International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences 2013 Available online at www.irjabs.com ISSN 2251-838X / Vol, 4 (2): 457-464 Science Explorer Publications An Investigation and Analysis of Religious Experience Argument Put Forward by Friedrich Schleiermacher Valiollah Khoshtinat 1, Akram Askarzadeh Mazraee, Mohammad Ghaffari 3 1. Assistant Professor and faculty member, Department of Theology and Islamic Sciences, Payame Noor University (PNU), I.R, Iran 2. Religion Philosophy PHD Student, Payame Noor University, Mohaghegh Ardabili University 3. Faculty member, Department of Theology and Islamic Sciences, Payame Noor University (PNU), I.R, Iran. Corresponding author: Valiollah Khoshtinat ABSTRACT: Religious experience argument introduced by Friedrich Schleiermacher results from the dominant law on the relationship between god and humans in Christianity. Religious experience argument is formed in accordance with Christianity s definition of god s relationship with humans. As Schleiermacher believes, because this argument is based on religious experience rooted in sensation, it is fault-free (infallible). Yet, as ontological argument, this argument has reached rational affirmation of god s existence from god s concept. Religious experience results into knowledge, a knowledge in forming of which, non-epistemological factors such as pragmatic, psychological and sociological factors are influential and that becomes substantiated by rational justifications in foundationalism tradition. Understanding the causality and creativity relationships is abstract and rational. Against what is claimed, basics and fundamentals of religious experience argument are not fault-free and like all rational and empirical beliefs are subject to fault. Although the scope of religious belief formation in religious experience is outside intellect and action, it doesn t go higher or beyond interference by intellect and action. Keywords: religious belief experience, Schleiermacher, ontological experience, knowledge, intellect, sensation INTRODUCTION Scholastic and deist thinkers of 17 th and 18 th centuries had presented ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments to justify religious beliefs based on rational and empirical proofs. These arguments were undermined by Kant and Hume. Friedrich Schleiermacher, influenced by Kant, believed in the limitations of intellect. Hence, he puts forward the religious belief argument to justify religious beliefs on the basis of humans experience. He tries to stretch the realm of religion beyond intellect and take it away from the realm of theory and action. He sets the element of religious experience in religion as the basis of his deduction. The basis of religion is set on a moment of experience that is religious by nature. In his perspective, religion does not mean religious beliefs and a series of religious rituals or actions (Proudfoot 2004). It is of the same type of sensation. It is a mere dependence or self-conscience of the existence absolutely dependent on a power or origin distinct from the world. This is an intuitive experience, independent of concepts, imaginations, and beliefs or actions. This is also a kind of sensation that goes beyond conceptual distinctions (Abasi, 2007) and (Peterson, Husker et al, p.41). Schleiermacher considers the experience resulted from intuition as inexpressible (Ghanbari 2007). Nature of religion, religious experience and religiousness, enjoying religious experience or sense-perception are infinite things and the sense of absolute dependence on the infinite thing. This is not a sense of excitement or zeal but a kind of immediate religious self-conscience (Kung 2000). Religion is neither an acquired nor a teachable thing; yet, it is an inborn talent or genius for humans (Ghanbari 2007).This is a common sense reachable for all humans (Abasi, 2007).
