Defending the Validity of Religious/Spiritual Experiences

[sayak83]

I am responding to some common objections regarding why one should not consider spiritual/mystical to be knowledge producing.

1) Mystical experience are private and hence are not verifiable
Response: All experiences are private. I have not seen any public experience. My experience of a tree is as private as your experience of the tree.

2) There is no entity out there to which such experience refers to. Hence they are not about anything
Response: This does not mean that the experience is not pointing to a truth. Mathematical relations can be cognized without it being out there. Thus we can have veridical experiences that are not directly tied to things out there in the world.

3)Mystical experiences cannot be checked or verified for being true or false
For an established tradition of mysticism there are strict regulations and rules determining what does or does not constitute a genuine mystical experience. There are hundreds of texts on this. What has not happened is the universalization of standards across traditions that is accepted by all. However it is to be noted that sustained interactions between Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Sufis, Sikhs did mean that despite differences, much similarities can be found in the processes that lead towards spiritual experiences and the ways of determining if these experiences are real or not. Further, just like any advanced discipline, it is only practitioners of the path who form the peer group who have the expertise to decide whether an experience based claim is veridical or not.

4) Not everyone can experience it. So it cannot be reliable.
Not everyone can gather, analyze, understand or use the data that scientists or medical practitioners or experts use in their professional lives. However it can be learned, just like any specialized discipline. Not everyone can learn as well or do as good as some or reach the highest level. This too is common in all disciplines of human activity. It does not make sense to claim General Relativity is false as I cannot grasp it. Why would it make any more sense here?

5) The experiences cannot be expressed and are vague and unfalsifiable
There are literally thousands of years of detailed debate and interrogation literature on the nature of these experiences, apparent contradictions between the various experiences and what they truly tell about the nature of reality in Indian history. That is probably true in other traditions as well. Entire systems of logic, grammar, mathematics and epistemology has been developed out of such debates. These are not the marks of vague or unfalsifiable vacuous statements that are alleged for spiritual experiences.

6) They have no utility that you can check now
Studies have already shown that being part of a participating faith community is highly beneficial to physical and mental health. The benefits of yoga, various types of meditation on mental health, dealing with pain etc. are also established. Further, it is up to the practitioner to decide whether what he/she is getting is worth the effort.

7) The claimed knowledge is disconnected with scientific reality
This is not true for all systems. But many systems need to modernize and update what it is saying to be more consonant with what science says. In many traditions what can actually be known from spiritual insights have been mixed up with older beliefs about the world that were generally believed in the time when such traditions arose. Careful re-examination needed to distinguish between actual insights and legacy beliefs from an older time. I believe that if this is done, there is nothing really incompatible between the truths of spiritual insights and scientific knowledge of the world.

8) What about all the extra-ordinary claims (like you can live a 1000 years, fly etc.)?
Do not believe extra-ordinary claims unless you get extra-ordinary evidence. Fishing IS a legitimate activity even if half the claims of what fishermen say they had caught in the good old days need to be treated with a dose of skepticism.

What do you think?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

@sayak83 I like the rebuttal I'm curious to see who responds now.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There are some other objections I frequently hear. I'd be interested in hearing your answers to the following as well:

9) Religious Institutions are corrupt and are merely tools to manipulate people.

10) Since morality is relative, religions are mere propositions by small minded groups. They limit human joy and expression, particularly sexual expression, or entertainments or other pleasures which people should be able to enjoy.

11) Religions come from Bronze Age goat herders and hence are antiquated and cannot compete with the utility of modern humanism.

12) Religions are mysogynistic or sexist, which evidences that they are backward.

13) Religions indoctrinate vulnerable children, and religion should only be taught to adults capable of deciding what to believe for themselves.

 

[Polymath257]

How are disputes settled, whether in a particular tradition, or between traditions?

Has there ever been a case where one tradition has been shown to be wrong in a way that was accepted by its practitioners?

 

[Mock Turtle]

6) They have no utility that you can check now
Studies have already shown that being part of a participating faith community is highly beneficial to physical and mental health. The benefits of yoga, various types of meditation on mental health, dealing with pain etc. are also established. Further, it is up to the practitioner to decide whether what he/she is getting is worth the effort.

