A Level Religious Studies - Mystical Religious Experiences Explained in Scientific Terms Essay

"Mystical experiences are best explained in scientific terms". Discuss

 A mystical experience is an alleged experience of oneness with God, as claimed by mystics. Experiences like this can be used as evidence to prove that God exists, however, there are cases where these events are beyond imagination and contradictory which can push people towards finding an explanation through science. Whilst it could be argued that religious experiences can be explained in ways which are not scientific, this essay will argue that science is best at explaining the occurrence and content of these experiences.

Mystical experiences cannot be described in words so it cannot be explained in scientific terms. It can instead be explained in religious terms as William James has four characteristics of mystical experiences which are from his book ‘The Varieties of Religious Experience’. This book concentrates on the first-hand accounts of religious experience, of which James thought were crucial to understanding religion. He noted that explaining the causes and what these experiences entail was extremely difficult, so he came up with four characteristics which are evident in all religious experiences: ineffable (beyond description), noetic (deep and direct knowledge of God), transient (temporary) and passive (not be initiated). The first of these is important as it says that language is a barrier and that limitations mean we cannot describe these experiences. Many were accepting of James’ claims; he had first-hand accounts which served as evidence and there were considerable similarities between two entirely different experiences. Scientific terms cannot be used to describe what happened to these people, and James believed that his religious terms were clear evidence of a clearer and deeper way of understanding these events.

Sigmund Freud had a view that contrasted that of William James’. Freud, an Austrian psychiatrist suggested that some people felt so strongly towards religion that it was no more than an obsession. This led him to the idea that mystical experiences are illusions which related to the past and certain beliefs and ideas that people had. Freud wrote in his book ‘New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis’ that “religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires”. The images a person may see or feel during a religious experience may actually be a projection of desires and past wants and hopes, however people may falsely link this to religion due to similarities in the renowned stories from religious scriptures and texts. Freud believed that religious experiences were no more or less than delusions which tried to make sense of the world, not an experience with God.

It can be argued that science is not the best way to explain a religious experience as the religious experience itself serves as its own explanation. Experience is the strongest form of evidence. If a person has a vision of a figure or hears the voice of God, they will believe that they have had one. There is no scientific evidence against this happening to them. Richard Swinburne composed the principle of credulity in his book ‘The Existence of God’, stating that “if it seems to a subject that X is present, X is probably present”. This teaches us that we should not attempt to disprove experience unless there is substantial proof against the matter. Ultimately, the experiences act as their own evidence and so if someone claims to have experienced God, it is rational to believe that God was present.

However, Jordan Grafman, a cognitive neuroscientist says that experiences can be explained by the brain processes. People have a connection to religion and therefore believe that what they see is linked to this. Research suggests that the brain origins of mystical experiences can be explained through pull theories. Religious researcher Joseph Bulbulia said that “pull theories argue that the suppression of our inhibitory functions opens the brain to mystical experiences”. This research can be used to agree that science is an adequate descriptor and explanation for religious experiences. The brain’s functions are suppressed when people undergo an experience, so the brain may therefore settle for supernatural explanations despite this not being the truth. This leads to people concluding that they have had an experience with God as they cannot conjure another possible explanation due to lack of brain activity during the process. These advances in technology have allowed for these neuroscientists to make great discoveries regarding the brain and its functions - this acts as sufficient confirmation in helping disprove the experience itself as evidence of a mystical experience.

It can also be argued that science does not need to be included in this topic as religions themselves can determine the validity of experiences, explaining them in their own terms and on their own grounds. They judge the experiences based on a variety of different factors including, but not limited to whether it emphasises commitment rather than emotion, whether it sees an improvement in the person’s behaviour, leads to action against social wrongs and if it is consistent with the messages of scriptures. If an experience falls in line with these ideas, then it can be considered true. In cases like this where experiences are already considered true, there is no need for science. It does not need to be used to explain something that is already accepted; it does not need to be potentially criticised through scientific objections and claims if it is considered true by the authority which matters the most in this situation – the religion itself.

Despite this, science can be used to explain religious experiences, as done so by Professor V S Ramachandran. Ramachandran carried out extensive experiments which have been used to show the effect temporal lobe epilepsy has on people and how they interpret a seizure. He tested people with and without the condition, measuring changes in their skin resistance. What he found was that when the temporal lobe patients saw religious imagery, their bodies significantly changed their skin resistance. In a BBC Horizon documentary, Ramachandran said “there are certain circuits within the temporal lobes which have been selectively activated. Their activity is selectively heightened in these patients” which explains both the cause and effect of mystical experiences.

To conclude, science does provide a plausible explanation for mystical experiences. There are too many flaws with the religious experiences which mean we have to look beyond them to find an explanation; the validity of these experiences suffers because there is such variation between what different people experience and encounter, the experiences can be compared to the effects of drugs, and Kant would argue that it is impossible for a finite being like a human to experience an infinite being. This forces us to look to science which gives a significant and convincing explanation for religious experiences. Tests prove that brain function considerably changes during a religious experience which can affect a person’s ability to interpret it and there is also psychological reasoning showing that people can experience such strong religious feelings that makes a religious experience seems real. As Jerry A. Coyne, an American professor of biology said, “when one has a religious experience, only that one has had that experience. One needs a way to verify the contents of a revelation, and that means science”, showing science is truly the only credible way of explaining religious experience in a deep and detailed way.