Why can we not observe God?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Mysticism is not a "woo" term. It involves concrete techniques and disciplines to elicit these type of transformations of consciousness which these neuroscientists are referring to as mystical states of consciousness.
There are peer-reviewed studies on mystical experience. Just search Google scholar for the term "mystical experience," and you'll find myriads of results. Funny how you chose this clip. This is actually not only my call, but the clip I uploaded to my YouTube channel. Matt was unfamiliar at the time with this research. Here's a more recent call, I was first caller, first episode of the year. Matt still admitted to not being entirely familiar with the research.
Sure, the second definition is made by those who've not had a mystical experience, so from their vantage point, anything the mystic says is considered to be "word salad" or "vague and ill-defined," it just goes over their heads. We're not talking about the supernatural in the sense often bandied about and defined by atheists, as "that which is not natural," nor are we speaking of a deistic understanding of God which 99% atheists have. The understanding of the divine is rather construed through the context of the Perennial philosophy within this research.
Well, this research has. And I've linked the peer-reviewed material. If not, here it is once more. The 2017 chapter sums up all the peer-reviewed material.
Mysticism is a woo woo term by definition, that's what woo woo means.
1. relating to or holding unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis, especially those relating to spirituality, mysticism, or alternative medicine.
No they're not, mainstream science doesn't support the idea mysticism is objectively evidenced.
No there aren't, and again it's risible ti imagine mainstream science wouldn't be trumpeting this along with every single global news network if it were remotely true.
No it isn't, that's nonsense, dictionary definitions are determined by common usage. Nor is there any objective evidence anyone has had a mystical experience. Again any remotely objective person can see the mainstream global scientific community does support these claims.
The definition of supernatural has nothing to do with atheism or atheists, you're talking nonsense sorry, and anything supernatural would by definition be beyond scientific study, and beyond laws of nature.
1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
So claiming there is peer reviewed research for something supernatural is demonstrable nonsense. Even before we point out yet again the entire scientific world and all the global news networks seem to have missed this paradigm shifting event.
That says it all really. You couldn't even define the deity you claimed to believe in. Just kept repeating vague wishy washy claims about all religions pointing to the existence of a deity. Neither Matt Dillahunty nor anyone else has to be familiar with these claims for peer reviewed research, scientific claims are validated by science, and these claims have not been. The claims are no different than the claims creationists make for scientific credibility for their beliefs.
Yes, it is the first example that comes to mind!
"Well, this research has. And I've linked the peer-reviewed material. If not, here it is once more. The 2017 chapter sums up all the peer-reviewed material."
Peer-reviewed material? So please explain us, with this sample of articles from the page you've linked:
KA MacLean, MW Johnson, and RR Griffiths. 2011. "Mystical experiences occasioned by the hallucinogen psilocybin lead to increases in the personality domain of openness." Journal of Psychopharmacology, 29 Sept.
Maria Estevez, "High Light: When a Psilocybin Study Leads to Spiritual Realization"
From The Scientific American, mind you...
RR Griffiths, WA Richards, U McCann, R Jesse. 2006. "Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance." Psychopharmacology (Berl). 187(3), 268-83, commentaries 284-292.
Now I expect you to explain to us how these articles, peer-reviewed research, how it proves the existence of God or gods, mystical realms etc.
If you don't want to, it will say a lot about you.
Well, I said that these professionals consider these mystical experiences the very evidence for the Perennial philosophy.
That's what I've been trying to do since day 1 on these threads.
Again, you dodge any demand for clarification. If you don't want to do it, it is fine by me. But I persist, nothing in the paper you provided (at least those those i summary read), is proof of a supernatural reality.
This one: https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf
Classic Hallucinogens and Mystical Experiences: Phenomenology and Neural Correlates ... Look it talks about the neural processes involved in reported experiences under Hallucinogens. Nothing more.
[Copyrighted material removed by Nyarlathotep, read it here]
I do not remember you making this point so maybe i'm in fault here. You say that God is not supernatural, so what it is? For your videos, i tend to prefer reading articles.
Self transforming machine elves apparently.
