Summary: The Varieties Of Religious Experience

Consider how far the work of scholars has helped give an understanding of religious experience.

In a study of 2,500 Finns, one in three (37%) said they had received help from God (Church Research Centre, 2001). Whatever you call this kind of encounter, it would be very difficult to even begin to discuss it at all without a language code to do so. Through “The Varieties of Religious Experience”, William James gave scholars a framework through which to discourse on religious experience. For example, one of James’ four characteristics of a mystical experience is ineffability, that Paul the Apostle’s religious experience transcends language. However, Pahnke’s features disagree. Alleged ineffability seems far more accurate, as Paul did speak of his experiences, using metaphor to share his conversion story through his epistles. Though the language has helped us to have a more tangible grasp on religious experiences, if those experiences were truly as ineffable as the characteristics claim, we would not be able to speak of them at all.
A discourse between the intimate differences that arise in religious experience provides the topic with a larger context, but it has reached the point of pure self involvement. The language seems more important than its use. The story of the blind men and the elephant, present in Jain, Hindu, Buddhist, and Sufi writings summarises the problem with the language of religious experience. The men are so concerned with talking about what part of the elephant they are holding that they do not see the elephant for what it actually is. Terms like ineffability, noetic quality, transciency, and passivity are defining religious experience into being something specific, rather than capturing its