Religious Experience

[skepticalbip]

I have no idea what you mean by, "Does your argument establish that nothing natural can be experienced by non-artificial means?" Are you offering an argument of solipsism?

The problem I see with arguing that the religious 'experiences' are externally real also have to accept the anal probing aliens, succubus, etc. as real externally in the real world.

Depends on what you consider to be their origin.

It would seem to require some serious special pleading to argue that a religious experience of the presence and intervention of god was true in external reality but an alien abduction experience wasn't.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There are literally tens of thousands of denominations within Christianity alone. In regards to this topic denominations range from the ultra experience-oriented to the opposite extreme. I came from a very conservative denomination myself, where it was a point of doctrine that there were no modern miracles or direct intervention of acts of God in human affairs. We'd pray for the sick but did not pray for miracles.

Once, early in my career as a young preacher, I was invited to go to a "prayer session" with a small group of young people (roughly my age). I was unprepared for what ensued. Nearly all of them got into the spirit and began speaking in tongues and getting all touchy-feely. I just sat there stoically reading I Corinthians chapters 11-13, smug in my belief that I was above that sort of delusional behavior. What a pompous ass I was. In retrospect I guess I still am, but at least now I'm an ass of a different color. Gotta feel like you've accomplished something in 60 years of living.

Why would you think there was anything wrong with your reaction?

When I lived in the deep south I was invited to lots of different churches and accepted. The first Baptist service made me feel like I was on a Lawrence Welk show. It wasn't too bad until everyone was invited to come forward and be saved. All the touchy feely emotionalism really made me uncomfortable. I knew I'd never be a Baptist.

As a young married Catholic I attended a goofy Marriage Encounter at the behest of other parishioners. For those unacquainted it basically is couple getting all weepy and emotional and crying about themselves, and then asking folks like my wife and myself to get alone and then ask ourselves how it all made us feel. I hated that shit because it was a bunch or gratuitious emotionalism that accomplished nothing. But it did help me deconvert so that was a good thing, especially when they ask for big donations afterwards.

 

[Politesse]

I have no idea what you mean by, "Does your argument establish that nothing natural can be experienced by non-artificial means?" Are you offering an argument of solipsism?

The problem I see with arguing that the religious 'experiences' are externally real also have to accept the anal probing aliens, succubus, etc. as real externally in the real world.

Depends on what you consider to be their origin.

It would seem to require some serious special pleading to argue that a religious experience of the presence and intervention of god was true in external reality but an alien abduction experience wasn't.

Non sequitur.

My assumption would be that whatever is happening to people's brains during mystical experiences is likely the same or similar phenomenon as that involved in at least, many, alien abduction memories. But that seems more likely to derail us than anything else.

 

[Atheos]

...

If it is "delusional" to have visions, there are certainly an awful lot of delusional people. This is, to me, a significant weakness in the ideology of atheism; it struggles to really explain human experiences in a satisfying and unbiased fashion. ...

This is an interesting statement. Personally I'm just fine with the proposition that delusion is a nearly universal human trait. In fact I think that's demonstrable. Most of us share the trait of seeing faces in clouds or other inanimate objects. We also share the propensity to assume animate agency for a great many things if we don't immediately know their cause. These inherited traits are in large part the very reason we exist today; our distant ancestors who woke up when a twig snapped and were ready to defend themselves against a predator lived long enough to make offspring. Those who did not became late-night snacks.



This probably looks like an animated gif. It's not, it's a still image. Your mind is deluding you into thinking there is motion.

These are just a "tip of the iceberg" examples, not intended to convey the full weight of delusional behavior nearly every human deals with. I look at myself in the mirror and still see a handsome young man. I can't help it, it's what I see. Everyone else sees an old geezer.

The reason the Scientific Method exists is precisely because delusion is nearly universal among our species. The Method evolved over time as a reaction to the fact that personal experience is so often a poor source of practical and useful knowledge about the world.

I'd also like to point out that the only "ideology" of atheism is that there are no gods. Atheism is not an attempt to explain human experiences, and it's difficult for me to envision how fabricating one or more gods to fill that void lends itself to an "unbiased" explanation. Satisfying maybe, but unbiased?

