Defending the Validity of Religious/Spiritual Experiences

[rational experiences]

Spirit explanation human self survival instinctive to human life on earth only.

States.

Mass is a constant presence of form by one origin energy itself to own mass. Hence you can remove a portion from mass as energy and mass will disappear yet reappear as a small portion only was removed.

As the total owns the coldest status when it disappears the cold and pressure changes around envelops the observer you so you believe in transportation yet the fixed mass never moved. The planet by natural rotation had.

Proof you survived mass removed yet space shifted as space binding the mass owned origin placement.

Men in science knew why it occurred before trickery they said earths planet mass shifted in time as a whole body so counting time by calendar changed. For mass displaced. Earth.

Phenomena itself.

Being sucked into the sun was therefore a known reality.

 

[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.

We need to discuss what subjectivity and objectivity is. As I see it, all experiences are private first person experiences. Some of these experiences are classified as objective when we can intersubjectively verify that the contents of these experiences are similar by communicating with each other through speech, drawings etc. A scientific experiment creates observations in a given lab. Then it is inter-subjectively verified in other labs. This verifiability by different labs make the observations veridical and objective.
Mystical experiences can also be intersubjectively verified by communicating with other people who have had mystical experiences, both within and outside of tradition. So why is it not objective?

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.

I bet that you cannot make up math as you make up a fictional language. What you are proposing is that mathematics is a fictional construct (mathematical fictionalism) whereas my position is mathematical structural realism (ante-rem structuralism) where the structures of mathematics have real existence. There is a real ontology associated with matehmatical relations that exists objectively and are cognized or discovered, just like the phenomena of the physical world. In general among mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics, mathematical realism (Platonic or other kinds) are more widely held than fictionalist accounts. Read more here (LINK)

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.

You are saying these communities are working on imagined things without any justification. What is the justification to believe that the subject matter of these traditions are imaginary?

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.

But meditation techniques are designed, structured practices that are exactly like well designed experimental procedures by which mystical experiences are repeatedly observed in a reliable manner. Just because drug induced states can sometimes mimic these experiences (just as they can also mimic sensory experiences too like hallucinations) does not imply that reliable and repeatable experiences that one gained through well designed structures practices are not veridical.

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.

Mystical experiences are not vague at all. There are multiple studies that show that mystical experiences have several regular and repeatable features and classified into a small subset of distinct classes. We can discuss falsifiability in terms of whether its logically coherent, whether the knowledge claims clash with any well understood feature of the world etc. I plan a thread on the knowledge claims of mystical experiences and how to assess them at a later point.

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.

I would claim that mystical experiences are reliable and produce data about a basic substratum of reality/experience. Science does not look into invisible alien hypothesis (who is tricking everyone into believing a law of physics or mystical experience) as there is no observational data supporting such a theory. But here we have observational data, potentially knowledge producing observational data. So there is no reason to discount them a-priori is there?

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.

Yes there is. Mystical theories have long predicted (thousands of years ago) that the ego is an illusion or mental construct and does not really exist. Has it not been verified by current neuroscience? Mystical experiences have long predicted that material reality is not broken up ontologically in multiple distinct things but are various modes on one single substratum. Given how science is progressing, how much are you likely to bet against this prediction? Mystical experiencers have long proposed detailed and elaborates theories about mind, subconscious etc. much of it is only now being explored by psychologists and neuroscientists and many of these theories are being validated.

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 am saying that one is free to be skeptical about those claims that directly contradicts any well established principle. But it does not invalidate the other claims that do not. Science has made many untrue claims in many disciplines over the century, but that does not invalidate the true claims that still stand evidentiary tests. So to say that one rejects all of claims in mystical literature because some claims do not currently have evidentiary support would be double standards.

 

[Windwalker]

This is a good point. I agree that such experiences can be life changing and lead people to improve themselves, feel greater fulfillment, and reach a new understanding. The point we non-believers make is that this has nothing to do with whether or not the belief is true. Only having the belief is demonstrably changing people's lives, not the actual state of that belief being true.

I notice in your response that you focus on belief and not on experience. Mystical experiences are themselves 'beyond belief", literally so. Beliefs are cognitive, reason-oriented, mental constructions. The mystical experience on the other hand is not.