I think it is the definition lol. If he means that:
So, "God" is then seen as a metaphor to describe a very particular altered state which our neuroscientists are dubbing "mystical experience."
Then what are we discussing??????
PS: could you please share me the page when it is explained how we link other threads and quote other like you do in this message?
These might help:
The tag you want is <a>.
You can experiment with it here.
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?
Most atheists I encounter don't believe because no theist can demonstrate any objective evidence, it's odd how the atheists theist claim to encounter seem to hold views and reasons that most of the atheists here don't. If I were a cynical man I might infer this was an opportunistic fib. If you believe in a deity that part of the natural physical universe then demonstrate some tangible objective evidence for it, and explain how according to many theistic religions, including christianity, and religious apologists, that their deity existed outside of time and space, a neat trick for something you are claiming is not supernatural, and of course can suspend or set aside the laws of that physical universe at will to perform miracles, that sounds supernatural to me.
1.(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Many theists on here have described their deity in almost exactly that way.
@Kafei: WHY IS THIS HARD FOR YOU TO GRASP????
re: "You see, it's a flat-out mistake on behalf of the atheists I encounter to necessarily define God as something "supernatural" or "metaphysical."
Atheists do not believe in god of gods. No atheist is telling you that your god is this way or that way. No atheist is defining your god for you. Atheists are asking you to define your god and provide evidence. That's it. Nothing more? I have no reason to believe anything spiritual or mystical actually exists any more than I have any reason to believe your version of god exists. So do you have evidence or not???
RE: "And ironically it's the one notion most atheists I meet have as for their very reason for their rejection of theism." THEN YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO FUCKING LISTEN. *Please provide evidence for your god. You claim it is not mystical or spiritual, FINE, "What is it? Where is it? When can I see it? How long is this going to fucking take???" We are all still waiting...
RE: "The Science is saying something?" WTF are you talking about? Science is a system of inquiry. It says nothing. You have not yet defined "mystical experience." If you are referring to the fact that many religions happen to be the result of the use of hallucinogenic drugs, you might be onto something there. Why call the delusional, illusional state of drug intoxication "mystical" or "spiritual." You use the drugs and you have all the insight of a drug addict vomiting his guts out on skid row. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON ABOUT? Just calling a drug induced stupor mystical or spiritual does not make it so. The fricking tribal people in the Amazon are injecting poison dart frogs into their veins, eating ayahuasca, dining on shrooms, and smoking shit that let them talk to their dead ancestors. They still shit in a hole in the ground and starve to death if they don't kill a few monkeys for dinner. What the fk are you on about.
Do you have any links to anyone actually defining what a mystical state is without using higher abstractions of Woo Woo?
First Video: It's not mystical... It's "Biologically normal." He is discussing the effects of hallucinogenic psilocybin. It is a dose effect study. PSILOCYBEN PRODUCES COGNITIVE CHANGES. This is a study on the effects of a drug. AT NO POINT DOES HE DEFINE "MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE" HE SIMPLY ASSERTS IT AND SHOWS A GRAPH.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT PHENOMENOLOGY IS? As research tool, phenomenology is based on the academic disciplines of philosophy and psychology and has become a widely accepted method for describing human experiences. Phenomenology is a qualitative research method that is used to describe how human beings experience a certain phenomenon.
The fact that I say sitting on the toilet and having the best shit of my life is a mystical or spiritual experience...."does not make it so."
You need to bracket your ideas of mystical and spiritual and pay attention to what is going on. AT NO POINT IS SPIRITUAL OR MYSTICAL DEFINED IN ANY WAY.
What is being discussed is the effect of a drug, depending on dosage and the phenomenological experience of the participants in the study. ha ha ha ha ha ha HA HA ..... Mystical scale..... Notice it is asserted, not demonstrated. Spiritual Scale..... Notice it is asserted and not demonstrated.
DID YOU READ THE ACTUAL STUDY???
