Do you really believe in god?

[Storm]

I wouldn't say that mystical experiences are pathological in nature, though in some sense they are hallucinations -- whether false or objectively true. And I'm sure the trance states you mention ARE healthy. Studies indicate that regular prayer, meditation, etc. can have positive psychological and physiological effects. The question is whether these experiences come only from the brain or whether we are accessing objective spiritual information by using the brain as a sort of "radio" receiver.

OK, I'm not sure how long this has been a problem, but now I'm definitely confused by your usage of "hallucination." What exactly do you mean?

Susan Blackmore proposes that out of body experiences (which sometimes include mystical experiences) are natural as well. I don't disagree. Some people are even able to induce them at will; I am a member of a message forum about astral traveling. However, they often report that events they perceive while out of body did not really happen, objects are in the wrong place, etc.

Susan Blackmore has been able to induce out of body experiences with ketamine, which can also produce mystical experiences, yet the "events" she perceived during her OBE did not really occur. What do you make of this?

As I said, all such claims should be scrutinized carefully. Ideally, Ms. Blackmore would join the neurotheology studies to see if her neural activity in ketamine-induced OBEs matched up to that of a self-induced trance state, which I rather doubt.

If you're looking for a more prsonal opinion, while I do believe that it is possible to achieve such things accurately, such achievements are incredibly rare, the province of the great geniuses. Any healthy human can learn to paint or play an instrument; very few will ever reach the heights of Monet or Beethoven. I think a great many mystics expect too much, and, in the admitedly vulnerable process of inducing trance, succumb to wishful thinking. That's assuming that such mystics are truly inducing trance at all - it is a learned skill after all, and usually self-taught.

 

[Willamena]

OK, I'm not sure how long this has been a problem, but now I'm definitely confused by your usage of "hallucination." What exactly do you mean?

Myself, I was confused by the use of "objective spiritual infomation." If spirit is us, as I believe most mystics would acknowledge, then where else would this information come from, but the same place all information comes?

 

[lilithu]

I believe I just demonstrated that it does by answering the appendix question.

Creator, no, but biology does presuppose purpose. Evolution tells us that traits evolve to meet needs. Unless you mean to argue that our eyes, bipedal status, and ability to communicate via language all serve no purpose.

Purpose is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. It is not and cannot be an objective term.

Science does not say that the purpose of an eye is to see. Sorry, but it doesn't. Again, that would imply that someone had a purpose in designing the eye. We think in terms of purpose because it suits our needs from our perspective.

In the crudest of terms (ie - grossly inaccurate), science would say that because of the eye, we can see. And that those animals that can see reproduce better than those animals that can't see. And because or better reproductive rates (ie - fitness), the animals with eyes outbred the animals without eyes. And that is how we came to have eyes.

No purpose.

 

[spiritually inclined]

OK, I'm not sure how long this has been a problem, but now I'm definitely confused by your usage of "hallucination." What exactly do you mean?

Sorry for the confusing terminology. I meant that everything our brain perceives seems real to the brain -- we can have hallucinations of reality. But this just confuses things.

So do you think that Susan Blackmore's drug-induced mystical experiences are not valid despite the similarities?

What do you think about the validity of near-death experiences induced by coming near death, drugs, or fear of imminent death?

Is there some line that can be drawn to separate "true" mystical experiences from "false" mystical experiences?

I am not attempting to argue with you, only to learn and perhaps expand my thoughts. I am an inquisitive person.

James

 

[Willamena]

So do you think that Susan Blackmore's drug-induced mystical experiences are not valid despite the similarities?

Valid experiences for her, sure, as she was the one who experienced them.

What do you think about the validity of near-death experiences induced by coming near death, drugs, or fear of imminent death?

I'm sure their participants found them to be valid experiences.

Is there some line that can be drawn to separate "true" mystical experiences from "false" mystical experiences?

Should there be? I mean, if someone has a "real" mystical experience, and says, "Hi. I've had a mystical experience." And then someone else has a "fake" mystical experience, and says, "Hi. I've had a mystical experience," well... what's it to you? Or anyone? These fellows are both the same to you: both have claimed an experience, and neither has had an experience you can verify. Any line drawn would be entirely arbitrary.

The only way to know a "true" mystical experience is to have one.

 

[spiritually inclined]

As I said, all such claims should be scrutinized carefully. Ideally, Ms. Blackmore would join the neurotheology studies to see if her neural activity in ketamine-induced OBEs matched up to that of a self-induced trance state, which I rather doubt.

If you're looking for a more prsonal opinion, while I do believe that it is possible to achieve such things accurately, such achievements are incredibly rare, the province of the great geniuses.

And yet you seem to think her experience is somehow different from naturally induced mystical experiences when I asked you why she would perceive incorrect information in her OBE (which can also happen in naturally induced OBEs).

