Should Atheists Ignore Mystical Experiences?

[Sunstone]

"One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced. In fact, many atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, or if possible, not worth wanting. Another common mistake is to imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of mind with which many of us are already familiar—the feeling of scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, artistic inspiration, etc."



"As someone who has made his own modest efforts in this area, let me assure you, that when a person goes into solitude and trains himself in meditation for 15 or 18 hours a day, for months or years at a time, in silence, doing nothing else—not talking, not reading, not writing—just making a sustained moment to moment effort to merely observe the contents of consciousness and to not get lost in thought, he experiences things that most scientists and artists are not likely to have experienced, unless they have made precisely the same efforts at introspection. And these experiences have a lot to say about the plasticity of the human mind and about the possibilities of human happiness."


"So, apart from just commending these phenomena to your attention, I’d like to point out that, as atheists, our neglect of this area of human experience puts us at a rhetorical disadvantage. Because millions of people have had these experiences, and many millions more have had glimmers of them, and we, as atheists, ignore such phenomena, almost in principle, because of their religious associations—and yet these experiences often constitute the most important and transformative moments in a person’s life. Not recognizing that such experiences are possible or important can make us appear less wise even than our craziest religious opponents."


- Sam Harris

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

 

[Fluffy]

To an extent.

I'd like to point out that Harris views this experience as simply another area of human experience and does not deny the role of intellectualism and human reason in processing and understanding this process nor that this experience differs from empirical experience.

Therefore, I don't think these experiences can be classified as "mystical" or, if one really wishes to, then it would be difficult to significantly distinguish them from other types of experience. I might be wrong but I don't think Harris would use "mysticism" to describe what he is talking about and that if he does indeed abstain from using that word then it can be taken as a significant abscence.

Also, I'd point out that ignoring something just because it is associated with religion is as wrong as exploring something just because somebody else assures you that it is. In this case, Harris raises legitimate criticism of the motives behind some atheists yet fails to present his case with sufficient justification in order to avoid the double standard.

 

[doppelganger]

I'd like to point out that Harris views this experience as simply another area of human experience and does not deny the role of intellectualism and human reason in processing and understanding this process nor that this experience differs from empirical experience.

I think a fair case can be made that understanding that these experiences are pulled into the world of interpretation and reason where they are given their form and meaning is what sets all the mystics apart. First enlightenment . . . then the laundry.

Therefore, I don't think these experiences can be classified as "mystical" or, if one really wishes to, then it would be difficult to significantly distinguish them from other types of experience.

Once it's an "experience" it has already been filtered and interpreted through the ego and language. But before it becomes an "experience" is when the "mystical" part occurs. Hence, the ineffability of the mystical. Whatever description one has, that description is not it.

 

[Fluffy]

I think a fair case can be made that understanding that these experiences are pulled into the world of interpretation and reason where they are given their form and meaning is what sets all the mystics apart. First enlightenment . . . then the laundry.

This disagreement appears to be largely semantic as you describe a significant difference between "filtered experience" (what you call experience) and "unfiltered experience" (what you call mysticism) whereas I view each category as experience. I suppose that "mystical experience" would therefore be non-sensical

If I have understood correctly the effects which can be described as "mystical" are all those that take place on the mind before the mind is concious of them. In that case, this does seem like a significant category of what I would consider experience. I hope I have understood you because that makes a lot of sense to me and is the first time I have been able to understand, at least in part, what mysticism is about. I am unsure whether this necessitates certain other claims of mysticism but this is a good start.

For example, I am unsure as to why effects on the mind that we are not concious of are any less of an experience than those that we are aware of. It still seems like experience to me albeit a clearly different kind of experience to that which we are aware of. Wikipedia puts it this way "The word "experience" may refer somewhat ambiguously) both to mentally unprocessed immediately-perceived events as well as to the purported wisdom gained in subsequent reflection on those events or interpretation of them."

 

[doppelganger]

This disagreement appears to be largely semantic as you describe a significant difference between "filtered experience" (what you call experience) and "unfiltered experience" (what you call mysticism) whereas I view each category as experience. I suppose that "mystical experience" would therefore be non-sensical

Paradoxical and an oxymoron. Yes.

If I have understood correctly the effects which can be described as "mystical" are all those that take place on the mind before the mind is concious of them.

They happen outside of the template of consciousness by which I interpret sensations, integrate them with memory and relate them to my self. So they happen when the consciousness I recognize as my self is not operating or not fully operating: sleep, drugs, brain damage, deep meditation, severe deprivation, moments of awe and overwhelming emotion. Great artists (including "religious" mystics and shamans) often become practiced at inducing altered states of consciousness to unlock creativity from the bounds of social reality.

For example, I am unsure as to why effects on the mind that we are not concious of are any less of an experience than those that we are aware of.

Linguistically and logically, an experience requires a subject. Where consciousness lags behind these transactions, the moment of the creative experience is outside the regular limitations of conscious experience, but the reflection upon and interpretation of those experiences is not. Whether that's still an "experience" or not, is largely a matter of semantics, I agree. But whatever one wants to call it, the distinguishing feature is that the mystic is the interpretation of sensations upon conscious reflection when consciousness was not operating at the time of the sensation.

