Jump to content

Hijack from God and science


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

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

I'm sorry, but you've not shown any signs of comprehending the research as I'm not claiming anything other than what's been established by the science I've referenced.

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

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?

Well, it's not as though the external reality is not part of this experience, the core impression inside the "complete" mystical experience is a literal unity with all existence. That's not just a metaphor, that an actual possibility in consciousness which has been confirmed by modern science. And I have explained that the description of the divine is panentheistic as it derives from the "complete" mystical state of consciousness. I've explained that the divine is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy, and I've quoted several paragraphs defining precisely what this view entails and how God is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy.

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

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.

If you're reacting in an emotional fashion, that's simply because you've an emotional investment in atheism that you may have to decondition yourself in order to properly understand the research. Jordan Peterson has recognized this gut-level disgust that atheists have when they intuit evidence that contradicts their stance. It's perfectly highlighted in the clip below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_Q4CXvqLM4

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

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. 

Blasphemy! Heretic!

It's not that I'm bloody awful of explaining myself, it's rather that you're clearly not paying attention. I have quoted several paragraphs that go in-depth of defining the divine within the context of the Perennial philosophy. You've obviously overlooked it. The post was directed to you and can be found on the very top of page 3.

21 minutes ago, rangerx said:

So coffee is ungodly then?

Well, you don't hear anyone calling caffeine an entheogen, do you? 

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

1 hour ago, Kafei said:

The science I've referenced is, indeed, evidence for the existence of God.

As I have adequately shown, no it is not. And requests of you to show/state the exact evidence for any interpretation of any deity has been ignored or simply avoided with hand waving and ignorance.

Quote

  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. 

It appears actually that you probably have been so brain washed, in religious dogma and myth, that you are deliberately misinterpreting everything that the professionals have simply speculated on and in many cases answered in the negative. Let me again say that you have no evidence whatsoever that any research, and scientific endeavour, has resulted in any evidence for any god of any persausion.  Mystic experiences are not evidence for god...you know that, I know that, and the scientists and others involved in this stuff also know that.

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

As I have adequately shown, no it is not. And requests of you to show/state the exact evidence for any interpretation of any deity has been ignored or simply avoided with hand waving and ignorance.

Again, you've not shown this not to be the case. I've thoroughly explained that I've quoted several paragraphs on the top of page 3 in a response to Strange which elaborately explicates how the divine his being defined within the Perennial philosophy, a view on the major religions which is in congruence with the science that's been done.

Just now, beecee said:

It appears actually that you probably have been so brain washed, in religious dogma and myth, that you are deliberately misinterpreting everything that the professionals have simply speculated on and in many cases answered in the negative. Let me again say that you have no evidence whatsoever that any research, and scientific endeavour, has resulted in any evidence for any god of any persausion.  Mystic experiences are not evidence for god...you know that, I know that, and the scientists and others involved in this stuff also know that.

You'd be wrong once again as I was an agnostic prior to having a mystical experience for myself. And again, I'd point out that the science would disagree with you.

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

If you're reacting in an emotional fashion, that's simply because you've an emotional investment in atheism that you may have to decondition yourself in order to properly understand the research.

More to the point, is your own emotional, unscientific and irrational investment in this nonsense.

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

More to the point, is your own emotional, unscientific and irrational investment in this nonsense.

I'm merely redirecting people's attention to the science that's been done relative to these topics, nothing more, nothing less. 

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

Again, you've not shown this not to be the case. I've thoroughly explained that I've quoted several paragraphs on the top of page 3 in a response to Strange which elaborately explicates how the divine his being defined within the Perennial philosophy, a view on the major religions which is in congruence with the science that's been done.

You'd be wrong once again as I was an agnostic prior to having a mystical experience for myself. And again, I'd point out that the science would disagree with you.

 

1 minute ago, Kafei said:

Again, you've not shown this not to be the case. I've thoroughly explained that I've quoted several paragraphs on the top of page 3 in a response to Strange which elaborately explicates how the divine his being defined within the Perennial philosophy, a view on the major religions which is in congruence with the science that's been done.

