The rational basis of religious
experience
Part 2
by A G Oettle
THE REVELATION OF GOD
Science makes no
provision for revelation i.e. knowledge derived from God’s disclosure of
Himself to an individual, as distinct from empirical knowledge, subject to
repetition and confirmation by others – nor, of course, does science exclude
the possiblity of such revelation. In this sense, modern science has nothing to
do with questions about God, and in its study of the world is not obliged to
regard it as God’s creation. Similarly, you are not obliged on scientific
reasoning to make such an assumption.
The purpose of this discussion, however, is to
demonstrate that the attitude of the believer is not unreasonable, and to do
that I must ask you momentarily to examine the subject from my point of view.
Supposing then that you admit the possibility of a Deity, consider how such a
Being might make Himself known to mankind. A transcendent Being could not be
known as such, so that the evidence would have to be indirect. Such evidence
could be subjective as well as objective. Thus men might be given a sense of
His existence – an inexplicable awareness of the supernatural: on the other
hand, they might find evidence of the Maker in His works, just as any creation
reflects something of its creator. He might transmit more precise messages to
selected persons – the prophets – by special revelation. Finally, He might come
Himself in incarnation, despite the limitation and restriction of the absolute
and transcendent qualities which this must imply. Less direct evidence might be
found in the evidence of His power in the lives of people.
To those who already believe in such a Being, such different lines of evidence provide strong support for their faith. By the sceptics it is brushed aside as a relic of past superstititions. Remarkably enough, the same sceptics have shown themselves far less critical when it comes to other beliefs for which the evidence is much less satisfactory than that of the faiths they repudiate. For example, many prominent Rationalists have unquestioningly accepted the promises of Communism, the adequacy of Scientific Humanism as a force for good, the inevitability of man’s upward progress, or the environmental explanations of his wickedness. For example, it was once held that in the Communist society, alcoholism – that sad witness to human incapacity to choose the right – would disappear. Other forms of human failure are solely attributed to socio-economic causes, and it is believed that when such maladjustments are corrected, crime will disappear. Thus in 1945 Bertrand Russell wrote:
“Much
of the hatred in the world springs from bad digestion and inadequate
functioning of the glands, which is a result of oppression and thwarting in
youth. In a world where the health of the young is adequately cared for and
their vital impulses are given the utmost scope compatible with their own
health and that of their companions, men and women will grow up more courageous
and less malevolent than they are at present.
“Given
such human beings and an international government, the world might become
stable and yet civilized.”
Gullibility is certainly not limited to men of faith.
a. The existence
of a religious sense in mankind
An intuitive sense of the existence of a creator with an interest in mankind is found in every group including such isolated races as Bushmen[10] and Eskimos, [11] and men whose technology has within living memory been that of the Stone Age. This acceptance of a spiritual matrix which surrounds each individual from birth to death, and with which he can establish relations, is an intuition similar to that which convinces us of the reality of the physical world around us. It does not require acceptance of any system of theology, nor adherence to a religious sect. The form that a man’s religion may take is obviously modified by culture and teaching, social class and family background. Nevertheless, despite the overlay of sociological accretions, the presence of this religious sense must be explained. Certainly it is consistent with the existence of a spiritual reality. Acceptance of this needs faith: confirmation comes subsequently, and the subjective validity becomes stronger with a life of devotion, and carries its own conviction to the sensitive person.
Such experience must be gained on one’s own, as a
personal discovery, sometimes coming without forewarning. It involves
understanding rather than knowledge, so it is not the automatic product of
theological training. C S Lewis compared this with the difference between a
geography textbook and personal knowledge of the country of which it tells.
This independence of indoctrination or education needs
emphasis, for some religious groups have laid great stress on learning, e.g.
the Pharisees. Jesus, however, could rejoice that these things were hid from
the wise and prudent, and revealed to babes.[12]
Paul, himself once a Pharisee of the Pharisees, wrote both of the accessibility
of the faith to simple souls and of its unavailablity to mere learning:
“In the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe . . . we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.”[13]
He noted that “not many wise men” had been called –
fortunately leaving room for some of us. Both Magi and shepherds found their
way to Bethlehem.