That is not to say however that someone does not assign a belief to a mystical experience, after the fact. Of course they do, but what we think about the experience should be held lightly, and not with a tight fist. Ideas of reality, even if they are scientific and rational ideas, are not the actuality of reality itself. They are mental constructs which provisionally correlate with experiences. They are a language, science included. As Timothy Leary put it well, "All science is metaphor". It's the same thing with mystical experiences. All words used to talk about it, are metaphors.

This is a difficult realization for most who think that how we think about reality, definies what reality actually is. The mystical experience is about breaking down our confusion of our ideas as reality, and Reality itself. Point in hand, the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart said, "I pray God make me free of God, so that I may know God in his unconditioned being". Cleary in Elkhart's mind, he realized thoughts about God, cannot and do not define what actuality of transcendence is. Words and ideas interfere. They limit what the 'soul', or the totality of the person can see. 'Too much head, too little heart', in other words.

The key issue is that some people will also describe a life absolutely changed for the better when they deconvert from religious/mystical beliefs to an atheistic worldview.

Just to point out here how you refer to mystical experiences, as "mystical beliefs". That technically would be an oxymoron, as mysticism and beliefs are mostly opposite things. "Religious beliefs" however, is clearly accurate.

The ideal situation is that while a mystic may use religious beliefs as a language to describe experience, as metaphors, they don't confuse ideas about the experience, with the actuality of what the experience itself is. As Alan Watts put it, "Fingers pointing at the moon, are not the moon itself". But to many, it is, be they religious believers or atheists. It's the same confusion of fingers as the moon, either they literally are or they literally aren't the actual moon. Both miss the pointing as the focus, debating instead about the digits themselves as being the actual moon.

Some people's lives totally change when they pick up a new hobby, or change social groups, or take a year off to go backpacking in the mountains.

I would not put these into the same category as mystical or Awakening, or Enlightenment experiences. Yes, while many things can be life-changing, such as moving to a better climate, finding the right mate, a different job, a new exercise routine, and so forth, the mystical experience is radically different that these.

Those typically create a seismic shift, an entire fundamental realignment of one's entire perpetual reality where nothing is untouched by it. It's like wearing red-tinted glasses your whole life, where all your experiences, ups and downs, lows and highs, are all colorized through that filter. To then have those glasses removed, or put clear lenses in them, every single thing is now seen, processed, thought of, and experienced in a new light, nothing untouched by it.

All the evidence suggests that humans can enter an introspective period during which they evaluate their previous convictions, and then change those convictions to align their beliefs and behaviors more closely with their goals, dreams, and preferences. Then, they feel better going forward. This is a natural and mundane endeavor.

In reality, introspection for most is understood as a mental re-evaluation of their lives, looking at things like behavior patterns, emotional responses, and such. And all of that is important and useful and good. But that is not a mystical experience. A mystical experience is non-rational.

Meditation for instance is to seek to set aside all thinking or being engaged in thought streams. The purpose is to create openness, rather than trying to narrowly filter everything through the thinking centers of the brain. We are far more than our thoughts about reality, and the mystical is to get you in touch with that, who and what we are before or beyond what we try to reduce it all down into in the definitions of the thinking mind. What is the state of a child's connection with life, before we jam all our ideas about what life is into their little minds?

The mystical is holistic, the mental is externally focused (even in introspection which is essentially as 3rd person perspective of a 1st person experience- making the 'self' and object for examination). Mysticism is about "beingness" in ones totally, not just mere mental activity.

 

[AlexanderG]

I notice in your response that you focus on belief and not on experience. Mystical experiences are themselves 'beyond belief", literally so. Beliefs are cognitive, reason-oriented, mental constructions. The mystical experience on the other hand is not.

That is not to say however that someone does not assign a belief to a mystical experience, after the fact. Of course they do, but what we think about the experience should be held lightly, and not with a tight fist. Ideas of reality, even if they are scientific and rational ideas, are not the actuality of reality itself. They are mental constructs which provisionally correlate with experiences. They are a language, science included. As Timothy Leary put it well, "All science is metaphor". It's the same thing with mystical experiences. All words used to talk about it, are metaphors.

