Jump to content

Hijack from God and science


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You refer to "established science" in the same paragraph you refer to "mystical experiences", but that doesn't mean the two are in the same context. 

It is established science. Yes, "mystical experience" is a scientific concept at this point. Make no mistake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47s

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You deny any attempt to refute your support of these concepts by simply waving your hands ("it has nothing to do with anything that is 'bollox'). It's clear you've bought into the video woo because it confirms biases you already have towards the subject, and you've lost all objectivity.

The videos are lectures given by professionals who perform actual science relative to what these neuroscientists are referring to as a "complete" mystical experience. This is a term that's concretely defined within this research, by the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuwkDgyIuao#t=23m04s

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You make too many leaps from conjecture to conjecture, and I find it lax and unmeaningful. Furthermore, you constantly allow yourself to move the goalposts, claiming that if people don't believe this way, they didn't do it right, they didn't have the complete experience. That's a really lazy, cognitively biased way to address any phenomenon.

No, it's simply not, this is legitimate scientific research you're failing to recognized, and I didn't call that person out as some attempt at a No True Scotsman argument or moving the goalpoasts, it was clearly a recreational description of one of these experiences. As I mentioned before, the doses they're using in the study are considered a high dose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_6Wf8Xuq70&t=8m19s

 

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

That doesn’t make it true. Obviously. 

This assumption denies the noetic quality experienced in the mystical experience, it is its very nature something that people regard as the highest truth, and that's how it's expressed in the major religions as well. In fact, people will endorse that this experience is more real than every day waking consciousness, and that includes the atheists who volunteered for this experience whom after this event, no longer identified with atheism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=21m

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

You said this is science. So I don’t care about people you know. Show us the (published and peer-reviewed) statistics that support this claim. 

1. Citation for where this has been established

Again, I've done this, and I have posted links throughout the thread. 

https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf < This paper in particular... 

http://csp.org/psilocybin/ <--- Collection of studies that have been peer-reviewed and published in the Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology.

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

2. How do you define a “complete” mystical experience? If an atheist doesn’t become a believer, does that mean it wasn’t “complete”? (This would be the No True Scotsman fallacy - you can add it to your collection)

The "complete" mystical experience is well defined in this research, and many professionals have lectures on what precisely this term means. A person must meet criteria on six of the phenomenological dimensions that constitute a "complete" mystical experience, if they do not meet the criteria for these measures, then yes, they did not have a "complete" mystical experience. There's no "No True Scotsman" fallacy involved here at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuwkDgyIuao#t=23m04s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc&t=8m24s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUYDjV8lQxo#t=5m36s

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

The other thing they have in common is that they write about it. How do we make sure this isn’t selection bias? How do we find the numbers who remained atheists and didn’t bother to write about it afterwards?

In each one of these studies that's been done, the about 70-80% of the volunteers will invariably meet criteria for the so-called "complete" mystical experience, and yes, this exact same ratio includes the self-confirmed atheists who signed up for this experience.

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

So ... again ... can you tell us what that definition of god is? Not the context but what “god” means for the purpose of this thread. 

No they aren’t. As you just admitted. The most they might say is that people have “experienced the divine”

I can do one better than that, I believe. Recall, I said that these professionals are defining the divine within the context of the Perennial philosophy. So, if I may quote several excerpts from Ken Wilber's book "Up From Eden" that describe what precisely the historical view known as the Perennial philosophy entails.

Unfortunately, the orthodox Western conception of God is not simply as a psychological Other (separated from us by unconsciousness) or a temporal Other (separated from us by time), or an epistemological Other (separated from us by ignorance). Rather, Jehovah—God of Abraham and Father of Jesus—is an ontological Other, separated from us by nature, forever. In this view, there is not just a temporary line between man and God, but an unmovable boundary and barrier. God and man are forever divorced—they are not, as in Hinduism and Buddhism, ultimately one and identical. Thus, the only contact between God and man is by airmail: by covenant, by pact, by promise. God promises to watch out for his chosen people, and they in turn promise to worship no other gods but him. God promises his only begotten Son to his peoples, and they promise to embrace his Word. God's contact is by contract. Across this gaping abyss God and man touch by rumor, not by absolute union (samadhi), and thus history was viewed as the unfolding of this contract, this covenant, through time.

