SORTS OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE 47Being X is of a fundamentally different kind from being Y if (i) X has
the property^4 existing independent of anything else or
not depending on anything else for existence and Y has
the property existing dependent on something else or
depending on something else for existence; (ii) X has the
property being immaterial and Y has the property being
material; (iii) X has the property being alive and Y has
the property not being alive;^5 (iv) X has the property
being capable of consciousness and Y has the property
not being capable of consciousness; (v) X has the
property being capable of self-consciousness and Y has
the property not being capable of self-consciousness; (vi)
X has the property being capable of being a moral agent
and Y has the property not being capable of being a
moral agent.
Obviously FDK is open-ended; one can think of additions – for example
being abstract and being concrete. But the important general idea is clear
enough; there are stateable differences in property that constitute
differences in kind or sort, and some at least of these are fairly readily
recognizable. Further, experiences differing in any of the ways that FDK
describes are sufficient for them to be of different kinds.
The next question concerns whether understanding Criterion 2 along the
lines of FDK will allow us to distinguish between different sorts of
experiences. Let us look at our descriptions of religious experiences.
Experiences i through 4 naturally fall together; in each case the subject at
least seems to experience a being distinct from experience and experiencer
- each is subject/consciousness/object in structure.
An interesting if incidental feature of the fourth description is that the
being who at least seems to be experienced is said to have a thousand arms.
This sort of description will go down better in Delhi than in Detroit, where
the notion of something having a thousand arms will be associated with
things that exterminators exterminate. Considerable difference in
metaphor need not be accompanied by considerable difference in doctrine;
Old Testament writers refer to God as having “a strong right arm” and the
Bhagavadgita refers to Brahman as having a thousand arms, but both have
in mind divine power; indeed, divine omnipotence.
In any case, the response to the being in question is worship. In contrast
to some popular songs, there is nothing here of the flavor of “the Man
Upstairs” and there is no suggestion of a cosmic Santa. Instead, “it is a
fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Leaving aside for
now the question of exactly how to frame a detailed description or relate
the descriptions offered here to standard theological claims (matters