Do religious experiences provide good evidence for the existence of God, or can they be explained away by psychology, physiology and the conflicting claims of different religions?
Component 2 religious experience: mystical experience (James), the numinous (Otto), Teresa of Avila, and the value of experience for belief (Swinburne's principles of credulity and testimony), with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 2 (Philosophy of Religion) guide to religious experience. Covers William James's four marks of mystical experience, Otto's numinous, Teresa of Avila, and Swinburne's principles of credulity and testimony, together with the naturalistic and conflicting-claims challenges, and the evaluation the exam rewards.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
Eduqas Component 2 studies religious experience and its value as evidence for God. You learn the main types and analyses: William James's four marks of mystical experience, Rudolf Otto's numinous, and Teresa of Avila on mystical prayer; the argument from religious experience, especially Richard Swinburne's principle of credulity and principle of testimony; and the challenges (psychological, physiological and conflicting-claims). The exam rewards explaining the types and the argument precisely (AO1) and evaluating whether religious experience is reliable evidence for God (AO2).
The answer
James: mystical experience and its four marks
Otto: the numinous
Teresa of Avila
Swinburne and the value of experience
The challenges
Naturalistic explanations (psychology, neurology, drugs, sensory deprivation) offer non-divine causes. Experiences are private and unverifiable by others. And the conflicting-claims objection notes that experiences across religions describe different, incompatible objects (Christ, Krishna, nirvana), which seem to cancel out as evidence for any particular God. Defenders reply that a brain correlate does not show there is no genuine perception (seeing has a brain correlate too), and that Hick reads the conflicting experiences as culturally conditioned responses to one ultimate Reality.
Examples in context
Try this
Q1. Explain Swinburne's principles of credulity and testimony. [part (a), AO1, 20 marks]
- What the marker wants. Accurate account of believing that things are as they seem, and believing sincere reports, in the absence of special reasons to doubt, and how they make religious experience cumulative evidence, organised and using specialist terms. AO1 band.
Q2. "Religious experiences can be fully explained by psychology and neuroscience." Evaluate this view. [part (b), AO2, 30 marks]
- Cue. Weigh the naturalistic explanations against the reply that a brain correlate does not rule out genuine perception, and James's pragmatic appeal to fruits, then judge. AO2 band, the larger 30-mark tariff.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of WJEC Eduqas exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
Eduqas A120 2018 (style)20 marksExplain William James's four characteristics of mystical experience. [part (a), AO1, 20 marks]Show worked answer →
A part (a) AO1 question on the five-band scheme. Explain each characteristic accurately.
In The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), James identifies four marks of mystical experience: ineffability (it cannot be adequately put into words; it must be directly experienced, like the taste of something); noetic quality (it gives knowledge and insight into truths not accessible to the ordinary intellect); transiency (it is temporary, usually short-lived, though its effects last); and passivity (the subject feels grasped and held by a higher power, not in control). James, a pragmatist, judges experiences by their fruits (effects on the person's life) rather than their roots, and concludes religious experience is real and significant for the individual but cannot prove which theology is true. A top band answer states all four marks and James's pragmatic conclusion.
Eduqas A120 2021 (style)20 marks"Religious experiences provide no reliable evidence for the existence of God." Evaluate this view. [part (b), AO2, the full Eduqas tariff is 30 marks; the worked answer below is scaled to a 20-mark exemplar.]Show worked answer →
A part (b) AO2 question; the top band rewards balanced argument and a justified conclusion.
For the view: experiences can be explained naturalistically (psychology, neurology, drugs, sensory deprivation); they are private and unverifiable; and conflicting claims across religions cancel out (a Christian sees Christ, a Hindu sees Krishna), so they cannot establish any particular God. Against: Swinburne's principle of credulity says we should normally trust how things seem unless we have reason to doubt, and his principle of testimony says we should normally believe others' reports, so the cumulative weight of countless experiences is evidence; a natural correlate does not prove there is no genuine perception. Weigh whether the challenges defeat the evidence, and conclude.
Related dot points
- Component 2 religious belief as a product of the human mind: Freud's account (wish-fulfilment, illusion, the Oedipus complex) and Jung's account (the collective unconscious, archetypes, individuation), with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 2 (Philosophy of Religion) guide to religious belief as a product of the human mind. Covers Freud's account (religion as wish-fulfilment, illusion, neurosis and the Oedipus complex) and Jung's account (the collective unconscious, archetypes and individuation), and the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.
- Component 2 the problem of evil and suffering: the logical and evidential problem, the Augustinian theodicy, the Irenaean (Hick's soul-making) theodicy, and the process theodicy (Whitehead, Griffin), with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 2 (Philosophy of Religion) guide to the problem of evil and the theodicies. Covers the logical and evidential problem of moral and natural evil, the Augustinian theodicy (the Fall and privation), the Irenaean soul-making theodicy (Hick), and the process theodicy (Whitehead, Griffin), with the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.
- Component 2 the cosmological argument: Aquinas's Third Way (contingency), the Copleston-Russell debate, and Hume's challenges, with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 2 (Philosophy of Religion) guide to the cosmological argument. Covers Aquinas's Third Way from contingency, the Copleston-Russell radio debate over the principle of sufficient reason, Hume's challenges (fallacy of composition, the gap to a single God), and the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.
- Component 2 religious language: the via negativa, the verification and falsification debate (Ayer, Flew, Hare, Mitchell, Hick), analogy and symbol (Aquinas, Ramsey, Tillich), and Wittgenstein's language games, with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 2 (Philosophy of Religion) guide to religious language. Covers the via negativa, the verification principle (Ayer) and the falsification debate (Flew, Hare, Mitchell, Hick), analogy (Aquinas, Ramsey) and symbol (Tillich), and Wittgenstein's language games, with the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.
- Component 1 the nature of God: the attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, eternity), personal versus impersonal models, and the challenge that evil poses to God's nature.
An Eduqas Component 1 (Christianity) guide to the nature of God. Covers the divine attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, eternity, simplicity), the contrast between a personal and an impersonal God, the tension between omniscience and human freedom, and the challenge evil poses to God's nature, with the evaluation the exam rewards.
Sources & how we know this
- Eduqas A Level Religious Studies specification (A120QS) — WJEC Eduqas (2016)
- William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience — Project Gutenberg (1902)