Neurotheology & Non-Belief

[Storm]

I have, and they led me to some crazy conclusions, but afterwards I understood that these experiences were just the product of chemicals in my brain.

Apologies, I should have taken the time to do this when I asked the question, but better late than never. Hallmarks of mystical experience:

William James, psychologist and philosopher, identified four general characteristics of mystical experiences:

1. Ineffability, Mystical states are more like states of feeling than intellect, subtle shaded with fine nuances that are difficult to convey in their import and grandeur to another. Consequently, much mystical literature is filled with paradoxes and symbolism.

2. Noetic quality, Mystical experiences are states of knowledge, insight, awareness, revelation, and illumination beyond the grasp of the intellect. There is awareness of unity with the Absolute, of immorality of the soul, of great truths. Time and space are transcended.

3. Transiency, mystical experiences are fleeting in linear time, though they seem to be eternal. Most last a few seconds, some perhaps up to ten minutes. It is rare to sustain a mystical state for more than a half-hour, or perhaps one to two hours at best. Eastern adepts are able to sustain prolonged periods of samadhi, a mystical state of one-pointed concentration; and some reportedly are able to sustain the highest states of nirvana (satori in Zen) and even the rarely attained nirodh.

4. Passivity, The individual feels swept up and held by a superior power. This may be accompanied by a sensation of separation from bodily consciousness (similar to an out-of-body experience [OBE]), trance, or such phenomena as automatisms, mediumistic trance, healing powers, visions, and voices. Such phenomena are regarded in Eastern thought as states of pseudo-enlightenment, partway up to the real thing, but not quite there.
source

​

Did your experience conform to these hallmarks? One I felt was left out (though I suppose 4 implies it) is the distinct impression of a foreign presence, and I'd like to know if you experienced that as well.

The interpretation that goblins are responsible for such an experience is just as reasonable as that of a god.

Touche.

 

[Storm]

I'd suggest there are far better books than the pop science in Why God Won't Go Away. I enjoyed it as an introduction to the brain and religion, but the authors conclusions are unwarranted. I linked Boyle's article earlier and his book is a solid scientific study of the issue(s).

I thought the authors did an admirable job of remaining open to all possibilities. May I ask what your objections were? ETA: Also, do you have a recommendation?

It was mentioned in another thread as well, but the link between inducing these religious experiences by meditation and drugs produces similar SPECT scans. There's most definitely something going on int he brain with religious experiences, but there's no reason to conclude it's different than similar states brought on by mescaline, LSD, MDMA, or DMT. All of these chemicals are similar to the endogenous neurochemichals in the brain like dopabite, sorotoni, norephrine and opiates. LSD and peyote invoked religious-like experiences and were a profound experience that I imagine mirrored the religious ecstasy of believers.

I am skeptical but not opposed to the possibility that genuine mystical experience can be drug-induced.

 

[Willamena]

This is common in all animals. I forget the name of the experiment, but pigeons were trained to develop superstitious beliefs by feeding them at fixed intervals and then switching to random intervals. Some pigeons would spin in circles, some would turn their heads in a certain direction, some would peck the feeder a certain number of times. They thought their rituals were responsible for bringing them food.

How did they distinguish between superstition and the training? (Not wanting to side-track too much, so this is the last question.)

 

[CarlinKnew]

How did they distinguish between superstition and the training? (Not wanting to side-track too much, so this is the last question.)

I should've worded it more clearly. The food came at fixed intervals, say every 4 hours or something. The pigeons developed rituals entirely on their own. If they happened to be turning their head when the food came, they would make a ritual out of it, continually turning their head in hopes of getting food.

I think I found a reference to the study:

Classics in the History of Psychology -- Skinner (1948)

 

[CarlinKnew]

Apologies, I should have taken the time to do this when I asked the question, but better late than never. Hallmarks of mystical experience

That's a fairly accurate description of a psychoactive trip.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The question of whether the spandrel alone could account for God-belief is moot. Assuming the hypothesis is true (which I do, ftr), it wasn't the only factor. Mystical experiences happen, and I don't see how anyone can deny they played a role in the development of religion.

But the question is what role they played. Were they the basis for theology of their own, or did they mainly serve to reinforce beliefs that were already in place?

It strikes me that mystical experiences are more about feelings than fact; I think it would be common just to take them as evidence for the standard beliefs of the society of the person experiencing them.

I am skeptical but not opposed to the possibility that genuine mystical experience can be drug-induced.

I did notice that the effects of certain hallucinogens match that list of characteristics of mystical experiences point-for-point.

 

[Storm]

That's a fairly accurate description of a psychoactive trip.

OK, but is it a also a fair description of what you experienced? FTR, I'm not challenging or doubting that it was, just trying to determine whether we have common ground.

But the question is what role they played. Were they the basis for theology of their own, or did they mainly serve to reinforce beliefs that were already in place?

