Religious Experiences in Altered States

[zippy2006]

Are some religious experiences more authentic than others simply because the mental states differ?

Are there normative mental states which ensure authentic religious experiences? In general I think not, though the idea is widespread. God is not contained or restricted to any particular mental state or altered state. Neither is He excluded.

 

[cloudyday2]

Are there normative mental states which ensure authentic religious experiences? In general I think not, though the idea is widespread. God is not contained or restricted to any particular mental state or altered state. Neither is He excluded.

Another thing: what constitutes a religious experience? Obviously something like the Transfiguration is a religious experience but what about experiences that are entirely natural/physical but the timing and circumstances affect a person's religious state?

 

[awitch]

The point is though ... from a Christian perspective ... you are beaconing the spiritual word, and that is a very dangerous practice.

Why is that?
I've been a witch for 20 years now and it's never been a problem.
If there is a spirit world, I really don't think any demons are going to be interested in "that guy who spends his free time watching birds and cartoons".

 

[zippy2006]

Another thing: what constitutes a religious experience? Obviously something like the Transfiguration is a religious experience but what about experiences that are entirely natural/physical but the timing and circumstances affect a person's religious state?

It's a good question and I'm not sure there's a clear answer. For example, someone who sees a ghost would probably be said to have had a religious experience, even if they are an atheist who believes ghosts are natural entities.

Here is an interesting quote from Simon Tugwell, O.P.:

It is, of course, notoriously difficult to circumscribe a topic like "religious experience". Both "religious" and "experience" are tricky words to pin down. Both Robinson and Beardsworth are aware of this. Beardsworth does not seem particularly bothered by "religious", but he recognizes at least part of the difficulty with "experience": "There is an ambiguity about the phrase 'religious experience', depending on how we take the word 'experience'. If we interpret it on the analogy of phrases like 'interesting experience' or 'harrowing experience', then we shall think in terms of episodes occurring at certain times and in certain places; we shall talk of 'a religious experience' or 'religious experiences'. On the other hand, one can argue, as a contributor did, 'Religious experience is not something to be tied down to definite times and places; it is a way of looking at the world (and oneself) which colours, or should colour, all one's thoughts and actions'" (SP pp. vii-viii).

Robinson refers to the difficulties William James had in finding a definition of "religious experience" even for his own limited purposes, and appears to accept as a positive asset the likelihood that discussion of religion will eventually turn out to be a discussion of everything (TBL p. 5).

For the purposes of the first phase of their research, RERU effectively shelved the difficulty; by appealing to the public at large to submit autobiographical reports, they passed on to their contributors the responsibility for deciding what was to count as "religious experience". But this means that, so far, they cannot really claim to be carrying out very fully the programme outlined by Sir Alister. Their evidence will not, strictly, be evidence of "religious experience", but of what people count as religious experience. An obvious question to investigate now is: why do these people count these experiences as religious? What is the significance of their wanting to use the word "religious"? How are these "religious" experiences related to the rest of their lives, to their social context, to their intellectual beliefs, and so on? Experiences which are phenomenologically similar may serve very different purposes and have very different significance in different situations and for different people. What is "religious" for one person may be non-religious for others. And even if two people have a similar experience and both call it religious, it may still be religious in quite different senses. (Glossolalia, for instance, may be regarded as a way of letting off steam, as a symptom of hysteria, as a religious experience of God, or as a religiously significant experience of demonic possession).

-Faith and Experience V: Religious "Natural History"​

 

[AV1611VET]

If there is a spirit world, I really don't think any demons are going to be interested in "that guy who spends his free time watching birds and cartoons".

We know that Satan walks about ... well ... read this:

1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

It just could be that you are an easy target on his radar, but that your guardian angel is protecting you.

I don't know though.

You mentioned bird watching and immediately augury came to mind.

(Okay, I had to look that term up, since it's been awhile since I studied that stuff. ).

But from your past posts, I don't think you're into that.

Anyway, just be careful.

 

[awitch]

We know that Satan walks about ...

It just could be that you are an easy target on his radar, but that your guardian angel is protecting you.

If I'm not a Christian, then he's already guaranteed my soul so he has no motivation to harass me. If anything, you would make a much more interesting target for him.

You mentioned bird watching and immediately augury came to mind.

(Okay, I had to look that term up, since it's been awhile since I studied that stuff. ).

But from your past posts, I don't think you're into that.

I don't believe the future is written so yes, augury is an unworthy pursuit.

However, scientifically, birds are an excellent indicator for the health of an ecosystem because they are so widespread and react quickly to changes. They inspire the science and the arts.

There's also nothing quite as magical as being in the middle of nowhere, listening to a northern mockingbird, perched right in front of you, as he sings his little heart out, and knowing you're the only human on the planet to hear it.

Anyway, just be careful.

I believe your concern is sincere and is touching and appreciated. But I am not afraid.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's also nothing quite as magical as being in the middle of nowhere, listening to a northern mockingbird, perched right in front of you, as he sings his little heart out, and knowing you're the only human on the planet to hear it.

Or, as David put it ...

Psalm 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

I believe your concern is sincere and is touching and appreciated. But I am not afraid.

