• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mystical Experiences Do Not Require a Belief in a God or Gods

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Over the years, I have been told by a handful of people that a mystical experience caused them to become agnostic or atheist. Andrew Newberg somewhere reports the same phenomena -- I think in his book, "Why God Won't Go Away".

On the other hand, I think a sizable number of nontheists who have mystical experiences end up adopting one or another form of theism -- or at least something like ietism. That probably happens way more often than theists becoming nontheists. Some people -- not you and I -- would jump on that news as strong evidence for the existence of deity, just as if the question could be properly settled by majority vote. Sometimes, I wish it were that simple.

And so it goes.
This is why I consider myself transtheist. Beliefs come and go, and trying to wedge deity belief/non-belief into some sort of correlation with mysticism distracts from mystical experiences.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
How do you differentiate between a mystical experience and a "true" mystical experience? And does it matter if one has a mystical experience through "natural" means and "artificial"(drug induced) means? If there is a difference, then would it be safe to say that the actual mystical experience is is meaningless, or at least not as important? So what is (more) important is the way in which you achieved the mystical experience. Or is it the way in how you achieve a "mystical experience," is really the actual mystical experience.
Someone once said "what's the value of turning on all the burners on your stove if you're not cooking anything?"

If an experience does not affect a person in the long term, then to me it has little or no value beyond, say, a funhouse ride. So my first answer is that if it does not change someone's life for the better in some way, an experience has no real value.

The second answer for me is that trying to force an experience as noted in my earlier quote has not had any lasting positive value. People I know who have had positive and life changing experiences reflect on their spontaneity. This verse from a song expresses that:

Change can come in the twinkling of an eye,
In the ripple upon a lake.
Change can come in the color of a flower,
In the sparkle of morning dew,
When the Light catches you.
In that tiny moment, you are transformed.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Mystical experiences are usually associated with deity. That is, they are often called "experiences of god". But apparently, nontheists are among those who have had mystical experiences.

'Nontheists' include atheists and many agnostics, ietists, apatheists, and so forth. Some nontheists adjust their views to embrace theism following their mystical experience. Others remain nontheists. Some nontheists came about their experiences via pyschoactive drugs. Others via other means including spontaneously.*

PLEASE NOTE WELL: RF RULES PROHIBIT ENDORSING THE USE OF ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES, INCLUDING ILLEGAL PSYCHOACTIVE DRUGS. AND DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT CLAIMING TO HAVE DONE SUCH THINGS YOURSELF!

One conclusion that I believe can be safely drawn from this is that a belief in a god or gods is not a prerequisite for a mystical experience.

Comments?




*Andrew Newberg and Nancy Wintering have created what is possibly the world's largest database of firsthand accounts by individuals of RSMEs (Religious, Spiritual, or Mystical Experiences). The individuals whose stories are in the database are self-selecting, so they are not likely to be statistically proportional to the world's population as a whole. Nevertheless, a significant number of the individuals reporting mystical experiences are nontheists, including atheists. However, I don't know what proportion of those reporting religious or spiritual experiences are nontheists. Mystical experiences are RSMEs that, among other things, emphasize oneness, wholeness, or unity as a characteristic or trait of the experience.


____________________________________
Many shamans use drugs to enter the spirit realm. It's easier with drugs; but can be done without drugs. I wouldn't suggest it because it's sorcery.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Mystical experiences are usually associated with deity. That is, they are often called "experiences of god". But apparently, nontheists are among those who have had mystical experiences.

'Nontheists' include atheists and many agnostics, ietists, apatheists, and so forth. Some nontheists adjust their views to embrace theism following their mystical experience. Others remain nontheists. Some nontheists came about their experiences via pyschoactive drugs. Others via other means including spontaneously.*

PLEASE NOTE WELL: RF RULES PROHIBIT ENDORSING THE USE OF ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES, INCLUDING ILLEGAL PSYCHOACTIVE DRUGS. AND DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT CLAIMING TO HAVE DONE SUCH THINGS YOURSELF!

One conclusion that I believe can be safely drawn from this is that a belief in a god or gods is not a prerequisite for a mystical experience.

Comments?




