Defending the Validity of Religious/Spiritual Experiences

[sayak83]

By far the majority of mystical and other spiritual experiences reflect ones own religious beliefs and cultural background, and they reflect many diverse conflicting religious beliefs.

I plan to take up this point in a later thread.

 

[sayak83]

You didn't really cover the reason I don't put much stock in "mystical" experiences:

The hallmarks of a "mystical" experience suggest a failing or malfunctioning brain, and it wouldn't be reasonable to consider a brain in such a condition to be reliable. Commonalities in "mystical" experiences seem to be a better fit with commonalities of human physiology than they do with the idea that they point to any external truths.

Another point where I need to delve into, firstly the nature of "normal" spiritual experiences and then compare it with abnormal experiences caused by brain problems. Plan to cover it in another thread hopefully.

 

[Nakosis]

According to my pov, something is supernatural only if its existence directly violates some well tested natural laws. How does the existence of an absolute being/reality that can be experienced during periods of deep internal concentration or certain other special instances violate any well tested law of physics or nature? Can you identify the laws that it violates?

My argument is actually that no laws of physics or nature get violated during such experiences..

 

[sayak83]

My argument is actually that no laws of physics or nature get violated during such experiences..

I am saying even if the mystical experiences point to an absolute reality or being, even then no laws of physics gets violated. Would you agree?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Mystics of one religion tend not to fight with mystics of other religions. As an example look up the history of sufism and their interaction with Hindu and Sikh mystics in the subcontinent.

Yes, I should have said 'some religious beliefs', although it seems few are immune to strife involving other religious beliefs, even if such is often more cultural.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Another point where I need to delve into, firstly the nature of "normal" spiritual experiences and then compare it with abnormal experiences caused by brain problems. Plan to cover it in another thread hopefully.

I would argue that the vast majority of "spiritual" experiences are caused by problems induced in the brain, either by drugs or by physical extremes (e.g. prolonged meditation, hyerthermia, fasting, etc.).

 

[sayak83]

I would argue that the vast majority of "spiritual" experiences are caused by problems induced in the brain, either by drugs or by physical extremes (e.g. prolonged meditation, hyerthermia, fasting, etc.).

You would have to provide evidence in support of the argument.
Why would you consider meditation an extreme I do not understand. Sitting in office and staring at a computer 10 hours a day as most do in the office is far more extreme in my view.

 

[firedragon]

There are some other objections I frequently hear. I'd be interested in hearing your answers to the following as well:

9) Religious Institutions are corrupt and are merely tools to manipulate people.

10) Since morality is relative, religions are mere propositions by small minded groups. They limit human joy and expression, particularly sexual expression, or entertainments or other pleasures which people should be able to enjoy.

11) Religions come from Bronze Age goat herders and hence are antiquated and cannot compete with the utility of modern humanism.

12) Religions are mysogynistic or sexist, which evidences that they are backward.

13) Religions indoctrinate vulnerable children, and religion should only be taught to adults capable of deciding what to believe for themselves.

You should write a book with lots of lines like this. There are many buyers who like to read what they like, just like you.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You should write a book with lots of lines like this. There are many buyers who like to read what they like, just like you.

Thanks for assuming the worst of me. I shall return the favor.

 

[firedragon]

Thanks for assuming the worst of me. I shall return the favor.

Great.

 

[Nakosis]

I am saying even if the mystical experiences point to an absolute reality or being, even then no laws of physics gets violated. Would you agree?

What we internally experience is not bound by laws of nature/physics. It is bound by the scope of imagination.
If you take drugs/experience hallucinations, these are real experience you have. They are not bound by reality.

 

[sayak83]

What we internally experience is not bound by laws of nature/physics. It is bound by the scope of imagination.
If you take drugs/experience hallucinations, these are real experience you have. They are not bound by reality.

You are continuing to assert that internal experiences cannot be knowledge producing or true because they are internal. Problem is all experiences are internal and private. The only source of valudity is intersubjective validity of different people's private experiences through communications between people. People with spiritual experiences do this all the time with other experiencers. So what is the exact objection here? Is it so difficult to believe that all experiences of reality are not as easily accessible such that just keeping eyes open and ears unblocked can produce them? That it requires training to gain access to them?

 

[F1fan]

BTW: what do you mean by "knowledge producing"?

Personally, I have no issue with the idea that a person could find their "mystical" experiences personally profound or perspective-altering, which is a sort of knowledge, even though it doesn't require the visions/hallucinations/feelings/etc. of the experience to be objectively true.

I'm not sure what "mystical" means. I've had people tell me that some of the thoughts and experiences I've had over the years were mystical. To my mind what I was describing was just maturing, thinking, reflecting, honestly expressing experiences and questions, etc. I can see a mystical experience being some sort of profound feeling and experience of awe, or a connection with someone or an animal.

