Are merely "religious" experiences of god distinguishable from psychosis?
One winter, an out-of-work friend of mine became so depressed and lonely that (in the words of his psychiatrist) his "mind was forced to take a break from the reality of his suffering." Fortunately, he landed in the hospital where he got proper care, and his family then saw to it that he continued to receive care thereafter.
But following his psychotic break -- for weeks afterwards -- he felt God was telling him not to shave, and that he even felt compelled or forced to not shave.
Much later than that, he told me the episode might have given him both insight into such things as the biblical injunction not to eat shellfish, and also insight into how readily people will rationalize such injunctions in order to make them "sensible". That is, he wasn't entirely sure even then whether or not the injunction to avoid shaving was entirely a matter of psychosis -- or had something to do with God. It had felt that compelling to him.
"Religious" experiences are not something I know much about. They seem to me distinct from my main area of interest -- mystical experiences. For one thing, religious experiences always involve in some key way figures from your religious tradition -- or at least, a tradition you are familiar with. So, for instance, during a religious experience, you might see Jesus, Shiva, or some other such personage.
Again, religious experiences tend to involve only one or two perceptual fields, such as vision and hearing. You see Krishna, you hear the voice of Allah. Or they can -- as in my friend's case -- only involve some kind of compulsive and convincing thoughts that a specific God is telling you something.
But mystical experiences are different. Typically, mystical experiences involve all fields of perception. Your sight, hearing, touch, etc (along with any sensations you have of internal states, such as hunger) are all involved at once.
But the sine qua non of a mystical experience is a perception of oneness. All things within your perceptual fields are seen as possessing an underlying unity such that they become in some vital sense one.
It is possible that mystical experiences can involve personages from some specific religion, but that's a subject of hot debate among the scholars of mysticism. Some say that mystical experiences are only interpreted (after the fact) as having been of a Jesus or a Vishnu. That during the actual experience itself there is no merely religious content.
Against that contention, other scholars point to drug induced experiences during which religious images are frequently reported simultaneously with a sense or perception of oneness. And the debate goes on from there.
Having said all that, are there any grounds upon which we can reliably distinguish between religious experiences and psychotic hallucinations? If so, what are those grounds? How reliable do you suppose they are?
One winter, an out-of-work friend of mine became so depressed and lonely that (in the words of his psychiatrist) his "mind was forced to take a break from the reality of his suffering." Fortunately, he landed in the hospital where he got proper care, and his family then saw to it that he continued to receive care thereafter.
But following his psychotic break -- for weeks afterwards -- he felt God was telling him not to shave, and that he even felt compelled or forced to not shave.
Much later than that, he told me the episode might have given him both insight into such things as the biblical injunction not to eat shellfish, and also insight into how readily people will rationalize such injunctions in order to make them "sensible". That is, he wasn't entirely sure even then whether or not the injunction to avoid shaving was entirely a matter of psychosis -- or had something to do with God. It had felt that compelling to him.
"Religious" experiences are not something I know much about. They seem to me distinct from my main area of interest -- mystical experiences. For one thing, religious experiences always involve in some key way figures from your religious tradition -- or at least, a tradition you are familiar with. So, for instance, during a religious experience, you might see Jesus, Shiva, or some other such personage.
Again, religious experiences tend to involve only one or two perceptual fields, such as vision and hearing. You see Krishna, you hear the voice of Allah. Or they can -- as in my friend's case -- only involve some kind of compulsive and convincing thoughts that a specific God is telling you something.
But mystical experiences are different. Typically, mystical experiences involve all fields of perception. Your sight, hearing, touch, etc (along with any sensations you have of internal states, such as hunger) are all involved at once.
But the sine qua non of a mystical experience is a perception of oneness. All things within your perceptual fields are seen as possessing an underlying unity such that they become in some vital sense one.
It is possible that mystical experiences can involve personages from some specific religion, but that's a subject of hot debate among the scholars of mysticism. Some say that mystical experiences are only interpreted (after the fact) as having been of a Jesus or a Vishnu. That during the actual experience itself there is no merely religious content.
Against that contention, other scholars point to drug induced experiences during which religious images are frequently reported simultaneously with a sense or perception of oneness. And the debate goes on from there.
Having said all that, are there any grounds upon which we can reliably distinguish between religious experiences and psychotic hallucinations? If so, what are those grounds? How reliable do you suppose they are?
. The fun part is to try out yourself. I hear many people talk about it only. Just do the stuff. That is real proof and knowledge.
