Philosophy of religion: Religious experience — AQA A-Level Religious Studies
Philosophy of religion: Religious experience explained
Philosophy of religion: Religious experience covers 9 specification points, including The nature of religious experience.
Read the full explanation
and Corporeal, imaginative and intellectual.. Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
The nature of religious experience.
This criterion concerns what a religious experience is and how it is classified. You need to explain the nature of religious experience and distinguish the types the specification names, including visions. Visions may be sensory, where the experiencer seems to see or hear something through the senses; intellectual, where an understanding or insight is received without sensory content; and visions occurring in dreams. Set these alongside the claim that an experience is of God or the divine, and consider what makes an experience religious rather than ordinary. Learn to identify each type from a description and to explain why it counts as that type. A short written answer should define the type, give its defining feature and apply it to the example given.
Visions: corporeal, imaginative and intellectual.
This topic classifies visionary religious experience into three types. A corporeal vision is claimed as perception through the senses, as when a figure is said to be seen, heard or touched in the ordinary physical world; it is public in principle, so others present could in theory corroborate it. An imaginative vision occurs in the mind's eye or in a dream: nothing is present to the senses, but the recipient reports images or scenes with strong vividness, as in a dream figure speaking to the dreamer. An intellectual vision involves no image at all; the recipient claims a direct, non-sensory grasp of a truth, such as an overwhelming certainty of divine presence or of some doctrine. Learn to sort a described case by asking what was sensed, what was imagined and what was understood without either.
Numinous experiences: Otto, an apprehension of the wholly other.
Rudolf Otto analyses the numinous as a distinctive kind of religious experience, not a deduction from argument. Its core is the 'wholly other': the sense of encountering something entirely beyond the ordinary and beyond the self, which Otto calls the mysterium. This mystery is simultaneously fascinating and daunting, drawing the person while overwhelming them, which he terms the mysterium tremendum et fascinans. The experience carries a feeling of creatureliness, in which the person feels small and dependent before the holy. Otto treats this as non-rational: it is felt rather than proved, so it cannot be fully captured in concepts, though it can be interpreted morally.
Mystical experiences: William James; non sensuous and non-intellectual union with the divine as presented by Walter Stace.
This topic pairs two accounts of mystical experience. William James, in The Varieties of Religious Experience, treats mystical states as experiences that feel directly given to the subject and identifies four marks: ineffability (the state defies being put into words), noetic quality (it seems to convey insight or knowledge the person could not otherwise reach), transiency (it does not last, though its effects may), and passivity (the subject feels grasped or acted upon rather than in control). Walter Stace, in Mysticism and Philosophy, describes the core mystical state as a non-sensuous and non-intellectual union with the divine: no sensory content is perceived and no discursive reasoning is occurring, yet the subject reports being united with what is taken to be ultimate reality.
The challenges of verifying religious experiences.
Verification asks whether a claim of religious experience can be checked and supported. Challenges include the privacy of the experience, so no external observer can inspect it; the absence of agreed tests that would confirm or disconfirm it; conflicting reports across and within traditions; the possibility of naturalistic explanations such as psychological or neurological causes; and the problem that experiences interpreted as divine may rest on prior beliefs. Responses include appeal to the effects or fruits of the experience, coherence with a tradition, cumulative-case reasoning and the testimony of many witnesses. A strong answer weighs these responses against the challenges rather than listing them, and judges how far any verification is possible.
The challenges to religious experience from science.
Science raises several distinct challenges to claims that people experience God. Neurological explanation treats visions and voices as products of brain activity, so temporal-lobe stimulation or epilepsy may be offered as a sufficient cause. Psychological explanation treats experience as projection or wish-fulfilment, as in Freudian readings. Philosophical naturalism adds that a purely physical universe leaves no room for a non-physical cause. Verificationist and falsificationist challenges ask what observation could count against an experience-claim. A strong answer separates these challenges, states the evidence each relies on, and asks whether explaining a mechanism removes the experience's evidential force.
Religious responses to those challenges.
Believers answer scientific challenges in several ways. One response distinguishes the mechanism of an experience from its meaning: brain activity may be the condition through which God communicates without being the whole explanation. Another argues that scientific accounts describe correlates rather than causes, so correlation does not settle the question. A further response appeals to the character and effects of the experience, such as lasting moral transformation, as evidence that cannot be reduced to neurology. Some thinkers accept natural explanations for some experiences while defending others. A strong answer states each response, identifies what it concedes to science, and assesses whether it successfully defends religious experience.
