Should Atheists Ignore Mystical Experiences?

[rojse]

You seem to be assuming that mystical experiences are necessarily experiences of the supernatural. Is that the case? And if so, on what basis do you make that assumption?


BTW, Welcome to the Forum!

How can mystical experiences not be supernatural? We cannot explain them scientifically at this time, so that makes it a supernatural realm, doesn't it?

 

[Sunstone]

How can mystical experiences not be supernatural? We cannot explain them scientifically at this time, so that makes it a supernatural realm, doesn't it?

Not necessarily, Rojse. It's quite possible there is a natural explanation for mystical experiences -- but one which we haven't discovered yet. Merely because a natural explanation has yet to be discovered does not necessitate a supernatural explanation.

 

[rojse]

Not necessarily, Rojse. It's quite possible there is a natural explanation for mystical experiences -- but one which we haven't discovered yet. Merely because a natural explanation has yet to be discovered does not necessitate a supernatural explanation.

We are working from different definitions.

My understanding of the word supernatural is something that cannot currently be explained through science. It's existence is debatable, because there is no definitive proof. The phenomena may be explainable through science at a later period of time, or it may not exist.

 

[Storm]

We are working from different definitions.

My understanding of the word supernatural is something that cannot currently be explained through science. It's existence is debatable, because there is no definitive proof. The phenomena may be explainable through science at a later period of time, or it may not exist.

By that definition, rojse, consciousness is supernatural. There's not even a consensus on what it is, but its existence is not debatable.

 

[Willamena]

"Supernatural" to me is something which we have no way to explain naturally (i.e. scientifically), not because we haven't found an explanation yet, but because there can be none in the languages we have. To try to put it into words, to communicate to others, cannot do it justice (as Neitzsche said about God, it "kills" it) because our "words" are a database of symbols built on experiences of the natural world. Perhaps we can in the future construct a new database of symbols, perhaps even drawn on metaphors, but even then the "supernatural" would retain its identity as "the other".

 

[mingmty]

Not necessarily, Rojse. It's quite possible there is a natural explanation for mystical experiences -- but one which we haven't discovered yet. Merely because a natural explanation has yet to be discovered does not necessitate a supernatural explanation.

Seems like mystical experience natural explanations are already being found:

"Scientific American is reporting on scientific work done to map the euphoric religious feelings within the brain. As a result, it's now quite possible to experience 'proximity to God' via a special helmet"

No need to ignore religious experiences for us... Just turn the switch on and rock the spirituality on! :sarcastic

Kind of spooky, by the way.

 

[Storm]

"Scientific American is reporting on scientific work done to map the euphoric religious feelings within the brain. As a result, it's now quite possible to experience 'proximity to God' via a special helmet"
From the article:

In a series of studies conducted over the past several decades, Persinger and his team have trained their device on the temporal lobes of hundreds of people. In doing so, the researchers induced in most of them the experience of a sensed presence—a feeling that someone (or a spirit) is in the room when no one, in fact, is—or of a profound state of cosmic bliss that reveals a universal truth. During the three-minute bursts of stimulation, the affected subjects translated this perception of the divine into their own cultural and religious language—terming it God, Buddha, a benevolent presence or the wonder of the universe.


Persinger thus argues that religious experience and belief in God are merely the results of electrical anomalies in the human brain.

He's jumping the gun. Correlation is not necessarily cause.

 

[mingmty]

"Scientific American is reporting on scientific work done to map the euphoric religious feelings within the brain. As a result, it's now quite possible to experience 'proximity to God' via a special helmet"

He's jumping the gun. Correlation is not necessarily cause.

I agree, the investigation is not done yet, but there is some nice experimentation showing good results. When brain scanning technologies evolve and high resolution real-time brain activity monitors become a reality this experiments are going to produce more tangible results.