 

But there is a much more sophisticated view of the relation of humanity and Divinity, a view held by great majority of the truly gifted theologians, philosophers, sages, and even scientists of various times. Known in general as the "perennial philosophy" (a name coined by Leibniz), it forms the esoteric core of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism, and Christian mysticism, as well as being embraced, in whole or part, by individual intellects ranging from Spinoza to Albert Einstein, Schopenhauer to Jung, William James to Plato. Further, in its purest form i tis not at all ante-science but, in a special sense, trans-science or even ante-science, so that it can happily coexist with, and certainly complement, the hard data of the pure sciences. This is why, I believe, that so many of the truly brilliant scientists have always flirted with, or totally embraced, the perennial philosophy, as witness Einstein, Schrödinger, Eddington, David Bohm, Sir James Jeans, even Isaac Newton. Albert Einstein put it thus:

 

"The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the sower of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger... is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highet wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in tehir most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center to true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only I belong to the ranks of devoutly religious men."

The essence of the perennial philosophy can be put simply: it is true that there is some sort of infinite, some type of Absolute Godhead, but it cannot properly be conceived as a colossal Being, a great Daddy, or a big Creator set apart from its creations, from things and events and human beings themselves. Rather, it is best conceived (metaphorically) as the ground of suchness or condition of all things and events. It is not a Big Thing set apart from finite things, but rather the reality or suchness or ground of all things.

 

A scientist who guffaws at the existence of any sort of "Inifinite" but unashamedly marvels aloud at the "laws of Nature (with a capital N)" is unwittingly expressing religious or numinous sentiments. According to the perennial philosophy, it would be acceptable to speak symbolically of the absolute as the Nature of all natures, the Condition of all conditions (did not St. Thomas say that God is natura naturans?). But notice, in this regard, that Nature is not _other_ than all life forms: Nature is not something set apart from mountains, eagles, rivers, and people, but something that, as it were, runs through the fibers of each and all. In the same way, the Absolute—as the Nature of all natures—is not something set apart from all things and events. The Absolute is not Other, but, so to speak, is sewn through the fabric of all that is.

 

In that sense, the perennial philosophy declares that the absolute is One, Whole, and Undivided—very like what Whitehead called "the seamless coat of the universe." But note that "seamless" does not mean "featureless." That is, to say that Reality is One is not to say that separate things and events don't exist. When a scientist says, "All things obey the laws of Nature," he doesn't mean, "Therefore, no things exist." He means that all things subsist in a type of balanced Wholeness, a wholeness he calls Nature and whose laws he attempts to describe. As a first approximation, the perennial philosophy describes the Ultimate as a seamless whole, an integral Oneness, that underlies but includes all multiplicity. The Ultimate is prior to this world, but not other to this world, as the ocean is prior to its waves, but not set apart from them.

 

This concept is not, as a logical positivist would have it, a meaningless or nonsensical concept—or rather, it is no more meaningless than a scientific reference to Nature, to the Cosmos, to Energy, or to Matter. Just because the ultimate, the integral Wholeness, does not exist as a separate and perceptible entity, does not mean it doesn't exist. Nobody has ever seen Nature—we see trees and birds and clouds and grass, but not some specific thing we can isolate and call "Nature." Likewise, no scientist has ever seen Matter—he sees what he calls "forms of matter"; but nobody, no scientist, layman, or mathematician, has ever seen a pure bit of just matter. Yet I doubt any scientist would say, "Therefore, matter doesn't exist." All sorts of intuitive and nonscientific certainties lead to the scientist to state that matter is real—and, in fact, for the great majority of scientists, matter is the only real, even though they have never seen it, touched it, or tasted it.

 

The same thing, of course, holds for Energy, since mass and energy are interconvertible. No scientist has ever seen energy, even though he talks of "forms of energy," such as thermodynamic energy, nuclear binding energy, and so on. Although he has never seen just pure and plain energy, he certainly doesn't say, "Thus energy isn't real." But long ago, a geologist and philosopher Ananda Coomaraswamy saw precisely the crux of this "scientific assumption": "This is the predicament of the positivist or the 'nothing-morist,' that in acknowledging the reality only of that which can be grasped, he is attributing 'reality' to things that cannot be grasped because they never stop to be, and is driven, in spite of himself, to postulate the reality of some such abstract entity as 'Energy'—a word that is nothing bu tone of the names of God."

 

Keeping in mind that the perennial philosophy defines God not as a Big Person but as the Nature of all that is, then Coomaraswamy is obviously quite right, and it matters not one whit whether we say all things are forms of Nature, froms of Energy, or forms of God. I am not, of course, trying to _prove_ the existence of the Absolute—I am simply suggesting it is no more improbable than the existence of matter, energy, nature, or the cosmos.