"This is a study where healthy subjects sought to extend (Problem #1, biased population. SOUGHT TO EXTEND) understanding of possible enduring changes in traits by manipulating psilocybin dose and the intensity with which participants were encouraged (Probelm #2: Someone is encouraging the outcome of the study with intensity / influencing.) to engage in meditation and other "SPIRITUAL" (Probelm #3: Why is meditation spiritual. What is meant by spiritual. I have meditated since I was a teen and once believed all that spiritual bullshit too. Nothing spiritual about it at all, not even the OBE. Just you, your brain and your body.) practices.
75 Participants with little or no history with either meditation or use of classic hallucinogens. (Translated: 75 participants who had not yet learned the value of introspection and would regard such activity as spiritual, magical, or mystical for no other reason than they had never done it before.) HORSESHIT!!!
Mysticism is not a "woo" term.
Then what the fuck are you waiting for. DEFINE it. What is the "Concrete" definition of mysticism? Why is this so damn hard for you. You assert that these terms have "Concrete" meanings. Well.................... still waiting. Define the term without moving to inane assertions or higher abstractions. YOU SAID "CONCRETE" Waiting.......
It isn't hard. I've left plenty of material here for anyone to satisfy having defined this experience. Let me attempt to spell it out once more, mysticism involves spiritual techniques and disciplines aimed at eliciting mystical states of consciousness from which the mystic gains insight and applies it into his or her daily life. That's mysticism in a nutshell, however the mystical state of consciousness is more accurately what is being defined here. These researchers make a distinction between what they call the archetype/visionary state of consciousness which occurs just moments before or right after the height of this experience which is the unitive or .
Yes, that's right. Concrete definitions. If you had done a little research of your own and reviewed the lectures, you wouldn't be here "still waiting."
"spiritual techniques and disciplines aimed at eliciting mystical states of consciousness"
In other words, altering the brain chemistry, either by taking drugs, doing special breathing techniques, or somehow manipulating brain activity and/or chemistry through thought processes. Nothing mystical about that - it's just chemistry.
@Get off my lawn
Yes, there is a specific chemistry that is involved in what neuroscientists are calling a "complete" mystical experience. They have concluded that these experiences are, indeed, biologically normal
If it can be explained by biology and chemistry, then it wouldn't be mystical. Also, by definition mysticism is "inaccessible to the intellect," both chemistry and biology are only accessible through the intellect.
These claims are woo woo...
Which is exactly what I have been saying all along. The insertion of "mysticism" is superfluous and at the edge of the woo universe. The attempted insertion of a divine being as anything else but a chemical induced reaction in a drugged subjects brain, as I said is buggery bollocks.
It certainly isn't evidence of anything except chemically induced hallucinations.
Then define it!! (All you are agreeing with is that it is a hallucinogenic drug induced stupor.)
Woo woo has the word mysticism in its definition. Mysticism is defined as "inaccessible to the intellect," thus it is the very antithesis of scientific methods. It's also defined as "vague or ill-defined religious or spiritual belief," and since you have failed to offer any cogent definition of what you mean, simply endlessly linking YouTube videos, it's obvious you either haven't read any peer reviewed research that does this, or your claims are misrepresenting the facts.
Now who to believe, a Billy no-name on the internet parroting superstition, or the entire scientific world and global media who seem wholly and inexplicably unaware of your claims?
It's not remotely a hard choice. Like Breezy you seem to want to leap to the conclusion you like, and let science catch up, that's not how s ience works.
That link is another YouTube video, and it is fucking hilarious, I've never heard such gibberish in my life.
Can you or can you not, define Mysticism? It's in the dictionary remember, I already linked it once.
1. belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
2. vague or ill-defined religious or spiritual belief, especially as associated with a belief in the occult.
The secondary definition even says it vague and ill defined, the primary definition says it is inaccessible to the intellect, does that sound like something science can study to you? If so please present your definition of it as it differs from this, and once again I ask you to link the peer reviewed published studies, that support this assertion. Not YouTube videos stating the same claims you are parroting on here.
Kafei: Why are you avoiding the topic. Define the term. Give me a definition not based on bullshit or just admit that you can't do it. No one asked you what mysticism involved/ You are using the word SPIRITUAL. Now you have two words to define. Stop spouting bullshit and give me a concrete definition of the word MYSTICISM.
