Religious Experience and Explanatory Power in Kenneth L. Pearce

Year 2025, Volume: 29 Issue: 1, 51 - 71, 15.06.2025

Süleyman Altın

https://doi.org/10.18505/cuid.1621713

Abstract

Naturalism and theism are two opposing worldviews that emerged as a result of human efforts to understand the truth about the universe and facts. In the naturalist worldview, truth consists of nature. In the theist worldview, truth is revealed through supernatural explanations. The question of which worldview is more reasonable is quite important in philosophy. In theism, the ultimate explanation for everything is the existence of God, and this idea is defended by many theistic evidences. In naturalism, however, since there is no room for such metaphysical explanations, theistic evidences are objected to. The most controversial theistic argument is the argument from religious experience. According to the naturalist worldview, religious experience is not empirical as in scientific methods. Therefore, theistic worldviews that see religious experience as a reliable source of information do not have an advantage over naturalism. The argument from religious experience is criticized not only by naturalists but also by many theists. The most fundamental theistic criticism is that religious experience does not have the same status as other arguments in favor of the existence of God and therefore cannot be considered evidence. This study deals with a current interpretation of the argument from religious experience put forward in favor of the existence of God. This current interpretation includes the views of Kenneth L. Pearce, who has been frequently mentioned in the philosophy of religion in recent years. Pearce’s claim is that theism has more explanatory power compared to naturalism. He demonstrates the superiority of theism through his different interpretations of religious experience. The soundness, validity, rationality of his claims and the extent to which this method is successful and convincing need philosophical analysis. Therefore, the issue of how to make theism more reliable, stronger and more convincing against naturalism by updating a highly controversial argument has a significant philosophical quality. The boundaries of the study are determined within the framework of a detailed examination, criticism and evaluation of Pearce’s method. The study has three aims. The first aim is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of Pearce’s argument. The second is to put forward suggestions on how Pearce’s argument can be made more consistent and powerful. The last is to question the characteristics of religious experience that can be considered evidence, regardless of Pearce’s views. These aims will reveal the philosophical value of a contemporary example of a claims to provide a positive contributions to theism, thus leading to the construction of stronger arguments and more qualified philosophical discussions in the future. A detailed examination of Pearce’s method shows that his argument does not make significant contributions to theism.

Keywords

Philosophy of Religion , Religious Experience , Theism , Naturalism , Evidence , Argument

