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

[Lion IRC]

Can people look to the OP for how "religious experience" is defined? The topic is not if theism is true or whether experience is "valid".

Thinking the moon is a god isn't an experience...

The link cited in the Op actually does present us with that option.
Did Moses think God was manifest in the burning bush? Yes.
And it clearly met the criteria of numinous awe.

 

[abaddon]

Can people look to the OP for how "religious experience" is defined? The topic is not if theism is true or whether experience is "valid".

Thinking the moon is a god isn't an experience...

The link cited in the Op actually does present us with that option.
Did Moses think God was manifest in the burning bush? Yes.
And it clearly met the criteria of numinous awe.

It's "interpretive experiences" that I'm especially interested in when it comes to theism.

At what point does a Rorschach blot become a religious experience? When a person sees a pretty butterfly? or sees naked people hugging? or sees Jesus' face? If seeing Jesus' face is a religious experience for him, and this person thinks it means something about the world and not just about himself, then at what step along the way from a random blot of ink did he take the further step past his imaginations to anything non-imaginary?

Nowhere that I can see. Are you content with an imaginary God? I would guess not.

When you claimed a "road to Damascus" experience in another thread, which of the sorts of religious experience was it? Interpretive with some numinous awe added? Did you mean your heartfelt sense of certainty about God existing? Was it something you extrapolated from universal human experiences that wouldn't necessary evoke God in an atheist's mind?

 

[Jobar]

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.

 

[Learner]

As good skeptics ourselves, we have to consider the fact we are hearing a tale that has passed through several tellers; we can't be sure of the truthfulness of anyone in the chain. All we have here is an extraordinary tale, with no extraordinary evidence to back it.

Its a good point, mind you, I've read quite a few posts on the forum by members "re-telling the tale" from what was told to them by either a friend,employer,teacher,priest an atheist in my case etc... (I was hoping I'd get the same benefit-of-the-doubt that I was not making it up. )

Now, if *we* were to actually experience such an event- particularly one with other witnesses- then we should work to document and investigate it. Pathologizing our own perception would be a definite hypothesis, yes- but we might also be the butt of a high-tech practical joke. What we would *not* do is immediately start telling people we saw a ghost.

In a word: Ontology. If belief in the reality of ghosts is part of my reality then I'll attribute these experiences to woo. I could watch a Macy's day parade of apparent ghosts all afternoon and I'd find an explanation that didn't involve emotional religious weirdness. With migraine auras this actually occurs on and off for days.

If you can't repeat or test the behavior it's woo. People love to pretend and tell stories. That much is fact.

Well in regards to my previous post (for doubt and arguments sake): that fellow "knows" for sure he didn't imagine the event. Ghost was merely the best discription to use even though he had no idea "what it actually was". (Wierd experiences -I think- was the discussion topic at that time.)

 

[abaddon]

Well in regards to my previous post (for doubt and arguments sake): that fellow "knows" for sure he didn't imagine the event. Ghost was merely the best discription to use even though he had no idea "what it actually was". (Wierd experiences -I think- was the discussion topic at that time.)

So maybe for some folk, "God" seems like the best old social convention to use for some experiences, or for some feelings of "knowing" for sure.

 

[Treedbear]

Its a good point, mind you, I've read quite a few posts on the forum by members "re-telling the tale" from what was told to them by either a friend,employer,teacher,priest an atheist in my case etc... (I was hoping I'd get the same benefit-of-the-doubt that I was not making it up. )
...

Religion is based on revelation, not evidence. Why should we give anyone the benefit of the doubt when it's something that happens so infrequently that it can be accounted for by commonly occurring neurological or psychological processes? You have to provide some scientific basis for why it warrants further investigation.

 

[Learner]

Well in regards to my previous post (for doubt and arguments sake): that fellow "knows" for sure he didn't imagine the event. Ghost was merely the best discription to use even though he had no idea "what it actually was". (Wierd experiences -I think- was the discussion topic at that time.)

So maybe for some folk, "God" seems like the best old social convention to use for some experiences, or for some feelings of "knowing" for sure.

No problem with that ... (for some).

 

[Learner]

Its a good point, mind you, I've read quite a few posts on the forum by members "re-telling the tale" from what was told to them by either a friend,employer,teacher,priest an atheist in my case etc... (I was hoping I'd get the same benefit-of-the-doubt that I was not making it up. )
...