*Andrew Newberg and Nancy Wintering have created what is possibly the world's largest database of firsthand accounts by individuals of RSMEs (Religious, Spiritual, or Mystical Experiences). The individuals whose stories are in the database are self-selecting, so they are not likely to be statistically proportional to the world's population as a whole. Nevertheless, a significant number of the individuals reporting mystical experiences are nontheists, including atheists. However, I don't know what proportion of those reporting religious or spiritual experiences are nontheists. Mystical experiences are RSMEs that, among other things, emphasize oneness, wholeness, or unity as a characteristic or trait of the experience.
The thing about mystical experiences is that they always are fit by the person into whatever beliefs that person already holds. IOW if the person is Catholic, they might believe they are experiencing Jesus. If they are Buddhist, they might believe they are experiencing a time of enlightenment. Atheists are no different. A mystical experience will not bring them to belief in God.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
If an experience does not affect a person in the long term, then to me it has little or no value beyond, say, a funhouse ride. So my first answer is that if it does not change someone's life for the better in some way, an experience has no real value.
Mystical experiences are deeply enriching. It is too bad that not everyone has them. It's like only some people having color vision, or only some people hearing music.
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Many shamans use drugs to enter the spirit realm. It's easier with drugs; but can be done without drugs. I wouldn't suggest it because it's sorcery.
There is absolutely nothing about mystical experiences that is sorcery. It is a completely natural occurrence.
 

izzy88

Active Member
There is absolutely nothing about mystical experiences that is sorcery. It is a completely natural occurrence.
That's called a hypothesis. You should try not to state hypotheses as if they are facts; it makes you seem irrational and closed-minded.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
That's called a hypothesis. You should try not to state hypotheses as if they are facts; it makes you seem irrational and closed-minded.
No, it's really not a hypothesis. These experiences have been studied by science via MRI's etc. Furthermore, I have had a lifetime of mystical experiences, with no ill effects, not even an inkling of evil, and I'm very sensitive to inklings of evil. So... no sorcery.
 

izzy88

Active Member
No, it's really not a hypothesis. These experiences have been studied by science via MRI's etc.

What exactly does that prove? Can an MRI show the doctors what the person is actually seeing and experiencing during their trip? The fact that the chemicals have a certain effect on the physical brain that triggers or induces the hallucinogenic state does not thereby make it a "completely natural occurrence." Correlation does not equal causation.

Most of the people I've heard talk about their hallucinogenic experiences are quite convinced that there's something supernatural about it.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
What exactly does that prove? Can an MRI show the doctors what the person is actually seeing and experiencing during their trip? The fact that the chemicals have a certain effect on the physical brain that triggers or induces the hallucinogenic state does not thereby make it a "completely natural occurrence." Correlation does not equal causation.

Most of the people I've heard talk about their hallucinogenic experiences are quite convinced that there's something supernatural about it.
There is nothing supernatural about chemically induced experiences.

I'm not saying that mystical experiences don't transcend the brain. But what I am saying is that they are rooted in the brain, just as any other state of consciousness is: full wakefulness, zoning out, daydreaming, the various stages of sleep (including dreaming), hypnosis, dissociation, etc. States of consciousness are not sorcery.

Most often, a mystical experience is induced, i.e. by fervent prayer, ecstatic worship, quiet reflection, noticing the awesomeness of nature, etc. etc. None of these strike me as connected with sorcery.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
There is absolutely nothing about mystical experiences that is sorcery. It is a completely natural occurrence.
Taking drugs in order to contact the spiritual realm is sorcery. pharmakeia in Greek. Same root word as pharmacy ... drugs.

It's spiritual adultery. Isaiah 57:8-9

Many people have seen various entities. The worse ones are those who transform themselves into messengers of light. (2 Cor. 11:14) They're deceptive beings. (1 Tim. 4:1)
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Taking drugs in order to contact the spiritual realm is sorcery. pharmakeia in Greek. Same root word as pharmacy ... drugs.

It's spiritual adultery. Isaiah 57:8-9

Many people have seen various entities. The worse ones are those who transform themselves into messengers of light. (2 Cor. 11:14) They're deceptive beings. (1 Tim. 4:1)
Oh I wouldn't call it sorcery, since it doesn't use occultic means (meaning magic, divination, or contacting the dead). I just think that using drugs for spiritual stuff is rather stupid. But then again I've never done so, so what do I know?

Isaiah 57:8-9 doesn't say anything about either drug use or sorcery.

The similarity between pharmakeia in Greek and pharmacy in English (etymology) is irrelevant. Molesta in Spanish and molest in Englist are also similar, but mean very different things (molesta in Spanish simply means to bother -- nothing to do with sex).

It's so easy to accuse people of seeing messengers of light that are evil in disguise. I could easily accuse you of seeing Jesus as such a so-called messenger of light. See how that works? It's worthless as a diagnostic tool.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Oh I wouldn't call it sorcery, since it doesn't use occultic means (meaning magic, divination, or contacting the dead). I just think that using drugs for spiritual stuff is rather stupid. But then again I've never done so, so what do I know?
Yeah, well many Shamans use it. So I think they would know.
Isaiah 57:8-9 doesn't say anything about either drug use or sorcery.
Result is to allow entrance to other spirits. Any spirit that wants to inhabit you bodily that is not he holy Spirit of God is an adulteress spirit.
The similarity between pharmakeia in Greek and pharmacy in English (etymology) is irrelevant. Molesta in Spanish and molest in Englist are also similar, but mean very different things (molesta in Spanish simply means to bother -- nothing to do with sex).
To the ancient Greeks drugs were used to contact this spiritual realm. That's why the word in Koine Greek means both sorcery and drug use.