 

[Storm]

So do you think that Susan Blackmore's drug-induced mystical experiences are not valid despite the similarities?

What similarities? Neurological? Descriptive? To trance states or other research into psychic abilities? Did I miss something? I think I missed something.

And yet you seem to think her experience is somehow different from naturally induced mystical experiences when I asked you why she would perceive incorrect information in her OBE (which can also happen in naturally induced OBEs).

I really don't know, James.

1) In my estimation, we're talking about two different things. There are the mystical trance states studied by the neurotheology I'm familiar with (far from all that's been done), which are attempts to commune with God by "looking" inward; and then there are psychic phenomena, including OBEs and attempts to perceive things and events in the physical world by "looking" outward.

While I believe that both are possible, I'm far more skeptical of claims to the latter, believing them to be far more rare and difficult, the product of a true "God-given" talent on par with Beethoven or da Vinci. Also, I doubt that the two activities would be neurologically the same, though they're probably similar.

2) As I mentioned earlier, I'm highly doubtful of any claims based on drug use.

So, all told, I don't put much stock in the idea that drugs will induce or unlock a genuine psychic ability. I don't reject the idea out of hand, but I'd want some pretty strong evidence, and I just don't have enough information on Ms. Blackmore's work. So I'm dubious. Mostly, I'd like to see how neurological scans of her experience compared to the baseline of mystical trance states, as well as people who were just high and not claiming anything else.

I don't think that such scans would reveal the same neural activity as trance states, for reasons previously mentioned. If there are similar scans of naturally induced self-proclaimed psychics to compare, I'd be surprised but not shocked if they matched up. As to whether or not the experience is valid, as Wilamena put it so nicely, they're valid to Ms. Blackmore at the very least.

Does that answer your question?

What do you think about the validity of near-death experiences induced by coming near death, drugs, or fear of imminent death?

I think it varies to wildly for me to answer that at all.

Is there some line that can be drawn to separate "true" mystical experiences from "false" mystical experiences?

Yes.

Objectively by human means and judgement? Maybe, but we haven't got it quite figured out. Unurprising, given how little time and resources have been devoted to the question. (Relatively speaking, of course.) If it can be done, I think we're on the right path.

I am not attempting to argue with you, only to learn and perhaps expand my thoughts. I am an inquisitive person.

James

Understood and appreciated. :yes:

 

[spiritually inclined]

I think you've pretty much answered my questions regarding your point of view. This is quite a complex topic!

Were you raised in Unitarian Universalism or some other church?

James

 

[Storm]

This is quite a complex topic!

Indeed. :yes:

Were you raised in Unitarian Universalism or some other church?

Oh, no. I had a largely secular upbringing. I was raised nominally Christian, and my mother was a churchgoer, but my father was a deist with Taoist leanings. His entire theology was expressed in two sentences: "God exists. If you would know His mind; study His works." - His works being everything that exists. Sundays were our special time together, and he used it to instill in me a love of all things intellectual, and also his own morality, which is based on Enlightenment deism and ethics, and civic duty.

I went from nominal Christianity to very infantile atheism, then had a transformative theophany. After that, non-belief was no longer an option, so I started studying. I discovered neopaganism and was deeply devoted to it for some time, but I've come out the other side. My beliefs no longer fit even under that particularly vast umbrella, though I retain a deep and abiding affection for it. I discovered UU about 10 years ago, and remain quite content and proud with that community, where all are embraced as equals.

What about you?

Edit:
I should add, I don't mean that all atheism is infantile, and my Christianity was infantile as well - unsurprising since I was only a child at the time. "Jesus loves me, yes I know/ For the Bible tells me so." God was omnimax, and as long as I believed in Him and loved Him, nothing bad would ever happen to me. Well, I believed and loved, and bad things happened anyway, so God must not exist.

I meant no offense to anyone, and I hope none was taken before I got this edit up.

 

[!Fluffy!]

The thing about Russell is that he approaches Christianity much on its own terms and criticizes both professional and popular Christian apologetics. He attacks the arguments for God and institutionalized religion and shows the weaknesses of those arguments, but he cannot conclude that God actually does not exist. .

Sorry but none of that is evident here:

“There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably, some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he does not dare face this thought. Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not real, he becomes furious when they are disputed.” Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics

However, one would expect those who argue that God exists and participate in institutionalized religion can articulate convincingly their positive role in human life

I'm sorry but I doubt that would convince a Bertrand Russell of much, based on all the outrageous assumptions contained just within that one quote.

 

[spiritually inclined]

What about you?

I wasn't raised in church by my parents, but I joined a Pentecostal church at the age of 10. My great grandfather was the pastor there, and I had some extended family in the church. My experience with religion has been extremely negative. I left that church at 14; I consider Pentecostalism (though not all forms of Christianity) a border-line cult.