Religion is based on revelation, not evidence. Why should we give anyone the benefit of the doubt when it's something that happens so infrequently that it can be accounted for by commonly occurring neurological or psychological processes? You have to provide some scientific basis for why it warrants further investigation.

I didn't see the "Ghost" myself and the gist of the previous post was about a non-believer who saw something infrequent to his usual. The benefit of the doubt in this regard was whether or not I was telling the truth that some else made the claim and had actually said it. Evidence for the event actually happening should of course be by the supposed Atheist I was talking about previously.

I have no issue if anyone does not believe the existence of the said Atheist and what he said which is understandable.

 

[Treedbear]

Its a good point, mind you, I've read quite a few posts on the forum by members "re-telling the tale" from what was told to them by either a friend,employer,teacher,priest an atheist in my case etc... (I was hoping I'd get the same benefit-of-the-doubt that I was not making it up. )
...

Religion is based on revelation, not evidence. Why should we give anyone the benefit of the doubt when it's something that happens so infrequently that it can be accounted for by commonly occurring neurological or psychological processes? You have to provide some scientific basis for why it warrants further investigation.

I didn't see the "Ghost" myself and the gist of the previous post was about a non-believer who saw something infrequent to his usual. The benefit of the doubt in this regard was whether or not I was telling the truth that some else made the claim and had actually said it. Evidence for the event actually happening should of course be by the supposed Atheist I was talking about previously.

I have no issue if anyone does not believe the existence of the said Atheist and what he said which is understandable.

Sorry. I lost track of the thread of the conversation. Clearly you were not making a case for what your atheist friend saw. Only that he said he saw something. I don't want to cast doubt on your veracity. That said, I'm sure you'd agree that my mistake illustrates Jobar's point about the importance of skepticism.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Can people look to the OP for how "religious experience" is defined? The topic is not if theism is true or whether experience is "valid".

Thinking the moon is a god isn't an experience...

The link cited in the Op actually does present us with that option.
Did Moses think God was manifest in the burning bush? Yes.
And it clearly met the criteria of numinous awe.

When I have migraine auras, there are blind spots in my field of vision that are eventually swallowed up by fiery sparkling lights, a real showy storm. One might even call such an experience "numinous." I don't think the old Moses and I are related but certainly I'm not the only person in history to experience migraine auras, there was even a recent thread about same discussed here.

All translation and mistranslation issues aside, even if we were reading an accurate reconstruction of the original author's intent, it doesn't mean Moses witnessed a burning bush. Seriously, it's dopey, and I could think of far more convincing experiences to play on old Moses.

I realize that migraine auras don't sound as fantastic and wooish as a fiery bush but in terms of natural explanations it makes sense. I think the verse even says the bush was on fire but untouched, which means it really wasn't on fire. Could easily explain those "pillars of fire" too.

 

[Lion IRC]

Can people look to the OP for how "religious experience" is defined? The topic is not if theism is true or whether experience is "valid".

Thinking the moon is a god isn't an experience...

The link cited in the Op actually does present us with that option.
Did Moses think God was manifest in the burning bush? Yes.
And it clearly met the criteria of numinous awe.

When I have migraine auras, there are blind spots in my field of vision that are eventually swallowed up by fiery sparkling lights, a real showy storm. One might even call such an experience "numinous." I don't think the old Moses and I are related but certainly I'm not the only person in history to experience migraine auras, there was even a recent thread about same discussed here.

All translation and mistranslation issues aside, even if we were reading an accurate reconstruction of the original author's intent, it doesn't mean Moses witnessed a burning bush. Seriously, it's dopey, and I could think of far more convincing experiences to play on old Moses.

I realize that migraine auras don't sound as fantastic and wooish as a fiery bush but in terms of natural explanations it makes sense. I think the verse even says the bush was on fire but untouched, which means it really wasn't on fire. Could easily explain those "pillars of fire" too.

A migraine that talks to you and tells you to go chat to pharaoh about the migraine's chosen people. Now THAT sounds dopey.

 

[Politesse]

Migraine auras are also unexplained, though, as indeed are migraines themselves; they have no known mechanism, and though there are many hypotheses, none have ever resulted in a preponderance of physical evidence. Just because you say something in Greek doesn't make it science.