This is a difficult realization for most who think that how we think about reality, definies what reality actually is. The mystical experience is about breaking down our confusion of our ideas as reality, and Reality itself. Point in hand, the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart said, "I pray God make me free of God, so that I may know God in his unconditioned being". Cleary in Elkhart's mind, he realized thoughts about God, cannot and do not define what actuality of transcendence is. Words and ideas interfere. They limit what the 'soul', or the totality of the person can see. 'Too much head, too little heart', in other words.

I honestly can't tell if we agree or disagree for a lot of this. You definitely recognize the distinction between believing reality has a certain attribute versus demonstrating this attribute in a reliable way to warrant that belief. However, you said "beliefs are cognitive, reason-oriented, mental constructions. The mystical experience on the other hand is not," and I actually do think all evidence points to mystical experiences being mental constructions. Just unusual experiences caused by chemical activity in our brains.

You seem to be special pleading for mystical experiences being in their own unique category, but I don't see it. "while many things can be life-changing, such as moving to a better climate, finding the right mate, a different job, a new exercise routine, and so forth, the mystical experience is radically different that these." How do you objectively make that comparison? What reliable tools can we use to determine this? I'm really looking for something that justifies that claims people make about mysticism, to demonstrate the "actuality" of its reality.

You use words like "non-rational," "wholistic," "transcendence," and "beingness." Can you demonstrate that these are more than vague imaginary concepts in our minds? That they represent real things that exist in reality outside of our mere conceptualization? Until someone does this, I'll consider it no more than brain activity that people in the past didn't understand, who then created a tradition of describing and thinking about this kind of brain activity via supernatural language.

 

[Windwalker]

I honestly can't tell if we agree or disagree for a lot of this.

Time will tell.

You definitely recognize the distinction between believing reality has a certain attribute versus demonstrating this attribute in a reliable way to warrant that belief.

It's a little more complex than that, as I also recognize that even if we can have a consensus agreement on what is reality or not, in the bigger picture of human mind and consciousness, that definition or texture of reality will be a different consensus agreement. I'm thinking in terms of perceptual truth, and the relative nature of it. Even our sciences itself is a language to describe reality. But reality itself is infinitely beyond how we all see it in modern times, mainly through the eye of science and reason. That perceptual lens of modernity, is not the end of the road in understanding reality, let alone the nature of Ultimate Truth itself as Reality with a capital R.

The mystical experience taps into that capital r Reality. And how that is then understood after the fact, is a matter of interpretation of the mind, looking at reality, small r relative reality, through the consensus reality fitler of that particular stage of consciousness development, using its particular set of symbols and language.

Not sure how much that helps explain how I thinking.

However, you said "beliefs are cognitive, reason-oriented, mental constructions. The mystical experience on the other hand is not," and I actually do think all evidence points to mystical experiences being mental constructions. Just unusual experiences caused by chemical activity in our brains.

What do you mean by a mental construct? An experience is not a mental construct. A memory of an experience is, however. Just to be clear. But it is construct anchored in the impactful experience of a transcendent experience. But to say the mystical experience is a mental construct doesn't make sense. That's like saying the experience of falling into the lake is a mental construct. That makes no sense to me.

Now, if you are saying that the experiences are caused by the brain, that's a different matter. To which I'd argue that all experiences have correlations within the brain. Of course. It's how any experience gets registered. We're all connected to the body, and the brain is just handing the stuff off so we can register experience and then attempt to translate and interpret experience. That's the nature of all experience.

But we don't generally try to write off the rest of our humanness based upon that. I don't believe we see ourselves as "a brain". I have a brain, but I would not say I am my brain. I don't view myself as a blob of brain matter and electrical impulses, anymore than I view myself as my tongue, even though my words flow from it, or my feet because I stand upon them. I do not live inside a reductionist reality. Nobody does, even though they may try to believe in that.

You seem to be special pleading for mystical experiences being in their own unique category, but I don't see it. "while many things can be life-changing, such as moving to a better climate, finding the right mate, a different job, a new exercise routine, and so forth, the mystical experience is radically different that these." How do you objectively make that comparison? What reliable tools can we use to determine this? I'm really looking for something that justifies that claims people make about mysticism, to demonstrate the "actuality" of its reality.