As for molesta meaning to bother in Spanish. It can also mean the same thing in English.

In more recent times molest is used more frequently in the sexual sense. But, that is not the only or original meaning of the word in English. If you read older books (from 19th century) you will see it used more in the Spanish sense.

Here from Webster's Dictionary 1828 edition nothing about sex is mentioned at all:

MOLEST', verb transitive [Latin molestus, troublesome, molo. See Mill.]

To trouble; to disturb; to render uneasy.
It's so easy to accuse people of seeing messengers of light that are evil in disguise. I could easily accuse you of seeing Jesus as such a so-called messenger of light. See how that works? It's worthless as a diagnostic tool.
Well, Jesus could appear to you in such a way you would have no doubts. Be that as it may; there is a difference. The truth can be discerned. The thing about lying spirits is that they're inconsistent. They will eventually contradict. They will eventually lie. They can keep up a rouse for awhile but not necessarily forever. And they'll eventually contradict the truth. People must be careful though because they're very deceptive. However, the whole purpose of them coming to anyone is in order to deceive. Otherwise they have no point in interacting with you at all. So, you will know them by their fruits as Jesus said.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
It's so easy to accuse people of seeing messengers of light that are evil in disguise. I could easily accuse you of seeing Jesus as such a so-called messenger of light. See how that works? It's worthless as a diagnostic tool.
The thing is that deceptive spirits can and do masquerade as "Jesus" but it's always to bring some demonic doctrine or to corrupt people spiritually. (2 Corinthians 11:4) And once you let them; they're often hard to get rid of. What I say to people is you're like lost sheep on the hills without a shepherd and there are many wolves. So it's stupid to try to contact spirits. God is easy to pray to. He doesn't need drugs or magic incantations, ouija boards, tarot cards etc.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Result is to allow entrance to other spirits. Any spirit that wants to inhabit you bodily that is not he holy Spirit of God is an adulteress spirit.
Sorry I've had mystical experiences all my life, and I've never been inhabited by an evil spirit, nor do I get an inkling of one hanging around. In fact, my mystical experiences draw me near to God.

As for molesta meaning to bother in Spanish. It can also mean the same thing in English.
Not anymore, which is why your argument falls flat on its face. So stop using a very very bad argument. You simply aren't making your case.

Well, Jesus could appear to you in such a way you would have no doubts.
I could experience the Virgin Mary in such a way that I would have no doubts too. Having no doubts is a poor diagnostic tool.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The thing is that deceptive spirits can and do masquerade as "Jesus" but it's always to bring some demonic doctrine or to corrupt people spiritually. (2 Corinthians 11:4) And once you let them; they're often hard to get rid of. What I say to people is you're like lost sheep on the hills without a shepherd and there are many wolves. So it's stupid to try to contact spirits. God is easy to pray to. He doesn't need drugs or magic incantations, ouija boards, tarot cards etc.
I'm already aware that everything that comes as Jesus is a fraud.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
The thing about mystical experiences is that they always are fit by the person into whatever beliefs that person already holds.

Really? Then that sounds like a pretty shallow mystical experience, or one that wasn't really taken seriously. A real mystical experience, by even a conservative definition, seems like it would have a high probability of containing things weren't in a person's belief box. Like take moses in his encounter with god for example, surely no belief he brought to that experience mattered. Rather, the experience gave him the new rather radical content that he and his followers forged into beliefs, which could only be done after considering the new raw material as generated from the experience
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The thing is that deceptive spirits can and do masquerade as "Jesus" but it's always to bring some demonic doctrine or to corrupt people spiritually. (2 Corinthians 11:4) And once you let them; they're often hard to get rid of. What I say to people is you're like lost sheep on the hills without a shepherd and there are many wolves. So it's stupid to try to contact spirits. God is easy to pray to. He doesn't need drugs or magic incantations, ouija boards, tarot cards etc.
Yet I can tell you first hand that in a mystical experience I am touched by God in a way that I simply am not in prayer. And these experiences draw me near to him, and get me worshiping and studying and praying and being faithful again. That is the opposite of what sorcery would do.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Really? Then that sounds like pretty shallow mystical experience, or one that wasn't really taken seriously. A real mystical experience, by even a conservative definition, seems like it would have a high probability of containing things weren't in a person's belief box. Like take moses in his encounter with god for example, surely no belief he brought to that experience mattered. Rather, the experience gave him the new rather radical content that he and his followers forged into beliefs, which could only be done after considering the new raw material as generated from the experience
They do not have rational content. Rather, they have intuitively experienced content. Later, the rational mind interprets this experience in the light of what it already deems known.
 
Top