Kenneth L. Pearce’ta Dinî Tecrübe ve Açıklama Gücü

Abstract

Natüralizm ve teizm, insanoğlunun evrene ve olgulara dair hakikati kavrama çabasının ürünü olan karşıt iki dünya görüşüdür. Natüralist dünya görüşünde hakikat tabiattan ibarettir. Teist dünya görüşünde ise hakikat tabiatüstü açıklamalarla ortaya konmaktadır. Hangi dünya görüşünün daha makul olduğu sorusu felsefede önemli bir yere sahiptir. Teizmde her şeyin nihai açıklaması Tanrı’nın varlığıdır ve bu düşünce birçok teistik kanıtla savunulmaktadır. Natüralizmde ise bu türden metafiziksel açıklamalara yer olmadığı için teistik kanıtlara itiraz edilmektedir. En çok itiraz alan teistik kanıt dini tecrübe argümanıdır. Natüralist dünya görüşüne göre, dini tecrübe bilimsel yöntemlerde olduğu gibi test edilebilir ve denetlenebilir durumda değildir. Dolayısıyla dini tecrübeyi güvenilir bir bilgi kaynağı olarak gören teist dünya görüşlerinin natüralizme karşı avantajı yoktur. Dini tecrübe argümanı sadece natüralistlerce değil birçok teist tarafından da eleştirilmektedir. En temel teistik eleştiri ise dini tecrübenin Tanrı’nın varlığı lehine diğer argümanlarla aynı statüde olmadığı ve dolayısıyla bir kanıt olarak görülemeyeceği görüşüdür. Bu çalışma, Tanrı’nın varlığı lehine ileri sürülen dini tecrübe argümanının güncel bir yorumunu konu edinmektedir. Bu güncel yorum, felsefe alanında son dönemde adından sıkça söz ettiren ve natüralizme karşı teizmi savunan Kenneth L. Pearce’ın görüşlerini kapsamaktadır. Pearce’ın genel iddiası, natüralizme kıyasla teizmin daha fazla açıklayıcı güce sahip olduğu yönündedir. Teizmin bu üstünlüğünü dini tecrübe argümanına getirdiği farklı yorumlarla ortaya koyan Pearce’ın iddialarının sağlamlığı, geçerliliği, rasyonelliği ve bu yönteminin ne denli başarılı ve ikna edici olduğu felsefi analize muhtaçtır. Nitekim oldukça tartışmalı bir argümanı güncelleyerek natüralizme karşı teizmin nasıl daha güvenilir, daha güçlü ve ikna edici kılınabileceği konusu kayda değer bir felsefi nitelik taşımaktadır. Çalışmanın sınırları Pearce’ın yönteminin ayrıntılı incelemesi, eleştirisi ve değerlendirmesi çerçevesinde belirlenmiştir. Bu yüzden Tanrı’nın varlığına dair tüm teistik ve ateistik kanıtlara yer verilmemiş, sadece Pearce’ın dini tecrübe argümanı ayrıntılı şekilde incelenmiştir. Çalışmamız üç amaca hizmet edecek nitelikte şekillenmiştir. Birinci amaç, Pearce’ın argümanın güçlü ve zayıf yönlerini tespit etmektir. İkincisi, Pearce’ın argümanının nasıl daha tutarlı ve güçlü hale gelebileceğine dair öneriler ortaya koymaktır. Üçüncü amaç ise, Pearce’ın görüşlerinden bağımsız olarak dini tecrübenin hangi özelliklere sahip olması koşuluyla bir kanıt niteliği taşıyabileceğine dair sorgulama yapmaktır. Bu amaçlar, teizm adına pozitif katkı sağlama iddialarının güncel bir örneğinin felsefi değerini ortaya koyacak ve gelecekte daha güçlü argümanlar inşa edilerek daha nitelikli felsefi tartışmalar yürütülmesine katkı sağlayacaktır. Çalışmanın merkezini oluşturan Pearce’ın yönteminin ayrıntılı incelemesi, iddia ettiğinin aksine argümanının teizm adına önemli katkıları olmadığı sonucuna ulaştırmıştır.

