Religious experience

Hello fellow bloggers!
Had a lot to think about today, thought i'd get it down for all to think about if they please.
SO it's about religious experience. (that's a turn away for most i'm sure) Well for those philosophy lovers,
First a few questions to think about...
Do you believe your eyes? You probably aren't sure what I mean by this, but Yes you do . We all believe our eyes, although perception can often be wrong, we generally don't question day-to-day experience. For example, when crossing the road, we are trusting our eyes.

Secondly, do you trust people?
Most people would say no but it's surprising how much trust we place on strangers. Think about when you go travelling, you are placing trust in the hope that the pilot is qualified enough, that the air traffic control is efficient, that the fuel supplier and moderator has checked and RE-checked the amount of fuel...that there is not too much or too little.  And ironically we don't even think about these things much, we have enough trust to not even THINK about it, but when it comes to non life and death situations, like trusting a person with our money, or our secrets...we are unable  or unwilling to do that right, with that in mind, I will now take you to a short summary of Mr Richard Swinburne's "The existence of God" 

Swinburne believed that although he had never had a religious experience himself, he thought that religious experience was a credible way of proving the existence of God for the individual (generally)
He felt that religion needed to be assessed just as fairly and as similarly as anything else we might assess in our day-to-day lives.  For this he came up with two principles known as Credulity, and Testimony. Credulity goes back to the first question i brought up at the beginning of this discussion, "do you believe your eyes?" The term focuses on the idea of trusting your senses. "If it seems to subject that X is present, then probably X is actually present, what one perceives is usually so." (unless of course you are taking drugs, or are very ill) 
The principle of testimony is about trusting others. The assumption here is that people usually tell the truth. For example, in court, a lot of evidence is based on peoples perceptions which seems to be just fine and enough evidence for that but when it comes to religious experience SUDDENLY (and coincidentally) our perception becomes "faulty".  (Compare RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE to a persons perception of a crime, a person who has a religious experience is less likely to have an ulterior motive for telling the story....when somebody shares something about a religious experience, they are unlikely to gain anything - it's more likely people will think they are nuts,- you could say they have more to lose) P.s he does concede that you don't always take somebody's religious testimony at face value (depends on the persons character...presumably you know what their track record is...) You know best! 

SO...why should we not believe in a religious experience? Fair enough if you can't trust other people but surely you can trust yourself? Perception is extremely subjective, however, we seem to be doing a bit of a pick and choose game. We trust completely at moments and at others we ignore! Strange...think about it. 
Right now to Mr William James. (a lovely thoughtful psychologist...supposedly) 
He believed religious experience had to have a special criteria to regard as true or not, I quite like this way to remember his criteria...think PINT. Yes, Pint. P for Passive. I for Ineffable. N for Noetic. T for Transient. I know what you're thinking "I only know a quarter of that terminology" No fear!

Passive. 
Mr James believed religious experience is more credible when 
1) you were not expecting that experience
2) You don't have an ulterior motive for sharing that experience
3) You are preferably an agnostic/atheist. (He didn't say that exactly, apologies for my additions)

Ineffable.
An experience too great or too extreme or intense to be expressed with the human language. Language is so so limited...it's hardly going to do much when describing God or a religious experience that NOBODY else has had (not exactly the same anyway)

Noetic.
I love that word ^^ Anyway...this means that the experience has to lead to some sort of revelation. The person has learnt something about God, preferably sees life in a clear and simple light. (the way it IS and should be)

Transiet.
This means temporary...the religious experience doesn't last forever. It is after all an experience, this could mean a few minutes, hours, days or months (GASP) even...just not anywhere near a lifetime.  

Well this certainly convinced me a wee bit more about religious experiences, couldn't say I've had one myself, but often I do "feel" somethings presence...not in a freaky spooky sort of way, just a happy fulfilling feeling. (a break through for the philosopher i think!) Not sure that counts.

One last thing....Imagine yourself in God's situation.
If he doesn't give any of us a religious experience, people question why anyone would want to believe in a God that isn't personal and doesn't try to involve himself with humans to help them believe. (certainly religious experience must be the best way to do so!) although there is that whole argument about just having faith and all...well.  Anyway...if we are given a religious experience, we immediately question the reliability of this and assume that we are hallucinating, ill....or simply ready for a mental hospital. Who's to say you wouldn't have believed if you had the religious experience of another?

Open-mind.

Goodbye