high esteem their word is taken against that of the claimants. Science says there are no
such things as ghosts, despite the fact that thousands of people keep seeing them and experiencing
poltergeist activity. When scientists cannot come up with an explanation of phenomenal events, they
usually pacify the public by claiming that there is a natural explanation. What can they possibly
mean? May not a mystic event be just as natural as any other event, but in a way that science does
not yet understand. Scientists having made up their minds that we live in a fully material world, try to
fit every event into this materialist philosophy. Although we owe a great deal to scientific thinking,
success in certain directions is no guarantee that conclusions obtained in other areas are 'true,' even
though such conclusions could be logically valid.

Here is a short extract from "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by the American philosopher
William James (1842 — 1910)

""In the Christian church there have always been mystics. Although many of them have been viewed
with suspicion, some have gained favour in the eyes of the authorities. The experiences of these
have been treated as precedents, and a codified system of mystical theology has been based upon
them, in which everything 'legitimate' finds its place. The basis of the system is 'orison' or meditation,
the methodical elevation of the soul towards God. Through the practice of orison the higher levels of
mystical experience may be attained.The first thing to be aimed at in orison is the mind's detachment
from outer sensation, for these interfere with its concentration on ideal things. Sensoral images,
whether literal or symbolic play an enormous part in mysticism. But in certain cases imagery may fall
away entirely, and in the very highest raptures it tends to do so. The state of consciousness becomes
then insusceptible of any verbal descriptions. Mystical teachers are unanimous in this.""

Does the above indicate another form of consciousness, not available to those who make no effort to
discover it ? If it does then it can be claimed as a recipient of knowledge.

The following is a quote from writings of the mystic Saint Teresa.

""In the orison of union the soul is fully awake as regards God, but wholly asleep as regards things of
the world and in respect of herself. During the short time the unison lasts, she is as it were deprived
of every feeling, and even if she would, she could not think of any single thing. Thus does God, when
he raises a soul to union with himself, suspend the natural action of all her faculties. She neither
sees, hears, nor understands, so long as she is united with God.""

What would give us the right to say that Saint Teresa does not gain legitimate knowledge from her
experiences?

John Brandon