Swinburne’s principles of credulity and testimony.
Richard Swinburne argues that it is rational to trust our experiences unless we have positive reason to doubt them. His principle of credulity states that, in the absence of special considerations, what seems to a person to be the case probably is the case; so an experience that seems to be of God gives prima facie evidence for God. His principle of testimony states that, absent special considerations, what others report as their experience probably occurred; so testimony of religious experience adds prima facie evidence. Both principles are defeasible: counter-evidence such as conflicting reports, known unreliability or naturalistic explanations can defeat them. Swinburne treats them as general principles of rationality, not proofs of God, and applies them within a cumulative case.
The influence of religious experiences and their value for religious faith.
Religious experiences can shape a person's faith in several ways. They may initiate belief, as with a conversion experience; strengthen existing commitment; provide assurance or a sense of calling; and motivate moral or vocational change. Their value for faith is debated. Supporters argue that experience gives vivid, personal evidence and can ground trust in God, and that testimony of such experiences can support others' belief. Critics argue that experiences are private and hard to verify, may be explained naturalistically, can conflict across traditions, and may be interpreted through prior beliefs. Evaluating influence therefore requires weighing the transformative power of experience against problems of verification, interpretation and conflicting reports.
Your focus
- Explain what makes an experience religious.
- Distinguish sensory, intellectual and dream visions by their defining features.
- Apply the correct classification to a described religious experience.
Show all 27 objectives
- Define corporeal, imaginative and intellectual visions accurately.
- Classify a described visionary experience into the correct type with a reason.
- Explain the limits of the typology for judging whether a vision has a divine origin.
- Explain Otto's account of the numinous experience and the wholly other.
- Identify the key elements of a numinous experience in a described case.
- Evaluate the claim that numinous experience provides evidence of a divine reality.
- List and explain James's four marks of mystical experience.
- Define Stace's non-sensuous and non-intellectual union with the divine.
- Distinguish James's descriptive approach from Stace's analysis of mystical content.
- Explain the main challenges to verifying religious experiences.
- Evaluate responses to those challenges.
- Reach a reasoned judgement on the extent to which religious experiences can be verified.
- Outline at least two distinct scientific challenges to religious experience.
- Explain the evidence each challenge relies on.
- Evaluate whether scientific explanation undermines the evidential value of religious experience.
- Describe at least two religious responses to scientific challenges.
- Explain what each response concedes to science.
- Evaluate whether the responses successfully defend the evidential value of religious experience.
- Define Swinburne's principle of credulity and its defeating condition.
- Define Swinburne's principle of testimony and its defeating condition.
- Distinguish the two principles and explain their role in a cumulative case.
- Explain ways religious experience can influence religious faith.
- Assess strengths and limitations of religious experience as support for faith.
- Reach a reasoned judgement on the value of religious experience for faith.
Philosophy of religion: Religious experience exam tips
Marking Points
- Defines a religious experience as an experience understood by the experiencer as involving God or the divine.
- Identifies a sensory vision as one in which the experiencer seems to see or hear through the senses, and applies this to a described example.
- Identifies an intellectual vision as one conveying insight or understanding without sensory content, and distinguishes it from a sensory vision.
- Recognises a vision occurring in a dream as a distinct type and explains how it differs from a waking sensory vision.
- Explains why a described experience counts as religious rather than ordinary, referring to the claimed divine content.
- Identifies a corporeal vision as one claimed to be received through the physical senses, such as seeing or hearing a figure in the everyday world.
- Identifies an imaginative vision as one received in the mind or in a dream through images rather than through the senses.
- Identifies an intellectual vision as a non-sensory apprehension of a truth or presence, involving no image at all.
- Distinguishes the three types by asking whether the experience was sensed, imagined or understood without sensory content.
- Explains that classifying a vision does not by itself establish its divine origin, so the typology organises reports rather than proving them.
- Defines the numinous as Otto's term for a distinctive religious experience of the holy rather than a conclusion reached by argument.
- Explains the 'wholly other' as the sense of encountering something entirely beyond the ordinary world and beyond the self.