In philosophy of mind, these are also theorized and symbolically represented frequently as "raw feels" or "qualia."

Daniel Dennet oxymoronically assigns four characteristics to qualia:

1. ineffable; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience.
2. intrinsic; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.
3. private; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.
4. directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale.

 

[YmirGF]

"Not recognizing that such experiences are possible or important can make us appear less wise even than our craziest religious opponents."

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

Yes, ol' Sam does make a good point, even if it misses the mark a tad. In reality this can be applied to atheists and theists alike due to their strongly held preconceptions about both the nature of experience and the nature of reality. I am on record as saying that atheists actually have a "leg up" on theists in that they do not have highly evolved perceptions of the "other side" of reality. In this manner, the atheist will be able to grasp what are perhaps "alien" manners of perception much more easily that those who subscribe to the rigors of a given dogmatic viewpoint where reality MUST conform to their deeply held beliefs. In my tiny mind, it is better to simply reject outright and have no clear ideas than it is to believe one understands something they actually have precious little understanding about. What I am getting at is that the atheist is not necessarily "less wise" than the holy roller who thinks they have some special knowledge. Both camps are, as a rule, at a disadvantage, but to my viewpoint, the atheist is considerably less so. I hope that makes sense.

I must thank Dopp for his views here are he elucidates his points so very well... now if only he could *grok* the simultaneous nature of experience -- but perhaps he already does.

This disagreement appears to be largely semantic as you describe a significant difference between "filtered experience" (what you call experience) and "unfiltered experience" (what you call mysticism) whereas I view each category as experience. I suppose that "mystical experience" would therefore be non-sensical

It is actually quite the opposite Fluffmeister. There is an inner sense that can be called "intuitive grasp" that operates in this way. "Dreamlets" or "image/ data transactions" occur at very basic levels between two (or more) sources of consciousness. The human animal's mind then translates these "image/data transactions" into verbal/conceptual terms. For example: If I say ocean, warm, beautiful woman and lounge chair do you not instantly get an image of a pretty lady sitting sedately observing the ocean on a beach? That is a primitive example but it should give you the overall idea of the mechanics of what I am describing. Your mind fills in the blank areas and for the most part -- gets it right.

If I have understood correctly the effects which can be described as "mystical" are all those that take place on the mind before the mind is conscious of them. In that case, this does seem like a significant category of what I would consider experience.

Excellent. There is one aspect that our esteemed Dopp is overlooking though and that is the simple fact that this experience occurs on many simultaneous levels much in the same way that streaming video works. As the data is still streaming in (his mystical portion) the "player" or the human animal's mind begins to assemble the data in intelligible format which it can then relate to.

For example, I am unsure as to why effects on the mind that we are not conscious of are any less of an experience than those that we are aware of. It still seems like experience to me albeit a clearly different kind of experience to that which we are aware of.

Precisely. When you look at it as simultaneous understanding the whole system works much more seamlessly. I am on record as saying that there is no true "unconscious" part of self, however that does not mean that there are parts of self we are, en masse, unaware of.

------------


As most of you will appreciate I have begun to label myself as a "modern mystic" simply because there are no other polite labels. So-called enlightenment happened in my experience decades ago and at first (for about 20 years) I could not describe much about my experience that actually made sense to others. My primitive, but rather complex mind had to chew on my experience until I clearly understood it. One day it simply became obvious how to express my experience in a meaningful way. There were no harps or chorus of angels but it was when my "conscious" mind simply caught up and the last piece of the puzzle locked into place. The difficult thing about physical reality is that it takes time to understand, whereas at "higher levels" of awareness understanding is quite instantaneous largely because one is not bound by the somewhat linear flow of the thought process. It takes time for the trickle-down effect to come to fruition.

It is my suspicion that this is where many people of limited understanding, or a particular religious nature, assume they have had so-called "revelations". They are not revelations, they are simply communication and the personality who experiences such perceptions has simply "jumped the gun" on the process of understanding and rushed to the wrong conclusion which muddies the entire process.

I keep wondering when RF will give me an Ambassador Medal for being a modern mystic, but I will have to content myself with the realization that they are in no position to judge, lol. I can quietly insist that if I ain't the real McCoy, they ain’t ever going to recognize someone who is for the very reasons that Sam Harris points out.

For example, a few days ago in the my thread with Comprehend I stated that the average person cannot understand what state of consciousness I presently enjoy on a continuous basis. I am not trying to be a dork, or go "look at me, look at me", I am simply stating a fact. Heck, most people cannot understand how I saw my world thirty-three years ago -- let alone expect them to understand how I see it now.

 

[doppelganger]

Excellent. There is one aspect that our esteemed Dopp is overlooking though and that is the simple fact that this experience occurs on many simultaneous levels much in the same way that streaming video works. As the data is still streaming in (his mystical portion) the "player" or the human animal's mind begins to assemble the data in intelligable format which it can then relate to.