 

[steve_bank]

Delusional is believing without evidence what is created by your imagination is real.

A paranoid who thinks the govt is out to get him.

Didn't Jung ppoatuLTE ALL HUMANS HAVE THE Same meing of dreams? Dreming of a horse may have the same mening regarless of culture.

The collective subconscious. There was a book the Bicameral Mind that suggested visions were common ways of dealing with reality and working out issues. Bred out by the rise of logic.

We all dream.

 

[Learner]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmnRQ3P3Bwo[/YOUTUBE]

 

[skepticalbip]

It would seem to require some serious special pleading to argue that a religious experience of the presence and intervention of god was true in external reality but an alien abduction experience wasn't.

Non sequitur.

My assumption would be that whatever is happening to people's brains during mystical experiences is likely the same or similar phenomenon as that involved in at least, many, alien abduction memories.

I would tend to agree and it seems like we have three possibilities.
... Some supernatural entity is fucking with us.
... Some extraterrestrial alien critter is fucking with us.
... Our brain occasionally fucks with us during wakefulness like it does during the dream state.

Personal opinion is that the third seems more likely.

But that seems more likely to derail us than anything else.

Maybe.

 

[Politesse]

I would tend to agree and it seems like we have three possibilities.
... Some supernatural entity is fucking with us.
... Some extraterrestrial alien critter is fucking with us.
... Our brain occasionally fucks with us during wakefulness like it does during the dream state.

Personal opinion is that the third seems more likely.

But that seems more likely to derail us than anything else.

Maybe.

Do you doubt all of your sensory experiences equally, or just those that involve or might involve things that you don't believe in due to your philosophical convictions?

 

[southernhybrid]

And in practice we're all spiritual, even hard-line atheists fawn over the mystery of the universe, the birth of their children, and the majesty of everything. This is what distinguishes us from other animals.

I would say that we are all emotional, not spiritual. You can't differentiate emotional from spiritual because there is no difference.

And, in fact, I don't think we are unique among the animals. One of the many books that I've read over many years on primatology mentioned a particular ape, ( sorry I don't remember which one or which book ) demonstrated behavior that was very similar to humans in awe of a beautiful sunset or similar to a religious ritual. From what I remember, the apes sat in a particular order and did something with small stones that almost resembled religions that use "worry" beads to meditate. They did this as a group and were quiet during their ritual.

And, if you ever saw or heard how my dog Zoie responds to me, after I've been gone from the house for awhile, you'd understand how emotional dogs are. She hugs me, and makes little sounds of joy. When I give her a belly rub, she makes sounds that show how delighted she feels. I sometimes refer to it as doggie orgasm. And my dogs have their own rituals. After dinner, if they don't get a particular treat, they will get very emotional and remind me of what they have come to believe they are entitled to getting.

And speaking of orgasm, probably the most delightful, amazing emotional experience that humans experience, is sexual orgasm. While it's taking place, our brains do some amazing things. If you want to make it "spiritual", think of tantric sex, which contains numerous rituals that lovers do during the act of love. Touching, kissing and orgasm helps maintain the bond among lovers. And, while I don't believe there is anything magical about tantra, some of those rituals can add great joy and enhanced physical delight to the sex act. So, okay. If you must, consider satisfying sex a spiritual experience. I'm thinking of the sexual love between two partners, not sure that works so well with casual sex. But then, I'm monogamous, so I wouldn't know. Imo, love rituals are the best.

I don't see any of these things as having a "spiritual" component, I'd call it an emotional component. I don't have a problem per se with the word spiritual. I just don't think what some refer to as spiritual is any different than what I might refer to as emotional. Being emotional is part of being human, but it's not unique to humans. Even my two crazy parrots experience a wide range of emotions. They can be happy, angry, goofy, affectionate and hateful.

Religious or spiritual experiences are simply joyous emotional experiences. I don't see it any other way.

 

[skepticalbip]

I would tend to agree and it seems like we have three possibilities.
... Some supernatural entity is fucking with us.
... Some extraterrestrial alien critter is fucking with us.
... Our brain occasionally fucks with us during wakefulness like it does during the dream state.

Personal opinion is that the third seems more likely.

But that seems more likely to derail us than anything else.