To make this easier for me, I'd refer you to the works of those like William James, Abraham Maslow, etc. They studied and classified these types of experiences. There are many other names as well, but they do comparative research in cross-cultural studies to create various models of what they find. The research can map these out into different strata of mystical experience, for instance the psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual states. I'll refer you this which draws from what modern research shows: STAGES OF MEDITATION

Studies and research into these areas over the past 100 years in the West, definitely see patterns which allow researchers to study them and create models. That makes it objective. It's more than just one person telling you about their experience. It shows clear patterns and commonalities. That makes it objectively real.

Now, to be clear, what someone says, that "I saw Jesus", for instance, that is interpretative. That is cultural. That is relative truth. What you can say objectively, is that the person had a transcendent experience of some type. What type that was, could be weighed against what we know of the various types of experience.

The point of a mystical experience is not as proof of your particular deity. Though some might believe it does.

You use words like "non-rational," "wholistic," "transcendence," and "beingness." Can you demonstrate that these are more than vague imaginary concepts in our minds?

Experience them yourself. That's how.

These are all ways to try to put into language what it beyond language to hold. They are fingers pointing to the moon, not another finger. Try to imagine what it is to experience who you are, not as a separate person apart from other and the world, but you are one with all of it, and it is you and you are it, and yourself all at the same time. Imagine that experience, and then try to put that into words that someone else might understand.

The only one who will understand it, are those that know what that looks like. "Wetness" sounds like a vague term to someone who has never been in water. Poetry is not the language of science. It's the language of the spirit, reaching beyond the mind. Imagination, is merely the vehicle, not the passenger.

That they represent real things that exist in reality outside of our mere conceptualization? Until someone does this, I'll consider it no more than brain activity that people in the past didn't understand, who then created a tradition of describing and thinking about this kind of brain activity via supernatural language.

None of these really are supernatural. We can see it quite clearly within the natural world. People have mystical experiences that are transcendent in nature. These are all observable facts. What the meaning and understanding, or valuation of these things are depends which set of eyes, or which filter of reality you are looking at them through.

People of all walks of life and backgrounds, religious or secular, have mystical experiences. These are human experiences. They are profound, universally understood as beyond our normal experiences of reality, all with a common theme which describe it as a waking up experience, more real than real, real-reality, and so forth.

What the mystical is is a perceptual shift which changes how one see themselves and the world. It's described as pulling back the curtain on reality and seeing what has really been there the whole time, hidden in plain sight as it were. It's not another reality. It's this reality, this world, that tree, that rock, just with naked eyes, rather than dimly tinted glasses. All of that is natural, part of this world. It's only called 'supernatural' because it outside of one's own experience of reality.

 

[AlexanderG]

TWhat do you mean by a mental construct? An experience is not a mental construct. A memory of an experience is, however. Just to be clear. But it is construct anchored in the impactful experience of a transcendent experience. But to say the mystical experience is a mental construct doesn't make sense. That's like saying the experience of falling into the lake is a mental construct. That makes no sense to me.

Now, if you are saying that the experiences are caused by the brain, that's a different matter. To which I'd argue that all experiences have correlations within the brain. Of course. It's how any experience gets registered. We're all connected to the body, and the brain is just handing the stuff off so we can register experience and then attempt to translate and interpret experience. That's the nature of all experience.

But we don't generally try to write off the rest of our humanness based upon that. I don't believe we see ourselves as "a brain". I have a brain, but I would not say I am my brain. I don't view myself as a blob of brain matter and electrical impulses, anymore than I view myself as my tongue, even though my words flow from it, or my feet because I stand upon them. I do not live inside a reductionist reality. Nobody does, even though they may try to believe in that.

Thanks for this very thoughtful response. You've definitely read more about this than I have. I still think my perspective gets through the language and metaphor to the root of the issue, though.

The quote above is where I think we fundamentally disagree. I do think mystical experiences are a type of experience, and that all experiences consist of a pattern of chemical activity in the brain. (It is reductionist, but that doesn't make such experiences any less meaningful to us.) To then attribute these experiences to anything real outside of the brain needs its own evidence. I'm not saying things outside the brain weren't proximate causes of the experience, like looking at a painting, or smelling incense, or entering a contemplative state, but I don't see any evidence that the mystical experience itself correlates to some special attribute of reality.