You'd be wrong once again as I was an agnostic prior to having a mystical experience for myself. And again, I'd point out that the science would disagree with you.

No I am correct. Again if there was any evidence for any deity uncovered, it would be world shattering news and people would be falling to their knees.It's not and it isn't...or are you now dabbling and claiming some conspiracy?

1 minute ago, Kafei said:

I'm merely redirecting people's attention to the science that's been done relative to these topics, nothing more, nothing less. 

That science as I have shown, has most certainly not uncovered any evidence for any god. 

Mystical experiences are not evidence for god, period.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, beecee said:

No I am correct. Again if there was any evidence for any deity uncovered, it would be world shattering news and people would be falling to their knees.It's not and it isn't...or are you now dabbling and claiming some conspiracy?

As Alex Grey rightly points out in a comment given to a panel of professionals who've contributed to this science is that this should be world-shattering news, and while it's been in the media, it's definitely not as popular as it rightly should be. However, it is definitely becoming more and more known. People are no doubt waking up to the science that's been done. Again, as Alex Grey correctly points out, this is the best scientific evidence we have for the existence of God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52s

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

As Alex Grey rightly points out in a comment given to a panel of professionals who've contributed to this science is that this should be world-shattering news, and while it's been in the media, it's definitely not as popular as it rightly should be. However, it is definitely becoming more and more known. People are no doubt waking up to the science that's been done. Again, as Alex Grey correctly points out, this is the best scientific evidence we have for the existence of God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52s

So you are claiming conspiracy now? :P  I suggest you stop raving and emotionally denying the fact that anyone in this experiment has ever claimed [other then yourself ] that it is evident of god. It's not, and mystical experiences are simply subjective and in no way evidence. Like I said, I've had my own in more ways then one. 

1 hour 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.

Well said and to the point. It must take a incredible amount of brain washing to believe any so called "mystical experience"  is evidence of any god.

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, beecee said:

So you are claiming conspiracy now? :P 

I never said anything about conspiracy.

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

I suggest you stop raving and emotionally denying the fact that no one in this experiment has ever claimed [other then yourself ] that it is evident of god. It's not, and mystical experiences are simply subjective and in no way evidence. Like I said, I've had my own in more ways then one. 

Well, I maintain the science would disagree with you. This is, in fact, the first time science has recognized the existence of God. And calling an experience "subjective" is in no way a criticism as all experience is essentially subjective. That's empty criticism. And I truly doubt that you've had what these professionals are referring to as a "complete" mystical experience of which even for the atheists who attended this study, they no longer identified with atheism after this event. A "complete" mystical experience has been scientifically demonstrated to be a conversion experience for atheists.

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

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

I never said anything about conspiracy.

You certainly are inferring a conspiracy by quoting some nut with an agenda Alex Grey. Again if this was factual it would be truly earth shattering and incredible...It could not and would not be contained...it would be printed about, talked about, for weeks, months and years.....It would be even more notable then evidence that we were not alone in this universe. 

Quote

Well, I maintain the science would disagree with you.

You can maintain and believe what you like but you are wrong or deliberately and insideously misinterpeting the research that has been done.

 

Quote

This is, in fact, the first time science has recognized the existence of God.

That's false as my previous links have shown. Mystical experiences are not evident for any god.

 

Quote

And calling an experience "subjective" is in no way a criticism as all experience is essentially subjective. That's empty criticism.

:D Once again you are being obtuse and evasive at best. 

 

Quote

And I truly doubt that you've had what these professionals are referring to as a "complete" mystical experience of which even for the atheists who attended this study, they no longer identified with atheism after this event. A "complete" mystical experience has been scientifically demonstrated to be a conversion experience for atheists.

I suggest you are obsessed and now simply and irrationally denying the actual research.

 

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?

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, beecee said:

You certainly are inferring a conspiracy by quoting some nut with an agenda Alex Grey. Again if this was factual it would be truly earth shattering and incredible...It could not and would not be contained...it would be printed about, talked about, for weeks, months and years.....It would be even more notable then evidence that we were not alone in this universe. 