This is the only one I might feel vaguely qualified to respond to, given that it does seem so - as to the benefits of having some sort of religious belief. I would only point out that we have had millennia where religious beliefs have been the norm in most societies and hence any alternative structures to maintain communities hasn't had such a start as these. Also, as far as I am aware, it hasn't been proven that humans require such beliefs in order to function. And, as we are also aware, religious beliefs seemingly inevitably bring conflict and/or division along with such beliefs, especially when they do tend to contradict other beliefs or non-beliefs.

 

[sayak83]

There are some other objections I frequently hear. I'd be interested in hearing your answers to the following as well:

9) Religious Institutions are corrupt and are merely tools to manipulate people.

10) Since morality is relative, religions are mere propositions by small minded groups. They limit human joy and expression, particularly sexual expression, or entertainments or other pleasures which people should be able to enjoy.

11) Religions come from Bronze Age goat herders and hence are antiquated and cannot compete with the utility of modern humanism.

12) Religions are mysogynistic or sexist, which evidences that they are backward.

13) Religions indoctrinate vulnerable children, and religion should only be taught to adults capable of deciding what to believe for themselves.

9) I am not going to defend religious institutions, or any institution for that matter. As institutions nation states, police, judiciary, religion, banking and finance, corporations, religions all suffer from a greater or lesser degree with these problems (corruptions, manipulative practices, undue restrictions on freedom, inflexibility with times, sexism and other types of bigotry). Scientific institutions have also been notoriously misogynist. We have a catch 22 situation. We need institutions to execute massive scale cooperative activities, but the institutions tend to become hostage to exploitative and tyrannical interests. Nation states and religious institutions are particularly vulnerable because it is criticism and opposition and drive of reform against entrenched interest that can keep the institutions from falling into decay...but for these two institution its easy to label criticizers as "heretics" and "traitors" and remove them (literally) rather than deal with the criticisms. This needs to change.

10)I did not understand the objections regarding morality. Why would relativism in moral principles invalidate spiritual experiences?

11)Modern Humanism is an evolution of Epicurean, Hedonist or Charvaka thought (there is also a Chinese counterpart, do not remember the name) that also arose during the time of Early Iron Age pastoralist cultures. One can also argue that in those days there were less outward distractions and more time to look inward. So they were better at the internal experiential processes than modern society is. Many have also argued the same regarding aboriginal people and their culture and spirituality. Another example, a modern urbanite would know much less about the night sky stars than any average Bronze Ager as they are lost to our sight in the city lights. They may know many other things about the stars but the night sky is lost to them..us.

 

[Brickjectivity]

9) I am not going to defend religious institutions, or any institution for that matter. As institutions nation states, police, judiciary, religion, banking and finance, corporations, religions all suffer from a greater or lesser degree with these problems (corruptions, manipulative practices, undue restrictions on freedom, inflexibility with times, sexism and other types of bigotry). Scientific institutions have also been notoriously misogynist. We have a catch 22 situation. We need institutions to execute massive scale cooperative activities, but the institutions tend to become hostage to exploitative and tyrannical interests. Nation states and religious institutions are particularly vulnerable because it is criticism and opposition and drive of reform against entrenched interest that can keep the institutions from falling into decay...but for these two institution its easy to label criticizers as "heretics" and "traitors" and remove them (literally) rather than deal with the criticisms. This needs to change.

10)I did not understand the objections regarding morality. Why would relativism in moral principles invalidate spiritual experiences?

11)Modern Humanism is an evolution of Epicurean, Hedonist or Charvaka thought (there is also a Chinese counterpart, do not remember the name) that also arose during the time of Early Iron Age pastoralist cultures. One can also argue that in those days there were less outward distractions and more time to look inward. So they were better at the internal experiential processes than modern society is. Many have also argued the same regarding aboriginal people and their culture and spirituality. Another example, a modern urbanite would know much less about the night sky stars than any average Bronze Ager as they are lost to our sight in the city lights. They may know many other things about the stars but the night sky is lost to them..us.

Thanks for putting your big brain on it. Its a cool thread idea, by-the-way.

 

[Shakeel]

Mystical experience are private and hence are not verifiable
Response: All experiences are private. I have not seen any public experience. My experience of a tree is as private as your experience of the tree.

