religious studies aqa a level

Explain the main characteristics of conversion and mystical experiences
A conversion experience is a religious experience that causes an altered view of the world and one’s personal place in it. Conversions very in type and features so not all characteristics found in one conversion experience occur in all conversion experiences.
For example, St Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus seems a sudden conversion whilst some conversions are gradual and happen over a long period of time. However, Paul’s encounter with Christianity may have actually been a gradual subconscious process that came to a climax with his vision of Jesus.
Often conversions involve some internal battle and self-surrendering, whilst for others there is no resistance. Paul didn’t deliberately seek out the religious experience; it seems to have come upon him unexpectedly. For others, they might actively seek it e.g. going to an evangelistic meeting. One common characteristic is the transforming aspect. Usually the result of a conversion is that the person may have transformed and become a new person.
A mystical experience is a religious experience that alters the state of consciousness and brings the person to claim a new awareness of ultimate reality. It can involve the experience of oneness with nature or a union with a personal God.
William James identified 4 main features of mysticism. The first is ineffability – it is difficult to find the words to describe the experience to those who haven’t had the mystic experience. The mystic state seems to allow insight into depths of truths that are unobtainable by human intellect alone which is known as noetic quality. The 3rd feature is transiency as the experience only lasts for a limited period of time, however they still leave the person with a profound sense of the importance of the experience and details of the experience are often hard to recall. The final feature is passivity which means that there is a sense of feeling in a mystical experience that one is taken over by a supreme power.
Other characteristics that philosophers have highlighted include the consciousness of the oneness of everything so that the ego fades, a sense of timelessness and the sense that there is an unchanging self that is immortal and lies behind the usual experience of self.

‘It is necessary to have a religious experience in order to understand fully what a religious experience is.’ How far do you agree?
Religious experiences are mostly private and subjective so they aren’t open to anyone else. Even if someone had a religious experience themselves, they can’t be sure about someone else’s experiences. There is no way of knowing if it is the same as theirs.
However, this isn’t true for all religious experiences. Some religious experiences have objective features, for example the people with St Paul on the road to Damascus heard the same voice. Although witnessing some objective features may show that something is happening and the experience is real, it may not lead to understand what a religious experience is. It merely shows that there is a religious experience.
Mystical experiences have the problem of ineffability. The experiences are beyond verbal descriptions and if this is the case, then it seems impossible for others to understand. However, the fact that we can identify what a mystical experience is, since we can identify key features, means that we can understand what a religious experience is. It could be argued that identifying features isn’t the same as understanding the experience.
Other religious experiences such as conversions are easier to understand. The person is usually able to talk about their experience and how it has changed their life and their way of thinking. Also it’s possible to see the changes that the experience had on the life of the person.
Modern developments in science have also given us an insight into religious experiences as we can see what happens in the brain and get indications about the experience the person is having. Religious experiences which are private can now be open to examination, therefore helping our understanding. Therefore, it may not be necessary to have a religious experience to understand what a religious experience is.