Smh. Alex Grey is a famous painter who just so happened to be at that lecture given by a panel of professionals who've contributed to this research, and they had no disagreement with his comments. What you fail to realize is that this research has a rich history initiating with the work of William James in the early 1900s, it was further elaborated throughout the decades by Walter. T. Stace, Ralph Hood, and Walter Pahnke, and it's been most refined in this more current research led by Dr. Roland Griffiths at Johns Hopkins University of Medicine.

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

You can maintain and believe what you like but you are wrong or deliberately and insideously misinterpeting the research that has been done.

No, I'm not wrong, and I am precisely reiterating this research as it has been presented. 

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

That's false as my previous links have shown. Mystical experiences are not evident for any god.

You referenced an article, I'm referencing peer-reviewed and published studies. Once again, I'd maintain the science would disagree with you.

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

I suggest you are obsessed and now simply and irrationally denying the actual research.

I suggest you look at the actual research and not some article that misrepresents it. It's also out-dated back to 2009, the research has come a long way since then, and the paper I've cited below was published in 2017.

https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf

common core.png

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

Al I gathered from that video are pseudo-scientists hallucinating about others hallucinations.

Chong: “One day I took some acid and played Black Sabbath at 78 speed.”
Cheech: “Yeah? And then what happened?”
Chong: “I saw… GOD!


 

I'm agnostic. I am at my most introspective and divine self while paddling a canoe on a calm lake, walking in the forest or standing on a mountain, but by that logic, we're incredulous because we don't expect epiphanies from self-induced euphoria

55 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Well, you don't hear anyone calling caffeine an entheogen, do you? 

I hear it all the time, but that doesn't make it true either.

To use an anaology, all I hear you saying is holy water and crosses kill vampires, but little do you understand, that we understand vampires don't actually exist.

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

Al I gathered from that video are pseudo-scientists hallucinating about others hallucinations.

Chong: “One day I took some acid and played Black Sabbath at 78 speed.”
Cheech: “Yeah? And then what happened?”
Chong: “I saw… GOD!

Only that wasn't the conclusion of the research. Way to mischaracterize it there.

4 minutes ago, rangerx said:

I'm agnostic. I am at my most introspective and divine self while paddling a canoe on a calm lake, walking in the forest or standing on a mountain, but by that logic, we're incredulous because we don't expect epiphanies from self-induced euphoria

I hear it all the time, but that doesn't make it true either.

To use an anaology, all I hear you saying is holy water and crosses kill vampires, but little do you understand, that we understand vampires don't actually exist.

What you don't seem to grasp is that this is actually legitimate science that's been done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3a2G9GS_E#t=11m47s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT_WjwbSwPU#t=13m48s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UF5l7wxN-k&t=53m52s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxWvIp9XtUc#t=8m17s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=34m36s
www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdf
https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf

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

Smh. Alex Grey is a famous painter who just so happened to be at that lecture given by a panel of professionals who've contributed to this research, and they had no disagreement with his comments. What you fail to realize is that this research has a rich history initiating with the work of William James in the early 1900s, it was further elaborated throughout the decades by Walter. T. Stace, Ralph Hood, and Walter Pahnke, and it's been most refined in this more current research led by Dr. Roland Griffiths at Johns Hopkins University of Medicine.

 

A famous painter???:D A painter maybe, but a painter with an agenda and then resorting to conspiracy as an excuse. The claims are false, live with it.

Quote

No, I'm not wrong, and I am precisely reiterating this research as it has been presented. 

Of course you are wrong...on  at least three points....[1] I have asked you politely for the exact evidence that shows your god exists...you have failed: [2] The article [your article and research have never said anything about this being evidence for god: [3] Mystical experiences are subjective and either way is not evidence for any god.

 

Quote

You referenced an article, I'm referencing peer-reviewed and published studies. Once again, I'd maintain the science would disagree with you.

As has been pointed out to you many peer reviewed publications exist which are totally speculative, and secondly  your publications do not claim that it is evidence for any god...that is your own interpretation and delusion.

