Mystical experiences and peer religious disagreement: Comparing experiences of personal and non-personal ultimate reality

In religious epistemology, conflicting religious experiences are often considered epistemically problematic. This paper looks at one case of conflict between “mystical experiences”: between experiences of union with a personal ultimate reality, such as the Christian god, and experiences of union with a non-personal ultimate reality, primarily Dao and Brahman. We look at the conflict through the lens of “peer disagreement". We argue that, if both groups of mystics are epistemic peers, mystics defending a personal account of ultimate reality have a greater duty to conciliate towards the opposite position. The reason is that non-personal accounts and experiences have greater explanatory power, are more comprehensive – i.e., they can include personal accounts and experiences – and, therefore, lead to fewer cases of peer disagreement. The argument draws on examples of both kinds of mystical experiences. We conclude by considering some potential objections.