Anyway, I find amazing this part:

When the Buddhist subjects reached their self-reported meditation peak, a state in which they lose their sense of existence as separate individuals, the researchers injected them with a radioactive isotope that is carried by the blood to active brain areas. The investigators then photographed the isotope’s distribution with a special camera—a technique called single-photon-emission computed tomography (SPECT).

The height of this meditative trance, as they described in a 2001 paper, was associated with both a large drop in activity in a portion of the parietal lobe, which encompasses the upper back of the brain, and an increase in activity in the right prefrontal cortex, which resides behind the forehead. Because the affected part of the parietal lobe normally aids with navigation and spatial orientation, the neuroscientists surmise that its abnormal silence during meditation underlies the perceived dissolution of physical boundaries and the feeling of being at one with the universe. The prefrontal cortex, on the other hand, is charged with attention and planning, among other cognitive duties, and its recruitment at the meditation peak may reflect the fact that such contemplation often requires that a person focus intensely on a thought or object.

How nice is that? Now I want to learn to meditate properly.

 

[Storm]

I agree, the investigation is not done yet, but there is some nice experimentation showing good results. When brain scanning technologies evolve and high resolution real-time brain activity monitors become a reality this experiments are going to produce more tangible results.

Yes, but they still won't be able to answer the question of God's existence/ whether mystics are truly communing with God.

Anyway, I find amazing this part:

I'm rather excited by it meself. :yes:

How nice is that? Now I want to learn to meditate properly.

I have a (rather intense) technique that I'd be happy to share with you. It takes time and commitment, but I've found it effective. PM me if you're interested.

 

[doppelganger]

Yes, but they still won't be able to answer the question of God's existence/ whether mystics are truly communing with God.

It is impossible to disprove any ontological assertion.

 

[Storm]

It is impossible to disprove any ontological assertion.

Persinger's trying though. I hate it when scientists pretend their studies answer such questions. It destroys their credibility in my eyes.

 

[doppelganger]

It destroys their credibility in my eyes.

Are there reasonable and unreasonable ontological assertions?

 

[gnomon]

Nobody should ignore any experience.

Whether or not they wish to slap a label of mysticism on it is up to them.

 

[Storm]

Are there reasonable and unreasonable ontological assertions?

Honestly, dopp, I haven't studied ontology, and I prefer not to opine from ignorance.

I do believe there are limits to science's scope, and I have a problem with scientists who do not respect them.

 

[doppelganger]

Honestly, dopp, I haven't studied ontology, and I prefer not to opine from ignorance.

Let me rephrase the question. Are there any claims of fact that you would think it is unreasonable to assert?

 

[Storm]

Let me rephrase the question. Are there any claims of fact that you would think it is unreasonable to assert?

Numerous. Anything related to God for starters. That consciousness (sapience) is a byproduct of neural complexity, or of a soul.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't think the question is answerable. Why? Because there is no such thing as a mystical experience for the atheist - only natural experiences that may or may not have a known explanation (or theory).

That is blatantly incorrect. I was an avowed atheist when I had my first mystical experience and my universe turned inside out. Trust me when I say that atheist is perhaps in the very best position to understand this kind of phenomena due to their lack of preconceptions. Religious thought will simply cloud the experience with quite unnecessary baggage.

 

[nutshell]

That is blatantly incorrect. I was an avowed atheist when I had my first mystical experience and my universe turned inside out. Trust me when I say that atheist is perhaps in the very best position to understand this kind of phenomena due to their lack of preconceptions. Religious thought will simply cloud the experience with quite unnecessary baggage.

An atheist comes with their own set of preconceptions as well. Just because they are different does not mean they don't exist.

 

[rojse]

By that definition, rojse, consciousness is supernatural. There's not even a consensus on what it is, but its existence is not debatable.

We do not have a debate that consciousness exists, therefore, I would not categorise it as supernatural.

 

[Storm]

We do not have a debate that consciousness exists, therefore, I would not categorise it as supernatural.

Exactly. I was attempting topoint out that your definition of supernatural is flawed.