Quote

I suggest you look at the actual research and not some article that misrepresents it. It's also out-dated back to 2009, the research has come a long way since then, and the paper I've cited below was published in 2017.

I suggest you stop being obtuse and answer my request of a couple of days ago, and show me or quote me the evidence that shows your spaghetti monster 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?

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kafei said:

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

I was comparing two chemicals which people testify to having an experience from. I wasn't comparing the experience. What is the difference? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, beecee said:

A famous painter???:D A painter maybe, but a painter with an agenda and then resorting to conspiracy as an excuse. The claims are false, live with it.

Alex Grey was an atheist prior to his own mystical experience, and you also failed to recognize that he was addressing a panel of professional who did not disagree with his comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jd4PKMUJBI

Quote

Of course you are wrong...on  at least three points....[1] I have asked you politely for the exact evidence that shows your god exists...you have failed: [2] The article [your article and research have never said anything about this being evidence for go: [3] Mystical experiences are subjective and either way is not evidence for any go.

Yes, I've explained throughout this thread that the divine is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy, and I recommend reading the top post on page 3 as I've elaborated on what this view on the major religions entails.

Quote

As has been pointed out to you many peer reviewed publications exist which are totally speculative, and secondly  your publications do not claim that it is evidence for any god...that is your own interpretation and delusion.

It's not speculation at this point, this research as I've said goes all the way back to William James. The mystical experience is pretty much a scientific concept at this point, and they're defining in accordance with the Perennial philosophy.

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

Quote

I suggest you stop being obtuse and answer my request of a couple of days ago, and show me or quote me the evidence that shows your spaghetti monster 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?

The bolded text above is simply from an out-dated article. I've referenced more contemporary material which as Alex Grey rightly points out (and which the panel of professionals did not disagree) is the best evidence we have for the existence of God. I'm actually familiar with all of these articles, and again, the text you're highlighting is no longer the case, as I've mentioned, you're citing an out-dated article which is misrepresentative of the more current research relative to these topics.

37 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I was comparing two chemicals which people testify to having an experience from. I wasn't comparing the experience. What is the difference? 

Psliocybin is an entheogen, caffeine is not.

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

What you don't seem to grasp is that this is actually legitimate science that's been done.

What you don't seem to grasp is that is not science, no less just because you (or others) say it is.

It's pure bunk.

No methodology, no controls, not replicated on demand in all individuals.

There's a hippy commune down the road from my place. Magic mushrooms flow through there like water. If you call sleeping in the same room with buckets of your own shit, stealing firewood, bicycles and food from the neighbors is a godly experience, I thank my lucky stars you don't live in this town.
 

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

What you don't seem to grasp is that is not science, no less just because you (or others) say it is

It's pure bunk.

No methodology, no controls, not replicated on demand in all individuals.

There's a hippy commune down the road from my place. Magic mushrooms flow through there like water. If you call sleeping in the same room with buckets of your own shit, stealing firewood, bicycles and food from the neighbors is a godly experience, I thank my lucky stars you don't live in this town.
 

This is legitimate research that has taken place and which the more recent studies have been published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology. The methodology is explained in the peer-reviewed material as these are double-blind trials. Even Dawkins himself has recognized the scientific efficacy of the double-blind method.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLCpDPlt59g#t=2m55s

http://csp.org/psilocybin/

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

This is legitimate research that has taken place and which the more recent studies have been published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology. The methodology is explained in the peer-reviewed material as these are double-blind trials. Even Dawkins himself has recognized the scientific efficacy of the double-blind method.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLCpDPlt59g#t=2m55s

http://csp.org/psilocybin/

The clinical study of psychotropic compounds are not predicated by the existence of god. It's not even measurable in the abstract, no less in reality.

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

The clinical study of psychotropic compounds are not predicated by the existence of god. It's not even measurable in the abstract, no less in reality.

It seems as though you're just being introduced to this research. The so-called "complete" mystical experience is concretely defined within this research, and they're defining the divine within the context of the Perennial philosophy.

