Abstract
Harold A. Netland attempts to establish epistemological implications of religious experience as the source of divine knowledge by discussing the epistemological issues relating to theistic experiences in Christian tradition in his book, Religious experiences and the Knowledge of God: The Evidential Force of Divine Encounters. As a professor of philosophy of religion and intercultural studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Netland takes the philosophical route to establish the veridicality of religious experience as a basis of belief in God with an apologetic tone.
In Chapter 1, the author defines, religious experience is an experience that carries religious significance and in Chapter 2, classifies them as hard and soft religious experience. Hard religious experience is devoid of any natural explanation, while soft religious experience comes with ambiguity, and they occur in historical and social settings for which background beliefs of the individual play a vital role in interpreting. In Chapter 3, Netland presents the critical-trust approach to determine the veridicality of religious experience across religious traditions. The critical-trust approach considers background beliefs, values, and expectations in determining reality. By critically analysing the positions of Swinburne, Yandell, and Alston, Netland claims the critical-trust approach is appropriate for determining the authenticity of religious experience. In the following chapter, he analyses the approaches of Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley, who emphasise the role of the Holy Spirit and spiritual self in Christian experience. In Chapter 5, he analyses the approaches of Alvin Plantinga and William Craig, who claim that basic beliefs of Christian tradition are self-authentic, because they are caused by the Holy Spirit and are independent of reasons; Netland observes that such an approach cannot accommodate religious diversity. He analyses, in Chapter 6, the approaches of William James and Rudolf Otto to mystical experience against the contemporary approach of constructivists that rejects the notion of a common core in mystical experience.
In Chapter 7, Netland affirms that his critical-trust approach is the suitable one to establish the veridicality of religious experience because “an experience of God can be accepted as such, provided there are no compelling reasons to conclude otherwise. Similarly, a report about an alleged experience of God can be accepted as an accurate depiction of that experience unless there are good reasons to reject the report's reliability” (Chapter 7, Apple Book, 336). To establish the veridicality of religious experience, the author recommends, “tradition-dependent” checking process, which is based on the authority of a religious tradition. For Christianity, the scripture plays the role of the authority structure to assess the genuineness of a religious experience. Therefore, the critical-trust approach can validate a religious experience of the experienced and for others who hear about the religious experience as evidence for belief in God based on the authority of a religious tradition. Apologetically, to differentiate Christian religious experience from the religious experiences of other religious traditions, Netland adds natural theology as an additional tool to the critical-trust approach.
However, it is not clear how natural theology would cancel the truth claims of religious experience from other religious traditions which are based on the background beliefs of an individual, while validating the Christian religious experience. What constitutes background beliefs for a religious person is not defined and how false background beliefs can be differentiated from right background beliefs in a religious tradition is not discussed.
Netland mentions Muslims having visions of Jesus, but he has not elaborated on the irrelevance of background beliefs in such experiences. If religious experience is perceived and interpreted based on one's background beliefs, how Muslims see visions of Jesus and interpret it with Christian background beliefs is not clarified. A discussion on religious experience associated with religious conversion from one religion to another religion would offer more clarity in understanding the role of background beliefs. Such an analysis of empirical data on Christic visions would also throw more light on the unique nature of religious experience in Christian tradition. Therefore, the centrality of background beliefs in his critical-trust approach failed to clarify the religious experience in religious conversion.
Although the subject deals with highly complex and philosophical analysis, the author integrated theological, more specifically, evangelicals’ approach to spiritual experience and the role of the Holy Spirit in his analysis. This is rare among evangelical theologians in their apologetic repertoire. Netland has made this discussion on the evidential value of spiritual experience accessible to theological scholars with his simplistic approach without bothering the readers with philosophical terms and jargons, which demonstrates his command over the subject. His expertise is evident in his crisp summaries of the perspectives and in his analysis of them theologically by using the scripture.
The discussion on religious experience has been largely confined to the domain of philosophy, whereas Netland has brought this discussion to the domain of theology with this book. This title paves the way for theological scholars, more specifically evangelical scholars, to participate in this vital discussion. I believe this title will inspire evangelical scholars to explore religious experience/spiritual experiences in Christian tradition from an interdisciplinary approach by engaging philosophers and social scientists.
This title is a valuable resource for those who are interested in apologetics to argue that spiritual experiences can be a source of knowledge of God and for secularists, this offers a philosophical base to understand Christian spiritual experiences.