To delineate the nature of religion and religiousness in Schleiermacher s perspective, we first discuss the epistemology of religious experience and determine whether it has a basis different from rational arguments or not, then consider the intuitive, innate and acquired nature of religious experience. Epistemological fundamentals of religious experience argument The main emphasis of this section is on investigating epistemological fundamentals of religious experience argument based on Friedrich Schleiermacher s opinions. Theories regarding belief justification are divided into two categories of subjectivism and objectivism. Historically, as of Plato s time up to now, most of epistemologists have been introversive. Based on these theories, there should be a reason for every belief that justifies that belief or paves the way for it. Belief justification might happen based on sense-perception, memory report, sensations, witnesses or a deduction of all beliefs and this happens while we are conscious of all reasons and backgrounds of our belief and have voluntary control over acquiring our beliefs (Puyman 2008). Foundationalism and coherentism are the two main groups of introversion viewpoint. Based on traditional foundationalists viewpoint, epistemic justification is a longitudinal and hierarchical system in which some beliefs or propositions are base and self-justifying and other beliefs or propositions in case be deducted from base beliefs and propositions are justified. Base propositions are immediately considered as knowledge and deducted propositions are so through mediums. In this viewpoint, we can be favored with non-deducted knowledge on which other types of our knowledge are based (Puyman 2008). As some of foundatioalists hold, if there are not enough epistemic reasons for justifying a belief, non-epistemic reasons such as prudential and indeterminist reasons can justify true beliefs in god (Abasian 2007) Many of the approaches justifying religious beliefs have tried to justify these beliefs on the basis of epistemic reasons and considering religious beliefs as the foundation. Ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments that use rational and epistemic witnesses to justify beliefs are from among this category. We will discuss religious experience in the next parts. Objectivists pay attention to the role of non-epistemological factors in forming the true belief. They believed, as far as a belief is confirmed through a reliable process, it is considered justified (Puyman 2008). From among the main objectivist approaches, one can name virtue-centered reliabilism and textualism. Based on the most famous narration of reliabilism, beliefs are true and justifiable when produced by a reliable process. A reliable process consists of a series of factors that are mainly outside the individual s conscience and access and typically produces true beliefs(abasian 2007). There is no need for the individual to argue for his belief; just as the beliefs are formed through a reliable process, the individual has knowledge of what he truly recalls (Puyman 2008). If the individual s belief is formed by a suitable cause, he has justification for it, whether he attains that cause or not (Puyman 2008). Virtue-centered reliabilism emphasizes those attributes that most probably provide more truth (Puyman 2008). Virtue epistemology includes those theories in epistemology that analyze fundamental epistemic concepts such as justification and knowledge based on individuals personality, not beliefs and emphasize individuals characteristics, power or physical processes. Attention is paid to the belief owner rather than belief itself. According to textualism theory, knowledge depends on text or background, conditions and status of affairs and the acquired knowledge changes upon the changes of text and state of affairs (Abasian, 2007). Schleiermacher describes religious experience as sensing or knowing something and considers content for it that is describable just in propositional words (Puyman, 2008). The feeling of absolute dependence or selfconscience is regarded as an absolutely dependent creature (Abasi) and (Mahdavi Nejad, 2003).This is not a rational experience but an intuitive one whose reliability is self-standing (Peterson, Husker et al., 2000). And this feeling that is the deeper origin of religion necessitates that, philosophical and theological meditations be secondary results and consequences of experience. If there is no religious experience, divine sciences or religious philosophies won t be introduced (Peterson, Husker et al 2000). The nature of religion is not thought nor action, but it is intuition and sense. In other words, religious experience is the principle element of religion that is not rooted in thought; yet, it deals with sensation and taste (Ghanbari, 2007). Religious experience is a kind of awareness of the absolute dependence; hence, it can be said that is has an epistemic constituent. A kind of awareness not originated by intellect; yet, it is sensation, intuition or internal encountering with the infinite thing (Ghanbari, 2007). It is awareness when it possesses epistemic value (Proudfoot, 2004). Religiousness occurs when we genuinely perceive god in our feelings. Then religious selfconsciousness includes an epistemic constituent (Proudfoot, 2004). It is an immediate thing and beyond whatever fault or misinterpretation (Proudfoot, 2004). Therefore, Schleiermacher, more than anybody else, confesses to believing in the basicness of religious experience for religious belief and proving god s existence (Abasi, 2007). Regardless of correctness of Schleiermacher s claim as