I just did. I even linked to professionals explaining this stuff. The Wiki page on mysticism is also decent. I didn't coin this term "mystical experience," by the way. It was originally laid down by William James in the early 1900s, and has been refined since then. I've also left plenty of links of the professionals describing what constitutes a so-called "complete" mystical experience.
CSP Founder Robert Jesse on the "Complete" Mystical experience
Dr. Roland Griffiths on "Complete" mystical experience
Dr. Alex Belsar - "Complete" Mystical Experience
From your own Wikki link...
"Since the 1960s scholars have debated the merits of perennialand constructionist approaches in the scientific research of "mystical experiences". The perennial position is now "largely dismissed by scholars",
Try reading things before linking them. It's not more than three paragraphs in.
Links to bullshit is not a definition. You asserted that Mysticism has a concrete definition. Let's hear it. Stop avoiding the topic or just admit you are wrong. We are all waiting for the "CONCRETE" definition.
No, woo-woo is defined by that which is pseudo-scientific, little or no scientific basis, etc. Sure, it can relate to mysticism, spirituality, or alternative medicine, but that doesn't make mysticism, spirituality, or alternative medicine "woo-woo," you see. It just means that someone attempted to associate it with such things, not that it's truly or directly related to mysticism or spirituality or alternative medicine, for that matter. A very effective alternative medicine, for instance, has been recognized as ayahuasca. And the benefits of such things are beyond amazing. I'll offer a couple of examples from Chris Kilham and Amber Lyon. If you click one of those, check out Amber Lyon's story. They're both good, but I think I like hers better, and she has has a slideshow that shows the process.
Yes, it does, and this is mainstream science at this point. Do you realize how many times Dr. Roland Griffiths' work has been cited out of Hopkins' medicine?
Well, it has been in the media, it's been on CNN for some time now. Matt Dillahunty thought the same exact thing when I called him. In my more recent call, he conceded that he was not too familiar with the research.
Well, I've been following this research for about a decade only to realize it had a much more rich history than that initiating with the work of William James in the early 1900s and has been elaborated and refined throughout the decades. There was a gap in '66 with the psychedelic studies, because they became illegal, even for scientific research. That gap ended when Dr. Rick Strassman performed his studies with DMT in the mid-90s. Then, in '99 with the psilocybin research that started at Hopkins, the first study being published in 2006, the same year Richard Dawkins released his book "The God Delusion," which makes no reference to Griffiths' work. He couldn't of, he was already getting ready to publish. However, he was once challenged by Graham Hancock to try ayahuasca, while he declined, he nevertheless had a very interesting response.
That's not how mystics define this term or Perennialist, for that matter. I believe even Matt understands this point. And he had a contention about it in our most recent encounter, but he in his last statement to me said that there's everything right with addressing your interlocutor presents as what they're actually saying and portraying, however he was referring to Jordan Peterson here, not me. If he was really getting what he knew about this stuff from Jordan, I figured perhaps Jordan Peterson gave him this misconception. So, I wasn't really one for Jordan Peterson at all, so I chimed into what Jordan Peterson was saying about this stuff to see if Matt really inherited this misconception from Jordan. Nope. It was Matt's misinterpetation, it was his own misconception about this research. Jordan Peterson's interpretation of Roland Griffiths' work is pretty on point. Recall, Peterson isn't involved in this research, he just so happened to bump into Dr. Roland Griffiths when he became informed about this research. People don't really watch TV anymore. I see this stuff pop-up on my YouTube ad feeds, but it's probably due to the algorithms and the fact that I constantly research this stuff, but it has been in the media forever, and people are slowly waking, I think, to it, but there is something to say that when it's the most cited out Johns Hopkins, yet most people don't know about this stuff does speak to rate at which people are becoming aware which is another interesting topic within itself. Why isn't this more known? Terence McKenna asked that question all the time.