Well, nuts!

But if you change your mind, God is standing by to take your request at a moment's notice!

 

[awitch]

Or, as David put it ...

Psalm 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

Quite relatable.

But if you change your mind, God is standing by to take your request at a moment's notice!

And he knows he's welcome to stop in any time. He knows where to find me.

 

[Tolworth John]

Nothing wrong with that either.

No there is nothing wrong with it, but also there is nothing right with it.

Just shows an inability to link facts like there is no naturalistic explanation for life, the universe and everything. Or for the near universal use of blasphemy, both of which indicate that the existence of the supernatural is not just highly likely but more in the almost certain collum.

 

[awitch]

No there is nothing wrong with it, but also there is nothing right with it.

Just shows an inability to link facts like there is no naturalistic explanation for life, the universe and everything. Or for the near universal use of blasphemy, both of which indicate that the existence of the supernatural is not just highly likely but more in the almost certain collum.

This is laughable.
There most certainly are naturalistic explanations for the origin of life, the diversity of life, and the origin of the Universe.

Use of blasphemy comes from the religious expecting everyone conform to their unsubstantiated beliefs and behaviors. Christians make all sorts of bad claims about my deities, does that make them real?

No matter how convinced you are in the supernatural, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to demonstrate its reality since your the one making the positive assertion. No one has that ability.

 

[AV1611VET]

Christians make all sorts of bad claims about my deities, does that make them real?

No it doesn't, awitch.

But if fallen angels roamed the earth in the past, setting themselves up as gods and whatnots, then your deities could very well exist; but now in a very limited capacity in this dispensation.

Since the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), when the Holy Spirit came to earth and "took over,"* one of His jobs is to keep Satan and his minions in check.

And as we discussed earlier, someone "beaconing" the spirit world can make it possible for one of them (or more) to answer.

* The sixty-four dollar term for this is: ontological subordination.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

No matter how convinced you are in the supernatural, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to demonstrate its reality since your the one making the positive assertion. No one has that ability.

I have been fascinated by the brain lately, especially the effects we can have n it with meditation and diet. At some point this blob of material substance becomes conscious! an when one thinks about the volume of memory it can contain it just doesn't some possible. And if we are still capable of memory beyond death, like memories are in our spirit, why do we need the brain for storage?

One theory is that the brain acts more as a receiver for those memories and much more that is actually faculties of the more subtle non physical dimensions of our being. and we certainly have nonphysical dimensions because thoughts and memories are non physical.

BTW: Here is the definitive resource on brain, consciousness and altered states. It is pdf so you can download it free. Look in the index about anything.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258254997_Zen_and_the_Brain_Mutually_Illuminating_Topics

 

[AV1611VET]

There are different types of altered mental states and different ways of reaching those states. Are some religious experiences more authentic than others simply because the mental states differ?

Are you saying there are no atheists in foxholes?

 

[awitch]

I have been fascinated by the brain lately, especially the effects we can have n it with meditation and diet. At some point this blob of material substance becomes conscious!

Evolution at work.

And if we are still capable of memory beyond death, like memories are in our spirit, why do we need the brain for storage?

That is way too big of a leap. There is no evidence for spirits or memory beyond death at all.

One theory is that the brain acts more as a receiver for those memories and much more that is actually faculties of the more subtle non physical dimensions of our being. and we certainly have nonphysical dimensions because thoughts and memories are non physical.

Thoughts and memories are stored in the brain in the arrangement of neurons. They are most definitely physical.

 

[cloudyday2]

Are you saying there are no atheists in foxholes?

Hmmmm, not sure what you mean?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Thoughts and memories are stored in the brain in the arrangement of neurons. They are most definitely physical.

It cant be that simple. How would a neuron store a memory? Memories are immaterial. Are they not?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Don't get me wrong. I try t be skeptical. But t is as if the world of mind is completely different than the world of matter. And yet they seem to reside in the same cortex.

So when people talk about possession and danger of meditation I ask what does the science tell us. Spirit is faith. The intersection between mind and matter remains a mystery, most likely in the quantum realm and even more subtler realms. But when we start talking about spirit it is all a matter of beliefs not objective facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

So when people talk about possession and danger of meditation I ask what does the science tell us.

Science can take a hike.

When a person takes an introspective look at himself ... be it by meditation, drugs, or whatever ... and does not conclude what the Bible says,* you can bet that person is being led astray.

* What introspection should tell you:

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[awitch]

It cant be that simple. How would a neuron store a memory? Memories are immaterial. Are they not?

We know it's stored in memory, but we're not sure how it's encoded.

Here's a reputable article, but the details are over my head. I'm not a neurobiologist.

 

[awitch]

Don't get me wrong. I try t be skeptical. But t is as if the world of mind is completely different than the world of matter. And yet they seem to reside in the same cortex.

So when people talk about possession and danger of meditation I ask what does the science tell us. Spirit is faith. The intersection between mind and matter remains a mystery, most likely in the quantum realm and even more subtler realms. But when we start talking about spirit it is all a matter of beliefs not objective facts.

Meditation isn't dangerous. Possession isn't real.