regards his definition, religious experience has two attributes of immediate religious consciousness, independent of thought and including an intuitive element. One can say, he believes in basic, faultless and evident nature of religious experience. He also regards other rational religious beliefs such as philosophy and theology as secondary and results of religious experience being based on this experience. Like traditional foundationalists, he considers some of religious beliefs basic, evident and faultless needing no proof or argument from which other religious beliefs are deducted. If we consider his words with no analysis, he believes in traditional foundationalism with the difference that primary and evident principles don t result from theoretical and rational intuition; yet, they are sensational intuitions and of the class of emotions proving other beliefs. They also make them happen. Religious rational propositions and beliefs are descriptors of religious experiences. Religious experiences are independent of beliefs, yet they are expressed in the framework of beliefs and actions (Proudfoot, 2004). Secondary beliefs are founded on the basis of a kind of direct knowledge (Proudfoot, 2004). Those humans who have possessed religious sensations and intuitions, express those sensations and beliefs for those not having found those intuitions immediately because they want to share their intuitions. Yet as these concepts are related to the innermost constituent of humanity, they are not realized through conversation. The transfer of religious beliefs must occur in a more excellent manner and those possessing these intuitions should only talk to those who are more elevated(ghanbari, 2007) We deduce from the words of Schleiermacher saying, not anybody acquires these religious intuitions; they are related to those humans who are at the highest stages of humanity. As he believes, humanity is an especial kind of behavior being established among humans and religion becomes manifest in this kind of humanity relationship (Ghanbari, 2007). The acquiring of intuitions occurs through a process he construes as humanity, an individual must possess humanity or the highest status of humans, if he wants to reach religious intuitions. Religious experience that is a fault-free intuition and the knowledge resulted from it is evident and basic should be acquired though a reliable process. It is in the reliable process that basic and genuine intuitions are resulted from the infinite thing as well as the internal encountering with that; and also the religious beliefs resulted from those intuitions are expressed in the form of descriptive propositions. Especial outlook of Schleiermacher regarding humanity and intuition of the infinite thing as well as fault-free knowledge can be deemed conforming to Vosugh Geraee theory. In Vosugh Geraaee outlook, knowledge and belief are true as they are resulted from a reliable process. It doesn t need justification and the reliability of knowledge process justifies its truth. As Schleiermacher holds, religious experience is a direct confrontation occurred in humanity process, between human being and the infinite thing. The resulted knowledge and religious belief are deemed faultless; therefore, for the knower who has been in direct confrontation with that reality, it can be assured. Stephan Catus believes that religious experience happens to an individual who might be under the supervision of guiders and masters in an especial gnostic tradition and acquire the genuine gnostic insight through the methods and creeds the master inspires. As the guider believes, moving the path to acquiring gnostic experience is the same reliable process of acquiring a true belief with no need of the rational justification intended by Vosugh Gerayan. And as regards the definition of humanity presented by Schleiermacher, we can deduce that through this path to acquiring gnostic experience, the theosophist attains to the humanity intended by Schleiermacher and this is the same as acquiring sensual virtues that is intended by epistemologists in virtue-centered reliabilism. Virtue-centered reliabilism considers justified a belief that can be reliable and justifiable, not through rational reasons but for nonepistemological reasons beyond the content of belief. Schleiermacher doesn t consider religious experience reliable and faultless through rational explication and putting forward argument; yet, he considers religious experience as reliable and true, as a result of internal, immediate and direct confrontation with the infinite thing, attained by an individual enjoying humanity. The method of justifying rational religious philosophical and theological beliefs deduced from basic and evident religious experiences is close to the method of epistemological justification of traditional epistemologists and religious experience resulted form humanity process close to the epistemological justification theory of subjectivists is similar to the perspectives of virtue-centered reliabilists. On the other hand, he confesses to the effectiveness of these intuitions and says religion is in a way that belongs to a really humane life and it should always be active and effective (Ghanbari, 2007). This effectiveness can be understood in his words as to humans creation narration as he believes humanity is a special behavior established among all people and this humane relationship is the subject of religion and religion intends to see the infinite thing, its manifestation and signs in humanity (Ghanbari, 2007). Therefore, humanity that is rooted in behavior will be the effects of mystical intuition on humans behavior and action in the humane relationship. As we already mentioned, intuition and perception of the infinite thing happens for an individual who is in the highest stages of humanity and also expressions of the owners of intuition and religious experience will be understood by those who have attained to the highest humane stages. It is also said that religiousness means intuition of the world and the value of religion depends on the intuition method (Ghanbari, 2007). As we know, most of spiritual wayfaring of theosophists that is under supervision of masters and guiders is practical and rooted in