Now, when a person believes that the ultimate is some sort of Big Parent who watches after all his offspring as a shepherd over sheep, then that person's notion of religion is petitionary. That is, the aim of his religion is simply to receive protection and benediction from that god, and in turn to worship and give thanks. He lives in accord with what he believes to be that god's laws, and generally hopes, as a reward, to be able to liver forever in some sort of heaven. The aim of this type of religion, quite simply, is to be saved. Saved from pain, saved from suffering, saved from evil, saved ultimately from death.

 

I have no quarrel with all that—it simply forms no part of the perennial philosopohy whatsoever, and thus is not a view I am here advancing. For the "religion" of the perennial philosophy is quite different from salvation. Since the Ultimate is here pictured as an integral Wholeness, the aim of this type of religion is not to be saved but to _discover that wholeness._ And thus, to find oneself whole as well. Albert Einstein called it the removal of the optical delusion that we are separate individuals set off from the Whole:

"A human being is part of a whole, called by us "Universe"; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest—a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. our task must be to free ourselves from this prison" -Albert Einstein

According to the perennial philosophy, this "discovery of Wholeness," the removal of the optical delusion of separateness, is not merely a belief—it is not a dogma one accepts on mere faith.For if the Ultimate is indeed a real integral Wholeness, if it is equally part and parcel of all that is, then it is also completely present in men and women. And, unlike rocks, plants, or animals; human beings—because they are conscious can potentially discover this Wholeness. They can, as it were, awaken to the Ultimate. Not believe in it, but discover it. It would be as if a wave became conscious of itself and thus discovered that it is one with the entire ocean—and thus one with all waves as well, since all are made of water. This is the phenomenon of transcendence—or enlightenment, or liberation, or moksha, or wu wei, or _satori_ or what neuroscientists today are calling a "mystical experience." This is what Plato meant by stepping out of the cave of shadows and finding the Light of Being; or Einstein's "escaping the delusion of separateness." This is the aim of Buddhist meditation, of Hindu yoga, and of Christian mystical contemplation. That is very straightforward; there is nothing spooky, occult, or strange in any of this—and this is the Perennial philosophy.

 

At the very base of men and women's consciousness, then, lies the ultimate Wholeness. But—and here is the rub—it is not, in the vast majority, consciously realized. Thus, the ultimate whole is, for most souls, an Other. It is not, like the Jehovah, an ontological Other—it is not set apart, divorced, or separated from men and women. Rather, it is a psychological Other—it is ever-present, but unrealized; it is given, but rarely discovered; it is the Nature of human beings, but lies, as it were, asleep in the depths of the soul.

The basic Nature of human beings, then, is an ultimate Wholeness. This is eternally and timelessly so—that is, true from beginning, true to the end, and most importantly, true right now, moment to moment to moment. This ever-present and ultimate Wholeness, as it appears in men and women we call Atman (after the Hindus), or Buddha-Nature (after Buddhists), or Tao, or Spirit, or Consciousness (super-consciousness), or less frequently (because of its loaded connotations) God.

Because Atman is an integral Whole, outside of which nothing exists, it embraces all space and time, and is itself therefore spaceless and timeless, infinite and eternal. Infinity does not, for the perennial philosophy, mean Extremely Big—it means that spaceless ground which underlies and includes all space, much as a mirror underlies but embraces all its reflected objects. Likewise, eternity does not mean a Very Long Time—it means that timeless ground which underlies and includes all time.

 

According to the perennial philosophy, then, one's real self or Buddha Nature is not everlasting and death-defying; it is rather timeless and transcendent. Liberation does not mean going on forever and forever and forever in some sort of gold-embossed heaven. It means a direct and immediate apprehension of the spaceless and timeless Ground of Being. This apprehension does not show a person that he is immortal — which he plainly is not. Rather, it shows him that where his psyche touches and intersects the timeless Source, he ultimately is all of a piece with the universe — so intimately, in fact, that at that level he is the universe. When a person rediscovers that his deepest Nature is one with All, he is relieved of the burdens of time, of anxiety, of worry; he is released from the chains of alienation and separate-self existence. Seeing that self and other are one, he is released from the fear of life; seeing that being and nonbeing are one, he is delivered from fear of death.

