, ▁although ▁not ▁sufficient , ▁condition ▁for ▁one ▁to ▁be ▁able ▁to ▁trust ▁the ▁cogn itive ▁content ▁of ▁any ▁religious ▁experience . ▁ ▁Wayne ▁Pr oud foot ▁traces ▁the ▁roots ▁of ▁the ▁notion ▁of ▁" rel ig ious ▁experience " ▁further ▁back ▁to ▁the ▁German ▁the olog ian ▁Friedrich ▁Sch le ier m acher ▁( 1 7 6 8 – 1 8 3 4 ), ▁who ▁argued ▁that ▁religion ▁is ▁based ▁on ▁a ▁feeling ▁of ▁the ▁infinite . ▁The ▁notion ▁of ▁" rel ig ious ▁experience " ▁was ▁used ▁by ▁Sch le ier m acher ▁to ▁defend ▁religion ▁against ▁the ▁growing ▁scientific ▁and ▁sec ular ▁critique . ▁It ▁was ▁adopted ▁by ▁many ▁sch ol ars ▁of ▁religion , ▁of ▁which ▁William ▁James ▁was ▁the ▁most ▁influ ential . ▁ ▁Crit ics ▁point ▁out ▁that ▁the ▁emphas is ▁on ▁" ex per ience " ▁fav ours ▁the ▁atomic ▁individual , ▁instead ▁of ▁the ▁community . ▁It ▁also ▁fails ▁to ▁distinguish ▁between ▁epis od ic ▁experience , ▁and ▁myst ic ism ▁as ▁a ▁process , ▁embedded ▁in ▁a ▁total ▁religious ▁matrix ▁of ▁lit ur gy , ▁script ure , ▁worship , ▁virt ues , ▁the ology , ▁rit uals ▁and ▁practices . ▁Richard ▁King ▁also ▁points ▁to ▁dis j unction ▁between ▁" m yst ical ▁experience " ▁and ▁social ▁justice : ▁ ▁Relig ious ▁pl ural ism ▁ ▁Relig ious ▁pl ural ism ▁holds ▁that ▁various ▁world ▁relig ions ▁are ▁limited ▁by ▁their ▁distinct ive ▁historical ▁and ▁cultural ▁context s ▁and ▁thus ▁there ▁is ▁no