Explain why Jung’s understanding of religious belief may be seen as more positive than that of Freud
Freud saw the idea of God as a creation of individual human mind and its neurotic desires. He argued that we had inherited a sense of guilt passed down through the generations so he referred to religious belief as a collective neurosis. The cause of this guilt comes from the primal horde theory which argues that the horde had been dominated by one powerful male who seized the females for himself and was in control of the other younger males. The younger males then united and killed the dominant male so they could dominate the horde and gain wives. However in doing this, they felt a huge amount of guilt (which each generation inherits) and decide to worship the dominant male who they killed as a way of coping with the guilt. Freud sees the idea of God as the father figure and Christ as the son making amends for sins as a reflection of this collective neurosis.
Freud also developed the Oedipus complex theory which he believes causes religious belief. Both the Primal horde theory and the Oedipus complex explain the resulting neurotic behaviour expressed through religious belief, therefore Freud displays a very negative view of religious belief. Freud also viewed God as the projection of the human mind based on our longings and desires – it is an illusion based on wish fulfilment. Freud believed religious belief led to mental disorders such as neurotic behaviour and saw it as a form of mental illness that needs to be cured.
In contrast, Jung’s approach is far more positive. Jung regarded religious belief as something that was helpful to balance mental health – he believed religion was the key to the process of integration and individuation. Individuation is the journey towards becoming a full individual and religion is necessary for personal growth. Jung argued that the collective unconscious incorporated archetypes (symbolic forms) which all people share and it generates images in the conscious mind. These images resemble the images that make up the religious traditions and are images of the deeper self.
The aim of individuation is to balance the contradictory nature of the archetypes and unite opposites. Only by living in harmony with these images, by bringing our thinking into agreement with them, can we live life fully. Through these religious images the personality achieves its goal of integration. Therefore, unlike Freud, Jung sees the experience as necessary for balanced mental health which is positive. To what extent has religion been successful in response to psychology’s challenges to religious belief?
Both Freud’s and Jung’s theories challenge the tradition view of God as an external being. However, religion has responded and raised doubts about the validity of these theories. For example, religion is generally seen to be positive and of value rather than a mental illness which is harmful. Freud fails to explain away God since he ignores the evidence for the existence of an external God. Some may challenge Freud’s theories that are based on the primal horde by pointing out that there is no evidence that primal hordes ever existed.
Jung’s theories have also been challenged. For example uniform images can be explained by uniform experiences rather than archetypes. Jung’s theories are also impossible to verify as it can’t be demonstrated that there is a collective unconscious which contains the archetypes. If Jung is correct then it’s not clear why atheism exists. The extent to which religion has been successful will be dependent upon the persuasiveness of the responses to the challenges.
Explain the general principles of Utilitarianism, including reference to Act and Rule Utilitarianism.
Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism was a teleological approach which means thinking about consequences of an action when deciding whether it’s right or wrong. Bentham believed in the hedonism which means people seek to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. He believed that an action was good if the consequences created ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’. Bentham believed in quantitative pleasure and he argued that ‘pushpin was of equal pleasure to poetry’. Bentham also created the hedonic calculus which helped decide whether an action is good or not. The hedonic calculus consists of 7 parts: Intensity, Duration, Extent, Certainty, Purity, Propinquity, and Fecundity. Bentham said that we should use this calculus during a decision making process to help decide what action will bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number.
Bentham was Act Utilitarian which meant that regardless of rules or moral, he could go ahead with an action if it meant bringing the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Bentham believed that his principle of Utility was important as the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its usefulness (amount of pleasure caused by the action).

John Stuart Mill believed in qualitative pleasures and distinguished between higher and lower pleasures. Pleasures such as eating, drinking, sex or push pin were lower pleasures and higher pleasures included poetry etc. Mill claimed ‘it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’. Mill believed in the ‘golden rule’ to treat others as you would like to be treated. Mill wanted to educate people to experience higher pleasures so they wouldn’t be so ignorant. He argued that once they had knowledge of higher pleasures there will be a better society.
Mill was a rule utilitarian and he argued that the principle of ‘greatest happiness for greatest number’ should be applied to the rules of society because without rules, society would break down and people could justify killing people e.g. Bentham could justify gang rape of 1 young girl if 10 men wanted to rape her as this would be the greatest pleasure for the 10 men (greatest number of people). However, everyone can see rape is intrinsically wrong so therefore we need laws as a framework for society to guide us in the right direction.

‘An action that maximises happiness will always be the right action.’ How far can a religious believer accept this view?
The answer to this question depends on the meaning of ‘happiness’. Bentham thought of physical happiness, pleasure. Religion would not see this type of happiness as worthwhile. ‘Pleasures of the flesh’ are not as important as ‘pleasures of the spirit’ so for example increasing the number of prostitutes would not be seen as a good thing even if it made more people happy.
If the happiness was caused by actions which broke God’s law this would not be seen as a right action. Torturing and killing a baby might make a sadist happy but religion could never approve of it. Lying, stealing and cheating would be wrong even if they made some people happy because they have been forbidden by God in the Ten Commandments.
However, if the type of happiness is of high quality the argument is different. Mill said “To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality” which repeats the teaching of Jesus. Jesus worked to end suffering, even breaking the religious law when necessary to do this, he fed people when they were hungry and healed sick people. Christians are expected to do this also, not to leave people suffering but to increase happiness when they can. Their happiness includes the happiness of knowing that they are doing God’s will, they won’t do anything wrong because that leads to pain and suffering so they can agree with the view stated.
An action that maximises happiness won’t always be right but only sometimes because it may have been caused by actions which breaks God’s rule e.g. killing someone, however, it is sometimes the right action because it agrees with ‘love thy neighbour’ which is in favour of Jesus’ teachings.