Maybe.

Do you doubt all of your sensory experiences equally, or just those that involve or might involve things that you don't believe in due to your philosophical convictions?

I question any sensory experience that is unusual because I want to understand it rather than just accept and expand on my first impression. Generally, I am a bit disappointed because my first impression would be really neat if real.

Do you ever question your sensory experiences?

 

[rousseau]

And in practice we're all spiritual, even hard-line atheists fawn over the mystery of the universe, the birth of their children, and the majesty of everything. This is what distinguishes us from other animals.

I would say that we are all emotional, not spiritual. You can't differentiate emotional from spiritual because there is no difference.

And, in fact, I don't think we are unique among the animals. One of the many books that I've read over many years on primatology mentioned a particular ape, ( sorry I don't remember which one or which book ) demonstrated behavior that was very similar to humans in awe of a beautiful sunset or similar to a religious ritual. From what I remember, the apes sat in a particular order and did something with small stones that almost resembled religions that use "worry" beads to meditate. They did this as a group and were quiet during their ritual.

And, if you ever saw or heard how my dog Zoie responds to me, after I've been gone from the house for awhile, you'd understand how emotional dogs are. She hugs me, and makes little sounds of joy. When I give her a belly rub, she makes sounds that show how delighted she feels. I sometimes refer to it as doggie orgasm. And my dogs have their own rituals. After dinner, if they don't get a particular treat, they will get very emotional and remind me of what they have come to believe they are entitled to getting.

And speaking of orgasm, probably the most delightful, amazing emotional experience that humans experience, is sexual orgasm. While it's taking place, our brains do some amazing things. If you want to make it "spiritual", think of tantric sex, which contains numerous rituals that lovers do during the act of love. Touching, kissing and orgasm helps maintain the bond among lovers. And, while I don't believe there is anything magical about tantra, some of those rituals can add great joy and enhanced physical delight to the sex act. So, okay. If you must, consider satisfying sex a spiritual experience. I'm thinking of the sexual love between two partners, not sure that works so well with casual sex. But then, I'm monogamous, so I wouldn't know. Imo, love rituals are the best.

I don't see any of these things as having a "spiritual" component, I'd call it an emotional component. I don't have a problem per se with the word spiritual. I just don't think what some refer to as spiritual is any different than what I might refer to as emotional. Being emotional is part of being human, but it's not unique to humans. Even my two crazy parrots experience a wide range of emotions. They can be happy, angry, goofy, affectionate and hateful.

Religious or spiritual experiences are simply joyous emotional experiences. I don't see it any other way.

Maybe. In some respects we're parsing words, but on the other hand there is an etymology and history of the word 'spirit' and 'spiritual'. IOW, if the word spiritual had no meaning and was completely synonymous with the word emotional, why did it come to exist?

I'd argue because humans, and to an extent some other animals, view other living creatures as more than the sum of their parts. They sense an inner essence which provokes emotion. And so spirituality is tied up with emotion, but not synonymous with it. One can be emotional for reasons other than spirituality, one may think spiritually without necessarily invoking emotion.

But I agree with you, other animals experience this too, just not quite to the extent that we do.

 

[southernhybrid]

And in practice we're all spiritual, even hard-line atheists fawn over the mystery of the universe, the birth of their children, and the majesty of everything. This is what distinguishes us from other animals.

I would say that we are all emotional, not spiritual. You can't differentiate emotional from spiritual because there is no difference.

And, in fact, I don't think we are unique among the animals. One of the many books that I've read over many years on primatology mentioned a particular ape, ( sorry I don't remember which one or which book ) demonstrated behavior that was very similar to humans in awe of a beautiful sunset or similar to a religious ritual. From what I remember, the apes sat in a particular order and did something with small stones that almost resembled religions that use "worry" beads to meditate. They did this as a group and were quiet during their ritual.

And, if you ever saw or heard how my dog Zoie responds to me, after I've been gone from the house for awhile, you'd understand how emotional dogs are. She hugs me, and makes little sounds of joy. When I give her a belly rub, she makes sounds that show how delighted she feels. I sometimes refer to it as doggie orgasm. And my dogs have their own rituals. After dinner, if they don't get a particular treat, they will get very emotional and remind me of what they have come to believe they are entitled to getting.

