What do you mean by religious experience and can atheists have them?

[Politesse]

Poli, would you agree that there is a real, wordless reality, which our verbal models (and mental ones, too; never forget that our interpretations of sensory data are also models) attempt to represent?

Do you agree that we have a mutually accessible physical reality, which our thoughts and words can model with considerable but not perfect accuracy, and about which we can come to common mental and verbal understandings?

If you do so agree- if you accept that we actually live in the same physical world, and we don't just think we do- then as long as we can adequately (if not perfectly) define our terms in ways that are well anchored to that physical world, our words are useful, and we can talk about even such high abstractions as gods. Also about such things as liberty, or electrons, or magnetic fields. We can carefully build our ladders of abstraction, models of models, and have some confidence that they have meaning- that they are true.

Or, that they are NOT true. Which, I'd say, is the case with god(s); because, first off, those who try to define god(s) cannot anchor their model(s) to the wordless physical world. Whereas, we can demonstrate what we mean by magnetic fields, or plenty of other highly complex and abstract terms.

I don't agree to any of that, actually. Should I?

 

[steve_bank]

Despite having walked that (quite ancient) path myself, I wouldn't suggest it, either- although with proper guidance and self control, they can make for an interesting, effective and even enjoyable way of self-knowledge. But yes, I've seen far too many people who let the drugs become the master instead of the servant, whose lives were lessened or even destroyed, rather than expanded.

LSD was legal until the late 60s. The author Ken Kesy was introduced to LSD as a grad student in a study group.

Pschology students were using it. Snadoz in Europe manufactured clincal grade drugs. The Greatful Dead had a personal chemist, Owsley.

If you want to get a feel for it, Read The Electric Kool Aide Acid Test.

There were parties ith cans off kool aude spiked with acid.

Also look for the works of  R. Gordon Wasson- who sought out and tried assorted "entheogens", substances used by many ancient societies to bring on religious experiences.

We are getting astray. Back in the 60s a scientist John Lilly combined salt water isolation tanks with LSD. He wrote a book Center Of The Cyclone. Vivid hallucination's like having a conversation with Moses. I believe Lilly may have been the inspiration for the movies
Altered States.

The mass hallucination for lack of a better word for Christianity is understandable in the light of modern science. Way back in the 70s when I read Tolkien one day as I was reading Tolkien I fell asleep and imagines they were calling to me. The human imagination is boundless.

Over time as I got to know Christians I realized that for many of them it was not just a belief, they are living a reality of gods, angels, demons and so on. It is very real to them. That understanding is lacking by those who try to reduce religion to a logical debate based on evidence. Pointless.

 

[Juma]

Poli, would you agree that there is a real, wordless reality, which our verbal models (and mental ones, too; never forget that our interpretations of sensory data are also models) attempt to represent?

Do you agree that we have a mutually accessible physical reality, which our thoughts and words can model with considerable but not perfect accuracy, and about which we can come to common mental and verbal understandings?

If you do so agree- if you accept that we actually live in the same physical world, and we don't just think we do- then as long as we can adequately (if not perfectly) define our terms in ways that are well anchored to that physical world, our words are useful, and we can talk about even such high abstractions as gods. Also about such things as liberty, or electrons, or magnetic fields. We can carefully build our ladders of abstraction, models of models, and have some confidence that they have meaning- that they are true.

Or, that they are NOT true. Which, I'd say, is the case with god(s); because, first off, those who try to define god(s) cannot anchor their model(s) to the wordless physical world. Whereas, we can demonstrate what we mean by magnetic fields, or plenty of other highly complex and abstract terms.

I don't agree to any of that, actually. Should I?

The first paragraph at least. Why not?

 

[Politesse]

I have no reason to believe that there is a "real" and/or "wordless" reality. Even in the event that it is possible for both of those things to be true at once, how could I know that either is so or not? Either could be untrue, and we would be presented with the exact same apparent universe.

Real:
Is "reality" a meaningful concept, or a comforting fiction we tell ourselves? If there is a wordless, real universe, is it confined to the observable/material world that we interact with, or does it have other levels or natures that are not accessible through scientific investigation? I realize most people ponder this question for a while in PHIL 100 before giving up on it and simply assuming that there is a reality because it is easier to work with than the alternative. But that hardly makes for a watertight case.

Wordless:
Does it in fact make sense to say that there is no logos underlying the apparent rational ordering of the universe, or does it simply suit your religious sensibilities to assume that the logos does not exist? You may find it comforting to resolve the thousand year rifts between the Platonists and the Aristotelians regarding the nature of words with a mere dismissal, but if you want anyone else to believe you, a serious argument would need to be made.

Verbal models:
Clearly encompass much more than just the observable universe; we have plenty of verbal models to encapsulate places and concepts beyond our reach, that might exist, or that we think we know do not exist. Nor is it necessarily the case that "attempting to represent" the universe is the fundamental motivation for speech. In fact, I would argue that the primary purpose of most words is more social than epistemological, hence why most of the shit we say is intentionally counter-factual on some level. We speak of the universe we want, not the one we see.

 

[Learner]

What do you mean by religious experience and can atheists have them?

According to former atheists you can.

 

[southernhybrid]

What do you mean by religious experience and can atheists have them?

According to former atheists you can.

But former atheists are very rare, while former Christians are fairly common. Anyway, the OP didn't ask anything about former atheists. It asked about the experiences of atheists.

What type of religious experiences have you had Lerner? If you already described some, perhaps you can direct me to that post.

The reason I started this thread is because it's very common for Christians to claim that they've had religious experiences or they've talked to God and their god answered them, etc. Inquiring minds would like more specifics, because to me, these vague things that religious people claim to be supernatural, seem similar to weird experiences that most humans have from time to time. Most of these experiences seem to be based on the individual interpretation of something that happened to them.

Let me give you an example. There was a Christian who used to post here who became an atheist for a very brief time. ( I'll spare you all the details. ) A few months later, his grandmother died and she came to him one night, in what sounded like a dream to me. He was convinced that dream was evidence of an afterlife. He didn't return to Christianity, but he did return to some vague type of theism. That's fine with me if he's happier as a theist, but what happened was only convincing to him. I don't think he felt comfortable as an atheist, so he was looking for something else. To me, it sounded like a dream due to the pain he felt, after losing a loved one.

 

[steve_bank]

I believe in the one delusion, the delusion almighty. I will not have false delusions before me.

 

[abaddon]

I believe in the one delusion, the delusion almighty. I will not have false delusions before me.

Now add metaphoric imagery, some figures of speech, that makes it sound as if your One True Delusion is both real and very special. It needs to be fantastically special, not anything profanely earthly, because nothing short of fantastical can seem meaningful or save a soul from death. And, voila, you'll have the basis for a religion.

A priestly caste will form and apply an even thicker layer of mythology to it and enshrine it in orthodoxy. They'll denounce the people so cynical and stupid as to doubt the invisible realms. Then some "visionary" ascetic sorts will torture themselves into trying to literally see into these invisible places, to "know" their delusion almighty more personally. And they'll have some so-called "religious experiences". Those will be mostly warm fuzzies but, again, add some hyperbole and figures of speech and that'll help make it all sound profoundly real.