My first introduction to a more positive Christianity was by a man named Jack in a Methodist church. He embraced me as a person. When he found out that I am gay, he actually told me that the gay people he knew in college were cool. That was a far cry from what I've heard from other believers, even non-Pentecostal believers. One of my family members told me that she felt sick to her stomach in my presence because of my homosexuality.

I had some New Age beliefs for a long time. I am now much more skeptical. I try to keep an open mind, yet we always have bias. Even when we allow our opinions to change, we form new prejudices.

At this point I do not believe in God or the supernatural, yet I also do not claim absolutely that they do not against. I simply don't have anything convincing me at this point. I would change my mind if confronted with convincing evidence.

On the other hand, I have always been an innately religious person, even in childhood. I am still searching for the right path. I am not near a Unitarian Universalist church, but I have been interested in it for a long time. I plan to live in an area, eventually, where I can attend a few congregations and see if that is the right community for me. I like the idea that I can grow and my beliefs can change without needing to leave Unitarian Universalism.

For now, however, I have no official religion. I've learned tremendously about different forms of Christianity, and I'm picking up knowledge here and there about other religions. Another thing I like about Unitarian Universalism is that it will introduce me to a more in depth knowledge of other religions.

James

 

[Storm]

My first introduction to a more positive Christianity was by a man named Jack in a Methodist church. He embraced me as a person. When he found out that I am gay, he actually told me that the gay people he knew in college were cool. That was a far cry from what I've heard from other believers, even non-Pentecostal believers. One of my family members told me that she felt sick to her stomach in my presence because of my homosexuality.

My sympathies. I've had similar experiences. You know, you should join the Rainbow Room it's one of the private forums, reserved for GLBTs "and straight allies."

At this point I do not believe in God or the supernatural, yet I also do not claim absolutely that they do not against. I simply don't have anything convincing me at this point. I would change my mind if confronted with convincing evidence.

>chuckle<

Lillithu's right, we are an odd pair. :areyoucra I believe in God, obviously, but actively disbelieve in the supernatural.

On the other hand, I have always been an innately religious person, even in childhood. I am still searching for the right path. I am not near a Unitarian Universalist church, but I have been interested in it for a long time. I plan to live in an area, eventually, where I can attend a few congregations and see if that is the right community for me. I like the idea that I can grow and my beliefs can change without needing to leave Unitarian Universalism.

You should definitely look into it, then. I love it.

 

[Smoke]

I wasn't raised in church by my parents, but I joined a Pentecostal church at the age of 10. My great grandfather was the pastor there, and I had some extended family in the church. My experience with religion has been extremely negative. I left that church at 14; I consider Pentecostalism (though not all forms of Christianity) a border-line cult.

My first introduction to a more positive Christianity was by a man named Jack in a Methodist church. He embraced me as a person. When he found out that I am gay, he actually told me that the gay people he knew in college were cool. That was a far cry from what I've heard from other believers, even non-Pentecostal believers. One of my family members told me that she felt sick to her stomach in my presence because of my homosexuality.

I had some New Age beliefs for a long time. I am now much more skeptical. I try to keep an open mind, yet we always have bias. Even when we allow our opinions to change, we form new prejudices.

At this point I do not believe in God or the supernatural, yet I also do not claim absolutely that they do not against. I simply don't have anything convincing me at this point. I would change my mind if confronted with convincing evidence.

On the other hand, I have always been an innately religious person, even in childhood. I am still searching for the right path. I am not near a Unitarian Universalist church, but I have been interested in it for a long time. I plan to live in an area, eventually, where I can attend a few congregations and see if that is the right community for me. I like the idea that I can grow and my beliefs can change without needing to leave Unitarian Universalism.

For now, however, I have no official religion. I've learned tremendously about different forms of Christianity, and I'm picking up knowledge here and there about other religions. Another thing I like about Unitarian Universalism is that it will introduce me to a more in depth knowledge of other religions.

Your experience very nearly parallels my own -- right down to having a great-grandfather who was a Pentecostal pastor. While I no longer believe that there is a "right path" to be found in religion, I believe it's possible to find a path that is right for yourself, and that some religions, such as Unitarian-Universalism, can provide a sense of community and be a help on that path. Best wishes for your journey.

 

[spiritually inclined]

You know, you should join the Rainbow Room it's one of the private forums, reserved for GLBTs "and straight allies."

How can I do that?

Your experience very nearly parallels my own -- right down to having a great-grandfather who was a Pentecostal pastor. While I no longer believe that there is a "right path" to be found in religion, I believe it's possible to find a path that is right for yourself, and that some religions, such as Unitarian-Universalism, can provide a sense of community and be a help on that path. Best wishes for your journey.

Thank you! Where has your path led you? I see that your religion says that you are a nontheist friend. Does that mean you are Quaker? Are they still called that? I don't know much about them other than that they are very progressive and humanitarian, which I admire.

James