Should Atheists Ignore Mystical Experiences?

[rojse]

Exactly. I was attempting topoint out that your definition of supernatural is flawed.

Part of my definition included that the existence of the phenomena is debatable. Perhaps I should have been more clear in my wording.

 

[YmirGF]

An atheist comes with their own set of preconceptions as well. Just because they are different does not mean they don't exist.

A nice try, but still in error. True, atheists have a minor view of something not existing but they tend not to develp elaborate explanations for that which they do not believe exists in the first place. Theists on the other hand let their faith do the thinking and so WILL introduce those prejudices and preconceptions into the mix.

 

[nutshell]

A nice try, but still in error. True, atheists have a minor view of something not existing but they tend not to develp elaborate explanations for that which they do not believe exists in the first place. Theists on the other hand let their faith do the thinking and so WILL introduce those prejudices and preconceptions into the mix.

I guess we can't come to an agreement. Your stereotyping of the faithful is inaccurate. Plenty of us do our own thinking and are no more or less prejudiced by our own genetics and environment than the atheist.

 

[YmirGF]

I guess we can't come to an agreement. Your stereotyping of the faithful is inaccurate. Plenty of us do our own thinking and are no more or less prejudiced by our own genetics and environment than the atheist.

Genetics and environmental factors have liitle to nothing to do with so-called "mystical experiences". The crux of the matter is determined by existing belief structures which said experiences are filtered through. Imho, and I could be wrong, the person who simply does not believe in anything beyond themself, by default, will not be as inclined to project their existing belief structure ONTO the experience, much like a photographic overlay, simply because they will NOT have anything TO relate to the experiences. For persons who have strong religious convictions, by default, the conscious mind will automatically filter their experience through the lens of their existing belief structures. It is entirely possible that they would not project onto the experience(s), but it is rather unlikely.

 

[eudaimonia]

Does Harris have a point? Do atheists who ignore mystical experiences risk "appearing less wise even than [their] craziest religious opponents"?

Yes, he certainly does. I'm not saying that atheists should rush out into the forest to replicate the Buddha's Awakening, but they should become better educated about mysticism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[nutshell]

Genetics and environmental factors have liitle to nothing to do with so-called "mystical experiences". The crux of the matter is determined by existing belief structures which said experiences are filtered through. Imho, and I could be wrong, the person who simply does not believe in anything beyond themself, by default, will not be as inclined to project their existing belief structure ONTO the experience, much like a photographic overlay, simply because they will NOT have anything TO relate to the experiences. For persons who have strong religious convictions, by default, the conscious mind will automatically filter their experience through the lens of their existing belief structures. It is entirely possible that they would not project onto the experience(s), but it is rather unlikely.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Sunstone]

No one comes to a mystical experience with a "blank slate" -- that is, with absolutely no framework for interpreting the experience. Among other reasons, that's because everyone has a cultural background they bring to interpreting the experience. It is very problematic to say atheists have fewer preconceived notions about such experiences than theists. How would you prove such a claim?

 

[s2a]

Does Harris have a point? Do atheists who ignore mystical experiences risk "appearing less wise even than [their] craziest religious opponents"?

Perhaps...but atheists aren't all that interested in "appearances", in my own personal experiences. If you're not trying to "sell" something, you're much less likely to be concerned as to how you might appear to others.

Do "appearances" matter in espousing one' own religious beliefs?

JW's and Mormon "missionaries" wear "uniforms" of constrained/defined details of dress.
Buddhist monks wear certain identifiable robes/wraps.
Catholic/Episcopalian priests wear identifiable collars attesting to their creed/profession.
Jewish rabbis may wear caps (or more) to signify their particular adherent faith, or identified role in proselytism of their religious beliefs.
Some Muslims believe it appropriate to shroud adherent women from head to toe.
Native American beliefs entail the use of certain ritualistic clothing/artifacts in faithful practice of their own particular religion.

Atheists may ignore "mystical experiences", but then again, atheists don't attribute what is worn, practiced, or "believed" as being directly influential upon their daily lives, or upon the consequential choices they pursue..or as reflective of "who/what" they are, or one day hope to become.

"[SIZE=-1]Cucullus non facit monachum"[/SIZE]

Embracing mysticism neither promotes nor connotes any greater measured testimonial of wisdom, than wearing a stiff black and white collar, or a bee-keeper's shawl might suggest or infer.

 

[YmirGF]

No one comes to a mystical experience with a "blank slate" -- that is, with absolutely no framework for interpreting the experience. Among other reasons, that's because everyone has a cultural background they bring to interpreting the experience. It is very problematic to say atheists have fewer preconceived notions about such experiences than theists. How would you prove such a claim?

Sunstone, I am not meaning that people have a "blank state". Replace the word any in my response to LSDLDS with far less and that would be closer to the mark. Sorry for the generalization and sorry LSDLDS for giving that impression.