I am highly skeptical of those who claim experiences with supernatural beings. I find it interesting that no one ever claims to have a "close personal relationship with Jesus" without first hearing others say they have this experience. To my mind it seems as if other theists mimic experiences because that is what is expected of a theist. I find this sort of manufacturing of experiences to be a sort of subconscious fraud, and I suspect the believer knows this to some degree. It takes work to maintain this illusion, and I don't see this effort being anything mystical, quite the contrary.

 

[sayak83]

I'll take a shot. I will say that I don't agree with how you've phrased some of these objections, since a lot of them unnecessarily create burdens of proof or don't characterize what I think the actual objections are, but I'll try and explain why.

1) I would rephrase this as "Mystical experiences are subjective and hence are not objectively verifiable." Your tree example therefore fails, because we can objectively verify that trees exist. If you then want to attribute mystical properties to that tree that we cannot objectively verify, then I will not particularly believe you, because there is no demonstration tethering that claim to demonstrable reality.

2) Again, it's better to say, "There is no objective, empirical, or demonstrable evidence that any entity is causing these subjective experiences." You go on to say that "this does not mean that the experience is not pointing to a truth." Well, that's nice, but we can't disprove a negative. We're looking for evidence that the experience is pointing to a truth, because otherwise there is no reason to believe you. Math is a conceptual language. I can make up math just like I can make up a story about Klingons, and until there is evidence demonstrated in objective reality to confirm the things I've made up, we should assume they are merely imaginary and not real. The fact that I can't disprove them adds nothing to the discussion or to their credibility.

3) I think the objection stands. I don't see how your rebuttal challenged the point. Yes, there are long traditions of people believing things that are apparently only imaginary, and passing those ideas down to other people who also believe these imaginary things, and categorizing the types of things they imagine. I don't see any justification that their ideas correspond to reality, nor do I see any justification for thinking any of them have "expertise" to tell other people what they can or can't imagine.

4) I don't think this is a valid objection. There are people who can taste flavors that others can't due to their genetics. Likewise, some ethnic groups can see farther into the UV or infrared light spectrum than most other humans. In these cases, we can design experiments that objectively test and demonstrate these facts. There have been no objective tests or demonstrations showing that mystical experiences correspond to anything in reality besides the propensity for human emotions, imagination, and group hysteria, or drug-induced chemical changes to our brains that changes our mental state temporarily. These are all related to conceptualizations in our brain, aka imagination.

5) Again, not really a well-structured objection. If something is vague and unfalsifiable, it doesn't mean it's false. It just means it's not verifiable and therefore doesn't warrant belief. Your following explanation makes a genetic fallacy, namely that if an initial idea leads to the consideration and development of other true ideas, then the first idea must be true. This does not logically follow.

6) I agree with your objection to this argument. However, the evidence merely shows that there are benefits to belonging to a social in-group where people support each other throughout their lives, and benefits to exercise and personal introspection. These benefits accrue no matter the underlying belief involved, whether it is mystical, naturalistic, or entirely mundane like a social group of sports fans. The benefits therefore do not support the particular beliefs, except insofar as the beliefs psychologically motivate the behavior. Again, nothing here supports any supernatural, mystical, or theistic claims.

7) Science makes no absolute claims about reality, nor does it prove things. Currently, there is no scientific evidence that specifically supports mystical, supernatural, or theistic claims. You point out that many such claims are not incompatible with science, and this presents a good opportunity to educate you about the scientific method and what makes good epistemology. Due to the problem of underdetermination, an infinite number of different explanations can sufficiently explain any current or past data; any can be compatible with all observations and data. I could say a devious alien is tricking everyone who claims to have mystical experiences, by sometimes teleporting an undetectable object into their brain to trick them into thinking they're connecting with some presence or substance outside of their mind, but it's just a chemical manipulation caused by the alien object. This explanation is not inconsistent with the entire history of mysticism. And yet do we have any reason to believe it? No. I could imagine an infinite number of similar explanations that would be consistent with everything we see in past and present reality, but that consistency gives zero evidence they are in fact real. In the same way, there isn't any reason to believe ancient claims about superstition, imaginary attributions of emotional experiences, etc, until it is verified by science. And based on induction and all the observable patterns of human progress in knowledge, the older a "legacy belief" is, the more likely it is to be wrong.

The scientific method introduces novel, future-testable predictions. Instead of post hoc rationalization to come up with a self-consistent explanation of past or present data, it forces us to test our conceptual models of reality against new predictions that have never been tested before. If such tests then produce the new evidence your model predicted, then this is very good evidence that your explanatory model is the real one, as opposed to the infinite other explanations we can merely imagine. So far, no such testable predictions have been confirmed for any supernatural models. Mysticism is an untested hypothesis at best, and very possibly incompatible with science if no such test can even be proposed.