action. Hence, one can result that truth and reliability of religious experience is based on pragmatic basics of truth and its effects are rooted in action. Therefore, Schleiermacher religious experience, as William James, includes pragmatic truth. In the 6 th oration, Schleiermacher talks of multiplicity of religions. The intuition rooted in religion has different forms for humans and considers the essence of religion a multipliable fact that should enjoy a kind of individuation. Different religions are finite forms of religion essence. In this regard, Hans Kung says, as Schleiermacher holds, an infinite fact is not per se understandable in the abstract form; yet, it is always understandable in the finite fact and manifests in various forms (Ghanbari, 2007) Religion has an appearance and an inner part. Positive religions are apparent and finite forms of the infinite religion (Kung, 2000). Steven Ketz claims that all religious experiences are mediated and are strongly determinate by social environment of religion and theosophist enters all concepts, forms, symbols and values into his experience (Ketz, 2004). Religious experiences as to the divine creature are notably different, i.e. Jesus, Krishina, Brahman and theosophists have varied and plural intuitive perceptions of religion essence. The speaker s duty is describing and regulating religious emotions in a special society. Reliability of each theological claim must be searched in the emotions of religious society (Proudfoot, 2004). And these theological claims are based on religious experiences and emotions as well as internal confrontation with the infinite thing. Religious descriptions are religious thoughts, and expressers of these reports and descriptions are familiar with religious emotions (Proudfoot, 2004).Religious teaching is the manifestation of emotional element that is formed with traditions (Abasi, 2007). Schleiermacher believes religious experiences are perceived in a multiple form. Religion essence that is the infinite fact turns into intuitive perception by individuals in infinite religious forms. Therefore, religious experiences are basically multiple. The background, text and social conditions in which the theosophist lives is the finite framework in which the infinite fact is intuited and perceived by the theosophist. The value of intuition also differs upon the variety of intuitive methods through which the theosophist intuits the infinite fact. The value of religion also depends on the value of intuition (Ghanbari, 2007).The intuition based on religion has different forms for different individuals. Multiplicity and variety of the external church is also a necessary fact. As Schleiermacher holds, the existing religions are symbols and manifestations of real religion and as a human is a finite thing, he intuits religion that is an infinite thing finitely; therefore, nobody can claim to have a perfect religion (Ghanbari, 2007). Schleiermacher s consideration of the effects of religious traditions, intuition, collection of intuitions in a way that multiple intuitions create multiple and finite religions and assessment of the reliability of the intuitions in a special society in which intuitions are formed, admits to the effects and conditions of the creation of conscience in the knower. His viewpoint looks like that of the textualists that upon the changes of text and conditions, the knowledge attained starts changing. This indicates Schleiermacher s consideration of the effects of external and sociological elements on belief. So far, we dealt with the analysis of epistemological basics of religious experience as held by Schleiermacher, regardless of investigating the correctness of his viewpoints. Analysis of religious experience argument to ontological argument To prevent conflict between religion and knowledge and review religion by rational basics, Schleiermacher introduces religious experience argument to prove god s existence and justify religious beliefs. Those arguments that had justified belief in god s existence through rational and empirical proofs had been criticized by some thinkers such as Kant and Hume; then, truth and justification of religious beliefs had been questioned. Schleiermacher tried to prove the belief in god s existence through an argument so as not to be judged and invalidated by other types of knowledge. He believes that the nature of religion is not thought and action, yet it is intuition and sensation. Basic element of religion is religious experience that deals with feeling and intuition. It is the feeling of absolute and integrated dependence on a distinct origin or power in the world. This intuitive experience is independent of concepts, imaginations and actions and its reliability is selfcontained, because it is the immediate perception of infinite fact and the feeling of dependence on it. This is a sensational and emotional experience, not epistemic. The feeling of infinity or absolute dependence for the empiricist is the result of inference, not presupposing beliefs. Reports empiricist presents about religious experience are descriptive, not theoretical. Religious experience becomes immediately realized and is just perceivable through direct conscience. Hence, descriptive reports cannot be expressive of the reality of religious experience. Religious experience is independent and reports of the religious moment depend on concepts, beliefs and actions. Although religious experience is expressed in the form of beliefs and actions, it is not created by words and concepts. Descriptive propositions don t establish religious experience (Proudfoot, 2004). To acquire this experience, every person should individually experience and intuit this perception. As Rudolf Otto believes, this