Because we're not speaking about a "deity" which is ordinary construed, if you want to go by your "dictionary definition." I don't think you're going to find William James' definition of mystical experience in the dictionary. Why? Probably because the dictionaries haven't caught up with the science. So, if you go by "common usage" over etymology, especially when studying a religious text, then you're prone to eisegesis. This is why exegesis is emphasized. The hermeneutic study of religion is how theologians and mystics studied the scriptures of the major religions, as well as having these mystical experiences. You see, because if you have a mystical experience, you're no longer attempting to interpret scripture, you know relate to it, because these mystics who were describing these mystical experiences as being "outside of space and time," were describing a potential in consciousness, so any religious scholar who comes along without direct knowledge of mystical experience is very liable to fall victim to eisegesis, which is his own intellectual interpretation of the scriptures which risk being filtered through his own biases. So, instead of interpreting something like "timelessness" as something to be access within their own consciousness, they instead anthropomorphize this aspect of the mystical experience to a "deity" that's "outside of space and time," an abstraction that takes various forms. The mystic, instead, resonates with the scripture, because they realize it's a potential within one's self. So, within the context of the research, these mystical experiences are defined in accordance with the Perennial philosophy.
Well, I'm not talking about creationism, but if you're really interested in all of this, like I said, I've been following this research for a while. I'm very interested in discussing all these topics. I recommend reviewing some of the links I've left here before you decide to respond. And you don't have to respond immediately. Wait a week. I've had forums where the interactions would take weeks, not just days or hours or minutes. There's some people who prefer this format because you can really draw out your thoughts. I've tons of bookmarks on this stuff relative to the science, the lectures, and all things related to altered states of consciousness of various sorts, not simply psychedelics, but states of lucid dreams, fugue states, hypnopompic/hypnagogic, seizures or syndromes; it's simply that the more modern research focuses on psychedelics, but there's a reason for this. It's not easy to study people who can do this naturally, such as the Tibetan monks or the Carmelite nuns which have been studied with EEG and fMRI. The naturally occurring mystical states of consciousness are not very predictable or repeatable, they seem to be much more spontaneous. That's where psychedelics come in, they can reproduce this experience on-demand. That's why they've been so useful to the scientific research. Researchers can't wait around for a monk to finally enter this state via contemplation. So there's a certain logistics involved, but this research at Hopkins has prompted very interesting research all around the world. Here's one example of a study I'd be scared to volunteer.
I feel like you and this entire mysticism/Perennialist movement would have so much more luck with the atheist/agnostic crowd if they just dropped a few words from their verbiage and carefully explain what they are trying to say without using certain words.
Words like: divine, mysticism, religion, metaphysical, while I have no personal judgement against dmt and other psychedelics, (I have done some of them myself!) Again, any mention of these terms throws on the skeptic alarm almost instantly in most of us. (And we have reason to be highly sensitive to these words, especially here in the AR debate boards.)
If you wanted to discuss some possible new way to gain a different perspective and understanding of the physical world around us and how we are connected to it all. How we can through various techniques explore these slightly different ways of thinking to perhaps gain new insights we can then maybe later take to the lab, test... etc
An approach like this I think will find you people a lot more receptive to your ideas.
I get it is not fair that these words are sort of hijacked and not well understood, but it is the way it is. It would be far easier to use different words then to try to explain to everyone the way you think these words should be used in the context you would like.
Even reading much of what you write, when I see the word mystic, and/or shaman, my brain goes to someone rattling bones, chanting gibberish and possibly using lots of drugs in a small enclosed space to help "purge" people of a perceived illness/sickness of the body or mind, something that say modern medicine with all its labs, testing etc has shown to be broadly quite a bit more effective then these ancient culture ways.
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
Maybe, but a Perennialist hears these words quite different, and doesn't automatically associate it with woo.
Sure, I agree, neologisms might sort of clear this up, but unfortunately, this is the religious vocabulary that has been used for thousands of years by mystics to describe some of these experiences.
Well, when I see these terms, I'm unfazed. You shouldn't let that sort of terminology rattle your bones, in my humble opinion. I've appreciated the feedback here, I've had very bad feedback at reddit, Rational Skeptic, etc. The people there, like you said, see these terms and automatically think "woo-woo."