- Identifies the mysterium as the mysterious, overwhelming quality of the encounter and links it to the feelings of awe and fascination.
- Explains the feeling of creatureliness, in which the person senses their own smallness and dependence before the holy.
- Evaluates whether numinous feelings provide reliable evidence of a divine reality or can be explained in psychological or cultural terms.
- Identifies ineffability as James's first mark, meaning the experience cannot be adequately expressed in language.
- States noetic quality as James's second mark, meaning the experience seems to yield knowledge or insight.
- Names transiency as James's third mark, meaning the experience is brief and does not persist.
- Names passivity as James's fourth mark, meaning the subject feels acted upon rather than in control.
- Explains Stace's non-sensuous element as the absence of sensory content such as sights or sounds.
- Explains Stace's non-intellectual element as the absence of discursive reasoning during the state.
- Describes Stace's union with the divine as the subject's reported oneness with ultimate reality.
- Distinguishes James's descriptive classification of features from Stace's analysis of the content of union.
- Explains that religious experience is private and so resists independent public checking.
- Assesses the lack of agreed criteria for distinguishing genuine from spurious experiences.
- Considers naturalistic explanations such as psychological or neurological causes as a challenge.
- Evaluates responses such as appeal to fruits, coherence and cumulative argument.
- Reaches a reasoned judgement on how far religious experience can be verified.
- Identifies neurological explanation as a scientific challenge that attributes religious experience to brain activity rather than to a transcendent cause.
- Distinguishes psychological explanation, such as projection or wish-fulfilment, from neurological explanation as a separate scientific challenge.
- Explains the naturalist assumption that a physical universe excludes non-physical causes and links it to the challenge against religious experience.
- Assesses whether identifying a natural mechanism disproves the claimed religious cause or merely describes a condition of the experience.
- Applies a verificationist or falsificationist challenge by asking what observable evidence could count against an experience-claim.
- Distinguishes the mechanism of an experience from its religious meaning and explains how a believer can accept both.
- Argues that a scientific correlation with brain activity does not by itself establish that the brain causes the experience.
- Appeals to the fruits or effects of an experience, such as lasting moral change, as evidence resisting reduction.
- Accepts natural explanations for some experiences while defending the religious status of others, showing a nuanced response.
- Assesses the strength of each response, including whether it concedes too much to the scientific challenge.
- States that the principle of credulity treats an apparent experience as prima facie evidence for what it seems to be, absent special considerations.
- States that the principle of testimony treats others' reports of experience as prima facie evidence, absent special considerations.
- Explains that both principles are defeasible, so counter-evidence can defeat the prima facie evidence they supply.
- Distinguishes the two principles by identifying credulity as concerning one's own experience and testimony as concerning reports made by others.
- Recognises that Swinburne presents the principles as principles of rationality supporting a cumulative case rather than as proofs of God's existence.
- Explains at least one way a religious experience can influence a person's faith, such as initiating belief, strengthening commitment or motivating change.
- Assesses the value of religious experience for faith by weighing its evidential or transformative strength against a limitation.
- Identifies a limitation such as privacy, difficulty of verification, naturalistic explanation or conflicting reports.
- Explains that experiences may be interpreted through a person's prior beliefs and tradition, affecting their evidential value.
- Reaches a reasoned judgement about how far religious experience supports religious faith.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Read the description carefully and identify which defining feature is present before naming the type.
- 💡State the defining feature of the type you choose, not just its name.
- 💡Apply your definition to the specific example rather than giving a general definition alone.
- 💡Keep answers concise and focused on the type and its defining feature.
- 💡Read the stem for sensory detail: words about seeing, hearing or touching in the ordinary world point to a corporeal vision.
- 💡Look for dream or mental-image language, which signals an imaginative vision, and for claims of pure understanding, which signal an intellectual vision.
- 💡When a question asks about the value of the typology, state that it classifies reports and then say what further evidence would be needed to support a divine cause.
- 💡Anchor answers in Otto's own terms, such as the wholly other, mysterium and creatureliness, and apply each to the case in the stem.
- 💡Separate description from evaluation: first say what the experience involves, then assess whether it counts as evidence.
- 💡When weighing criticism, name the alternative explanation, such as psychological or cultural conditioning, and say what it would imply.