specified physical status is understandable only through creating experience in the knower (Otto 1957, p.7). Everybody who intends to describe religious experience should use emotional language. Following Schleiermacher, Otto says emotional language is admonitory. Recent researches of psychologists and philosophers of mind have proven that feelings and emotions depend on a series of beliefs and language grammar rules and as Schleiermacher and Oto say, internal emotions and feelings are not simple but depend on the presence of concepts and imaginations. Kant believes that we don t have direct perception of the object of our experiences and perceive empirical realities through forms of sensation and mental categories. Memory plays an important role in our perception and knowledge of external realities. Schleiermacher tries to introduce a realm in human s being in which a human is in direct touch with the external fact and mental categories don t interfere with perception. In recent centuries, objectivist epistemologists have proven that humans sciences are under the effects of psychological, sociological and pragmatic factors and these non-epistemological factors are influential in the formation of beliefs. Humans cannot free themselves from these causal conditions. Schleiermacher s view regarding multiplicity of intuition forms approves this opinion. He believes humans are infinite creatures who experience the infinite fact in symbols and manifestations of different religions, none of whom being favored with a perfect real religion for their finiteness. Religious experience is the independent and immediate conscience including an intuitive element that is the object of that infinite being (Proudfoot, 2004). Otto criticizes Schleiermacher arguing he has not perceived the important element of religious experience because the feeling of being a creature and dependence on another fact can be understood deductively (Mahdavi Nejad, 2003, p.289). Schleiermacher s perspective indicating that religious experience means the feeling of absolute dependence on the infinite fact depends on the proposition that the empiricist be conscious of his distinction from the infinite fact and this dependency feeling that is the very understanding of being creature or creator between the infinite fact and oneself is emanated from the causal relationship and deduction is done by intellect. In religious experience, intellect is actively present and the result shall be rational deduction. According to Schleiermacher s perspective, experience takes precedence over concepts and beliefs, yet it describes the religious moment using the concept of god, infinite and unlimited fact. He defines religious experience through referring to these concepts and he also regards experience as god s deed. He also asserts that the belief in the existence of experience cause and also the using of the concept of god are included in the definition of experience (Proudfoot, 2004). It means the empiricist possesses a special belief through which, he defines experience. In explicating experience, the individual s beliefs and faith interfere and from the viewpoint of beliefs, the infinite fact becomes experienced and also multiple and varied experiences are reported. Sensations and emotions possess object and the relationship between sensation and its object is logical and conceptual (Proudfoot, 2004). Aristotle believes that concepts and judgments make sensations and sensations cannot be explained in conflict with ration and will. Psychologists and philosophers such as objectivist epistemologists have recently criticized those theories considering sensations independent of epistemic prepositions. Aristotle believes, the defining of psychological moods depends on referring to their object, as Schleiermacher defines both sensation and intuition with regard to their objects and considers their relationship as absolute dependence. Aristotle also believes there should be a causal presupposition and a special belief as regards the relationship between sensation and its object so as to be able to talk about sensations, emotions and their causes. As a result, there is an element of knowledge, concept and beliefs in sensations. Religious experience is considered as religious from the perspective of its agent (Proudfoot, 2004). Then religious experiences are perceived by the knower of those religious experiences and another individual might not perceive them as religious. Then it becomes clear that describing the object as religious depends on the feeling and perception of the knower, not the occurrence or event. In order of differentiating religious sensations and emotions from other emotions such as sadness, happiness etc., Schleiermacher says, religious sensation is distinct from other sensations because its content is about