Having experienced both migraine auras and religious hallucination, I would not describe them as the same phenomenon in any sense, nor are they the original target of Otto's term "the numinous". It would be impossible for a person to simultaneously have a numinous experience and also be strictly non-religious, since the strong perception of a "something else" beyond the material reach of the senses is part of the functional definition thereof; it literally means "in the fashion of the spirit/god of the place". You might have a physiological reaction that a religious person might see in those terms, but you won't have had a numinous experience yourself, unless at some point you questioned whether your normal perception was correct.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When I have migraine auras, there are blind spots in my field of vision that are eventually swallowed up by fiery sparkling lights, a real showy storm. One might even call such an experience "numinous." I don't think the old Moses and I are related but certainly I'm not the only person in history to experience migraine auras, there was even a recent thread about same discussed here.

All translation and mistranslation issues aside, even if we were reading an accurate reconstruction of the original author's intent, it doesn't mean Moses witnessed a burning bush. Seriously, it's dopey, and I could think of far more convincing experiences to play on old Moses.

I realize that migraine auras don't sound as fantastic and wooish as a fiery bush but in terms of natural explanations it makes sense. I think the verse even says the bush was on fire but untouched, which means it really wasn't on fire. Could easily explain those "pillars of fire" too.

A migraine that talks to you and tells you to go chat to pharaoh about the migraine's chosen people. Now THAT sounds dopey.

Not quite as dopey as a burning bush that isn't burning.

Now if one is additionally bipolar that means they have this grandiose sense of self which means they think they need to talk to important people. They also see things and hear things that aren't there and believe they have special powers.

So yes, it's sounding more and more like Moses was so afflicted. Again, natural explanations for alleged supernatural claims.

But I really shouldn't say Moses, rather the author of these Moses tales.

 

[Jobar]

Let me suggest an excellent Secular Cafe thread on this subject, from 2012.

Talking with God

The OP, from satsujin:

Hi everyone,

This is my first serious post to this forum so please forgive me if it drags on too long. I used to be an agnostic atheist but I turned agnostic theist after I heard the "voice of God" talking in my head. I should probably state also that I have temporal lobe epilepsy that is manifested by complex partial seizures maybe once every month or two. Now, my seizures usually take the form deja vu accompanied by a strong feeling of dread. Lately, however, I started having my God-talking episodes always after waking up. Initially, they too were about monthly but recently I had them daily for a week. These were the concepts spoken:
- I am God speaking to you.
- Believe in me, that is all I ask.
- All worldly religions have corrupted by man.
- The world is based on a yin-yang balance between good and evil.
- Human beings are inherently good.
- A good action can have an evil reaction(like good people being taken advantage of).
- A evil action can have a good reaction(like support from people to sufferers of a disaster).
- What we call God and Satan are two equal parts of a whole.(I had no idea of religious dualism until I heard this concept)
- Since this whole contains both good and evil, that is what Man was modeled after. Man was a regular creature until the whole imbued him with a soul.
- God tries to influence Man to do good, Satan tries to influence Man to do evil; in the end it is his free will that decides the action. It is harder for Satan since Man is inherently good.
- In the afterlife, there will be a war between God and Satan. Each is trying to win over soldiers to their side(but I'm not sure what the criteria for picking soldiers will be; maybe on their acts of good and evil)

As you can see not too much new info was put forth. You can also see why I was reluctant to bring it to religious boards since they wouldn't accept the corrupt religion message.
In fact, I did try mentioning my whole experience on a epilepsy board first but not one single person replied except for one New Ager who sent me a private msg pointing me towards Conversations with God. I tried reading the book but I think the author is just taking advantage of current New Age movement and I don't have much faith in someone who refers to charlatan Sai Baba as a "highly evolved being".
So whaddya think? Am I deluding myself or is God really talking to me? Let me know what you think of the message. I should say that he doesn't randomly impart knowledge but responds to questions or statements I refer to him. Each episode starts with only a few sentences of new concepts and then degenerates into me asking "are you there?" with a reply of "yes I am" until I get no reply which is when I know the episode is over. The voice is like a second thought in my consciousness which I don't attribute to myself. So please, let me know your thoughts...maybe you can also see why I moved toward theist when the only thing it asks for is belief.

From later in the thread:

I dont identify the God I experience as from any specific religion. Just my own personal spiritual God....so far...and please believe when I say I am well aware that this could be some disassociative state of the mind. Both halves of the brain talking to each other. Me only identifying with one half.
As to what I would do it would be based on the message passed on to me. And I once said earlier that I asked the voice to prove its divinity by telling me a winning lottery number and was dissatisfied with the response which i dont recall. If the voice asked something evil, I would not comply.