I tried to account for that. Maybe I didn't do a very good job . . . :sorry1:

 

[Diogenes]

I knew an atheist who believed in spirits but did not believe in God. For her there was no apparent contradiction in terms. I think everyone has an admixture of apparently contradictory thoughts, beliefs and feelings brewing deep within them at any one given time.

 

[Pariah]

Atheists should definitely not ignore mystical experiences.

The more they understand of them, the better they can explain them as natural phenomena and remove any religious/useful association with them. That is not to say that it isn't natural, but that such experiences do not have meaning and are simply the play of neurochemicals and figments of the imagination.

 

[Random]

Should mystics ignore scientific analysis? Not one I know does.

So no.

 

[Sunstone]

Atheists should definitely not ignore mystical experiences.

The more they understand of them, the better they can explain them as natural phenomena and remove any religious/useful association with them. That is not to say that it isn't natural, but that such experiences do not have meaning and are simply the play of neurochemicals and figments of the imagination.

Such experiences often appear to have benefits to the person having them.

 

[rojse]

"One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced. In fact, many atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, or if possible, not worth wanting. Another common mistake is to imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of mind with which many of us are already familiar—the feeling of scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, artistic inspiration, etc."



"As someone who has made his own modest efforts in this area, let me assure you, that when a person goes into solitude and trains himself in meditation for 15 or 18 hours a day, for months or years at a time, in silence, doing nothing else—not talking, not reading, not writing—just making a sustained moment to moment effort to merely observe the contents of consciousness and to not get lost in thought, he experiences things that most scientists and artists are not likely to have experienced, unless they have made precisely the same efforts at introspection. And these experiences have a lot to say about the plasticity of the human mind and about the possibilities of human happiness."


"So, apart from just commending these phenomena to your attention, I’d like to point out that, as atheists, our neglect of this area of human experience puts us at a rhetorical disadvantage. Because millions of people have had these experiences, and many millions more have had glimmers of them, and we, as atheists, ignore such phenomena, almost in principle, because of their religious associations—and yet these experiences often constitute the most important and transformative moments in a person’s life. Not recognizing that such experiences are possible or important can make us appear less wise even than our craziest religious opponents."


- Sam Harris

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

I don't think I ignore mystical experiences. In fact, one of the reasons I first came here was so I get a better idea behind this phenomena.

The fact that few people that experience this actually discuss it, means that I don't have much of an idea of it, let alone try and come up with a plausible explanation of this phenomena.

Just because someone has a mystical experience like that does not mean that God is behind it, either. It could be hallucinations from lack of food or water, a mental disorder, it could be triggered from eating specially prepared food, or it could in fact be sent from God. I don't know, but I am not so quick to jump to conclusions in this regard.

 

[rojse]

As an aside on the subject with little relevance, I know that the Peyote Church actually prepares the peyote cactus into a beverage, that when consumed, causes hallucinations that they think are sent from God.

Certainly, many plants can be eaten to cause hallucinations, particularly mushrooms, and drugs like marijuana can be smoked. It certainly does not explain all visions, but it is a much more reasonable answer than that they come from God.

 

[Sunstone]

Just because someone has a mystical experience like that does not mean that God is behind it, either.

The notion that God is behind mystical experiences is by no means universal among mystics. Offhand, I can't think of any Far Eastern mystics who ascribe mystical experiences to God, for instance.

It could be hallucinations from lack of food or water, a mental disorder, it could be triggered from eating specially prepared food, or it could in fact be sent from God.

Mystical experiences could also be insights into a godless reality. That's to say, "God" might just be a handy notion or concept that people who are raised in certain specific cultures (cultures such ours) latch onto as the best available term to describe their experiences. A person from another culture might have a profoundly similar experience, but instead of describing it as from God, they might describe it as an insight into the Tao, or as an experience of Buddha Nature. "God" is an option, but not the only option, for describing mystical experiences.

I don't know, but I am not so quick to jump to conclusions in this regard.

We tend to jump to the conclusions that our culture teaches us to jump to.

 

[Pariah]

Such experiences often appear to have benefits to the person having them.

I don't understand how that contradicts what I said above.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't understand how that contradicts what I said above.

Sorry. I just meant to add to what you said -- not contradict what you said.

 

[nutshell]

I don't think the question is answerable. Why? Because there is no such thing as a mystical experience for the atheist - only natural experiences that may or may not have a known explanation (or theory).

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think the question is answerable. Why? Because there is no such thing as a mystical experience for the atheist - only natural experiences that may or may not have a known explanation (or theory).

You seem to be assuming that mystical experiences are necessarily experiences of the supernatural. Is that the case? And if so, on what basis do you make that assumption?


BTW, Welcome to the Forum!

 

[nutshell]

You seem to be assuming that mystical experiences are necessarily experiences of the supernatural. Is that the case? And if so, on what basis do you make that assumption?


BTW, Welcome to the Forum!

Thanks for the welcome.


You're right. I was making an assumption, probably without any basis. :help:

 

[Sunstone]

You're right. I was making an assumption, probably without any basis. :help:

No problem. Just wanted to clarify what your thinking was here.