Religious Experiences and Delusions

[Rational Agnostic]

I am wondering: for those of you who are religious and believe in the legitimacy of religious/spiritual experiences and/or revelations, how do you determine which experiences are legitimate and which are delusions or hallucinations? Presumably you do not believe that *all* spiritual experiences are real in the sense that they are experiences that reflect reality or have any bearing on what is objectively true. In fact, in my experience, the majority of religious people dismiss MOST of these experiences as delusions. So, what is the criteria that you use to determine which experiences are legitimate, and which are not? Is it whether or not the experience conforms to your pre-supposed set of beliefs? Is it the vividness of the experience? Type of experience? In my research, it seems that people's "spiritual experiences" tend to be manifestations of the predominant beliefs of their culture, which explains why most people who grew up in Christian cultures tend to have visions of Jesus, most who grew up in Buddhist cultures tend to have visions of Buddha, most who grew up in Islamic cultures have visions of Muhammed, Hindus have experiences of various Hindu gods etc. Of course, there ARE exceptions, and I am aware of them. But, nevertheless, this seems to be the rule and I am aware of no one who has had an experience with a "god" prior to having heard of that "god" from another person. So, back to the initial question, what is your criteria for segregating delusions from legitimate experiences of reality?

 

[Polymath257]

I am wondering: for those of you who are religious and believe in the legitimacy of religious/spiritual experiences and/or revelations, how do you determine which experiences are legitimate and which are delusions or hallucinations? Presumably you do not believe that *all* spiritual experiences are real in the sense that they are experiences that reflect reality or have any bearing on what is objectively true. In fact, in my experience, the majority of religious people dismiss MOST of these experiences as delusions. So, what is the criteria that you use to determine which experiences are legitimate, and which are not? Is it whether or not the experience conforms to your pre-supposed set of beliefs? Is it the vividness of the experience? Type of experience? In my research, it seems that people's "spiritual experiences" tend to be manifestations of the predominant beliefs of their culture, which explains why most people who grew up in Christian cultures tend to have visions of Jesus, most who grew up in Buddhist cultures tend to have visions of Buddha, most who grew up in Islamic cultures have visions of Muhammed, Hindus have experiences of various Hindu gods etc. Of course, there ARE exceptions, and I am aware of them. But, nevertheless, this seems to be the rule and I am aware of no one who has had an experience with a "god" prior to having heard of that "god" from another person. So, back to the initial question, what is your criteria for segregating delusions from legitimate experiences of reality?

Well, if it happens to *me*, it is valid, right?

 

[Lunarious]

Courage (Which breeds shock and experience layer upon layer).

Allah don't reveal himself.

 

[YmirGF]

I am wondering: for those of you who are religious and believe in the legitimacy of religious/spiritual experiences and/or revelations, how do you determine which experiences are legitimate and which are delusions or hallucinations? Presumably you do not believe that *all* spiritual experiences are real in the sense that they are experiences that reflect reality or have any bearing on what is objectively true. In fact, in my experience, the majority of religious people dismiss MOST of these experiences as delusions. So, what is the criteria that you use to determine which experiences are legitimate, and which are not? Is it whether or not the experience conforms to your pre-supposed set of beliefs? Is it the vividness of the experience? Type of experience? In my research, it seems that people's "spiritual experiences" tend to be manifestations of the predominant beliefs of their culture, which explains why most people who grew up in Christian cultures tend to have visions of Jesus, most who grew up in Buddhist cultures tend to have visions of Buddha, most who grew up in Islamic cultures have visions of Muhammed, Hindus have experiences of various Hindu gods etc. Of course, there ARE exceptions, and I am aware of them. But, nevertheless, this seems to be the rule and I am aware of no one who has had an experience with a "god" prior to having heard of that "god" from another person. So, back to the initial question, what is your criteria for segregating delusions from legitimate experiences of reality?

Very little, really.

Having had a wealth of my own inner adventures I can say that one telling thing is the lasting effect said experiences have on the personality involved. Such experiences should have an overall positive effect and nullify extremist or fanatical tendencies.