 

Thus, when one rediscovers the ultimate Wholeness, one transcends — but does not obliterate — every imaginable sort of boundary, and therefore transcends all types of battles. It is a conflict-free awareness, whole, blissful. But this does not mean that one loses all egoic consciousness, all temporal awareness, that one goes into blank trance, suspends all critical faculties and wallows in oceanic mush. It simply means that one rediscovers the background of egoic consciousness. One is aware of the integral Wholeness and of the explicit ego. Wholeness is not the opposite of egoic individuality, it is simply its Ground, and the discovery of the ground does not annihilate the figure of the ego. On the contrary, it simply reconnects it with the rest of nature, cosmos, and divinity. this is not an everlasting state, but a timeless state. With this realization, one does not gain everlasting life in time, but discovers that which is prior to time.

 

Now according to the perennial philosophy, the rediscovery of this infinite and eternal Wholeness is man's single greatest need and want. For not only is Atman the basic nature of all souls, each person knows or intuits that this is so. For every individual constantly intuits that his prior Nature is infinite and eternal, All and Whole — he is possessed, that is, with a true Atman intuition. But, at the same time, he is terrified of real transcendence, because transendence entails the "death" of his isolated and separate-self sense. Because he won't let go and die to his separate self, he cannot find true and real transendence, he cannot find that larger fulfillment in integral Wholeness. Holding on to himself, he shuts out Atman; grasping only his ego, he denies the rest of the All.

Yet notice immediately that men and women are faced with a truly fundamental dilemma: above all else, each person wants true transcendence, Atman consciousness, and the ultimate Whole; but, above all else, each person fears the loss of the separate self, the "death" of the isolated ego. All a person wants is Wholeness, but all he does is fear and resist it (since that would entail the "death" of his separate self). And there is the dilemma, the double bind in the face of eternity.

Because man wants real transcendence above all else, but because he will not accept the necessary death of his separate-self sense, he goes about seeking transcendence in ways that actually prevent it and force symbolic substitutes. And these substitutes come in all varieties: sex, food, money, fame, knowledge, power — are all ultimately substitute gratifications, simple substitutes for true release in Wholeness. This is why human desire is insatiable, why all joys yearn for infinity — all a person wants is Atman; all he finds are symbolic substitutes for it.

Even an individual's feeling of being a separate, isolated, and individual self is a mere substitute for one's true Nature, a substitute for the transcendent Self of the ultimate Whole. Every individual correctly intuits that he is one nature with Atman, but he distorts that intuition by applying it to his separate self. He feels his separate self is immortal, central to the cosmos, all-significant. That is, he substitutes his ego for the Atman. Then, instead of finding timeless wholeness, he merely substitutes the wish to live forever; instead of being one with the cosmos, he substitutes the desire to possess the cosmos; instead of being one with God, he tried himself to play God.

43 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Lectures are fine provided you accurately link them as representing notions you agree with and not evidence which validate your beliefs. People given drugs in a controlled environment with the goal of inducing a particular experience is not evidence that god exists. At best the John Hopkins Psilocybin Research Project is evidence that Psilocybin can produce a supernatural sensation. There are many types of psychiatric drugs capable of producing a lot of different types of experiences. 

The science I've represented does validate my position as a Perennialist, and yes, I submit to you and everyone here on these threads that this is, indeed, the best scientific evidence which demonstrates the existence of God.

43 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Yes, hallucinations can be brought on by dehydration, starvation, lack of sleep, fever, physical fatigue, lack of oxygen, a wide variety of health issues, and so on. No one here is arguing against the existence of hallucinations. 

Yes, but my contention is each hallucination is unique, and the hallucinatory phenomena associated with mystical experience is also unique and can be differentiated from other hallucinatory phenomena.

43 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

History is full of drugs which came with the promise of making people smarter, stronger, happier, and etc. Cocaine was initially viewed as a fantastic focus drug that helped people get work done, steroids made people more youthful providing boost to energy and strength, opioids are an excellent pain killer. Over initial adoptions of drugs have resulted in millions of ruined lives. Kids today are using adderall and Ritalin as a study drugs to get better grades yet the link between those drugs and suicides rates isn't fully understood. We should always be cautious with mind/personality altering drugs. 

