Initially, the terms "religious experience" and "wish fulfilment" must be clarified, as they are by no means clear. Religious experiences are defined as experiences, in the light of which we are disposed to believe that God exists. "The best examples are characterised by optimism … they are reconciling and unifying, deriving from an experience of God as the transcendent and unlimited." Wish fulfilment is an unfortunate term, as it seems to suggest an almost cynical substantiation of a person’s greedy, conscious desires; in contrast, wish fulfilment in this sense refers to subconscious needs which are fulfilled by the thing that created them, namely the mind. Wish fulfilment is an entirely unselfish process, as the subject in question is in no way able to identify their wishes, and thus there is no attempt to manipulate others through lies. Therefore, the title could more clearly read: "Experiences which prompt us to believe in God’s existence are a result of internal, rather than divine, force."

The first question to be dealt with is, inevitably the validity of the claims of those who have undergone religious experiences. It is intellectually arrogant and aloof to take a Humian stance (as on miracles) and maintain that the claimants themselves are merely "ignorant and barbarous peoples" as they clearly are not – many exceptionally intelligent people have undergone religious experience, and been totally convinced as to the reality of the aforementioned experience. Similarly, one must accept that the claims of those who believe that they have experienced God have certainly convinced them totally, and therefore would have to be a very incredible type of delusion. For example, Mother Julian was willing to sacrifice her entire life to the reflection upon sixteen visions she had had in the course of a single day of her life. We would accept the eye-witness reports of anyone claiming to have seen a car on a street, but not of someone claiming to have seen a pink elephant. The question is, do we accept the claims of someone who sees the angel Gabriel? Even at worst, claims of religious experiences seem possible and convincing to the recipients, and thus cannot be dismissed out of hand.

However, it is certainly, and understandably, difficult for a person who has never undergone a religious experience to attempt to comprehend them. Unlike the experience of seeing your hand in front of your face (which is classified as "basic", meaning that no further explanation is needed or possible), which all of us have undergone, religious experiences are not experienced by everyone and, when they are, are not universal in form. It is on the very grounds of experience that Descartes would be forced to reject religious experience – experience could not be the basis of knowledge because, at worst, a demon could live inside your mind and tamper with everything you feel. This is especially pronounced in the case of religious experience, when, unlike a group of hundreds of people all seeing a man murdered (presumably 100 demons could manipulate the people identically and simultaneously, although this seems extremely unlikely), only one person receives the experience, and it is an experience which they cannot express, establish or validate. For me, it is all a matter of probability – when I see my hand in front of my face (or believe I have), then I have seen that many times before, and can believe that, once again, I can rely on my senses. Testing this hypothesis with other senses (e.g. moving the hand, touching something with it etc.), I become even more convinced that what I am seeing is real. However, imagine that I have never had a religious experience before, and then have one for the first time. Although I have relied on my senses up until now, they have never responded in this way to anything. This being the case, the probability of what I am experiencing being real must be significantly lowered, although not reduced to zero. Despite this, however, religious experiences are undoubtedly basic – that is, they neither necessitate nor facilitate explanation, but suffice in themselves, because, if they have occurred at all, they are ineffable. Being basic experiences, they must have their grounding in foundational beliefs, and the foundational belief in this case would appear to be belief in God. However, believers, atheists and agnostics alike undergo religious experience, thus there appears to be no common founding. This is puzzling, but not a reason to disbelieve in religious experiences per se – it is quite possible that this foundational belief is a sub-conscious one, or that the foundational belief is something more instinctual such as "My senses because they are almost invariably correct, therefore I shall rely on them in all cases."

There are, however, numerous theological problems with religious experience, primarily because it suggests some form of favouritism. It seems unfair that some people should be able to communicate with God, and feel His Loving Presence at some point or points in their lives, whereas others undergo no such experiences whatsoever. The response to this criticism seems tenuous – given that God exists and that His nature is that of benevolence and love, it is only natural that some people, those who open themselves up to this, should experience it more frequently than others. However, some very saintly people only "experience" God once – Mother Julian’s only revelations occurred in one day, and she meditated over them for the rest of her life – and surely these people are very much ‘open’ to God. Similarly, if God is perpetually beckoning to us with love (as process theology states), and His love is always present, then surely we should all be able to experience it, and in a more universal way, than we do at present. This ties in neatly with an argument raised by Macquarrie, through which he sought to explain that it does not make sense to worship a God who is neither responsive to prayer nor who deals with us personally. The argument runs along the lines of the existential concept of God:

