First, because the traditional Christian theologies take religious experience in general to be a universal facet of common human existence.

Second, bringing Special Revelation, i.e. the Bible into this, is in no obvious way circular or unwarranted, since the entire book is a collection of peoples claims to religious experiences.

“To exclude the religious experiences of the people in the Bible from a discussion of religious experience, especially in the West, where we happen to be, and in the cultural climate in which we live, seems irrational and unnecessarily prejudicial, as they are without question the most influential set of claimed religious experiences in the history of the world. (There are other traditions of course but the Hebrew tradition is probably the most influential.)

It seems to imply that we should exclude the primary influence in the field of study to focus on minor or secondary sources. Or on sources, that have certain kinds of presumptions or parameters for what will be considered as evidence that preclude the possibility of sincerely investigating the subject matter (philosophy, the hard sciences). The religious experiences included in scripture don’t seem to be any more irrelevant to the discussion than anyone else’s, and we have great reason to believe that they are more relevant because of their history, influence, their effect on those who study these things and the society in general. To leave them out might even show a glaring incapacity to objectively examine the issues involved.” Neiswonger.

As to the question, religious claims that arise from religious experience can then be said to be competing. They are irreconcilable and thus irreducible to each other. If there is truth in one, the others are false. To look into each for coherence and logical suitability in the light of their claims to authenticity seems reasonable. To examine each in reference to the claims of history places each on a separate footing. They are measurable against each other so to speak and against reason severally.

If the scriptures of Judaism, restricted to the Old Testament, are true, then not only are the scriptures of Christianity the inheritors of the culminating tradition found in the Hebrew scriptures, but Modern Judaism seems to be at odds with both. If the Jesus of the New Testament is the Messiah of the Old Testament, and Christianity is Old Testament theology brought into its fullness and mature depth, then a Judaism that progresses differently, or to the exclusion of the pre-existing lineage found already in the scriptures, could not be a true religion but only a religion that makes claims to an originality that cannot be found. I’m not presenting arguments here but showing how such would be done. This is also the way it was done by the Apostle Paul.

i.e. If the Hebrew scriptures are true, then Judaism is not.

Islam suffers from the worse fate of being irreconcilable with the entire scope of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and so because it claims to be the inheritor of the teachings of the Prophets, and the Christ, fails the test of sincerity and authenticity when examined in the light of the teachings of the Prophets and the Christ they claim. This might have been an easier tactic when the Islamic apologists could claim that the Christian and Jewish scriptures had been corrupted, but since we now have copies of many manuscripts that predate the proposed coming of the Koran and are found to be completely reconcilable with the modern copies of the Holy Scriptures, the only cogent answer is that the Koran is not reconcilable with the tradition it claims, and thus, false.

Ie, they cannot claim the law and the Prophets and then be irreconcilable with the Law and the Prophets. What you claim as an authority gets to judge you. So be careful what you claim as an authority.

But these are just rationalistic arguments from history and evidence that lead to highly probable, and I think, inevitable conclusions. All of this is beyond the scope of the blog really.

The purpose of the blog is just to say that a Christian is not being tricky, or irrational, or unfair, by referring to their religious experience in their estimation of the existence of God. It would take more arguments than these to establish a direct identity of the God we have then known, and to a degree, they were left out on purpose for the sake of focus.

All the best,

Christopher

“Christian theology validates the fact of religious experience but not the truthfulness or goodness of the religious experience itself, nor the effect that seems to be caused by the experience.”

Well put from a theistic perspective. However, a Muslim or Jew could also say that they have had a genuine religious experience and that this experience is validated by their scriptures. So how do you KNOW your theology or scripture is superior to the Muslim or Jew? What do you use as a method for determining the superiority of your own scriptures?