"I must now mention two attempts that have been made - both of which convey the impression of desperate efforts to evade the problem…The first is the Credo quia adsurdum of the early Father of the Church (“I believe because it is absurd”, which is attributed to Tertullian). It maintains that religious doctrines are outside the jurisdiction of reason - are above reason. Their truth must be felt inwardly, and they need not be comprehended. But this Credo is only of interest as a self-confession. As an authoritative statement it has no binding force. Am I to be obliged to believe every absurdity? And if not, why this one in particular? There is no appeal to a court above that of reason. If the truth of religious doctrines is dependent on an inner experience which bears witness to that truth, what is one to do about the many people who do not have this rare experience? One may require every man to use the gift of reason which he possesses. but one cannot erect, on the basis of a motive that exists only for a very few, an obligation that shall apply to everyone. If one man has gained an unshakable conviction of the true reality of religious doctrines from a state of ecstasy which has deeply move him, of what significance is that to others?”
—Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion (35-36). I think this has and always will be a vital question in questions of belief: for the believer who uses subjective inner experiences as grounds for apologetic reasoning, and for the charismatic believer who insists on a homogenized interpretative grid for “experiencing the Holy Spirit”, but also for the non-believer, for whom consistent, historical renderings of “ecstasies” and doctrines might pose the question of legitimacy.