 

I disagree. The science that's being done today has shown great efficacy with depression, PTSD, terminally-ill cancer patients, it's helped nicotine addicts quite smoking without recidivism, it's even been shown to be beneficial for the healthy volunteers, so I would say that the science would disagree with you on this point. We're not talking about cocaine or heroin, but rather entheogens or more popularly known as psychedelics which have, indeed, been demonstrated to be extremely valuable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=55m25s

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You only say that because you've some pre-conceived notion of God that you've defined in your head, and I'd argue that your description of the "God" doesn't meet the criteria here, and so you say some

The science has established the implications are much greater than your myopic summation. I maintain that you've not comprehended what is entailed by this research. What you fail to grasp is that God

This is actually one of the few times there's a simple answer. Science describes god(s) as supernatural simply because they defy observation and prediction, two foundational tools of science. All of t

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Kafei said:

However, what they're calling a "mystical experience" is precisely what ancient Christian mystics are calling a "union with the divine" or what a Buddhist might call "nirvana," or what the Hindu calls samadhi which is the absorption into Brahman, or what the Taoist call the "flowing of the Tao," or what Plotinus called "The One," each of these phrases are different ways of describing one and the same thing.

And that is evidence that people experience the same thing. Not of the reality of gods. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strange said:

And that is evidence that people experience the same thing. Not of the reality of gods. 

You only say that because you've some pre-conceived notion of God that you've defined in your head, and I'd argue that your description of the "God" doesn't meet the criteria here, and so you say something like that. However, what you don't seem to grasp is that God is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy contained within this scientific research. So, you're merely creating a straw man argument with your comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kafei said:

More accurately, I've posted evidence that mystical experience/religious experience can be elicited by natural means or by psychedelics.

Which is not in the least bit surprising. But says nothing about the existence of gods. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Strange said:

Which is not in the least bit surprising. But says nothing about the existence of gods. 

 

Well, like I said, you're obviously defining God out of its original context which is addressed by the Perennial philosophy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strange said:

But you refuse to give us your definition so I am stuck with mine. 

I offered many paragraphs explaining how all this is represented within the Perennial philosophy. I had referenced the work of Ken Wilber, and so my guess is you probably overlooked it. You know, you can also Google the Perennial philosophy, even Wiki does on okay job of explaining it. Again, I don't know what your specific definition of God is, but the divine within the context of the Perennial philosophy is defined quite specifically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I offered many paragraphs explaining how all this is represented within the Perennial philosophy. I had referenced the work of Ken Wilber, and so my guess is you probably overlooked it. You know, you can also Google the Perennial philosophy, even Wiki does on okay job of explaining it. Again, I don't know what your specific definition of God is, but the divine within the context of the Perennial philosophy is defined quite specifically.

I know what perrenial philosophy is (and I think it is a very sensible perspective on religion and mysticism). 

What I am asking you is what your definition of “god” is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kafei said:

None of the professionals characterize the experience as a "brain now working."

Ok,

I presume that's  typo and should say ""brain not working.". Interestingly, it's in quote marks, but not a quote.

Whatever...

Would you be able to drive a car in those circumstances (i.e. full of drugs)?

If not, would it be because there was a problem with some other organ- or would it  be a problem with the brain?

3 hours ago, Kafei said:

That's not "other evidence," that's just pointing to the fact that mystical experiences can be elicited in a variety of fashions be it through epilepsy, stroke as in the case of Jill Bolte Taylor, through spiritual disciplines such as meditation or asceticism, by psychedelics such as psilocybin or N,N-DMT, and it's even speculated to occur in the near-death experience.

That's all  evidence that so called "religious experiences" are a (fairly common) feature of the brain being disrupted rather than intervention by any God

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kafei said:

 

I am speaking on the existence of God.

No, they're not more "real than reality" because people are wishful thinkers. Rather they're more real than real because that's what's universally reported by the volunteers, even the former atheists whom after this event, no longer identified with atheism.

What part of these lectures are on the peer-reviewed material do you not understand? You act as though I'm posting pseudoscience

I am referring to legitimate science which has been accumulating for decades now all the way back to the work of William James, if anyone here is lacking a good foundational grasp of the research, it is only yourself.

What these researchers are calling mystical states of consciousness or mystical experience is not a misty or vague concept, it's been quit concretely defined within this research.

 

I'm merely reiterating the science that's been done here. Yes, of course, it has properties. God is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy within this cumulative research.

A few points....Which have already been made, and which again you have deftly side-stepped and/or ignored. [1] Mystical experiences are not evidence for any god: [2] All the science that is being done is totally speculative, lacking any evidence to support your myth of some form of creator in whatever magical form your imagination conjurs up: [3] The rest is simply philosophical jargon: [4] And finally and again, if there was even the slightest hint that what you claim is true, it would be momentous headlines all round the world, with people falling to there knees and begging forgiveness. I would personally be begging forgiveness in drinking the altar wine behind the altar when I was a hairy arse altar boy! But guess what? That won't happen because all you have done is misinterpreted some philosophical jargon and speculation. 

