The big idea: Millions of people say they have felt the presence of the divine. That feeling is real to them — but does it prove anything to anyone else?
The hard question: This micro asks the hard question: can a private experience count as evidence that God, or the sacred, is really there?
The challenge is that a religious experience is felt from the inside, by one person, and can't be replayed or checked. So we're asking whether that kind of private evidence can support a claim about what's actually real.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
One influential answer comes from the American philosopher who took religious experience seriously as a source of knowledge.
Alston: experiencing God is like perceiving the world: William Alston argued that experiencing God is a lot like ordinary perception.
Alston's argument
Your eyes
You trust your eyes that there's a tree in front of you, even though you can't step outside your own senses to double-check.
The divine
So a person who experiences the divine is entitled to trust that experience in the same way.
The conclusion
If it's reasonable to believe your senses without outside proof, it's reasonable to believe a religious experience too.
Checkpoint — Alston: In one line: experiencing God is like seeing a tree — you're entitled to trust it, even without outside proof. Hold that — the objections come at exactly that comparison.
Stop wasting time on topics you know
Our AI identifies your weak areas and focuses your study time where it matters. No more overstudying easy topics.
Two challenges press on Alston's case — one about understanding, one from the science of the brain.
Can you even understand it without having had one?: Someone who has never felt a religious experience may hear the reports and simply not grasp what's meant — the way describing colour to someone born blind falls flat. If the evidence only makes sense to those who already have it, how far can it convince anyone else?
The 'it's just brain activity' reply
Neuroscientists can now link religious experiences to activity in particular parts of the brain, and can even trigger similar feelings by stimulating the brain directly. So maybe an experience of 'the divine' is really just the brain doing something — no God required.
Go further — higher-level insight: Notice the neat symmetry. The 'it's just brain activity' reply cuts both ways: ordinary seeing ALSO runs on brain activity, yet the tree is real.
What brain activity can't prove: So brain activity by itself can't prove a religious experience is empty. It can only remind us that having a physical cause doesn't decide whether the experience points at anything real. Spotting that both sides share the same brain machinery is a top-band move.
Checkpoint — the objections: In one line: maybe you can't understand it without having one, and maybe it's 'just the brain' — but the brain reply also fits ordinary seeing, so it doesn't settle it.