[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

cannot all be right. Indeed, the majority of them must be wrong, if
only Christian experiences are correct, as traditional Christians
claim. It follows that religious experience in general cannot be reli-
able, according to the Christian perspective itself.
Religious experiences also occur only when emotions run high
and only to those who were predisposed to believe. Analogously,
many people think that they see and hear ghosts when they are filled
with fear and already believed in ghosts. These experiences are no
evidence for the existence of ghosts, because they depend on emo-
tions and prior belief. The same sources of error permeate religious
experience. Craig says,  If you re sincerely seeking God, God will
make his existence evident to you. (28) No surprise there! Take a
pinch of belief in God, add a dash of desire to experience God, stir
in emotion to taste, and you have a recipe for religious experience.
This recipe has been franchised by preachers who induce religious
experiences during worship services and elaborated by ascetics who
starve themselves in order to see God. The problem is that such
recipes work regardless of whether or not there is any God to cause
the experience. That is why such experiences are not reliable indi-
cators of God.
Some religious experiences might occur in circumstances that are
more conducive to reliability. Indeed, some particular religious ex-
periences might be accurate. I do not deny that this is possible. The
point here is about evidence. Disagreement, prejudice, and emotion
are so widespread in religion that any religious experience needs in-
dependent confirmation. To understand why, imagine three friends
camping in the woods late one night. Ann believes that bears live
nearby, so she bets that the next animal they see will be a bear. Betty
thinks that the area is filled with deer, so she bets on a deer. Cathy
refuses to be a part of their stupid bet. Then Ann looks deep into
the forest. She sees a dark object. It moves. She thinks it is a bear.
Betty sees the same dark object, but she thinks it is a deer. Cathy
looks carefully at the same spot, but she sees only shadows. Given
their disagreements, predispositions, and motivations, Ann is not jus-
tified in believing that she really saw a bear any more than Betty is
justified in believing that she really saw a deer. If they find bear
tracks in the morning, then they will have independent confirma-
40 God?
tion. Without independent confirmation, however, either one might
be right, but neither one has enough evidence for justified belief or
knowledge. Why? Because known disagreement, along with reliance
on emotion and predisposition, creates the need for independent
confirmation. The same standards should apply to religious experi-
ence and belief, so religious believers also need independent con-
firmation that their experiences are accurate or reliable.
Craig denies this when he claims that religious beliefs based on
religious experience are  properly basic. (26) As examples of prop-
erly basic beliefs, Craig refers to  the belief in the reality of the past,
the existence of the external world, and the presence of other minds
like your own. (26) Such beliefs  aren t based on any other beliefs
and  are part of the foundation of a person s system of beliefs. (26)
That makes them basic, but it does not explain what makes it proper
to treat these beliefs as basic, that is, to believe them without any
confirmation. So what does make them properly basic? Craig s first
answer is that  none of these beliefs can be proved. (26) However,
he cannot say this about religious beliefs, since he is trying to give
arguments for God. Besides, even if they cannot be proved, that is
not enough to show that they need not be confirmed. I also cannot
prove that there is life on Mars, but that does not make me justified
in accepting this belief without any evidence. Craig s second answer
is better:  You would have to be crazy to reject beliefs that there was
a past, there is an external world, and there are other minds; and that
makes these beliefs  properly basic. (26 27) But then a belief in God
cannot be properly basic in the same way, unless  you would have to
be crazy to be an atheist. Even if you disagree with me, I hope you
don t think I m crazy. At least, not all atheists are crazy. So Craig has
no good reason to claim that religious beliefs are properly basic.
In the absence of any better argument, there is no reason to deny
and much reason to agree that religious beliefs need independent con-
firmation. Can this need be satisfied in the religious case? I don t see
how. God leaves no tracks or other physical evidence, as a bear does.
We cannot appeal to the internal character of religious experience,
because the same kind of experience can be produced without God.
Thus, the need for independent confirmation in religion cannot be
met. But the need persists. That is why people are not justified in bas-
ing their religious beliefs on their religious experiences.
There Is No Good Reason to Believe in God 41
4. Origins
The remaining two arguments, which Craig gave first, are more ab-
stract and technical. That is why I saved them for last. One is cos- [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]