• God is not a particular being, but Being itself.
• Particular beings, such as people, guns and helicopters, have particular effects.
• God, being Being rather than a being, therefore has no particular effects in this world

The combination of varying levels of openness to God’s nature, and God’s nature leads to a variety of possible explanations of existence, none of which appear to work in conjunction with religious experience:

• God dictates everything within the world – as the foundation of everything, everything happens according to His will. In that case, God must favour certain people (those who experience Him), which is inconsistent with God’s nature.
• God is the ground of all being, and He may constantly be tapped into. This being the case, why are attempts to reach God usually so unsuccessful, why does the "mystic way" (as classified by St. Bonaventure [1221-1274]) have more to do with preparation of the body than of heart, mind and spirit, and why does God seemingly hide himself from so many people who desire to reach Him? Also, if God is the ground of all being, why experience Him specifically, rather than the perpetual experience of God through other things (i.e. everything that we experience is actually so-called "indirect religious experience")?
• God is the ground of all being, and may not be tapped into but reveals himself. This, however, raises the classic objection of favouritism and that of the "laser-beam God" [David Jenkins] – that zapping into and out of the world is inconsistent with God’s nature as a personal, loving being.
• God does not reveal himself to anybody. There seems to be no more value to worshipping this God than to believing that there is no God whatsoever.

In all four cases, there is an apparent inconsistency with the existence of God and religious experience. As Thomas Hobbes (1588-1697) so eloquently expressed, what is the difference between "God spoke to me in a dream" and "I dreamt that God spoke to me?" This seems to lead towards the idea that religious experience is a product of subconscious desires, and therefore not of divine inspiration. This is a very Freudian interpretation of religion: as a baby, we see father’s image standing over our cot; as an adult, that image is projected to the sky. Don Cupitt would similarly agree that religious experiences have nothing to do with God, but are a fulfilment of deep rooted psychological needs, which are often unknown and unexpressed. Carl Jung was similarly impressed by the healing power of such experiences. Emile Durkheim, the early twentieth-century French sociologist, maintained that: "the believer who has communicated with his God is not merely a man who sees the new truths of which the unbeliever is ignorant; he is a man who is stronger." This being the case, whether God exists or not, it is undeniable that religious experience fulfils some void within the soul. Whether this void is simply the lack of having felt God, or something entirely distinct from divinity, is unknowable. However, the evidence that religious experience is not a product of God’s intervention deserves rigorous testing. Aside from those factors already mentioned (namely favouritism, the fact that experiences do fulfil something within us and the questionability of evidence), some cite the fact that religious experiences differ from one person to the next. Whilst one person has a vivid vision of Jesus speaking to him, another merely sees everything in greater ‘depth’ than before. One man feels that God has told them to do something, another experiences "feelings of the infinite" [Keierkegaard] when looking at a mountain. However, as Wesley explained, this is exactly what you would expect – given that God is the sum of all perfections, and given that anything we observe is tainted by our one preconceptions and perceptions, one would expect that a vision of God would take a different form for each person, as no one person can grasp all of the facets of the divine at once.

Ultimately, if God exists, he is omnipotent and all-loving. Being omnipotent, he can cause others to experience Him, and being all-loving, people can experience Him. Therefore religious experiences are logically possible. However, the very occurrence of religious experience throws up problems as outlined previously, all linked with favouritism or inconsistency with God’s nature. Ultimately them I find the following explanation most satisfactory. If God exists, he is the grounding of all being, with no specific effect in our world but with, by contrast, all the effects in our world. This being the case, no one undergoes religious experiences as a result of His loving influence, as all of our experiences are a result of His loving influence – everything we experience is actually an "indirect religious experience" (although they would not be labelled as such). So-called "religious" experiences, whether there is a God or not, are therefore a product of a subconscious search for some greater "Father", because humans have an intrinsic need to feel humble and lowly. Religious experiences are therefore very valuable, worthwhile, fulfilling and completing, but have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. They are a product of our "taste for the infinite", which is a natural and instinctive reaction and no more to do with God than the intrinsic human like of warmth. They are a result of our "Quest for Eternity" [J.C.A. Gaskin], but not influenced by God any more than our pursuit of love and friendship. As Carl Jung, I believe that "Religious experience is absolute … it cannot be disputed. Those who have had it possess a great treasure, a source of life, meaning and beauty which gives new splendour to the world. It is overwhelming and healing and is therefore of great validity." However, this experience is a psychological phenomena, a manifestation of our need for greater things, whether Greater Things exist or not. "Religious experience" is wonderful, but is not "religious" – it does not point to God’s intervention, or indeed existence.