the critical analysis of jeff jordan’s view on religious experience and its naturalistic explanation

if we discover an adequate naturalistic explanation for religious experience, will it diminish its evidentiary value? in response to this question, many thinkers such as c.d. broad, richard swinburne and william wainwright argue that an adequate naturalistic explanation cannot diminish religious experience evidentiary value unless it can be demonstrated that there is no god. in contrary to this, some such as jeff jordan insisted that the discovery of such explanation results in diminishing of its evidentiary value even though it cannot be demonstrated that there is no god. in this article, having examined the two views, i suggest a third one, according to which, there are two kinds of religious experiences, according to one, the religious experience has evidentiary value even though it can be explained naturalistically too.