I do believe you- and I'm deeply fascinated by your experience, and by your interpretation thereof. That you realize and understand that your brain has a slight 'short circuit', so to speak- and yet still, you wonder if it might be a voice from outside, indeed from some ultimate spiritual source! What a strange and powerful experience it must be, for you to entertain that notion! It's plain to me that such episodes form one of the deep and ancient roots of human religious beliefs.

Some here, such as Koyaanisqatsi, took part there; but most here haven't met satsujin, AFAIK. Definitely a worthwhile read.

(Amusing aside- check out post #204 there, and the subsequent 3 or 4. )

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That thread demonstrates convincingly that belief in gods is a brain condition.

Satsugin's condition was obvious, so his god and his belief in his god can easily be accounted for. He does not seem to suffer a lack of awareness of his condition, however, but leans toward believing that there is a god talking to him. For me it's quite clear that belief in gods and woo generally is a neurobiological condition that just comes in degrees.

Interesting also that he stated he was leaning toward atheist agnostic at the end of the thread.

 

[Politesse]

I'm confused about the psychologizing here. Aren't all perceptions, essentially, a brain state? We know that they are, in large part, an invention of the brain based loosely on sensory data from the sense organs, constructed within a complex neural network based on a rich cocktail of factors. The process is not and cannot ever be objective - any idea that you have is fundamentally artificial, the invention of a bodily system that is designed to keep its host alive and reproducing, not to determine Truth as such. So I not only get, but indeed endorse, healthy skepticism regarding one's perception and experience, or citing experiences as "proof" that something exists.

What I don't get is how this is supposed to apply to religious experiences differently from any other sort of experience. Of course religion is a neural pathology. But so is society. So is philosophy. So is science. Most human creations are fascinating to us and (I would argue) existentially meaningful. But if you're going to pretend at being a strict biological reductionist, then you need to apply that standard to all higher reasoning and concede that aside from sleeping, gathering, hunting, and fucking, all of our experiences are essentially neurological accidents, a by-product of evolutionary adaptation. We think about complicated things because our brains are optimized for symbolic reasoning, which made us good at a lot of practical survival skills. That's why our brains stuck around. Not so we could discover Truth.

Unless, of course, you allow for the possibility that a purpose beyond biological perpetuation exists for human beings. But that is the very gateway to woo.

 

[Jobar]

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.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I've known a former Christian, now an atheist, that can still speak in tongues. By focusing on his feelings, he can relive those experiences and do a fine demonstration of glossolalia any time he likes.

 

[Jobar]

That thread demonstrates convincingly that belief in gods is a brain condition.

Satsugin's condition was obvious, so his god and his belief in his god can easily be accounted for. He does not seem to suffer a lack of awareness of his condition, however, but leans toward believing that there is a god talking to him. For me it's quite clear that belief in gods and woo generally is a neurobiological condition that just comes in degrees.

Interesting also that he stated he was leaning toward atheist agnostic at the end of the thread.

Mmmm... I would rather say that belief in god(s) is not exclusively the result of brain conditions, such as satsujin's temporal lobe epilepsy; plenty of people who do not have any such organic dysfunction are believers. But such extraordinary experiences as satsujin had are indeed one of the deep roots of religion, and people who have no glitches in their wetware may interpret the weird and wonderful experiences life sometimes presents us in terms of paradigms created by such 'touched' individuals.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That thread demonstrates convincingly that belief in gods is a brain condition.

Satsugin's condition was obvious, so his god and his belief in his god can easily be accounted for. He does not seem to suffer a lack of awareness of his condition, however, but leans toward believing that there is a god talking to him. For me it's quite clear that belief in gods and woo generally is a neurobiological condition that just comes in degrees.

Interesting also that he stated he was leaning toward atheist agnostic at the end of the thread.

Mmmm... I would rather say that belief in god(s) is not exclusively the result of brain conditions, such as satsujin's temporal lobe epilepsy; plenty of people who do not have any such organic dysfunction are believers. But such extraordinary experiences as satsujin had are indeed one of the deep roots of religion, and people who have no glitches in their wetware may interpret the weird and wonderful experiences life sometimes presents us in terms of paradigms created by such 'touched' individuals.

I'm just a bit farther down the same path.

I think that people who believe that ghosts and supernatural claims are true have brain differences, just not yet quantified because not as pronounced as satsugin.

Our individual belief behavior is simply a manifestation of those differences in our brains. There must certainly be a physical difference in how those brains are arranged, which gives rise to different behaviors. I don't see how one can escape that conclusion without ascribing those differences in belief behavior to non-physicality, i.e. woo.