A fair question. I don't think the evidence can even imply an answer, at least not at this point. My own inclination is that they were the root, but I do recognize my bias.

It strikes me that mystical experiences are more about feelings than fact; I think it would be common just to take them as evidence for the standard beliefs of the society of the person experiencing them.

Absolutely.

I did notice that the effects of certain hallucinogens match that list of characteristics of mystical experiences point-for-point.

But do they trigger the same neural activity? It's possible, but I want evidence. Too bad that the likelihood of getting such an experiment done is so low.

 

[Nepenthe]

I thought the authors did an admirable job of remaining open to all possibilities. May I ask what your objections were? ETA: Also, do you have a recommendation?

I do like the author's non-technical explanation of transcendent experiences, but it's when they let their personal philosophies taint the subject that it becomes less convincing. They insinuate there's only two options available: objective realism and subjectivism. They jump to the unsubstantiated conclusion that since these transcendent expereinces are actually occurring (and they certainly are) that they actually reflect some interpretation of "reality" accessible only to mystics. They also distinguish between hallucinations and mystical experiences despite there being little evidence that they differ neurologically. So I enjoyed the basic stuff, but was disappointed in the reliance on philosophical musings rather than emphasizing the neurology behind it.

But we kinda touched on all that elsewhere.

I'd suggest Pascal Boyers Religion Explained. Also check out
Jared Diamond's lecture. It's astounding, as is everything he writes about.

 

[Storm]

[/color]
I do like the author's non-technical explanation of transcendent experiences, but it's when they let their personal philosophies taint the subject that it becomes less convincing. They insinuate there's only two options available: objective realism and subjectivism. They jump to the unsubstantiated conclusion that since these transcendent expereinces are actually occurring (and they certainly are) that they actually reflect some interpretation of "reality" accessible only to mystics. They also distinguish between hallucinations and mystical experiences despite there being little evidence that they differ neurologically. So I enjoyed the basic stuff, but was disappointed in the reliance on philosophical musings rather than emphasizing the neurology behind it.

I don't remember getting that impression, but it has been a year or two since I read it. I really need to get a copy of my own...

I'd suggest Pascal Boyers Religion Explained. Also check out
Jared Diamond's lecture. It's astounding, as is everything he writes about.

The local library doesn't have the book, and the video will have to wait until I have audio again (I bookmarked it, though). Nuts. Anything else?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A fair question. I don't think the evidence can even imply an answer, at least not at this point.

No? I would think that a religion built around explaining mystical experiences would probably look different from one that was built around the other mechanisms touched on here.

But do they trigger the same neural activity? It's possible, but I want evidence. Too bad that the likelihood of getting such an experiment done is so low.

AFAIK, there's been quite a bit of evidence done on the effects of drugs like LSD. I wouldn't be surprised if the evidence you're looking for is out there, buried in the back issues of some journal somewhere.

 

[Storm]

No? I would think that a religion built around explaining mystical experiences would probably look different from one that was built around the other mechanisms touched on here.

Howso?

Before you answer, I'm not sure modern religion can tell us much about the origins of religion.

 

[Caladan]

But do they trigger the same neural activity? It's possible, but I want evidence. Too bad that the likelihood of getting such an experiment done is so low.

There are places where certain communities have legal premission to keep practicing their traditional rituals, which include ritualistic use of psychoactives, its very possible to research the different aspects attached to the phenomena.

I think the historical use of hallucinogens as part of religion, culture, or mystical path, is an indication that the link is there for us to study. this means that it is us who incorporated psychoactives into our cognitive and 'religious/mystical' world.
also we need to understand that the chemichals in the herbs induce an experience that projects from what already exists in our subconcious and what may be floating in our personal cosmogany.

 

[Nepenthe]

I don't remember getting that impression, but it has been a year or two since I read it. I really need to get a copy of my own...


The local library doesn't have the book, and the video will have to wait until I have audio again (I bookmarked it, though). Nuts. Anything else?

Hmmm... I enjoyed The God Part of the Brain but wasn't particularly swayed by the author's arguments. It's definitely aimed at an audience critical of religion in the first place so it adopts a non-scientific attitude at times in his criticisms. Fun read though.
I would reccomend In Gods We Trust though. Wonderful book that I suspect might be more along the lines of what you're looking for. So Religion Explained and In Gods We Trust are well worth hunting down.

 

[Storm]

There are places where certain communities have legal premission to keep practicing their traditional rituals, which include ritualistic use of psychoactives, its very possible to research the different aspects attached to the phenomena.

Good point.

I think the historical use of hallucinogens as part of religion, culture, or mystical path, is an indication that the link is there for us to study. this means that it is us who incorporated psychoactives into our cognitive and 'religious/mystical' world.