What private probably means is that other people don't usually have that experience or that it is relatively rare.

 

[Shakeel]

Not everyone can experience it. So it cannot be reliable.
Not everyone can gather, analyze, understand or use the data that scientists or medical practitioners or experts use in their professional lives. However it can be learned, just like any specialized discipline. Not everyone can learn as well or do as good as some or reach the highest level. This too is common in all disciplines of human activity. It does not make sense to claim General Relativity is false as I cannot grasp it. Why would it make any more sense here?

"Not everyone can" probably does not refer to incapability due to lack of knowledge, but simple experience of it being impossible to do something.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What private probably means is that other people don't usually have that experience or that it is relatively rare.

I think what this means is each experience is unique, even experiences of the same object. No one shares your personal experiences. They are unique to you.

Think Blind Men and an Elephant.

 

[sayak83]

How are disputes settled, whether in a particular tradition, or between traditions?

Has there ever been a case where one tradition has been shown to be wrong in a way that was accepted by its practitioners?

Usually the tradition loses believers and die out. For example there was an established school of belief in Hinduism (Purva Mimansa) that believed that Vedic rituals were to be believed on faith alone and had to be rigidly followed. That school died out though it remains as a cultural memory at the edges. We hardly know anything about the Charvakas and Ajivikas as they also died out slowly with time, though its reported that some groups still existed in the 16th century (Mughal historians). Furthermore the profound shift in general Hindu beliefs from overt ritualistic polytheism of 1300 BCE to polyphonic monism of today has occurred through constant churning of thought as well as historical changes.
But yes, we have not been able to produce an overall SOP like the scientific method and a generally recognized structured system by which to assess claims. It can be done, but modern society wants to keep religion as a cultural or identity marker than a search for foundational truths about the primary foundations of leading the good life. So nobody is doing it.

 

[MikeF]

I am responding to some common objections regarding why one should not consider spiritual/mystical to be knowledge producing.

1) Mystical experience are private and hence are not verifiable
Response: All experiences are private. I have not seen any public experience. My experience of a tree is as private as your experience of the tree.

2) There is no entity out there to which such experience refers to. Hence they are not about anything
Response: This does not mean that the experience is not pointing to a truth. Mathematical relations can be cognized without it being out there. Thus we can have veridical experiences that are not directly tied to things out there in the world.

3)Mystical experiences cannot be checked or verified for being true or false
For an established tradition of mysticism there are strict regulations and rules determining what does or does not constitute a genuine mystical experience. There are hundreds of texts on this. What has not happened is the universalization of standards across traditions that is accepted by all. However it is to be noted that sustained interactions between Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Sufis, Sikhs did mean that despite differences, much similarities can be found in the processes that lead towards spiritual experiences and the ways of determining if these experiences are real or not. Further, just like any advanced discipline, it is only practitioners of the path who form the peer group who have the expertise to decide whether an experience based claim is veridical or not.

4) Not everyone can experience it. So it cannot be reliable.
Not everyone can gather, analyze, understand or use the data that scientists or medical practitioners or experts use in their professional lives. However it can be learned, just like any specialized discipline. Not everyone can learn as well or do as good as some or reach the highest level. This too is common in all disciplines of human activity. It does not make sense to claim General Relativity is false as I cannot grasp it. Why would it make any more sense here?

5) The experiences cannot be expressed and are vague and unfalsifiable
There are literally thousands of years of detailed debate and interrogation literature on the nature of these experiences, apparent contradictions between the various experiences and what they truly tell about the nature of reality in Indian history. That is probably true in other traditions as well. Entire systems of logic, grammar, mathematics and epistemology has been developed out of such debates. These are not the marks of vague or unfalsifiable vacuous statements that are alleged for spiritual experiences.

6) They have no utility that you can check now
Studies have already shown that being part of a participating faith community is highly beneficial to physical and mental health. The benefits of yoga, various types of meditation on mental health, dealing with pain etc. are also established. Further, it is up to the practitioner to decide whether what he/she is getting is worth the effort.