Keywords

Din Felsefesi , Dini Tecrübe , Teizm , Natüralizm , Kanıt , Argüman

References

• Abraham, William J. “Revelation and Scripture”. A Companion to Philosophy of Religion. ed. Philip L. Quinn - Charles Taliaferro. 584-590. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 1999.
• Al-Ghāzalī, Abu Hamid Muhammad. The Incoherence of the Philosophers. çev. Michael E. Marmura. Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2000.
• Alston, William P. “Epistemic Circularity”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47/1 (1986), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.2307/2107722
• Alston, William P. “Religious Diversity and the Perceptual Knowledge of God”. Faith and Philosophy 5/4 (1988), 433-448. https://doi.org/10.5840/faithphil19885442
• Bardakoğlu, Ali. “İsbât”. TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi. 22/492-495. İstanbul: TDV Yayınları, 2000.
• Berkeley, George. A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. ed. Col Choat - Al Haines. Salt Lake City: Project Gutenberg, 2002.
• Cahn, Steven M. “The Irrelevance to Religion of Philosophic Proofs for the Existence of God”. American Philosophical Quarterly 6/2 (1969), 170-172. https://doi.org/10.2307/20009304
• Cevizci, Ahmet. Büyük Felsefe Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Say Yayınları, 2017.
• Copan, Paul. “Naturalism is a Simpler Explanation than Theism?” How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong? 47-56. Michigan: Baker Books, 2005.
• Copan, Paul - Craig, William Lane. Creation out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.
• Craig, William Lane. God, Time and Eternity. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001a.
• Craig, William Lane. The Kalām Cosmological Argument. London: Macmillan Press, 1979.
• Craig, William Lane. Time and Eterity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Book, 2001b.
• Danto, Arthur C. “Naturalism”. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ed. Paul Edwards. 5/448-450. New York: Macmillan Company, 1967.
• Davis, Caroline Franks. The Evidential Force of Religious Experience. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
• Dombrowski, Daniel A. Rethinking the Ontological Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
• Gale, Richard M. - Pruss, Alexander R. “A New Cosmological Argument”. Religious Studies 35/4 (1999), 461-476. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0034412599005004
• Hemşinli, Hakan. Öznellik ve Nesnellik Kıskacında Dini Tecrübe. İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları, 2021.
• Hemşinli, Hakan. “Tanrı’nın Varlığına Bir Delil Olarak Dinî Tecrübe: Duyu Tecrübesi ve Saf Bilinç İddiaları Örneği”. Cumhuriyet İlahiyat Dergisi 22/3 (2018), 1633-1655. https://doi.org/10.18505/cuid.448346
• Hepburn, Ronald W. “Religious Experience”. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ed. Paul Edwards. 7/163-168. New York: Macmillan Company, 1967.
• Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. ed. Ernest C. Mossner. London: Penguin Book, 1985. James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. New York: Modern Library, 1929.
• Koons, Robert Charles. “A New Look at the Cosmological Argument”. American Philosophical Quarterly 34/2 (1997), 193-211. https://doi.org/10.2307/20009892
• Koterski, Joseph W. - Graham Oppy (ed.). Theism and Atheism: Opposing Arguments in Philosophy. USA: Gale, 2019.
• Leibniz, Gottfired Wilhelm. “On the Ultimate Origination of Things”. çev. Roger Ariew - Daniel Garber. Philosophical Essays. 149-155. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Company, 1697.
• Leibniz, Gottfired Wilhelm. “Principles of Nature and Grace, Based Upon Reason”. çev. Roger Ariew - Daniel Garber. Philosophical Essays. 206-213. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Company, 1714.
• Mackie, John Leslie. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.
• Moser, Paul K. “Religious Exclusivism”. The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity. ed. Chad V. Meister. 77-88. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
• Moser, Paul K. The Elusive God: Reorienting Religious Epistemology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
• Moser, Paul K. Understanding Religious Experience: from Conviction to Life’s Meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
• Netland, Harold A. Religious Experience and the Knowledge of God: The Evidential Force of Divine Encounters. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2022.
• O’Connor, Timothy. Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency. UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
• Oppy, Graham. Arguing about Gods. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
• Oppy, Graham. Atheism and Agnosticism. ed. Yujin Nagasawa. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018a.
• Oppy, Graham. Naturalism and Religion: A Contemporary Philosophical Investigation. London and New York: Routledge, 2018b.
• Oppy, Graham. “Reply to Kenny Pearce”. Is There a God? A Debate. ed. Helen De Cruz. 218-238. New York and London: Routledge, 2022b.
• Oppy, Graham. The Best Argument against God. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013a.
