Religious experience is absolute: it cannot be disputed.
You can only say that You have never had such an experience, whereupon your opponent will reply: “Sorry, I have.” And there your discussion will come to an end.
No matter what the world thinks about religious experience, the one who has it possess a great treasure, a thing that has become for him a source of life, meaning, and beauty, and that has given a new splendor to the world and to mankind. He has pistis and peace. Where is the criterion by which you could say that such a life is not legitimate, that such an experience is not valid, and that such pistis is mere illusion?
Is there in fact. Any better truth about the ultimate things than the one that helps you to live? That is the reason why I take careful account (religio!) of the symbols produced by the unconscious. They are the one thing that is capable of convincing the critical mind of modern man. And they are convincing for a very old-fashioned reason: They are “overwhelming,” which is precisely what the Latin word “convincere” means.
The thing that cures a neurosis must be be as convincing as the neurosis, and since the latter is only too real, the helpful experience must be equally real. It must be a very real illusion, if you want to put it pessimistically. But what is the difference between a real illusion and a healing religious experience?
It is merely a difference of words. You can says, for instance, that life is a disease with a very bad prognosis: it lingers on for years, only to end with death; or that normality is a general constitutional defect; or that the human is an animal with a fatally overgrown brain. This kind of thinking is the prerogative of habitual grumblers with bad digestions.
No one can know what the ultimate things are. We must therefore take them as we experience them. And if such experience helps to make life healthier, more beautiful, more complete and more satisfactory to yourself and to those your love, you may safely say: “This was the grace of God.” ~Carl Jung, Psychology and Religion, Paragraph 167.