I think I agree, but fail to see the point of saying so. Perhaps you could elaborate?

also we need to understand that the chemichals in the herbs induce an experience that projects from what already exists in our subconcious and what may be floating in our personal cosmogany.

I don't know that word, is this it?
cosmogeny
noun the branch of astrophysics that studies the origin and evolution and structure of the universe [syn: cosmology]

If so, what in the world is a "personal cosmogeny?"

 

[Storm]

Hmmm... I enjoyed The God Part of the Brain but wasn't particularly swayed by the author's arguments. It's definitely aimed at an audience critical of religion in the first place so it adopts a non-scientific attitude at times in his criticisms. Fun read though.
I would reccomend In Gods We Trust though. Wonderful book that I suspect might be more along the lines of what you're looking for. So Religion Explained and In Gods We Trust are well worth hunting down.

Thank you! Will look into it.

 

[Caladan]

I think I agree, but fail to see the point of saying so. Perhaps you could elaborate?

Im aiming at the idea that hallucinogens bring out something which exists in our neurology.

I don't know that word, is this it?
cosmogeny

Sorry, meant Cosmogony there

noun the branch of astrophysics that studies the origin and evolution and structure of the universe [syn: cosmology]

If so, what in the world is a "personal cosmogeny?"

here is a short description from wiki:

Cosmogony can be distinguished from cosmology, which studies the universe at large and throughout its existence, and which technically does not inquire directly into the source of its origins. There is some ambiguity between the two terms; for example, the cosmological argument from theology regarding the existence of God is technically an appeal to cosmogonical rather than cosmological ideas. In practice, there is a scientific distinction between cosmological and cosmogonical ideas. Physical cosmology is the science that attempts to explain all observations relevant to the development and characteristics of the universe as a whole. Questions regarding why the universe behaves in such a way have been described by physicists and cosmologists as being extra-scientific, though speculations are made from a variety of perspectives that include extrapolation of scientific theories to untested regimes and philosophical or religious ideas.

Basically what I mean is the personal ideas of a person about the universe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Howso?

Before you answer, I'm not sure modern religion can tell us much about the origins of religion.

Well, I think that attributing agency to natural things would lead to animism, at least initially. What do you think mystical experiences would lead to?

 

[Storm]

Im aiming at the idea that hallucinogens bring out something which exists in our neurology.

Sorry, meant Cosmogony there

here is a short description from wiki:

Basically what I mean is the personal ideas of a person about the universe.

Oh, ok. So, basically you're saying that hallucinogens express our subconscious ideas about the universe? I agree, which is why I wonder if they're the same as mystical experiences.

As I've said a couple of times, I know I'm biased, but I do believe mystical experiences... come from something "outside" our own minds. (I'm not real happy with that phrasing, but I can't think of better. ) So, to me, the question of hallucinogens is whether they enable that connection. Whether their other descriptor, entheogens, is accurate.

 

[Storm]

Well, I think that attributing agency to natural things would lead to animism, at least initially.

Agreed, and the evidence backs you up.

What do you think mystical experiences would lead to?

No specific theology (which, for purposes of this discussion, includes animism), but belief in some sort of spirit world (which also includes animism).

The trance state itself commonly conveys a sense of presence, the rest is interpretation. Could be the spirit of the stag, could be Allah, and it mostly depends on cultural bias.

But you were the one who said the two would differ, so I return the question to you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Unfortunately, I know of nothing conveniently online. My info comes from the book Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief, which I highly recommend.

Thanks. Pigliucci, who've I've quoted as far back as December 2004, does a more than adequate job addressing Newberg and D'Aquili ...

Instead of following their research to the logical consequence--that mystical experiences are no different from delusions and drug-induced states because they alter the functioning of he posterior superior parietal lobe--the authors take a stupendously irrational turn. "Gene and I ... believe that we saw evidence of a neurological process that has evolved to allow humans to transcend material existence and acknowledge and connect with a deeper, more spiritual part of ourselves perceived as an absolute, universal reality that connects us to all that is."

Really? In other words, the authors think that what clearly looks like a malfunctioning of the brain due to an unusual condition of sensorial deprivation evolved as an adaptation to get in touch with a higher level of reality. Accordingly, the rest of the book is bad science tamed worse toward the end. Most chapters present just-so stories in the worst possible sociobiological genre. Interesting scenarios are built on what our cave-dwelling ancestors were thinking and how they were coping with the realization of their mortality. It is really a shame that brains and emotions don't leave a fossil record so that we could check on these stories. As geneticist Richard Lewontin once wrote in a similar context, "I must say that the best lesson our readers can learn is to give up the childish notion that everything that is interesting about nature can be understood.... It might be interesting to know how {insert here your favorite biological phenomenon for which there is no trace in the fossil record} arose and spread and changed, but we cannot know. Tough luck."

Bad science ...