And speaking of orgasm, probably the most delightful, amazing emotional experience that humans experience, is sexual orgasm. While it's taking place, our brains do some amazing things. If you want to make it "spiritual", think of tantric sex, which contains numerous rituals that lovers do during the act of love. Touching, kissing and orgasm helps maintain the bond among lovers. And, while I don't believe there is anything magical about tantra, some of those rituals can add great joy and enhanced physical delight to the sex act. So, okay. If you must, consider satisfying sex a spiritual experience. I'm thinking of the sexual love between two partners, not sure that works so well with casual sex. But then, I'm monogamous, so I wouldn't know. Imo, love rituals are the best.

I don't see any of these things as having a "spiritual" component, I'd call it an emotional component. I don't have a problem per se with the word spiritual. I just don't think what some refer to as spiritual is any different than what I might refer to as emotional. Being emotional is part of being human, but it's not unique to humans. Even my two crazy parrots experience a wide range of emotions. They can be happy, angry, goofy, affectionate and hateful.

Religious or spiritual experiences are simply joyous emotional experiences. I don't see it any other way.

Maybe. In some respects we're parsing words, but on the other hand there is an etymology and history of the word 'spirit' and 'spiritual'. IOW, if the word spiritual had no meaning and was completely synonymous with the word emotional, why did it come to exist?

I'd argue because humans, and to an extent some other animals, view other living creatures as more than the sum of their parts. They sense an inner essence which provokes emotion. And so spirituality is tied up with emotion, but not synonymous with it. One can be emotional for reasons other than spirituality, one may think spiritually without necessarily invoking emotion.

But I agree with you, other animals experience this too, just not quite to the extent that we do.

The way that I see it is that spiritual is just a word made up by people who believe in religious experiences and don't want to admit or don't realize that these experiences are just emotional ones. And yes, I agree with you about the other animals. Their brains aren't just like ours. I was going to say they aren't as developed as ours are, but sometimes I'm not so sure about that. The other animals haven't harmed the planet like we have. They don't seem to experience the same levels of mental illnesses and distress as we do. Maybe our big brains aren't something that make us as special as we seem to think.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by emotion isn't the same as spirituality. I'd put it a bit differently. Maybe, I'd say that spirituality is a particular type of emotional experience. It's hard for me to think of it as something completely different from an emotional experience. Think of Pentecostal Christians. They get themselves all worked up in a frenzy and speak in tongues, which is pretty much nonsense. They would define that as spiritual. I'd call it emotional.

Let's take the atheist who climbs a mountain and sits silently watching a beautiful sunset or a flock of birds flying across the sky. It might make the atheist feel calm, and in "awe" of the beauty created by nature. I'd call that an emotional experience. Observing beauty or listening to music that one loves, can move us emotionally. There is no need to call it spiritual.

It's just a matter of semantics. Emotional or spiritual. It's all the same to me. We humans experience a very wide range of emotions. That's all. But, it really all comes down to our brain chemicals and how they react to different experiences, doesn't it?

So, give me an example of what you would consider spiritual as opposed to emotional, so I have a better understanding of where you're coming from.

 

[rousseau]

Maybe. In some respects we're parsing words, but on the other hand there is an etymology and history of the word 'spirit' and 'spiritual'. IOW, if the word spiritual had no meaning and was completely synonymous with the word emotional, why did it come to exist?

I'd argue because humans, and to an extent some other animals, view other living creatures as more than the sum of their parts. They sense an inner essence which provokes emotion. And so spirituality is tied up with emotion, but not synonymous with it. One can be emotional for reasons other than spirituality, one may think spiritually without necessarily invoking emotion.

But I agree with you, other animals experience this too, just not quite to the extent that we do.