absolute dependence and reliance (Proudfoot, 2004). On the other side, differentiating religious sensation from other emotions depends on its epistemic element i.e. the content and object of the sensation. We already mentioned that understanding the relationship between the object of sensation and sensation has a conceptual and logical nature and the agent of experience regards that object the cause of his sensation with regard to the presuppositions and beliefs he has is his mind regarding that object. On the other side, the individual differentiates between religious sensations and emotions from some emotions such as sadness and happiness and defines them distinctly. In differentiating the two sensations, there should be a general notion of the nature of the two sensations so as to be able to differentiate between them even if they are of the same type. General notions are rational and
subjective concepts. Differentiation is the duty of intellect. Stephen Kates believes that no experience is achieved without the mediation of concepts and beliefs. Even the knowledge of the self that is an intuitive experience is resulted from deduction(peterson Husker et al., 2000). Based on the issues discussed, we can result that religious experiences as Schleiermacher believes is not void of intellect and thought; yet, sensations possess a conceptual element and empiricist beliefs, notions and presuppositions influence what experience does. On the other hand, Schleiermacher configured the religious experience argument so as to be able to move it off the realm of intellect and interference of beliefs, notions and concepts so as not to be criticized by science; yet, with regard to what said, we understand that it doesn t have that attribute and this argument like the ontological argument starts with the concept of god and proves god s existence in the exterior because as we said before, understanding the dependence relationship between self and the infinite thing depends on some beliefs and notions regarding god. In reality, prior to experience, we have knowledge of god and we are also conscious of our distinction with him. Yet we consider this relationship a causal one and experience religious sensation in the framework of the beliefs and notions of ourselves. Hence, religious experience argument like ontological argument is based on the subjective notion of god. As Schleiermacher says, descriptive reports of these experiences such as philosophy and theology are rational being created by religious experiences. So, in expressing these experiences which are the very descriptive reports, we use rational explication. Like ontological argument, it uses rational explication to prove god s existence in the exterior from the concept of god s notion. Also understanding the relationship between creator and creature and the causal relationship is a rational inference. Investigation and review of religious experience Schleiermacher describes religious experience as an immediate and faultless fact and beyond any misinterpretation. He emphasizes a kind of intuition that is immune from whatever kind of faults and misinterpretation. He asserts, the feeling of absolute dependence on the infinite fact is produced by no mental form nor by any prior knowledge of god. Religious conscience means believing in the fact that the cause of the existence of the god and world is an infinite thing apart from the world. That is a feeling that humans and world are reliant on a power other than the world. The relationship between humans with the infinite fact is absolute and complete (Proudfoot, 2004). Although being perceivable only through familiarity and acquaintanceship, this is a general and global element being assessable to all humans (Abasi, 2007). From the most important methods of knowing humans, one can refer to intuition and revelation. Intuition and revelation mean we acquire the knowledge of realities as they are, without using notions and mental forms. In this case, there would be an intuitive knowledge. Philosophers have regarded the words intuition, revelation and intuitive knowledge synonymous. Theosophists believe that apart from sensations and intellect, there are other ways of acquiring knowledge, namely intuition and revelation. Through intellect, one cannot acquire true knowledge of the facts and objects. Intuition is a state beyond the state of intellect. Intuitive perception like sense-perception is a personal affair and everybody only perceives an experience personally imparted to him. Through spiritual wayfaring and practical mysticism, theosophist can reach a stage to acquire knowledge of realities though intuitive perception (Hussein Zadeh, 2006). Muslim philosophers applied teachings of intuitive science in philosophy under the influence of mysticism. It was, yet, different from mystical intuition. Mystical intuitive experience is produced by asceticism, but not for everybody. Yet intuitive knowledge is general and innate in philosophy and doesn t need self-purification (Hussein Zadeh, 2006). Avicenna believes that a human s knowledge of his ego is intuitive knowledge. Rational soul perceives itself without the mediation of perceptual instrument (Avecinna, 2006) Allameh Tabatabaee believes that the realization of an ontological cause for its effect and the dependence of the knowable being on the knower that is the same as the causality relationship are from among the instances of intuitive knowledge (Hussein Zadeh, 2006). As stated in Shafa, intuitive knowledge will be acquired for the self when the abstract form of an object is present by the side of the perceiver (Avecinna2006, p. 327). Sheikh Shahab Aldine Sohrvardi considers the knowledge of essence of essence, god s knowledge of what other than god, human s knowledge of his perceptual and impulsive faculties, human s knowledge of his mental forms, human s knowledge of animate moods and passions such as perceiving pain as intuitive knowledge (Sohrvardi, 1994). In Sheikh Eshragh s viewpoint, human s knowledge of the objective form or external being of the object is considered as intuitive knowledge. For intuitive knowledge to be realized, in Avicenna s perspective, both perceiver and the perceived must be abstract. In Sheikh Eshragh s perspective, abstractness of the perceived is not a prerequisite but abstractness of the perceiver is a prerequisite for the realization of intuitive knowledge (Hussein Zadeh, 2006). Other criteria presented by philosophers and the sages for intuitive knowledge is intuitive unity and connection. And intuitive knowledge, unity and connection don t happen only through the presence of an object by the side of another object. For intuitive connection and unity between two objects, both Avicenna and Sheikh Eshragh believe
that perceiver must be abstract, yet the existence of perceiver must not depend on else or its existence in itself must not be the very being in the place. In this condition, if abstract affairs connect to the knowable and the knowable might be present by their side, intuitive knowledge will form (Hussein Zadeh, 2006). Allameh Tabatabaee regards unity as the source of the presence of the knowable by the side of the knower and from among the types of unity refers to the causal relationship between the knowable and the knower and also the realization of ontological cause for its knowable. Sadrol Motaahelin also regards the knowledge of the effect of its cause as an intuitive knowledge and also considers causal relationship as its source (Hussein zadeh, 2006) To sum up the abovementioned expressions, one can say that intuitive knowledge becomes realized when the knower is abstract, selfexistent and the reality is knowable or it is a being or is one of the stages of being, or the knower is one of the being stages of the reality of the knowable (Hussein Zadeh, 2006). Now if we want to assess Schleiermacher s perspective on the quality of conscience in religious experience, we find out that he regards it of the same nature as human sensations and emotions that is realized through intuition and revelation for humans; besides, it is a personal experience generally reachable for humans. Mystical experiences realized through revelation occur after spiritual wayfaring and practical mysticism. In Schleiermacher s words, such attributes are not mentioned. As believed by Islamic philosophers, mysticism and intuition are devoted to the elites and are not reachable to all, while Schleiermacher believes they are reachable for everybody. He also describes this religious feeling as the feeling of absolute dependence on the infinite fact that is the causal relationship between human and his creator. Islamic philosophers also regarded the knowledge of effect of its cause as one of the types of intuitive knowledge. What Schleiermacher defines regarding religious experience is similar to the philosophers perspective on intuitive knowledge rather than what mystics regard as revelation and intuition. Yet of course, inexpressibility and interpretative nature of propositions of the acquired knowledge that is indicative of mystical experience is similar to the mystics perspective regarding mystical experience and its inexpressibility. Infallibility of the intuitive knowledge intended by the philosophers is questionable as they regard human s knowledge of his self and animate states infallible and as a part of intuitive knowledge, while we see many people make mistakes regarding knowing themselves or they realize the object of their pains, sadness or anger by mistake; hence, humans emotions and sensations as well as human s knowledge of himself is fallible. Also infallibility of mystical intuition and revelation is questionable as for many times what a mystic experiences might not be divinely inspired but it might be inspired by satanic thoughts and the mystic might regard it as mystical experience by mistake. Therefore, it is recommended that spiritual wayfaring happen under the supervision of a guider. Feeling poverty and causal relationship between the creator and the creature and also between the cause and effect and knowledge of animate states such as emotions and sensations are from the instances intended by philosophers. They don t talk of such a revelation or intuition as a mystic experience needing spiritual wayfaring as Schleiermacher considers it reachable for all. Of course the feeling of poverty, dependence, causal relationship and also intuition is personal that the empiricist should experience it, not being acquirable and realizable through being described by propositions. Neither mystical intuition nor intuitive knowledge is infallible as humans are fallible as to their knowledge of animate states, their knowledge of self and their mystical revelations. In Islamic philosophy, intuitive knowledge is considered innate meaning that humans possess a degree of knowledge while born, being acquired without mediation of mental concepts and forms. And a human s knowledge of his animate states and passions and perceptual faculties is of this kind of knowledge (Hussein Zadeh, 2006). Schleiermacher relates the way religion has emerged and formed to the innermost parts of human s nature arguing that this intuitive nature is not teachable (Ghanbari, 