Part of the problem may be that I'm not sure what you mean by "transcendent." If you mean a state of mind, then I could agree. If you mean an aspect of external reality, then it needs its own evidence. Otherwise, it is indistinguishable from all the other things humans imagine, and I prefer not to believe imaginary things.

 

[Windwalker]

Thanks for this very thoughtful response. You've definitely read more about this than I have. I still think my perspective gets through the language and metaphor to the root of the issue, though.

The quote above is where I think we fundamentally disagree. I do think mystical experiences are a type of experience, and that all experiences consist of a pattern of chemical activity in the brain. (It is reductionist, but that doesn't make such experiences any less meaningful to us.)

This area we are in agreement on. If you are experiencing it, chemicals and the brain are involved. Mystical experiences are a type of experience. Nothing wrong with using a reductionist lens to analyse. Just don't stop there and call that the truth of what it is. That's nothing thinking enough.

To then attribute these experiences to anything real outside of the brain needs its own evidence.

I did pick up on this in your last response, but didn't want to dig into this at that point. I will now, as it marks a considerable contrast in thinking about these things.

I hear this view that externalizes the world, that externalizes God. It's a very dualistic perspective, dividing the world and the self into subject/object divisions. I think this comes from the Christian West in its traditional-theism view of the Divine. God is viewed as external to creation, outside of it. So hearing someone speak of experiences which transcend ordinary mundane reality for them, it is viewed dualistically, as an "other" reality to this one. That is foundationally what makes it dualistic, and this reality seem supernatural when it exposes things one normally cannot see.

All this is a fiction of the mind, rooted in language and dualistic thought. What happens to that division, that divide between "God", or the experience of the Absolute, or Reality in a mystical experience, is metaphorically speaking the curtains drawn open and discarded, and what is "out there" or perceived as external to us, is experienced to be intrinsically linked to us, and you to everything outside yourself. In the highest states, there is one organic whole, and you are it, and it is you.

Even science bears this out theoretically, this interconnectedness of all reality. If you deal with the complexity sciences, systems theory, chaos theory, quantum mechanics, et al, more and more it appears scientifically exactly that everything is connected in ways beyond our imaginings in the past, in a Newtonian view of reality as its sole scientific lens of perception. Rationally, we can see it. Mystically we can experience it. We can see it with the perceptual eye, as we look at that same tree, and see unity.

Language divides reality into objects and separates us from the world. When someone punches through that veil of obstruction, say in a mystical state of awareness, what is described sounds "supernatural", only because it is outside one's own lived perception of reality, as reality itself. What that must look like, is strange indeed! So the mind imagines the supernatural, and mythologies are born.

What is contained within the magical and mythical symbols of religious expressions, are not pointing to another world, even though its language describes it thusly. That's simply the filter of the dualistic mind, taking that which is "transcendent" to one's normal reality such as that is, and imagining it as other worldly, magical, etc. And in reality, it is! That is in fact what the beauty of science is revealing. It's beyond imagining. Something the mystic, who tap into the fabric of that Reality, have expressed all along. But all of that, is this Reality you and I live in every moment of existence, even now.

Some call that Fabric, "God", and then paint a human, dualistic face upon it, and see it as other to themselves.

Edited to add:

I realize looking at this this morning, this rather stream of consciousness response above missed my original point it began with. To clarify, while some may attribute the source of the experience to something "external" to oneself, all experiences originate within us. If someone has a transcendent experience in response to some perceived external stimuli, the experience does not come from outside of us. It come up from within us in response to something.

So if someone experiences "God", that experience comes from within, in response to something perceived as external to us, like seeing a sunset. In reality, there is no division, and God is in all. The experience at its peak realizes this, as touched on above. What may be perceived as external to us, is actually a part of us, and ultimately is us. We are in essence, responding to a recognition of our own true nature, and that experience defines what transcendence means. We transcend ourselves. Not sure if that helped, or muddied this further.

I'm not saying things outside the brain weren't proximate causes of the experience, like looking at a painting, or smelling incense, or entering a contemplative state, but I don't see any evidence that the mystical experience itself correlates to some special attribute of reality.

It's a state of perceptual awareness. It's seeing reality through a different set of eyes. It's seeing what is there all along, but only obscured by perceptual lenses which filter it, more or less. What it correlates to is the deeper and higher potentials of human conscious awareness. At the highest states, the mind perceives what the duller senses cannot bring into focus.