7) The claimed knowledge is disconnected with scientific reality
This is not true for all systems. But many systems need to modernize and update what it is saying to be more consonant with what science says. In many traditions what can actually be known from spiritual insights have been mixed up with older beliefs about the world that were generally believed in the time when such traditions arose. Careful re-examination needed to distinguish between actual insights and legacy beliefs from an older time. I believe that if this is done, there is nothing really incompatible between the truths of spiritual insights and scientific knowledge of the world.

8) What about all the extra-ordinary claims (like you can live a 1000 years, fly etc.)?
Do not believe extra-ordinary claims unless you get extra-ordinary evidence. Fishing IS a legitimate activity even if half the claims of what fishermen say they had caught in the good old days need to be treated with a dose of skepticism.

What do you think?

All I can say is that we human beings are flawed and fallible. To give carte blanche to any personal experience is to simply ignore all the many ways we human beings get things wrong.

One can certainly agree that a personal belief or perceived experience may have significance or value for that individual, regardless of whether or not it is based on something actual or real beyond their own mind.

But to say that anything we think or feel should be considered factual reality outside of our imagination is not supportable.

Now I'm not talking about the reality of feeling better or improving mood, or lowering anxiety.

If I say to you, chant and hum with my group in this particular way, perhaps referencing an entity, and it will make you feel better, may work quite well. However, we could just as easily invite one to dance and sing with the group in a particular way, perhaps referencing a different entity, and achieve the same results. In both conditions, we get the real result of people feeling better. But this in no way speaks to the reality of the referenced entities.

I think it is this distinction that skeptics are trying to illustrate.

I'm sure having skeptics continually harp that it is not really real can impact the maintenance of the required illusion, and the resulting placebo effect.

This is my take on it, anyway.

 

[sayak83]

All I can say is that we human beings are flawed and fallible. To give carte blanche to any personal experience is to simply ignore all the many ways we human beings get things wrong.

One can certainly agree that a personal belief or perceived experience may have significance or value for that individual, regardless of whether or not it is based on something actual or real beyond their own mind.

But to say that anything we think or feel should be considered factual reality outside of our imagination is not supportable.

Now I'm not talking about the reality of feeling better or improving mood, or lowering anxiety.

If I say to you, chant and hum with my group in this particular way, perhaps referencing an entity, and it will make you feel better, may work quite well. However, we could just as easily invite one to dance and sing with the group in a particular way, perhaps referencing a different entity, and achieve the same results. In both conditions, we get the real result of people feeling better. But this in no way speaks to the reality of the referenced entities.

I think it is this distinction that skeptics are trying to illustrate.

I'm sure having skeptics continually harp that it is not really real can impact the maintenance of the required illusion, and the resulting placebo effect.

This is my take on it, anyway.

You are correct. But at the same token, it is not correct to delegitimize the possibility of knowledge from experiences just because they are mystical/spiritual. We can have a discussion on what may guide one in determining which claims among these are veridical or not (if any) after the possibility is kept open.

 

[MikeF]

You are correct. But at the same token, it is not correct to delegitimize the possibility of knowledge from experiences just because they are mystical/spiritual. We can have a discussion on what may guide one in determining which claims among these are veridical or not (if any) after the possibility is kept open.

And I absolutely agree with you that we must always be open to possibility. Scientific principles and standards have been a demonstrated way to help mitigate the failings of the individual observer and determine the veracity of those claims outside of purely subjective opinion or preference. Do you have some method or methods outside the disciplines of science that you use to evaluate claims?

 

[shunyadragon]

By far the majority of mystical and other spiritual experiences reflect ones own religious beliefs and cultural background, and they reflect many diverse conflicting religious beliefs.

 

[stvdv]

I am responding to some common objections regarding why one should not consider spiritual/mystical to be knowledge producing.

Strange objection "why one should not consider spiritual/mystical to be knowledge producing"
Must come from someone who never had the spiritual/mystical experience

8) What about all the extra-ordinary claims (like you can live a 1000 years, fly etc.)?
Do not believe extra-ordinary claims unless you get extra-ordinary evidence. Fishing IS a legitimate activity even if half the claims of what fishermen say they had caught in the good old days need to be treated with a dose of skepticism.