This is what one might have expected, if this capacity to
know God were intended as a blessing for all men, and not merely a segment of
culture accessible only to initiates. Admittedly there are some in whom this
sense seems to be atrophic, whether as a result of disuse or failure to
develop, I cannot say. James Barrie described such as “without invisible means
of support”. The world today offers little opportunity for the cultivation of
the spiritual life, despite the increase in leisure time. In England it has
been estimated that the average person spends two and a half hours daily before
the television set. [14] Obviously we get nothing – whether knowledge,
skill, creative achievement or spiritual experience – without observing the
rules and paying the price. Apart from its need of a tuned receiver, religious
development has its disciplines of prayer, reading of Scriptures, meditation
and worship. In a round of time-absorbing trivialities it is not easily
cultivated.
As an example of the sudden flash of spiritual insight, I
quote the example of one of the men crucified with Jesus. These malefactors, we
read in Matthew, had been taunting Him with the disparity between His claim to
power and His plight, His trust in God and the lack of help in this time of
distress, His title of King and the rejection by the subjects. Mark simply says
that they reviled Him. Then, as far as we are told, they heard one sentence
from the lips of Jesus: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”[15]
Following this, one of them is transformed: the superscription became truth instead
of a mockery, and the fact of crucifixion irrelevant to his vision of the One
beside him. With the words “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy
kingdom,” he became the first Christian to die, not requiring baptism,
confirmation, creed or extreme unction, but with a confident assurance that
looked not at the things that were seen.
Rationalists have raised a number of arguments against
this line of reasoning:
1. The universal occurrence of this sense in mankind is
explained on the persistence of a primitive sense of helplessness in the face
of the powers of nature, and the need for reassurance. This misses the point:
the sense of helplessness is clear, but what must be explained is the universal
sense of the presence of God, and this is certainly not the only possible
reaction to the need for reassurance.
2. Some have claimed that they know nothing of this
experience, but it is no argument for the colourblind to object that he cannot
distinguish red from green. It is sufficient that a majority of people are
sensitive to this experience, that they are otherwise normal, drawn from all
walks of life including the scientific. It is not explicable on the basis of
ignorance, lack of education or indoctrination. Many of the most militant
Rationalists, in fact, have had a religious upbringing, yet have remained
insensitive. More important still, are those who were brought up in Rationalist
homes yet who somehow acquired sensitivity.
3. The discovery of hallucinogenic drugs has led others to argue that since these make it possible to induce ecstatic states in otherwise normal people we can discount all ecstatic experiences. This certainly does not follow. Anæsthetics do not explain normal sleep, the pep
pills do not discredit extreme effort, nor do the tranquillizers diminish our recognition of courage. In any case it is not claimed that ecstasy is necessary for the experience of God. On the contrary, this is the exception, and its presence or absence has no bearing on faith.
4. Finally, it may be argued that there are other common attitudes of mankind which are invalid. Thus men do not accept the randomicity of random events. For example, intuitively people believe that a run of one colour in roulette will make the opposite colour more likely in the next spin of
the wheel, or similarly that after a run of heads, the next spin of a coin is more likely to turn up a tail. Others hold that with enough will-power one can influence the next throw of a dice (psychokinesis). Such attitudes are firmly repudiated by those who are familiar with the theory of random events, though
their definitions of randomness often savour of circular arguments.
Nevertheless a belief not very remote from the religious sense underlies the popular ideas on the operation of chance. If one accepts the existence of a transcendent and immanent power in the Universe, the term “random” becomes a relative one, and such events are subject to supernatural control in exceptional circumstances. Thus in the Old Testament we read that “The lot is cast into the lap: but the decision is wholly from the Lord.”[16]
Similarly, before Pentecost, the lot was used to choose an apostle, after prayer that the divine choice would be revealed.[17] In persons who accept the existence of an omnipresent and omnipotent Being this
attitude is not surprising.