The way that I see it is that spiritual is just a word made up by people who believe in religious experiences and don't want to admit or don't realize that these experiences are just emotional ones. And yes, I agree with you about the other animals. Their brains aren't just like ours. I was going to say they aren't as developed as ours are, but sometimes I'm not so sure about that. The other animals haven't harmed the planet like we have. They don't seem to experience the same levels of mental illnesses and distress as we do. Maybe our big brains aren't something that make us as special as we seem to think.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by emotion isn't the same as spirituality. I'd put it a bit differently. Maybe, I'd say that spirituality is a particular type of emotional experience. It's hard for me to think of it as something completely different from an emotional experience. Think of Pentecostal Christians. They get themselves all worked up in a frenzy and speak in tongues, which is pretty much nonsense. They would define that as spiritual. I'd call it emotional.

Let's take the atheist who climbs a mountain and sits silently watching a beautiful sunset or a flock of birds flying across the sky. It might make the atheist feel calm, and in "awe" of the beauty created by nature. I'd call that an emotional experience. Observing beauty or listening to music that one loves, can move us emotionally. There is no need to call it spiritual.

It's just a matter of semantics. Emotional or spiritual. It's all the same to me. We humans experience a very wide range of emotions. That's all. But, it really all comes down to our brain chemicals and how they react to different experiences, doesn't it?

So, give me an example of what you would consider spiritual as opposed to emotional, so I have a better understanding of where you're coming from.

My point was along the lines of the term spirit being tied up with our cultural history. What this means is that the term's existence signifies something real about our experience, not real as in 'actually there', real as in something we literally perceive. Spirits don't need to be real in of themselves, but the existence of the word suggests to me that we do perceive them, which is born to bear by our entire religious history.

Scientifically spirituality might be an emotional experience, but I don't know if that offers us a better understanding of human behavior than when the term spirit is included, because the word spirit signifies that something more is being perceived than just 'I'm emotional'.

So there are two ways we can look at this:

- your way - humans are deluded into thinking spirits are real. Ok fair enough.
- the anthropology way - perceiving a spiritual essence in living, and sometimes non-living objects is central to what it means to be human, regardless of the veracity of those perceptions

 

[skepticalbip]

.......

So, give me an example of what you would consider spiritual as opposed to emotional, so I have a better understanding of where you're coming from.

Gotta agree with you.

I would say that an emotional response would be a natural internal response to some stimulus. Some could have the same natural internal emotional response but call it spiritual because they attributed it to the supernatural.

 

[rousseau]

.......

So, give me an example of what you would consider spiritual as opposed to emotional, so I have a better understanding of where you're coming from.

Gotta agree with you.

I would say that an emotional response would be a natural internal response to some stimulus. Some could have the same natural internal emotional response but call it spiritual because they attributed it to the supernatural.

Spirituality isn't confined to the supernatural, we perceive it in real, living things too.

Why do other people or animals invoke an emotional response in us? Why do we care for each other in ways beyond pure rationalism? It's because people perceive each other and the world beyond the context of pure scientific rationalism.

So yes, this isn't a disagree - fundamentally these are emotional experiences - but that doesn't make our perception of spirituality unreal, or spirituality not a part of who we are.

 

[Treedbear]

And in practice we're all spiritual, even hard-line atheists fawn over the mystery of the universe, the birth of their children, and the majesty of everything. This is what distinguishes us from other animals.

I would say that we are all emotional, not spiritual. You can't differentiate emotional from spiritual because there is no difference....

Maybe. In some respects we're parsing words, but on the other hand there is an etymology and history of the word 'spirit' and 'spiritual'. IOW, if the word spiritual had no meaning and was completely synonymous with the word emotional, why did it come to exist?

I'd argue because humans, and to an extent some other animals, view other living creatures as more than the sum of their parts. They sense an inner essence which provokes emotion. And so spirituality is tied up with emotion, but not synonymous with it. One can be emotional for reasons other than spirituality, one may think spiritually without necessarily invoking emotion.

But I agree with you, other animals experience this too, just not quite to the extent that we do.

I'll agree with that and go on to say that spiritual experiences are a particular type of emotion. As I understand it, all emotions are based on how various experiences typically effect levels of anxiety or serenity. Things that cause generalized conflict within the brain "color" an experience differently than ones that produce harmony. I think spiritual experiences are ones that produce harmony or serenity as it relates to an understanding of one's place in the grand scheme of things. There's a sense of completeness and security, if for no other reason than the realization that as humans we are able to comprehend the complexity of the cosmos and our place in it. But, as in the case of religion, that understanding doesn't necessarily need to be correct.