- 💡Memorise James's four marks in order as a checklist and apply each one to a described experience.
- 💡Use a short example, such as a person unable to describe a brief overwhelming sense of unity, to show ineffability and transiency together.
- 💡When a question names Stace, define both 'non-sensuous' and 'non-intellectual' before discussing union.
- 💡Contrast the two thinkers explicitly in one sentence to show you know which claim belongs to whom.
- 💡Structure the essay around challenge, response and judgement for each point.
- 💡Use a concrete example of conflicting reports to anchor the privacy challenge.
- 💡Reserve space for an explicit conclusion that answers the question directly.
- 💡Name each challenge precisely and give the type of evidence it draws on before evaluating it.
- 💡Use a concrete case, such as temporal-lobe activity during a vision, to show how the challenge works.
- 💡Conclude by weighing whether scientific explanation is decisive or leaves the religious interpretation open.
- 💡Pair each religious response with the specific scientific challenge it answers.
- 💡Use the distinction between mechanism and meaning to structure an evaluation.
- 💡Assess whether a response defends all religious experiences or only some.
- 💡Learn each principle as a one-sentence definition plus its defeating condition.
- 💡Use a short example, such as a seeming awareness of God's presence, to show how credulity applies.
- 💡Link the principles to Swinburne's cumulative case rather than presenting them as standalone proofs.
- 💡Structure answers around influence first, then value, then a judgement.
- 💡Use one concrete example of an experience and trace its effect on a believer's faith.
- 💡Balance supportive and critical points before stating a conclusion.
Common Mistakes
- Confuses an intellectual vision with a sensory vision; distinguish them by whether sensory content is present.
- Treats a dream vision as identical to a waking sensory vision; note that the dream context is the distinguishing feature.
- Describes an experience as religious merely because it is intense or emotional; explain that the claimed divine content is what makes it religious.
- Treats an imaginative vision as a physical sighting; classify it instead as an image received in the mind or in a dream.
- Assumes an intellectual vision must include a mental picture; recognise instead that it is a non-sensory grasp of a truth or presence.
- Concludes that labelling a vision as corporeal proves God caused it; separate the description of the experience from any argument about its source.
- Treats the numinous as a philosophical proof of God's existence; present it instead as Otto's description of a felt religious experience.
- Confuses the 'wholly other' with something merely unusual or strange; explain instead that it means wholly beyond the ordinary and the self.
- Describes the numinous as purely rational and conceptual; recognise instead that Otto stresses its non-rational, felt character.
- Lists 'personal' as one of James's marks; replace it with ineffability, which is the first mark James gives.
- Treats noetic quality as emotional warmth; correct this by explaining that it concerns apparent insight or knowledge.
- Confuses Stace's non-intellectual element with irrationality; clarify that it means no discursive reasoning is occurring, not that the experience is illogical.
- Attributes Stace's account of union to James; keep the two thinkers separate, since James classifies features while Stace analyses union.
- Lists challenges without weighing responses; balance each challenge against a reply and judge.
- Treats verification as simple proof; discuss degrees of support and the limits of checking private experience.
- Ignores conflicting reports; use disagreement across traditions as evidence in the argument.
- Treats all scientific challenges as one argument; separate neurological, psychological and naturalist challenges and state the evidence each uses.
- Assumes that explaining a mechanism disproves the religious claim; assess whether mechanism and claimed cause can coexist.
- Ignores the verificationist and falsificationist dimension; include the question of what could count against an experience-claim.
- Rejects science outright instead of engaging with the specific challenge; respond to the argument actually made.
- Confuses correlation with causation; explain why a brain correlate does not automatically prove the brain is the sole cause.
- Offers only one response; present and weigh at least two distinct religious replies.
- Treats the principles as conclusive proofs of God; describe them instead as defeasible prima facie principles.
- Confuses the two principles; keep credulity for one's own experience and testimony for others' reports.
- Ignores the 'absent special considerations' clause; include the defeating conditions in the account.
- Asserts that experience proves God without addressing verification; weigh the evidential problems instead.
- Lists influences without evaluating their value for faith; add assessment of strengths and limitations.
- Ignores the role of interpretation; explain how prior beliefs can shape what an experience is taken to mean.