8) I think what you're trying to say here is, "What about the apparent tendency for humans to make up stories, exaggerate the details over time, and then subsequently believe these exaggerations in later generations when the original true details have been lost?" I think this is a good argument against mystical experiences being more than subjective feelings in our brains. If you lower your evidentiary standard enough to belief mystical claims, then in order to be intellectually consistent you would then need to accept most other supernatural claims, many of which are contradictory. This would be incoherent and irrational.

I will get to this sometime soon.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You would have to provide evidence in support of the argument.

... if I was out to convince you, which I'm not.

Why would you consider meditation an extreme I do not understand. Sitting in office and staring at a computer 10 hours a day as most do in the office is far more extreme in my view.

Because prolonged, deliberate changes to a person's natural breathing pattern can throw off blood gas levels.

Slow breathing - as is common in many meditation styles - over a long period can lead to reduced blood oxygen levels. This can start to impair brain function generally, and one of the first functions to be impaired with lower blood oxygen levels is that sense of differentiation between "me" and "my environment." When this happens, you get the feeling of connectedness to all things that's typically described in "mystical" experiences.

At the other extreme, rapid breathing over a long period - e.g. holotropic breathwork - can elevate blood oxygen levels, causing a feeling of overwhelming euphoria... again, something that's often described in "mystical" experiences.

 

[sayak83]

... if I was out to convince you, which I'm not.


Because prolonged, deliberate changes to a person's natural breathing pattern can throw off blood gas levels.

Slow breathing - as is common in many meditation styles - over a long period can lead to reduced blood oxygen levels. This can start to impair brain function generally, and one of the first functions to be impaired with lower blood oxygen levels is that sense of differentiation between "me" and "my environment." When this happens, you get the feeling of connectedness to all things that's typically described in "mystical" experiences.

At the other extreme, rapid breathing over a long period - e.g. holotropic breathwork - can elevate blood oxygen levels, causing a feeling of overwhelming euphoria... again, something that's often described in "mystical" experiences.

Do you have a report that supports this?

 

[Windwalker]

I am responding to some common objections regarding why one should not consider spiritual/mystical to be knowledge producing.

1) Mystical experience are private and hence are not verifiable
Response: All experiences are private. I have not seen any public experience. My experience of a tree is as private as your experience of the tree.

2) There is no entity out there to which such experience refers to. Hence they are not about anything
Response: This does not mean that the experience is not pointing to a truth. Mathematical relations can be cognized without it being out there. Thus we can have veridical experiences that are not directly tied to things out there in the world.

3)Mystical experiences cannot be checked or verified for being true or false
For an established tradition of mysticism there are strict regulations and rules determining what does or does not constitute a genuine mystical experience. There are hundreds of texts on this. What has not happened is the universalization of standards across traditions that is accepted by all. However it is to be noted that sustained interactions between Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Sufis, Sikhs did mean that despite differences, much similarities can be found in the processes that lead towards spiritual experiences and the ways of determining if these experiences are real or not. Further, just like any advanced discipline, it is only practitioners of the path who form the peer group who have the expertise to decide whether an experience based claim is veridical or not.

4) Not everyone can experience it. So it cannot be reliable.
Not everyone can gather, analyze, understand or use the data that scientists or medical practitioners or experts use in their professional lives. However it can be learned, just like any specialized discipline. Not everyone can learn as well or do as good as some or reach the highest level. This too is common in all disciplines of human activity. It does not make sense to claim General Relativity is false as I cannot grasp it. Why would it make any more sense here?

5) The experiences cannot be expressed and are vague and unfalsifiable
There are literally thousands of years of detailed debate and interrogation literature on the nature of these experiences, apparent contradictions between the various experiences and what they truly tell about the nature of reality in Indian history. That is probably true in other traditions as well. Entire systems of logic, grammar, mathematics and epistemology has been developed out of such debates. These are not the marks of vague or unfalsifiable vacuous statements that are alleged for spiritual experiences.

6) They have no utility that you can check now
Studies have already shown that being part of a participating faith community is highly beneficial to physical and mental health. The benefits of yoga, various types of meditation on mental health, dealing with pain etc. are also established. Further, it is up to the practitioner to decide whether what he/she is getting is worth the effort.

7) The claimed knowledge is disconnected with scientific reality
This is not true for all systems. But many systems need to modernize and update what it is saying to be more consonant with what science says. In many traditions what can actually be known from spiritual insights have been mixed up with older beliefs about the world that were generally believed in the time when such traditions arose. Careful re-examination needed to distinguish between actual insights and legacy beliefs from an older time. I believe that if this is done, there is nothing really incompatible between the truths of spiritual insights and scientific knowledge of the world.