 

[David T]

I am wondering: for those of you who are religious and believe in the legitimacy of religious/spiritual experiences and/or revelations, how do you determine which experiences are legitimate and which are delusions or hallucinations? Presumably you do not believe that *all* spiritual experiences are real in the sense that they are experiences that reflect reality or have any bearing on what is objectively true. In fact, in my experience, the majority of religious people dismiss MOST of these experiences as delusions. So, what is the criteria that you use to determine which experiences are legitimate, and which are not? Is it whether or not the experience conforms to your pre-supposed set of beliefs? Is it the vividness of the experience? Type of experience? In my research, it seems that people's "spiritual experiences" tend to be manifestations of the predominant beliefs of their culture, which explains why most people who grew up in Christian cultures tend to have visions of Jesus, most who grew up in Buddhist cultures tend to have visions of Buddha, most who grew up in Islamic cultures have visions of Muhammed, Hindus have experiences of various Hindu gods etc. Of course, there ARE exceptions, and I am aware of them. But, nevertheless, this seems to be the rule and I am aware of no one who has had an experience with a "god" prior to having heard of that "god" from another person. So, back to the initial question, what is your criteria for segregating delusions from legitimate experiences of reality?

Breathing.

 

[Lunarious]

Very little, really.

Having had a wealth of my own inner adventures I can say that one telling thing is the lasting effect said experiences have on the personality involved. Such experiences should have an overall positive effect and nullify extremist or fanatical tendencies.

It creates a "Japanese" world. But not nullify terrorists.

 

[Lunarious]

Breathing.

You do that when you're retired. If you do that now without working you'll pay.

 

[David T]

You do that when you're retired. If you do that now without working you'll pay.

Usually I am the only one on the job breathing. I don't know how people can manage jobs without stepping back briefly taking a breath, realize we get stuff done in spite of ourselves. I mean I can't manage a job if I am one of the chickens with my head cut off. Someone has to be in reality breathing or disaster happens. It's like oh no the site is going mad.

 

[Lunarious]

Usually I am the only one on the job breathing. I don't know how people can manage jobs without stepping back briefly taking a breath, realize we get stuff done in spite of ourselves. I mean I can't manage a job if I am one of the chickens with my head cut off. Someone has to be in reality breathing or disaster happens. It's like oh no the site is going mad.

People consume much air because their ****ing too much. Theres plenty of air.

 

[David T]

People consume much air because their ****ing too much. Theres plenty of air.

Mindlessly ****ing. I suppose that the modern solution to insanity. I will just mindlessly approach life that's safe!!! I need to go shopping now. I envy that actually.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am wondering: for those of you who are religious and believe in the legitimacy of religious/spiritual experiences and/or revelations, how do you determine which experiences are legitimate and which are delusions or hallucinations? Presumably you do not believe that *all* spiritual experiences are real in the sense that they are experiences that reflect reality or have any bearing on what is objectively true. In fact, in my experience, the majority of religious people dismiss MOST of these experiences as delusions. So, what is the criteria that you use to determine which experiences are legitimate, and which are not? Is it whether or not the experience conforms to your pre-supposed set of beliefs? Is it the vividness of the experience? Type of experience? In my research, it seems that people's "spiritual experiences" tend to be manifestations of the predominant beliefs of their culture, which explains why most people who grew up in Christian cultures tend to have visions of Jesus, most who grew up in Buddhist cultures tend to have visions of Buddha, most who grew up in Islamic cultures have visions of Muhammed, Hindus have experiences of various Hindu gods etc. Of course, there ARE exceptions, and I am aware of them. But, nevertheless, this seems to be the rule and I am aware of no one who has had an experience with a "god" prior to having heard of that "god" from another person. So, back to the initial question, what is your criteria for segregating delusions from legitimate experiences of reality?

My first thought was if it we experienced a delusion or hullcination, how would we know?

I know The Buddha teaches that our experiences are delusions if they lead us from enlightenment. So, some people are having delusions they dont know about thats causing more suffering than peace. Least thats what The Dharma teaches.

 

[Geoff-Allen]

If an experience makes you a better human being, why wonder if it is "real" or a delusion

 

[blü 2]

So, what is the criteria that you use to determine which experiences are legitimate, and which are not?

Excellent question ─ how do believers define 'true'?

My own answer is, truth is correspondence with objective reality.

What definition, and what consequent test, will determine for believers whether any particular statement is true or not?

 

[sayak83]

Excellent question ─ how do believers define 'true'?