• Oppy, Graham. “Ultimate Naturalistic Causal Explanations”. The Puzzle of Existence: Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? ed. Tyron Goldschmidt. 46-63. London & New York: Routledge, 2013b.
• Owen, Huw Parri. “Theism”. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ed. Paul Edwards. 8/97-98. New York: Macmillan Company, 1967.
• Papineau, David. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ed. Edward N. Zalta - Uri Nodelman, 2023. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/naturalism/>
• Parsons, Keith. “Some Contemporary Theistic Arguments”. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. ed. Michael Martin. 102-117. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
• Pearce, Kenneth L. “Are We Free to Break the Laws of Providence?” Faith and Philosophy 37/2 (2020), 158-180. https://doi.org/10.37977/faithphil.2020.37.2.2
• Pearce, Kenneth L. “Classical Theism An Exposition and Defense”. Is There a God? A Debate. ed. Helen De Cruz. 11-91. New York and London: Routledge, 2022a.
• Pearce, Kenneth L. “Counterpossible Dependence and the Efficacy of the Divine Will”. Faith and Philosophy 34/1 (2017a), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.5840/faithphil20171573
• Pearce, Kenneth L. “Foundational Grounding and Creaturely Freedom”. Mind 131 (2022b), 1108-1130. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzab024
• Pearce, Kenneth L. “Foundational Grounding and the Argument from Contingency”. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion. ed. Jonathan L. Kvanvig. 245-268. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017b.
• Pearce, Kenneth L. “God’s Impossible Options”. Faith and Philosophy 38/2 (2021), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.37977/faithphil.2021.38.2.2
• Pearce, Kenneth L. “God’s Perfect Will: Remarks on Johnston and O’Connor”. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion. ed. Lara Buchak - Dean Zimmerman. 248-254. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022c.
• Pearce, Kenneth L. “Reply to Graham Oppy”. Is There a God? A Debate. ed. Helen De Cruz. 175-217. New York & London: Routledge, 2022d.
• Pearce, Kenneth L. “Reply to Graham’s Reply”. Is There a God? A Debate. ed. Helen De Cruz. 241-258. New York & London: Routledge, 2022e.
• Pearce, Kenneth L. - Pruss, Alexander R. “Understanding Omnipotence”. Religious Studies 48/3 (2012), 403-414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412512000030
• Peterson, Michael vd. Akıl ve İnanç: Din Felsefesine Giriş. çev. Rahim Acar. Küre Yayınları, 2006.
• Pruss, Alexander R. “A Restricted Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Cosmological Argument”. Religious Studies 40/2 (2004), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003441250300684X
• Rasmussen, Joshua L. “A New Argument for a Necessary Being”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89/2 (2011), 351-356. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2010.523706
• Rasmussen, Joshua L. “Cosmological Arguments from Contingency”. Philosophy Compass 5/9 (2010b), 806-819. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00321.x
• Rasmussen, Joshua L. “From a Necessary Being to God”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 66/1 (2009), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-008-9191-8
• Rasmussen, Joshua L. “From States of Affairs to a Necessary Being”. Philosophical Studies 148/2 (2010a), 183-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-008-9293-2
• Russell, Bertrand. Why I am not a Christian. London and New York: Routledge, 2004.
• Schleiermacher, Friedrich. On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. ed. Richard Crouter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
• Swinburne, Richard. “Arguments for the Existence of God”. Key Themes in Philosophy. ed. A. Phillips Griffiths. 121-133. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
• Swinburne, Richard. “The Argument from Design”. Philosophy 43/165 (1968), 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0031819100009189
• Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2. Basım, 2004.
• Szatkowski, Mirosław (ed.). Ontological Proofs Today. UK: Gazelle Books, 2012.
• Vilenkin, Alexander. Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes. New York: Hill and Wang, 2006.
• Wainwright, William J. Mysticism: A Study of Its Nature, Cognitive Value, and Moral Implications. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1981.
• Webb, Mark. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ed. Edward N. Zalta - Uri Nodelman, 2022. <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/religious-experience/>
• Wettstein, Howard K. The Significance of Religious Experience. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. çev. Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe vd. Malden, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell, 4. Basım, 2009.
• Yavuz, Yusuf Şevki. “Delil”. TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi. 9/136-138. İstanbul: TDV Yayınları, 2000.
• Yüce, Fatma. Dini ve Mistik Tecrübede Evrensel Öz. İstanbul: Babil Yayınları, 2016.