I like this quote from Einstein, whose mind was so intellectual it passed into the mystical, as his many writings contain. Right here in this quote, he is touching upon that "emotion" as he calls it, which is to use that word, transcendent to our reasoning minds. This is a beautiful quote from him.

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”​

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies

That Mystery, is not apart from us.

Part of the problem may be that I'm not sure what you mean by "transcendent." If you mean a state of mind, then I could agree. If you mean an aspect of external reality, then it needs its own evidence. Otherwise, it is indistinguishable from all the other things humans imagine, and I prefer not to believe imaginary things.

It is a condition of being and state of mind in which the external world is seen in transcendent light. How's that for an answer?

 

[Magical Wand]

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.

If Platonism is accurate and correct, then mathematical truths are entities (viz., abstract objects), even though they don't exist in space and time. So, the experience refers to something existent. But even if nominalism is true, mathematical truths are truths about the world, which we abstract and play with in our minds. But they are only true because they correspond to the world.

 

[Magical Wand]

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?

That's not a good response since we're talking about the senses (and not a skill), and we don't need to "learn" how to use the senses. We simply start using them. So, this is prima facie defeasible evidence your sensus divinitatis is not a sense at all, but just an idea or a concept in your mind.

 

[sayak83]

That's not a good response since we're talking about the senses (and not a skill), and we don't need to "learn" how to use the senses. We simply start using them. So, this is prima facie defeasible evidence your sensus divinitatus is not a sense at all, but just an idea or a concept in your mind.

I we did not need to learn how to use our senses than what is all the training and education for. Senses need to be trained just as much as the inner experiential abilities

 

[Magical Wand]

I we did not need to learn how to use our senses than what is all the training and education for. Senses need to be trained just as much as the inner experiential abilities

Training and education presuppose (depend on) the senses. For example, I just educate myself about General Relativity if I use my senses to learn about it. I don't educate myself to use my sense of hearing, when sense of hearing is necessary in order to learn how to educate myself.

So, you're confusing the use of the senses with the learning of some information or skill.

 

[sayak83]

If Platonism is accurate and correct, then mathematical truths are entities (viz., abstract objects), even though they don't exist in space and time. So, the experience refers to something existent. But even if nominalism is true, mathematical truths are truths about the world, which we abstract and play with in our minds. But they are only true because they correspond to the world.

Training and education presuppose (depend on) the senses. For example, I just educate myself about General Relativity if I use my senses to learn about it. I don't educate myself to use my sense of hearing, when sense of hearing is necessary in order to learn how to educate myself.

So, you're confusing the use of the senses with the learning of some information or skill.

This is wrong. Children are taught and learn through play how to interpret and analyze what they are seeing and hearing.
Similarly you have to educate your inner experiential senses to properly see and interpret the mystical realities.

Maybe a different example. Think about bird watching or wildlife tracking. An experienced ranger can see and hear far far more than an inexperienced novice. You need training to hear and see things properly as well

 

[Magical Wand]

This is wrong. Children are taught and learn through play how to interpret and analyze what they are seeing and hearing. ... An experienced ranger can see and hear far far more than an inexperienced novice. You need training to hear and see things properly as well

(1) I never disputed you can develop your skills of interpretation and analysis of what is being received by the senses. I only dispute that you don't develop your senses; only what is being interpreted by them. (2) Even if that's true, that would still not be analogous to your mystical experience since the ranger only refines his abilities to "properly" detect meaningful patterns (which were always received through the senses, btw), but even when he was a novice, he still had the sense of hearing and seeing, while that's not the case for many people who claim to have no sense at all of the mystical. So, this is further evidence your sensus divinitatis is no sense at all.

 

[sayak83]

(1) I never disputed you can develop your skills of interpretation and analysis of what is being received by the senses. I only dispute that you don't develop your senses; only what is being interpreted by them. (2) Even if that's true, that would still not be analogous to your mystical experience since the ranger only refines his abilities to "properly" detect meaningful patterns (which were always received through the senses, btw), but even when he was a novice, he still had the sense of hearing and seeing, while that's not the case for many people who claim to have no sense at all of the mystical. So, this is further evidence your sensus divinitatis is no sense at all.