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

https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf

gplusd54c67d1645dfc2b1347f427234d8231eeebaa8e.png

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

Alex Grey was an atheist prior to his own mystical experience, and you also failed to recognize that he was addressing a panel of professional who did not disagree with his comments.

:) And I was raised as  a good little Catholic boy, and I was an Altar boy to boot, until I was found drinking the altar wine behind the altar...So? No mystical experience is any evidence for god, not withstanding your own delusions.

 

Quote

Yes, I've explained throughout this thread that the divine is defined within the context of the Perennial philosophy, and I recommend reading the top post on page 3 as I've elaborated on what this view on the major religions entails.

The divine is an unscientifc unevidenced mythical belief held by gullible people, to help them feel good. I need neither that or drugs.

 

Quote

It's not speculation at this point, this research as I've said goes all the way back to William James. The mystical experience is pretty much a scientific concept at this point, and they're defining in accordance with the Perennial philosophy.

It's certainly is speculation, and as far back as Billy James....no evidence, observational or experimental, simply a collection of thoughts, opinions, and delusions. 

Quote

The bolded text above is simply from an out-dated article. I've referenced more contemporary material which as Alex Grey rightly points out (and which the panel of professionals did not disagree) is the best evidence we have for the existence of God. I'm actually familiar with all of these articles, and again, the text you're highlighting is no longer the case, as I've mentioned, you're citing an out-dated article which is misrepresentative of the more current research relative to these topics.

They are scientific opinions based on the evidence or lack thereof, not withstanding your own irrational denial of anything contrary to your delusions.

And you continue to ignore my request for the evidence, the hard evidence that shows any god exists. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, beecee said:

:) And I was raised as  a good little Catholic boy, and I was an Altar boy to boot, until I was found drinking the altar wine behind the altar...So? No mystical experience is any evidence for god, not withstanding your own delusions.

You're welcome to your opinion, but as I've pointed ad nauseum at this point, the actual science that's been done would disagree with you.

Quote

The divine is an unscientifc unevidenced mythical belief held by gullible people, to help them feel good. I need neither that or drugs.

The divine is now evidenced and it's now part of modern science. Get over it.

Quote

It's certainly is speculation, and as far back as Billy James....no evidence, observational or experimental, simply a collection of thoughts, opinions, and delusions. 

Again, the science has demonstrated that the divine has always come by a revelation of the mind be it Jesus' experience of The Father or Siddartha Gautama's experience of Nirvana or Plotinus' experience of "The One," all these are metaphors for mystical states of enlightenment, and the science had demonstrated this to be the case.

Quote

They are scientific opinions based on the evidence or lack thereof, not withstanding your own irrational denial of anything contrary to your delusions.

They're rather scientific facts based on established research which has been accumulating for decades now.

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

You're welcome to your opinion, but as I've pointed ad nauseum at this point, the actual science that's been done would disagree with you.

No, that's your own wishful thinking brought on by past events I would guess. No science, no scientists, has shown evidence that any deity exists.

Quote

The divine is now evidenced and it's now part of modern science. Get over it.

Only in your delusional mind. The day it makes world wide news, the day that mainstream science finally agree we have evidence for god, is not going to happen, despite your apparent valiant crusade for your imaginary god.

 

Quote

Again, the science has demonstrated that the divine has always come by a revelation of the mind be it Jesus' experience of The Father or Siddartha Gautama's experience of Nirvana or Plotinus' experience of "The One," all these are metaphors for mystical states of enlightenment, and the science had demonstrated this to be the case.

That's not true, nor does it claim any evidence of god is forthcoming....it's in your mind and the object of your crusade mission, that's all.

 

 

Quote

They're rather scientific facts based on established research which has been accumulating for decades now.

I'm not denying the science or the research. I'm pointing out your faulty interpretations, side stepping and obtuseness that your crusade is driving you to conduct against us heathen atheists, and of course your continued refusal to point out the exact concrete evidence that is supposedly showing your delusional god does exist.

