Editing Religious experience (section)

===Criticism===
The notion of "experience" has been criticised.{{sfn|Sharf|1995a}}{{sfn|Mohr|2000|pp=282-286}}{{sfn|Low|2006|p=12}}

"Religious empiricism" is seen as highly problematic{{by whom|date=February 2023}} and was&nbsp;– during the period in-between world wars&nbsp;– famously rejected by the theologian [[Karl Barth]].{{sfn|Barbour|1966|pp=114, 116-119}} In the 20th century, religious as well as moral experience as justification for religious beliefs still held sway. Some influential modern scholars who held this [[Liberal Christianity|liberal theological]] view were [[Charles E. Raven|Charles Raven]] and the Oxford physicist/theologian [[Charles Coulson]].{{sfn|Barbour|1966|pp=126-127}}

Robert Sharf writes that "experience" is a typical Western term, which has found its way into Asian religiosity via western influences.{{sfn|Sharf|1995a}}{{refn|group=note|Robert Sharf: "[T]he role of experience in the history of Buddhism has been greatly exaggerated in contemporary scholarship. Both historical and ethnographic evidence suggests that the privileging of experience may well be traced to certain twentieth-century reform movements, notably those that urge a return to ''[[zazen]]'' or ''[[vipassana]]'' meditation, and these reforms were profoundly influenced by religious developments in the west [...] While some adepts may indeed experience "[[Altered state of consciousness|altered states]]" in the course of their training, critical analysis shows that such states do not constitute the reference point for the elaborate Buddhist discourse pertaining to the "path".{{sfn|Sharf|1995b|p=1}}}} The notion of "experience" introduces a false notion of duality between "experiencer" and "experienced", whereas the essence of kensho is the realisation of the "non-duality" of observer and observed.{{sfn|Hori|1994|p=30}}{{sfn|Samy|1998|p=82}} "Pure experience" does not exist; all experience is mediated by intellectual and cognitive activity.{{sfn|Mohr|2000|p=282}}{{sfn|Samy|1998|pp=80-82}} The specific teachings and practices of a specific tradition may even determine what "experience" someone has, which means that this "experience" is not the ''proof'' of the teaching, but a ''result'' of the teaching.{{sfn|Samy|1998|p=80}} A pure consciousness without concepts, reached by "cleansing the doors of perception",{{refn|group=note|[[William Blake]]: "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thru' narrow chinks of his cavern."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2653 |title=View Quote|website=Quote DB}}</ref>}} would be an overwhelming chaos of sensory input without coherence.{{sfn|Mohr|2000|p=284}}

The American scholar of religion and [[philosophy of social science|philosopher of social science]] [[Jason Josephson Storm]] has also critiqued the definition and category of religious experience, especially when such experiences are used to [[definition of religion|define religion]]. He compares the appeal to experience to define religion to failed attempts to defend an essentialist definition of [[art]] by appeal to [[aesthetics|aesthetic experience]], and implies that each category lacks a common psychological feature across all such experiences by which they may be defined.{{sfn|Storm|2021|p=64}}