My own answer is, truth is correspondence with objective reality.

What definition, and what consequent test, will determine for believers whether any particular statement is true or not?

How does one know something corresponds with objective reality?
I define true as pragmatists like William James did. Truth is that which proves useful in life and living.

 

[blü 2]

How does one know something corresponds with objective reality?

The best way we know to maximize objectivity is to use scientific method, with its empirical observations, examinable evidence, repeatable experiments and constant revisiting and rechecking of its answers.

I define true as pragmatists like William James did. Truth is that which proves useful in life and living.

Any useful lie passes your test.

So you offer no concept of truth as such at all; you have neither the means nor the interest to distinguish truth from lies, accurate statements from erroneous statements, yes?

 

[Sirona]

Well, if it happens to *me*, it is valid, right?

Also works the other way round. There is no chocolate in the universe because I don't like to eat it.

A truly religious or mystical experience as I would call it opens the soul to the depths of a reality that goes way beyond the personal everyday "me".

 

[atanu]

I am wondering: for those of you who are religious and believe in the legitimacy of religious/spiritual experiences and/or revelations, how do you determine which experiences are legitimate and which are delusions or hallucinations? Presumably you do not believe that *all* spiritual experiences are real in the sense that they are experiences that reflect reality or have any bearing on what is objectively true. In fact, in my experience, the majority of religious people dismiss MOST of these experiences as delusions. So, what is the criteria that you use to determine which experiences are legitimate, and which are not? Is it whether or not the experience conforms to your pre-supposed set of beliefs? Is it the vividness of the experience? Type of experience? In my research, it seems that people's "spiritual experiences" tend to be manifestations of the predominant beliefs of their culture, which explains why most people who grew up in Christian cultures tend to have visions of Jesus, most who grew up in Buddhist cultures tend to have visions of Buddha, most who grew up in Islamic cultures have visions of Muhammed, Hindus have experiences of various Hindu gods etc. Of course, there ARE exceptions, and I am aware of them. But, nevertheless, this seems to be the rule and I am aware of no one who has had an experience with a "god" prior to having heard of that "god" from another person. So, back to the initial question, what is your criteria for segregating delusions from legitimate experiences of reality?

The premise that experience can be real is not correct. Experience is experience of object..physical or mental.

The one that experiences cannot be unreal however.

 

[sayak83]

The best way we know to maximize objectivity is to use scientific method, with its empirical observations, examinable evidence, repeatable experiments and constant revisiting and rechecking of its answers.
Any useful lie passes your test.

So you offer no concept of truth as such at all; you have neither the means nor the interest to distinguish truth from lies, accurate statements from erroneous statements, yes?

Usefulness. Which is the ONLY measure in all of science as well. Science does not care about something as ridiculous as objective truth. All scientific theories are useful fictions created to successfully enable us interact with and manipulate our experiences in the world.

 

[Grandliseur]

I am wondering: for those of you who are religious and believe in the legitimacy of religious/spiritual experiences and/or revelations, how do you determine which experiences are legitimate and which are delusions or hallucinations?

I have had a few dreams that differed from normal and which I think were prophetic in regard to my personal life. I am not going to say that this is a certainty, just that it seems so.

I have had several prayers answered in real time that had nothing to do with imagination or other such mental mumbo-jumbo. It was the meat and potato kind, WYSIWYG stuff.

I have had 4 recognized encounters with demons, 1 which was witnesses by a large group in public, another which could be shown the results of years after, and 2 which I can only claim happened.

Thus apart from prayers that get a 'physical' response, my religious experiences are just part of life, the reading of the Bible, studying the issues, etc.
I enjoy walks in nature, and take this as God's gifts to us.

I suffer not from hallucinations, but atheist may claim I suffer from the God delusion, as I claim they worship the god of chaos. Again, down to the meat potato stuff, you kick me in the shins and I kick you back. While I am Christian, I very much believe in violence also. People tend to leave others alone if they realize serious pain follows.

 

[PureX]

Every experience is "real".

I think the question you're trying to ask is how do we know if the way we understand an experience, is an accurate understanding of it. And there really isn't any way for us to tell. What we understand the experience to have been is not knowingly inaccurate. So our answer will always be that our understanding is accurate as far as we know. And since you did not experience what we experienced, there is no way for you to deny this.