8) What about all the extra-ordinary claims (like you can live a 1000 years, fly etc.)?
Do not believe extra-ordinary claims unless you get extra-ordinary evidence. Fishing IS a legitimate activity even if half the claims of what fishermen say they had caught in the good old days need to be treated with a dose of skepticism.

What do you think?

What I think is this is brilliant! Thank you for the effort and insights that went into this. Well presented!

 

[rational experiences]

Humans own the practice and science expressions by choice. Human.

Not ordered they chose.

Family therefore not included in a groups choice was affected by the practice of science.

Stated it was the fall of man. A human teaching. Radiation fallout attacked us as man only lives inside of the earths heavens.

Heavens he said by interactive caused prevented invasion. Yet we observed bodies swiftly moving penetrated attacked destroyed life.

We understood how dangerous atmospheric change was. Our heavens. So we taught it holy never change a holy body.

Then began to discuss phenomena and how outside of earth changes in space occurred by human science machines.

So it was personal to be changed. Living naturally as a basic human equal not remaining equal proved by observation changes occurred. The teaching phenomena was real by human choice.

Science in religious idealism is expressed via the changes as observation conscious thinker human conscience is first and natural.

Yet science did not speak on behalf of natural first. It spoke first for machines. The words hence were first spoken for machines.
Human rights spirituality secondary as you removed our natural humanity.

Religious review of science spoke secondary by observing causes.

Which involved another human family organised group. What religious group status became. Governing in any organisation proven corrupt business science or religious.

Spiritual status confirmed to denote hierarchy against life's destruction. Family United.

Science hence hated the family group who wanted to reown a spiritual family unity.

And for a long time we have been at war with ourselves. Fighting for human rights on earth.

So family said earth is a God and our God. As humans for human rights.

Phenomena never science by status control of by machine conditions now possesed by those ideals.

As science took science from the earth we lived on. Basic advice why.

As the brain mind irradiated became depraved rationale spirituality could not control human behaviour.

Yet it's healing buildings it's orders of brain entrainment proved it was practiced to assist human behaviour.

Science of course never participated as they are consumed by their own egos.

Science then preached earths alienation.

A program they said that they now copied. How to rebuild what destroyed life before. Machines. Status alien machine feedback memories.

Prove they were possessed by the constant reprogramming of feedback by what they say about a human who exists only inside earths atmosphere by baby sperm ovary conception to have come from out of space.

As a human.

Yet they are a human making the claim about not being human.

Called a confession of beliefs.

Knowingly why the spiritual order owned status in life. As it was chosen also. To give status involving human law as earths laws by science were broken.

Hence gods law condemned life. Humans then invoked the rights by human law to replace situation of cause.

When men in science theoried they could put mass back into an earth body in a reactive conversion when the sun blasting earth had done that historic itself...... caused the status possessed to copy information by feedback programming alienation yet owned holes bored in the same event.

Was when sun science theists were banned. Was why religious law historic more powerful than groups as human laws were implemented.

How come today they are repracticing today the science of destruction should be the spiritual question.

 

[Nakosis]

You are continuing to assert that internal experiences cannot be knowledge producing or true because they are internal.

That's not what I am saying. It is more a matter of reliability. There no guarantee one can rely on any internal experience. They are as likely to be 100% wrong as 100% right.

Problem is all experiences are internal and private. The only source of valudity is intersubjective validity of different people's private experiences through communications between people.

I understand people would like to believe this but it is not true and such believe can even be dangerous.

People with spiritual experiences do this all the time with other experiencers. So what is the exact objection here? Is it so difficult to believe that all experiences of reality are not as easily accessible such that just keeping eyes open and ears unblocked can produce them? That it requires training to gain access to them?

The objection is the lack of skepticism. Even scientific claims require a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

[rational experiences]

That's not what I am saying. It is more a matter of reliability. There no guarantee one can rely on any internal experience. They are as likely to be 100% wrong as 100% right.


I understand people would like to believe this but it is not true and such believe can even be dangerous.



The objection is the lack of skepticism. Even scientific claims require a healthy dose of skepticism.

If men build machines by thesis a human thought. Own building machine. Control machine. How are they correct about equating self controlling a machine to natural balances not any machine?

As if a machine is an extension of forces beyond a human body by their human control?

Egotism. I will do whatever I want whenever I want is not scientific it is chosen human self destructive behaviour.....owner of choice.

A basic human advice think natural life first as highest ownership and then you would in science to think first be correct.

As science is not first thinking it is how to change thinking.