Daniel J.

Pool

Philosophy of Religion

Dr. Simpson

September 21, 2010

The Psychology of Religious Experience;

False or True Memories

 Pool 2

The religious experience is a staple of belief for many people across time and faiths. It

has been argued by some, however, that these eyewitness reports of the metaphysical are not

proof for the existence of anything greater, but rather more evidence against any metaphysical

existence in general. To better understand religious experience and religion as a whole one

should examine the observers of religious experiences as well as the implications of

discrepancies in experiences.

First, is it possible to prove the existence of supreme beings through religious experience

alone? If the proof for religion is having a unique experience with a metaphysical being and a

pure faith belief in that experience then there is no way to objectively test the existence of a god1.

In fact Martin argues that the very fact that not everyone has had a religious experience and that

those experiences cannot be tested is evidence that god(s) do not exist (Peterson, Hasker,

Reichenbach, & Basinger, 2001, 52). Conversely others such as Westphal argue that any

experience, believed to be one by the observer, is one depending on certain conditions (56).

This begs the question then: what can we objectively test? The short answer available to

science now is the person. Whilst the experience of the divine (and “what-have-yous”) is

immeasurable to human knowledge, a person is not. Thompson and Hugh said it best, “Perceived

reality, not actual reality, is the key to understanding behavior. How we perceive others and

ourselves is at the root of our action and interactions…” (2002) or rather what one believes is

true to them, no matter what evidence one can supply, is their truth. So to root out why different

people report different experiences one should investigate how people construct their ideas, and

subsequently their beliefs.

1
Good work gentlemen, we can all go home happy that proof rests in the hands of god(s/what-have-yous).
 Pool 3

When a person has a religious experience they often report a feeling of oneness,

decentering, or humbleness to an Other (Peterson, et al, 2002, 57). This Other is a transcendent

being of “not-self” or universal belonging. Often an entity comes to the individual, such as Saint

Teresa’s experience of seeing or feeling Jesus near her (7), and imparts a change for the better

upon them.

While the vision of Jesus may be an illusion, trick, or lie—the change in behavior is

observable. Saint Teresa reports, “The soul is now a new creature…” (9) because of her change

in behavior. Psychologically it is understood at this point that she has undergone an experience,

whether it was genuine or not. What was her experience and how does it change how she acts?

Memory is formed through the conceptualization of experience (Porter, Bellhouse,

McDougall, Brinke, & Wilson, K. 2010). Because memory is constructed by the brain it is

malleable and susceptible to being formed incorrectly; our memory can be a lie. In several

studies, researchers constructed situations in which participants either were involved in a staged

crisis situation or saw images of one, such as the Loftus’ misinformation paradigm, and then

were asked to questions about the scene. More often than not they reported falsely.

These false memories often persisted and even became greater than any “planted”

memory (Steffens, & Mecklenbräuker, 2007). Piaget reported that for ten years he vividly

remembered his nanny fighting off an attempt to kidnap him from his home, however at fifth-

teen his nanny revealed the truth that the event never took place. For those ten years though he

could remember what the man looked like and how the two fought, yet it was just a story.

This is the troubling part of memory; it is what creates our reality and personality and—

more importantly—is not always trustworthy.

 Pool 4

The effect regularity of false memory increases as intensity of positive and negative

emotions and states rise (Porter, et al, 2010). In fact an individual during a crisis (or negative

state) will remember details much better than if at a resting state. These crisis state memories are

also the most likely to be falsified however. The reasoning behind why this would happen (as

contradictory as it sounds) is theorized to occur for practical surviving in the natural world—if

we remember something more vivid than the truth we will be more likely to be more polarized to

the event we experienced the emotion and recorded the memory.

This in mind; why should one even care about religious experiences at all? If the

experience is fake then our faith is fake. If the experience cannot be tested then it cannot be

proven. If the memory—false or not—made a change in behavior, however, then it is as

important if not more important than the reality.

If Saint Teresa had hopped down to the pub for a pint and billiards after seeing Christ

then it would be reasonable to say her experience was a hallucination or a lie. She says herself,

however, that the vision was genuine because, “…there is no peril in it, as it effects show that the

devil has no power over it…” (Peterson, et al, 2002, 9) or that nothing evil came of the change.

Again, to her it was real so it becomes truth for her. A lie that transcends reality is as important

and personal as any other religious experience real or imagined.

In conclusion religious experiences could be true or false, these experiences can be

implanted, but if the experience changes behavior they are important. No matter what an

individual is a witness to; if they believe it occurred and change their behavior accordingly then

it matters. Faith may be nothing more than a device of the mind, but if it aids survival then it is

as real and as important as any other knowledge.

 Pool 5

Works Cited

Peterson, M. ed., Hasker, W. ed., Reichenbach, B. ed., & Basinger, D. ed. (2001). Philosophy of

religion; Selected readings. (2nd ed.). New York, Oxford University Press.

Porter, S., Bellhouse, S., McDougall, A., ten Brinke, L., & Wilson, K. (2010). A prospective

investigation of the vulnerability of memory for positive and negative emotional scenes

to the misinformation effect. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue

canadienne des sciences du comportement, 42(1), 55-61.

Steffens, M., & Mecklenbräuker, S. (2007). False memories: Phenomena, theories, and

implications. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 215(1), 12-24.

Thompson, & Hugh. (2002). “Perceived reality, not actual reality, is the key to understanding

behavior. How we perceive others and ourselves is at the root of our action and

interactions…”