8 hours ago, Kafei said:

No, they're not more "real than reality" because people are wishful thinkers. Rather they're more real than real because that's what's universally reported by the volunteers, even the former atheists whom after this event, no longer identified with atheism.

Wishful thinking, delusional reactions, fanatical desire in saving face with the fact that science has made any deity superfluous at least as far back as t-10-43 seconds. And personally I do not identify with Atheism or any other labelling. I identify with empirical evidence, observation and experiments and the scientific methodology...certainly not dreams, drug taking, or any other delusional wishful thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Interestingly, it's in quote marks, but not a quote.

He has done that a few times. Which is ironic as one of the problems with his first thread was that it was copied without being in quotes!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kafei said:

I was rather referring to a cyclical model of the universe as described in eastern philosophy, like Hinduism.

That's still a god of the gaps. If you insert 'God'' in a  cosmological model then you believe in the God of the gaps.

 

9 hours ago, Kafei said:

I'm merely reiterating the science that's been done here. Yes, of course, it has properties. God is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy within this cumulative research.

Yes but YOU believe in a creator. What are his properties according to you? If you think a creator is necessary then it''s imo important to know which properties it had since those properties evolved/developed somehow.

Also when you use  the idea of 'God' like that, it implies you can logically explain the origin of the universe. Dark energy, dark matter and quantum theory show that our logic lacks.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This now seems to be a rehash of what was wrongly claimed in the previous thread that was closed.

Anyway......Having ignored most of the opinionated videos supplied, I decided on another route to throw light on this totally mis-interpreted nonsense, probably due to personal fanatical convictions. And we all know what that can lead to.

Anyway, so I typed in "is psilocybin research and mystical experiences evidence that god exists" just to see what it came up with......Surprise, surprise!! Not one mention of this research, in saying that it is evidence that god exists. 

Here are some of the links and extracts........

https://qz.com/1196408/scientists-studying-psilocybin-accidentally-proved-the-self-is-an-illusion/

Scientists studying psychoactive drugs accidentally proved the self is an illusion

Psychologists distinguish radical transformative experiences as “quantum changes,” as opposed to incremental behavioral-based shifts. But the two are not mutually exclusive. An epiphany prompted by psilocybin can give rise to a new enthusiasm, curiosity, or sense of wonder that can trigger behavioral changes or new interests, spurring travel, dance, contemplation, meditation, an interest in nature, people, or other cultures. Likewise, no momentary experience is so magical and profound as to make every moment thereafter easy to manage, which is why practitioners of meditation may experience illumination when sitting, but still struggle in day-to-day life.

Extraordinary experiences become normal, and personal dramas become boring, once you perceive the brain’s prankster at work—and then you can really relax. As Trungpa writes in his 1984 text, Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior, “Life is a humorous situation but it is not mocking us.”

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

the next link.....

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jul/08/religious-leaders-get-high-on-magic-mushrooms-ingredient-for-science

Religious leaders get high on magic mushrooms ingredient – for science:

Others are more openly enthusiastic about the broader, non-medical, uses of psychedelic drugs. “My wild fantasy is that, probably some time after I’m long dead, these drugs are used in seminary training, rabbinical training,” said Richards, who began research into psychedelics in the 1960s. “Why shouldn’t the opportunity be there to explore deeply spiritual states of consciousness in a legal way?”

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342293/

Psilocybin-occasioned Mystical Experiences in the Treatment of Tobacco Addiction

Abstract

Psilocybin-occasioned mystical experiences have been linked to persisting effects in healthy volunteers including positive changes in behavior, attitudes, and values, and increases in the personality domain of openness. In an open-label pilot-study of psilocybin-facilitated smoking addiction treatment, 15 smokers received 2 or 3 doses of psilocybin in the context of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for smoking cessation. Twelve of 15 participants (80%) demonstrated biologically verified smoking abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Participants who were abstinent at 6 months (n=12) were compared to participants still smoking at 6 months (n=3) on measures of subjective effects of psilocybin. Abstainers scored significantly higher on a measure of psilocybin-occasioned mystical experience. No significant differences in general intensity of drug effects were found between groups, suggesting that mystical-type subjective effects, rather than overall intensity of drug effects, were responsible for smoking cessation. Nine of 15 participants (60%) met criteria for “complete” mystical experience. Smoking cessation outcomes were significantly correlated with measures of mystical experience on session days, as well as retrospective ratings of personal meaning and spiritual significance of psilocybin sessions. These results suggest a mediating role of mystical experience in psychedelic-facilitated addiction treatment.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104240746

