There have been times when I've been overcome with a profound feeling that I grasp how it is my body's functioning in the world gives rise to my mind. However, because I'm generally skeptical about the value of epiphanies, I'm bound to regard my sense of understanding in this case as illusory.
Nonetheless, my epiphanic experience is epistemologically useful. In effect it is an independent argument against construing religious experience as veridical (just in case you feel you needed one). For my experience is religious in character: I feel a timeless sense of understanding, peace and awe before a certain picture of the world. If basing belief on religious experience is prima facie justified, then my experience epistemically should be taken at face value. But my experience is obviously irreconcilable with that of a Christian. At least one of us is wrong. Therefore, belief based on religious experience is not prima facie justified.
My presumably illusory experience is also useful in a more existential way. Time and time again we hear that the naturalistic view of the world depletes it of its majesty. But my naturalistic epiphany shows that whether one takes our ontology as majestic or awe-inspiring is entirely a matter of attitude. If you can't have the ontology you love, well, love the one you have.
Comments