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

It seems as though you're just being introduced to this research. The so-called "complete" mystical experience is concretely defined within this research, and they're defining the divine within the context of the Perennial philosophy.

 

https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf

gplusd54c67d1645dfc2b1347f427234d8231eeebaa8e.png

What it does show, is individuals can have revelations or epiphanies at any time, for any reason. While it might serve some well in their lifestyles and behavior, it's does not suggest the existence of anything other than introspect (or gullibility) among individuals.

I've known hardcore atheists fall to their knees when they've gotten themselves in a jackpot, if for only self preservation with the least possible effort.

I was shipwrecked once while at sea in a hurricane.  Other than fighting a losing battle with with a five gallon bucket, I was singing a song in my head.

"Out on the sea, there is an island. Out on the sea, there is a place. Out on the sea, there's a wave with the power to save all the sailors from the dark and the deep."

I was saved, but I am absolutely certain my thoughts were not the reason for surviving, but for remaining calm. The other crew member had no such thoughts,  yet survived too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, beecee said:

No, that's your own wishful thinking brought on by past events I would guess. No science, no scientists, has shown evidence that any deity exists.

I keep having to repeat this, but it's important enough to repeat. You see, it's a mistake on behalf of the atheists I encounter to necessarily define God as something supernatural. That is to say, to define the divine with the requirement that its description should be something that defies physics or is synonymous with magic, etc. Einstein rightly referred to this as the "childish analogy of religion," and ironically it's the one notion most atheists I meet have as for their very reason for their rejection of theism. You see, the atheist essentially conjures his/her own conception of God, makes it supernatural, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. from the influence of their, shall I say, eisegesis of what they understand about religion, then proceeds to reject the very thing which they themselves conjured. Seems quite silly, but this is, in fact, the case.

The science is saying something quite different and has implications towards the very origins of the major religions, the nascency of each of the world's great faiths residing in individuals engaging what they're referring to as a "mystical experience," and have found it is, indeed, a biologically normal phenomenon. I get the impression no one is clicking these links. These aren't simply "YouTube links," these are lectures given by actual professionals who perform actual science relative to these topics. These studies have been peer-reviewed and published in The Scientific Journal of Psychopharmacology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bu3q3GMHfE#t=51m18s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AifzF2BJxEE#t=22m25s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY0oGjYqhhw#t=6m26s

Quote

Only in your delusional mind. The day it makes world wide news, the day that mainstream science finally agree we have evidence for god, is not going to happen, despite your apparent valiant crusade for your imaginary god.

It is part of mainstream science, yes, the rest of the world has to catch, but this is, indeed, part of our mainstream science, and the professionals involved do consider mystical experience the very evidence for the Perennial philosophy, and as I've emphasized over and over, the divine is defined within this context.

Quote

That's not true, nor does it claim any evidence of god is forthcoming....it's in your mind and the object of your crusade mission, that's all.

How do you know you're not pursuing some agenda? Are you an atheist? All I've done here is merely reiterate precisely what's been established by the science that's been done.

Quote

I'm not denying the science or the research. I'm pointing out your faulty interpretations, side stepping and obtuseness that your crusade is driving you to conduct against us heathen atheists, and of course your continued refusal to point out the exact concrete evidence that is supposedly showing your delusional god does exist.

So, you are atheist. No wonder you're having trouble coming to terms with this research. Atheists are all gung-ho when science suits their agenda, but when science contradicts their stance, they accuse people of lying, being delusional, obtuse, etc. Well, I'm not lying and I'm not delusional nor am I obtuse. If anyone is exhibiting those qualities, it is only yourself.

17 minutes ago, rangerx said:

What it does show, is individuals can have revelations or epiphanies at any time, for any reason. While it might serve some well in their lifestyles and behavior, it's does not suggest the existence of anything other than introspect (or gullibility) among individuals.

It actually does show more than that. They've demonstrated that the psilocybin-induced mystical experience in the volunteer is virtually identical to those naturally occurring mystical experience reported by mystics throughout the ages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbQOpWlyV5Q&t=4m51s

turn on.png

Edited by Kafei
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.