The God Chemical: Brain Chemistry And Mysticism

But now, some researchers are using new technologies to try to understand spiritual experience. They're peering into our brains and studying our bodies to look for circumstantial evidence of a spiritual world. The search is in its infancy, and scientists doubt they will ever be able to prove — or disprove — the existence of God.

I spent a year exploring the emerging science of spirituality for my book, Fingerprints of God. One of the questions raised by my reporting: Is an encounter with God merely a chemical reaction?

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Just as logic was always dictating and what I and others have been saying,  this nonsense with regards to mystical experiences,  is simply a personal subjective experience/hallucination/delusion. I don't need to indulge in drugs to realise that. 

4 hours ago, Kafei said:

It is established science. Yes, "mystical experience" is a scientific concept at this point. Make no mistake.

The term "mystical experience" has become synonymous with the terms "religious experience", spiritual experience and sacred experience. A "religious experience" is a subjective experience which is interpreted within a religious framework. WIKI

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, beecee said:

Surprise, surprise!! Not one mention of this research, in saying that it is evidence that god exists. 

The science I've referenced is, indeed, evidence for the existence of God. You see, the problem with your search query is that you assume science is simply going to represent this research as "Evidence for existence of God," but the word God isn't the only name for the divine, so it's not expressed so crassly. Instead, the professionals say that mystical states of consciousness are evidence for the Perennial philosophy, that is to say evidence for the universal divine source which underlies all the world's great faith traditions. 

https://www.scribd.com/document/377509912/ME-2017CurrTopBehavNeuro-WCover-Copy
http://www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdf

20180803_181157.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Instead, the professionals say that mystical states of consciousness are evidence for the Perennial philosophy, that is to say evidence for the universal divine source which underlies all the world's great faith traditions. 

I would not disagree with that.

The trouble is that there is no reason to think that this is not a result of brain function. Therefore it is not evidence for gods.

The "universal divine source" appears to be The Brain. Unless you have some evidence that these subjective feelings come from somewhere outside the brain (and you don't) it is not evidence for your, or any other, god.

 

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Strange said:

I would not disagree with that.

The trouble is that there is no reason to think that this is not a result of brain function. Therefore it is not evidence for gods.

The "universal divine source" appears to be The Brain. Unless you have some evidence that these subjective feelings come from somewhere outside the brain (and you don't) it is not evidence for your, or any other, god.

 

Actually, I do have evidence, what you don't seem to grasp here is that the "complete" mystical experience is essentially a metanoia, it is a fundamental alteration of perception such that all that exist is literally perceived as one within this phenomenon in consciousness. The mystic knows that in some mysterious and indescribable manner, God and his universe are one. The mystic perceives all things as one, all men as his brothers, all creatures as his fellows and all matter holy. This is precisely why all the original descriptors for the divine, and the Perennial philosophy does, indeed, address this original etymology, so that you invariably find descriptions of the divine that are monistic, henotheistic, and panentheistic. So that the description of the divine embedded within the Perennial philosophy is panentheistic. This is precisely how Einstein defined God when he'd reference Spinoza, and Einstein himself admitted to having a mystical experience. So make no mistake, this scientific research that's been established is the best scientific evidence we have for the existence of God.

https://www.sociology.org/did-you-know-mysticism-and-religious-experience/

21 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 

Are you referring to the stand up comedian Joe Rogan? Why would you mention him? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Rogan

Because simply he's had many professionals involved in this research on his podcast, and many individuals who've discussed these type of matters on his podcast. That's why I've referenced Joe Rogan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51PK6Hvaddg#t=1h30m08s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9emNEgLP3Ds&t=1h38m30s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbGVEXR1GQs&t=2h17m31s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ1Dm-dcl68#t=50m38s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGHMv73_j04#t=1h34m24s

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Actually, I do have evidence

Go on then. What is this evidence?

5 minutes ago, Kafei said:

what you don't seem to grasp here is that the "complete" mystical experience is essentially a metanoia, it is a fundamental alteration of perception such that all that exist is literally perceived as one within this phenomenon in consciousness.