 

[abaddon]

The way that I see it is that spiritual is just a word made up by people who believe in religious experiences and don't want to admit or don't realize that these experiences are just emotional ones.

I agree. And, to me, it's an important point so I'm going to elaborate a bit...

If I hike in a park and have a "oneness" experience with nature, where the artificial (delusional, schizoid) line between "in here" and "out there" dissolves, many people would call that a religious experience. But I wouldn't. So, who's right? The correct answer is: I am. Because that experience has no religious context or content, so calling it a religious experience without such content or context is flat-out false.

Then why do people call experiences like that "spiritual" or "religious experiences"? Because of the ancient association of such states with religious activity. Religious people (which is what most everyone was, in the past) sought out such states of consciousness in churches or in other ritual behaviors. Or, because their worldview told of "higher realms", any feeling of reverence tinged with fear (awe) or of the supra-mundane (wonder) was mis-attributed to that "higher realm". It was interpreted to be some bit of that greater, more sacred place (a spirit-realm) peeking through a "veil" into this "coarser" mundane world.

That's the baggage the word "religious" carries with it. So, it's not the right word unless the heightened state of consciousness is evoked in a religious context (say, it happens in a church) or contains religious content (there's a vision of angels flying around).

 

[abaddon]

We see the adjective "spiritual" qualifying a noun "experience" or "emotion" and then start wondering which experiences and emotions are inherently spiritual and which aren't. IOW, we blur the adjective into the noun.

I would argue that no emotion is inherently spiritual. The adjective merely qualifies the emotion/experience/behavior, according to context.

If I understand her right, southernhybrid's making the same or similar point. We don't have spiritual emotions. We have emotions. Sometimes they occur in a "spiritual" or religious context. Sometimes they don't. My awe of a mountain and some religious fellow's awe in a church are basically the same emotion, but only one experiencing of the emotion is religious/spiritual.

And "spiritual"... I think there must be enough adjectives in existence we can be more specific. There are a 1000 different ways to use the word. So if we mean "serene" by it, then maybe we should say "serene" so the spiritist baggage doesn't confuse folks?

 

[ruby sparks]

We see the adjective "spiritual" qualifying a noun "experience" or "emotion" and then start wondering which experiences and emotions are inherently spiritual and which aren't. IOW, we blur the adjective into the noun.

I would argue that no emotion is inherently spiritual. The adjective merely qualifies the emotion/experience/behavior, according to context.

If I understand her right, southernhybrid's making the same or similar point. We don't have spiritual emotions. We have emotions. Sometimes they occur in a "spiritual" or religious context. Sometimes they don't. My awe of a mountain and some religious fellow's awe in a church are basically the same emotion, but only one experiencing of the emotion is religious/spiritual.

And "spiritual"... I think there must be enough adjectives in existence we can be more specific. There are a 1000 different ways to use the word. So if we mean "serene" by it, then maybe we should say "serene" so the spiritist baggage doesn't confuse folks?

There are indeed lots of lovely words that we can use to elaborate on the ideas here, beyond using the word emotion and/or spiritual.

I have always liked the psychology term 'affect' (defined as 'the experiencing of feeling or emotion'). There's also the word 'sensation' which imo pretty much covers almost anything.

Then there's the great word 'esoteric'.

Imo, 'spirituality' often seems to go in tandem with a 'belief about the experience', but I guess that's not necessarily true, but when it does, I think words such as 'sacred' might come into play, or even 'worship'.

Even the word 'aesthetics' might come into play at times, as in the subject of sensori-emotional values.

I doubt those examples are much more than the tip of the descriptive iceberg.

Those are all words that I think can be used in a secular sense as well as a religious one, by which I mean one that involves notions of the supernatural. Superstitions, in other words.

 

[Politesse]

Do you doubt all of your sensory experiences equally, or just those that involve or might involve things that you don't believe in due to your philosophical convictions?

I question any sensory experience that is unusual because I want to understand it rather than just accept and expand on my first impression. Generally, I am a bit disappointed because my first impression would be really neat if real.

Do you ever question your sensory experiences?

Sure! But my religious beliefs aren't the criterion I use.