You have a sense of self yes?
You have a sense subjective phenomenal experience yes?
That is the SAME sense that, when refined, makes its possible to sense the mystical stratum.

 

[Magical Wand]

You have a sense of self yes?
You have a sense subjective phenomenal experience yes?
That is the SAME sense that, when refined, makes its possible to sense the mystical stratum.

Then, it is not really a "sense" in the conventional meaning. The self is not a sense (like the sense of hearing or seeing). To make your case that mystical experiences are just like any other sense-experiences, you have to demonstrate we have a "sixth" sense (to simplify) by showing its similarities to the main senses (and not to the self or consciousness).

 

[sayak83]

Then, it is not really a "sense" in the conventional meaning. The self is not a sense (like the sense of hearing or seeing). To make your case that mystical experiences are just like any other sense-experiences, you have to demonstrate we have a "sixth" sense (to simplify) by showing its similarities to the main senses (and not to the self or consciousness).

No I do not have to. Inner senses enable us to perceive logic and math, they are also critical in perceiving our sense of self and in subjective experiencing. Their existence is prior to external senses.... the external senses depend upon the inner senses. You cannot say external senses are reliable without saying the inner senses are reliable as well.

 

[Magical Wand]

No I do not have to. Inner senses enable us to perceive logic and math, they are also critical in perceiving our sense of self and in subjective experiencing. Their existence is prior to external senses.... the external senses depend upon the inner senses. You cannot say external senses are reliable without saying the inner senses are reliable as well.

How is that relevant to the discussion? Even if we do have "inner senses", they are still not like your mystical sense, since we don't have to train our introspection to "sense" an emotion or a thought, for example. So, that's further reason to think your mystical spooky sense is no sense at all; it is just an idea in your mind.

 

[sayak83]

How is that relevant to the discussion? Even if we do have "inner senses", they are still not like your mystical sense, since we don't have to train our introspection to "sense" an emotion or a thought, for example. So, that's further reason to think your mystical spooky sense is no sense at all; it is just an idea in your mind.

Yes. The inner sense that you use to sense ideas, thoughts, self, experiences and emotions is the one that is being trained to see the deeper substratum behind these from which they emerge. It's the same sense that you are sharpening to get the perceptions that are called mystical. There is nothing mysterious or spooky about it at all. It's what is perceived when your inner perceptions become highly refined so that you can see below the surface of your thoughts, your sense of self etc.

 

[Magical Wand]

Yes. The inner sense that you use to sense ideas, thoughts, self, experiences and emotions is the one that is being trained to see the deeper substratum behind these from which they emerge. It's the same sense that you are sharpening to get the perceptions that are called mystical.

You ignored my point again. I don't have to train this alleged inner sense to perceive thoughts, emotions and experiences. I simply start doing it in the moment this brain's function starts working (i.e., since when I was very young), as is the case for most people.

The point you're not getting is that if I can show there is a difference between how senses work and how your mystical experiences work, I successfully demonstrate a disanalogy between the two. And this is prima facie reason to reject your mystical experience as a perception of something. Because that's not how perceptions work.

Of course, you may simply claim "oh but this sense is different.." That's fine. You can make ad hoc excuses all day long. But the fact/consequence is that we have no more reason to take your argument for the validity of religious experience seriously.

 

[sayak83]

You ignored my point again. I don't have to train this alleged inner sense to perceive thoughts, emotions and experiences. I simply start doing it in the moment this brain's function starts working (i.e., since when I was very young), as is the case for most people.

The point you're not getting is that if I can show there is a difference between how senses work and how your mystical experiences work, I successfully demonstrate a disanalogy between the two. And this is prima facie reason to reject your mystical experience as a perception of something. Because that's not how perceptions work.

Of course, you may simply claim "oh but this sense is different.." That's fine. You can make ad hoc excuses all day long. But the fact/consequence is that we have no more reason to take your argument for the validity of religious experience seriously.

In a similar vein you do not have to train your outer senses to see everyday objects. But you do have train them to see wildlife, weather patterns, scientific data, stars in night sky etc. Similarly the inner senses do not need to be trained to see the surface level self, thoughts etc. But you do have to train them to see maths, logic, and the deeper substratum of thoughts, self and consciousness that are classified as mystical .
The situation is completely analogous.