Yep. The brain will do that to you.

5 minutes ago, Kafei said:

So make no mistake, this scientific research that's been established is the best scientific evidence we have for the existence of God.

No. It is just evidence for people having these experiences. This is getting old.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. It is just evidence for people having these experiences. This is getting old.

The science has established the implications are much greater than your myopic summation. I maintain that you've not comprehended what is entailed by this research. What you fail to grasp is that God has always come as a revelation within a phenomenon in consciousness, and our modern science has recognized this phenomenon as the "complete" mystical experience which may have been happening since time immemorial.

Edited by Kafei
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kafei said:

The science has established the implications are much greater than your myopic summation. I maintain that you've not comprehended what is entailed by this research.

You have to show that these experiences originate outside the brain. You have no evidence that is the case. Just your belief. 

Quote

What you fail to grasp is that God has always come as a revelation within a phenomenon in consciousness, and our modern science has recognized this phenomenon as the "complete" mystical experience which may have been happening since time immemorial.

I have grasped that. But the most plausible explanation is that these "complete mystical experiences" are created in the brain. 

You have presented no evidence that they originate outside the brain. You just believe that to be the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strange said:

You have to show that these experiences originate outside the brain. You have no evidence that is the case. Just your belief. 

I have grasped that. But the most plausible explanation is that these "complete mystical experiences" are created in the brain. 

You have presented no evidence that they originate outside the brain. You just believe that to be the case.

I'm not arguing that these experiences are "outside the brain," this is your misconception, and it's simply further evidence that you've not understood the research.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I'm not arguing that these experiences are "outside the brain," this is your misconception, and it's simply further evidence that you've not understood the research.

The research you are citing relies entirely on peoples ability to recall a drug induced experience where the specific drug and quantity used were designed to cause said experience. 

People drink coffee in the morning because the caffeine provides a specific experience of energy and alertness. The experience can be measured and is known to be real. Does that mean that coffee drinkers, or rather daily caffeine  consumers, are definitively more productive? That to a person anyone who became a coffee drinker would be more productive overall throughout their life? Rhetorical questions. That has obviously not been proved There are number coffee drinkers who live far less productive lives than non-coffee drinkers and vice versa. My point being that an experience be real as an experience doesn't make the natural of that experience true. II prefer coffee in the morning because I like the experience of feeling ready to go. However I can accomplish everything the same without it overall. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The research you are citing relies entirely on peoples ability to recall a drug induced experience where the specific drug and quantity used were designed to cause said experience. 

People drink coffee in the morning because the caffeine provides a specific experience of energy and alertness. The experience can be measured and is known to be real. Does that mean that coffee drinkers, or rather daily caffeine  consumers, are definitively more productive? That to a person anyone who became a coffee drinker would be more productive overall throughout their life? Rhetorical questions. That has obviously not been proved There are number coffee drinkers who live far less productive lives than non-coffee drinkers and vice versa. My point being that an experience be real as an experience doesn't make the natural of that experience true. II prefer coffee in the morning because I like the experience of feeling ready to go. However I can accomplish everything the same without it overall. 

I definitely would not compare psilocybin to caffeine, two entirely different drugs produce false analogies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I'm not arguing that these experiences are "outside the brain," this is your misconception, and it's simply further evidence that you've not understood the research.

I have understood the research. But I don’t understand what you are claiming. So let’s summarise. 

We agree that:

1. People have mystical / religious experiences

2. These can (also) be produced by psychoactive drugs

3. The experiences people have are common across time and cultures

Where we appear to disagree or be at cross-purposes:

1. I think these experiences are entirely explained by the activity of the brain (and they are similar in all cases because brain chemistry is the same in all cases)

2. You claim these experiences are evidence of god (a term which you refuse to define) but you also say that these experiences (and therefore god?) do not come from outside

Correct?

It almost sounds like we agree: these experience exist, they are common to all, and they only exist inside the head (ie the brain).

But you choose to label these experiences as “god” and I can only shrug in response. If that is what you want to call it, go ahead.

But then it seems your entire argument becomes circular: the evidence for “god” (ie mystical experiences) is that people experience “god”. 

Note: if I have still misunderstood/misrepresented you that is because you are bloody awful at explaining yourself. All you can do is angrily repeat yourself. You are unable to define what you mean. And then you insult people when they ask for clarifications. 

7 minutes ago, rangerx said:

So coffee is ungodly then?

Blasphemy! Heretic!

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.