Religious Experience and its Essentialism in William James and Ghazzali's Views

Religious experience is an approach to which Western thinkers are considered pioneers among whom Schleiermacher is the most prominent. "The essentialism of religious experience" is one of the several approaches that have been adopted in the case of religious experience. Accordingly, the religion that has sides and various dimensions has been reduced to a religious experience and the religious experience is introduced as the essence of religion. What is presented in this article is a comparative study of the essence of religious experience from the perspective of William James and Ghazzāli. Although mystical experience has a different structure form the religious experience and Ghazali as well as other Muslim philosophers and mystics paid more attention to the way of mystical experience, in the works of Ghazali there are also a traces of religious experience and hence, they are adaptable to some aspects of religious experience offered by William James. William James defines the religion “as the feelings, acts, and experiences that can occur for every individual in their solitudes and he believes that feeling is the essential pillar of religion and inherently reinforces it”. Religious experience is the essence of religion and it means that-the truth of the faith is the same as feelings and emotions that emerge from rational reflections on concrete reality as such, and other spiritual, transcendental, mystical and psychological actions are the consequences of these experiences. On the other hand, in the Muslim world, Al-Ghazzali believes that: The ultimate and holy aim of religion is the perception and experience of ultimate truth that can be achieved through good deeds, worship, asceticism and piety. This article tries to find similarities and differences in essence of religious experience of the two thinkers, because it is only in the theory of the essentialism of religious experience that the similarities and differences of religious experience and mystical experience can be identified. The article begins with an introduction to the nature of religious experience, perspective and context of the rise of religious experience and goes on to describe the religious experience from the perspectives of Ghazali and William James and will deal with the differences between religious and mystical experiences. The comparative study of the similarities and differences between the views constitutes the last part of this study. This comparative study can be examined from several perspectives: 1. Concurrence of the two thinkers in the fact that religious experience is indefinable: William James and Ghazali both believe that religious experience are neither falsifiable nor unfalsifiable. No adequate conception of mystical experience can be expressed in words. Mystical experience is immediate and direct and cannot be transferred to others. 2. The differences in the origin of mystical experiences: William James believes in the effectiveness of alcoholic drinks in the creation of gnostic status. Then mystical manners can be achieved through this way as well. Unlike al-Ghazali, who believes the apocalyptical condition is only dependent on the grace of God and human attempt plays no role in its occurrence. 3. The vicious circle in the theory of James: The criterion by which William James would test the truth of a Religious Experience is the vision and experience, while the truth of religious propositions depends on and metaphysical and rational statements and not empirical proofs. Therefor their truth must be proven elsewhere. As a result, the only way to prove is the self-dependent criterion which will lead to a vicious circle. 4. Believing in the essentiality of religious experience: In this approach, sides and dimensions of religion are reduced to just one dimension and that is the essentiality of religious experience. From the perspective of William James, religious experience is the essence of religion in the sense that the truth of religion limited to personal emotions in the face of ultimate reality. Actions, beliefs and religious practices of the religion are all outside the truth of religion and enjoy a secondary role. The emotions play the key role, and thus the religious experience is the central. But does al-Ghazali in the same sense consider the religious experience as the essence of religion? To answer this question another reading of the essentialism has been offered. According to this version, the religious experience has again the key role but Ghazali considers Sharia as an integral part of religion. Sharia is the path that leads the seeker to the destination, and seeking also takes place within the confines of the law. The reality of religion and the essence of religion are manifested through actions, customs and religious practices. In fact, al-Ghazali regards them the vehicles by which the seeker travels to the truth and does not merely give them secondary instrumental roles. This sense of the essentialism of religious experience is according to Ghazali's view and Islamic paradigm.