2007). If as expressed by Schleiermacher that the forming of religion in us is innate and if religiousness means possessing religious experience of causal relationship and perceiving one s self as an absolutely dependent being, then this knowledge can be considered as the innate knowledge intended by the sages being considered as a part of human s types of knowledge while born. CONCLUSION The epistemic model, in which the religious experience argument is introduced, as against what appears, isn t merely epistemological foundationalism, because in foundationalism, unjustified religious beliefs must be justified using basic and evident beliefs and they should be justifying per se. Yet the fundamental, basic and evident introduction of religious experience argument that is of the type of revelation and intuition is not quite evident and infallible because what Schleiermacher expresses about revelation and intuition is more like the intuitive knowledge intended by the sages and philosophers, not being infallible. Also in religious experience argument, against its appearance, the effects of non-epistemological factors such as pragmatic, psychological and sociological factors have been taken into account. Religious experiences are expressed in different forms
confirming the effects of presuppositions, society, text as well as the knower s psychological and social conditions on forming religious experience. It is also a pragmatic argument that, against Schleiermacher s claim, considers it beyond thought and action. The spiritual wayfaring process for satisfying the requirements of revelation and intuition and its pragmatic result intended by Schleiermacher, all and all indicate the pragmatic nature of religious experience argument. Going through the stages of spiritual wayfaring alludes to the stages of virtue-centeredness stages in reliabilism and the spiritual wayfaring process is the reliable process of acquiring religious belief in reliabilism. Religious experience argument can be interpreted according to both subjectivism perspective and objectivism perspective. The epistemic objectivism system looks like the epistemic model of traditional foundationalism being comprised of the basic and evident belief resulted from religious experience and non-basic rational beliefs. Descriptive propositions of experience as well as non-basic rational and religious beliefs are justified based on religious experiences. Yet basic beliefs are self-justifying as being empirical. The epistemic objectivism system looks like the epistemic model of textualisn as it confirms non-epistemological effects such as sociological factors. It also looks like the epistemic virtue-centered reliabilism as it takes into account the reliable process of belief realization and considers some pragmatic factors such as humanity s effects on the assured religious belief, attainment of experience in humans relationship and the active role of religious experience in life, like virtue-centered reliabilists consideration of pragmatic elements. Regardless of its epistemological principles and against Schleiermacher s perspective, religious experience argument doesn t have essential difference with the ontological argument, as religious experiment is of the nature of knowledge and has a conceptual element. Religious experience argument, like ontological argument, starts from the concept of god and finally god s objective existence is proved in the external world. Against Schleiermacher s viewpoint, religious experience argument is not immune from the interference of human s beliefs, notions and concepts even though it is formed within the realm of emotions and sensations. Yet the realm of sensations is not immune from the interference of human s concepts, notions and psyche and sensations are formed through concepts. As concepts form sensation, god s concept is the rational prerequisite to the argument. As expressed by Schleiermacher, what differentiates religious experience argument from ontological argument is its non-deductive nature, while the contrary was proven. If religious experience is the creator and creature relationship as Schleiermacher believes, it will be a causal relationship resulted by deduction and the perception of cause and effects is an abstract perception. Hence, abstraction deals with intellect not revelation and intuition. REFERENCE Abasi V. 2007. Religious experience, religious belief and religious pluralism (3 rd year, vol.2 ). Kosar Maaref publications Abasian M. 2007. Practical basics of epistemology (3 rd year, vol.1). Hekmat and Marefat (journal) Anxali S. 2004. Language, epistemology and mysticism (by Stevens, K.). Qom: Iran s Islamic sciences inst. Ghanbari H. 2007. Religion and religiousness in Schleiermacher s theology. Andishe Dini quarterly. Shiraz University Hassanzadeh Amoli H. 1996. Avicenna Alesharat and Altanbihat. Qom: Alalam Eslami publications Hussein zadeh M. 2006. Intuitive knowledge, philosophical knowledge, no. 13 Kung H. 2000. Great Christian Thinkers, Continuum. Mehdi Nejad H. 2003. Pictorial theory of language with an emphasis on its epistemological requirements (vol1). Nameh Hekmat Muhammad Zadeh R. 2008. Epistemology: an introduction to the cognition theory (by Puyman Luee pi).tehran: Imam Sadegh University. Otto R. 1958. The Idea Of The Holy, Trans J.W.Harvey, New York: Oxford University Press, Rotledge Enc, 709, pp: 617-618. Sohrvardee S. 1994. Hekmat Aleshragh: Collection of Monsefate Shekhol Eshragh (vol.2). Tehran: Islamic sciences and cultural studies research center. Yazadini A. 1998. Religious experience (by Pradofut Vin). Qom: Ketab Taha