That being said, frankly it is difficult to say why, other than preconceived notions about the different experiences WILL effect how the observer interprets those experiences, just as they do in everyday life with regular experiences. My own experiences were such that I had read almost nothing about "Oneness" prior to the event and I also had little concept of out-of-body episodes, aside from just being an idea from scant pages I had read. I simply wasn't all that interested in the subject. Likewise yin/yang was just a lifeless symbol prior. I knew partially what it meant or symbolized, but I can't say I really had thought about it much. Frankly, I hadn't a clue what nirvana or enlightenment was like, at all. They were just some weird concepts.

So, yes, I did have some bare ideas about what was to happen, but there was no way to prepare for what did happen. It was quite beyond my imagination, although for awhile I suspected it was just that. After a few hours I understood rather clearly that I wasn't imagining anything as my definitions of reality took off at warp speed.

The real downside to having strong religious convictions, in my opinion, lies in the nature of the experience(s) themselves. They do strike one very sharply -- to say the least and it would be far too simple to chalk it up to "revelation". Usually so-called "revelations" come from some fuzzy concept people have a penchant for calling "god" and they have a tendency to project religious symbolism directly onto the experience which then transforms the experience into a highly exaggerated "passion play". "Revelation" and "god" simply go hand in hand. Likewise the plasticine nature of the experiences mold themselves TO the observers belief structures. My thinking is that if they did not, they would not make the slightest bit of sense. I didn't invent the game, but that is simply my honest perception of how it works.

When I was deeply into Vaisnava thought, for example, I assumed almost without question, that my experiences came from "god". It took me a very long time to understand that my vision of Vishnu was in fact my own creation. It took me a long time to understand that such thinking is really only a majestic ego trip. However it was the only way I could relate to the experience because of my understanding at the time. At the time of the vision of Vishnu, it was more real than anything I have encountered on this lovely little planet, before or since, but when I took responsibility for my experiences I discovered that this perception was almost a final illusion and that there was far more beyond even our limited concepts of "god".

The reason I am rather firm on this is that I don’t want to give religious types the impression that their current manner of thinking is going to get them very far. At some point they must give up their primitive god-concepts and there is no way to sugar coat it. This is why I say that atheists are in a better start position because they don’t have to get rid of as much psychological baggage to begin with.

I could definitely be wrong, but after over three decades of ongoing experience I rather doubt that I am.


If this windy explanation does not suffice I would love to hear what you think is problematic with this approach. It’s all good and I am hardly offended by your astute observation.

Perhaps one day I will learn to be concise, lol.

 

[nutshell]

I agree with Sunstone.

Atheists don't come to the table with far less they come to the table with different preconceived notions based on their genetics, environment, and/or social background.

 

[Sunstone]

At any rate, does the tendency of many atheists to ignore mystical experiences make them look less wise to the millions of people who have had those experiences than even the craziest theists, as Harris asserts?

 

[Willamena]

It would seem to me that the person who "ignores" the mystical experiences of others does so justifiably. If they ignore their own mystical experiences, then I'd start to wonder about them.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

If you ask me, i think it dpends on what that mystical experiecne told them.

 

[YmirGF]

At any rate, does the tendency of many atheists to ignore mystical experiences make them look less wise to the millions of people who have had those experiences than even the craziest theists, as Harris asserts?

Not that you are remotely interested in my views Phil, but the atheist's disbelief does not make them look less wise to me. It is JUST disbelief, lol, and frankly it IS quite understandable. It is quite the opposite actually with theists as they usually profess to have understanding in areas that have little or no experience.

On that note, I'll bow out on your charming little thread.

 

[Sunstone]

It is quite the opposite actually with theists as they usually profess to have understanding in areas that have little or no experience.

Isn't this painting theists with a rather broad brush, though?

 

[YmirGF]

Isn't this painting theists with a rather broad brush, though?

In my view it isn't broad enough actually. In general, it is like they have rose tinted glasses through which their experience is perceived. Atheists don't believe in the reality of the glasses, so to speak. It's all psychological baggage, Phil, well it is to me at least. In this case, less IS better. The key is understanding the experience by allowing your awareness to grow with it. This is a bit more difficult with devout persons, imho, simply because they will try to shoehorn the experience into dwarfed concepts. It is sort of like a rather fat gentleman trying to fit into the shorts of his youth. Something's gonna give.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

At any rate, does the tendency of many atheists to ignore mystical experiences make them look less wise to the millions of people who have had those experiences than even the craziest theists, as Harris asserts?

Perhaps that they are out of touch or dull and therefore offer little of interest to those who have had mystical experiences? But atheists seem to be less likely to dismiss mystical experience as simply religious mania or insanity then they were when I was fifteen years younger. Times are changing.

 

[rojse]

I agree with Sunstone.

Atheists don't come to the table with far less they come to the table with different preconceived notions based on their genetics, environment, and/or social background.

But these notions tend to be more grounded in verifiable information, such as science and statistics.

 

[nutshell]

But these notions tend to be more grounded in verifiable information, such as science and statistics.

So???