Those prove that science is still missing out on lots of stuff OR that not all spiritual claims are true OR that they are not to be taken literally OR ...
@stvdvRF

 

[sayak83]

And I absolutely agree with you that we must always be open to possibility. Scientific principles and standards have been a demonstrated way to help mitigate the failings of the individual observer and determine the veracity of those claims outside of purely subjective opinion or preference. Do you have some method or methods outside the disciplines of science that you use to evaluate claims?

Logical/rational/observational. I will discuss more in later threads maybe. Currently I am not prepared enough to make that argument properly.

 

[stvdv]

4) Not everyone can experience it. So it cannot be reliable.

Again a strange claim, that makes no sense to me
Many scientists made claims that were not accepted immediately

5) The experiences cannot be expressed and are vague and unfalsifiable

I have no problem with that, but I have noticed that this is bugging some people immensely; usually the ones "lacking spiritual experiences"

6) They have no utility that you can check now

My spiritual experience do have utility, and I can check it now. Strange IF others think they can determine what has utility for me or not.
@stvdvRF

 

[Nakosis]

I am responding to some common objections regarding why one should not consider spiritual/mystical to be knowledge producing.

1) Mystical experience are private and hence are not verifiable
Response: All experiences are private. I have not seen any public experience. My experience of a tree is as private as your experience of the tree.

2) There is no entity out there to which such experience refers to. Hence they are not about anything
Response: This does not mean that the experience is not pointing to a truth. Mathematical relations can be cognized without it being out there. Thus we can have veridical experiences that are not directly tied to things out there in the world.

3)Mystical experiences cannot be checked or verified for being true or false
For an established tradition of mysticism there are strict regulations and rules determining what does or does not constitute a genuine mystical experience. There are hundreds of texts on this. What has not happened is the universalization of standards across traditions that is accepted by all. However it is to be noted that sustained interactions between Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Sufis, Sikhs did mean that despite differences, much similarities can be found in the processes that lead towards spiritual experiences and the ways of determining if these experiences are real or not. Further, just like any advanced discipline, it is only practitioners of the path who form the peer group who have the expertise to decide whether an experience based claim is veridical or not.

4) Not everyone can experience it. So it cannot be reliable.
Not everyone can gather, analyze, understand or use the data that scientists or medical practitioners or experts use in their professional lives. However it can be learned, just like any specialized discipline. Not everyone can learn as well or do as good as some or reach the highest level. This too is common in all disciplines of human activity. It does not make sense to claim General Relativity is false as I cannot grasp it. Why would it make any more sense here?

5) The experiences cannot be expressed and are vague and unfalsifiable
There are literally thousands of years of detailed debate and interrogation literature on the nature of these experiences, apparent contradictions between the various experiences and what they truly tell about the nature of reality in Indian history. That is probably true in other traditions as well. Entire systems of logic, grammar, mathematics and epistemology has been developed out of such debates. These are not the marks of vague or unfalsifiable vacuous statements that are alleged for spiritual experiences.

6) They have no utility that you can check now
Studies have already shown that being part of a participating faith community is highly beneficial to physical and mental health. The benefits of yoga, various types of meditation on mental health, dealing with pain etc. are also established. Further, it is up to the practitioner to decide whether what he/she is getting is worth the effort.

7) The claimed knowledge is disconnected with scientific reality
This is not true for all systems. But many systems need to modernize and update what it is saying to be more consonant with what science says. In many traditions what can actually be known from spiritual insights have been mixed up with older beliefs about the world that were generally believed in the time when such traditions arose. Careful re-examination needed to distinguish between actual insights and legacy beliefs from an older time. I believe that if this is done, there is nothing really incompatible between the truths of spiritual insights and scientific knowledge of the world.

8) What about all the extra-ordinary claims (like you can live a 1000 years, fly etc.)?
Do not believe extra-ordinary claims unless you get extra-ordinary evidence. Fishing IS a legitimate activity even if half the claims of what fishermen say they had caught in the good old days need to be treated with a dose of skepticism.

What do you think?

Number 8 supports the position of the skeptic.
For me, religious/spiritual experiences have more natural explanations.
So, I'm not denying that people experience what they experience. To me, they likely have a natural explanation without a need to delve into supernatural ones.

 

[MikeF]

Logical/rational/observational. I will discuss more in later threads maybe. Currently I am not prepared enough to make that argument properly.

Certainly. No problem. I will look forward to it.