God or Ultimate Reality in Theory and Practice: A Philosophical Analysis
The present chapter explores how human experiences, including experiences of God or Ultimate Reality should be understood in relation to reality. It is suggested that experiencing is the sine qua non of human existence. It is argued that human beings cannot not experience. Experiences are real in the sense that they have causal effects on the brain, and the cultural-religious-personal environment in which human beings are embedded. Also a distinction is made between concepts, conceptions and conceiving. In order to answer the question how human experiences can be justified, two principles or criteria are adapted (1) The experience should have de facto evidence and (2) it should have effective evidence. In order to answer the question how such experiences should be understood during the course of interdisciplinary research, four main types of naturalism are analyzed, ontological, methodological, epistemological naturalism and supernaturalism. The result of the analyses suggests that a minimalist coherent ontological naturalism or an extended or flexible interferential ontological naturalism should be adapted. Finally, the problem of the gap between descriptive and normative claims is considered.
KeywordsNatural World Natural Order Religious Experience Normative Claim Ultimate Reality
The present has been made possible with the supported by the Copenhagen University Star Research Program “Naturalism and Christian Semantics” at the Copenhagen University.
- Burns, Charlene P.E. 2002. Divine becoming: Rethinking Jesus and incarnation. Minneapolis: Ausburg Fortress Press.Google Scholar
- Clayton, P., and A. Peacock (eds.). 2004. In whom we live and move and have our being. Cambridge/Michigan: Eerdmans Publishers Co.Google Scholar
- Drees, W.B. 2003. Naturalism. In The encyclopedia of science and religion, ed. W. Van Huyssteen, 593–597. New York: Macmillan Library Reference.Google Scholar
- Drees, W.B. 2010. Religion and science in context: A guide to the debates. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Einstein, A.  2006. The world as I see it. New York: Citadel Press Books.Google Scholar
- Flanagan, O. 2006. The varieties of naturalism. In The Oxford handbook of religion and science, ed. P. Clayton and Z. Simpson, 432–452. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Goldman, A.I. 1999. Naturalism. In The cambridge dictionary of philosophy, ed. R. Audi, 596–599. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Griffin, D.R. 2000. Religion and scientific naturalism: Overcoming the conflicts. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
- Guttenplan, S. (ed.). 2001. A companion to the philosophy of mind. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Herrmann, E. 2004. Religion, reality and a good life: A philosophical approach to religion. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
- Jacobs J. 2008. Naturalism. Resource document. The internet encyclopedia of philosophy. www.iep.utm.edu/naturali/. Accessed 15 June 2010.
- Jeeves, M. 2006. Human nature: Reflection on the integration of psychology and christianity. West Conshohocken: Templeton Foundation Press.Google Scholar
- Lockwood, M. 1989. Mind, brain & the quantum. The compund ‛I’. Cambridge, MA/Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Newberg, A.B., and E. d’Aquili. 2001. Why God won’t go away. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
- Oviedo, L. 2007. Has theology anything to suggest to consciousness studies? In Herausforderungen und Grenzen wissenshaftlicher Modelle in Naturwissenschaft und Theologie, ed. F. Vogelsang and H. Meisinger, 125–140. Bonn: Evangelische Akademie im Rheinland.Google Scholar
- Papineau, D. 2007. Naturalism. Resourse document. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism. Accessed 15 June 2010.
- Quine, W.V.O. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
- Runehov, A.L.C. 2006. A being or to be? Philosophical thoughts about future research on neuroscience and religions and the need for interdisciplinarity. European Journal of Science and Theology 2(1): 55–66.Google Scholar
- Runehov, A.L.C. 2007. Sacred or neural? The potential of neuroscience to explain religious experience. Götingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
- Sartre, J.P.  1992. Varet och intet. Göteborg: Korpen.Google Scholar
- Schmitt, F.F. 2005. Naturalism. In A companion to metaphysics, ed. J. Kim and E. Sosa, 343–345. Malden/Oxford/Victoria: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Schopenhauer, A.  1992. Världen som vilja och föreställning. Nora: Nya DoxaGoogle Scholar
- Stenmark, M. 2001. Scientism: Science, ethics and religion. Hants: Ashgate Science and Religion Series.Google Scholar
- Underhill, E. 1912. Mysticism, a study in the nature and development of man’s spiritual consciousness. New York: E.P. Dutton.Google Scholar
- Walach, H., and A.L.C. Runehov. 2010. The epistemological status of transpersonal psychology: The data-base argument revisited. Journal of Consciousness Studies 17(1–2): 145–165.Google Scholar
- Wittgenstein, L. 1973. Philosophical investigations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Yandell, K. 1993. The epistemology of religious experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Zagzebksi, L.T. 1998. Virtues of the mind: An inquiry into the nature of virtue and the ethical foundations of knowledge. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar