Religious Belief Is Primarily Emotional, Not Logical

Post Reply New Topic

I would really think that for a lot of them the experience was more like a natural dissociation, like one might get with a high dose of DXM but without the doping effect. For Jacob Boehme to say that in contemplating a beam of light going through his kitchen he had a vision of the mechanics in the universe opening up to him there's more going on with that than just warm, fuzzy, or reverent feelings.

A believe in both the psychological and spiritual explanations. I am the same way about gnosticism. I do not limit my understanding to strictly one or the other. This is why I call myself an explorer.

And you'd rule out neurological explanations? In my honest opinion these people would not have written about something if they'd imaginatively hyperventilated themselves into seeing it, it was noteworthy because the truly unexpected and magnificent happened. For me that's the dividing line between overactive imagination and something worth more exploration by the person who experienced it. Also, and I'm surprised no one has ever thought of this, that no one has considered that the human nervous system might actually have a wave-form tether to something where if that connection starts getting loose or sloppy a person's sensory filters start picking up extremely detailed and exotic information of the variety that would typically distract from survival hence we 'tune' it out' by bringing our focus in tighter at a level of consciousness that we typically don't have voluntary access to (unless you become a mystic by hacking that setting).

I ask questions like these because I've experienced this effect and its caused me to ponder just how many cool things the human nervous system might be doing. Quantum computing could perhaps be one of them.

That's also neither ruling out spiritual or physiological explanations - rather I feel like I might be getting a handle on much more usable terminology for both with where I'm going on this. Spiritual vs. physical definition seems to lend itself to all kinds of confusions that have nothing to do with anything aside from their modern connotations.

Fair enough. Quid pro quo then.

It is possible to feel spiritual while figuring something out. It's that zen state. Einstein, for instance. He believed in God yet he was trying to come up with this universal theory that united all the others which is considered purely scientific. Science is at odds with the existence of a godlike entity outside of ourselves that sees whatever we do and reacts but really, it is the law of cause and effect we experience.

Anyway, perhaps Einstein felt this spirituality while working on his equations which reaffirmed his belief in God? Maybe he thought the only way he could experience this advanced state of mind was through a higher power since the majority of people were not experiencing it? Einstein believed in this pantheism, not exactly how God was described in the Bible. The universe as divine. Perhaps it is. Working on stuff like that, does it foster a deeper connection with the spiritual elements?

Nor do I.

'Hallucinations' implies the mystics saw something that was not real. An altered mind state may be a better description. It is better to be open yet questioning about what they saw. Theses people had a life style that was pretty extreme and highly disciplined compared to the average pew filler (including myself). It is conceivable that such efforts would produce outcomes that are greater than usual.

Interestingly Ignatian spirituality, which is inspired by some of these mystics, contains checks and balances to ensure that practitioners don't go too far, or mad, for want of a better expression. This includes direction, mentoring, discussing and sharing in a community. The ecstatic vision needs to be checked out and validated. The mystics writing have survived because, despite being hard to understand, enough people have seen something in them that they relate to. The mystic expression of Christianity has theological roots in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, prayer and the idea of God being present and active in the Church. Therefore there is logical progression from doctrine to these practices. Other strands including Eastern/ Coptic Monasticism and the Celtic church share this kind of spirituality. Pentecostalism has similarities too.

There is a problem of fakes, forgeries and heretics. The signs of this is a certain disconnect from tradition, scriptures and accountability. So if someone tells me "God told me to sleep with your wife, take all your money and orders obey my every word because I am God's chosen one!" my reaction will be "I don't think so".

Panentheistic monism (more inclusive than pantheism) is pretty much exactly what I'm considering. I'd have to figure that Einstein pulled down his theories from the One Mind by means of having the intellectual faculties to both go looking for them and understand what he had when he did arrive at them.

Where you might feel like I agree with you for the wrong reasons - spiritual and outward/mundane are just the difference between horizontal and vertical functioning but they're on the same X/Y grid, reaching deeper for things you'll no doubt feel more spiritual but IMHO nothing is either wholly spiritual or holy profane. Additionally if everything that ever has happened or will happen is a meditation of God then by definition its all spiritual just that for the most part we don't often find purely horizontal functioning in the practical sense 'liberating'. It's why someone who's looking for elightenment might go to a retreat or a temple but probably wouldn't go to a bar or a casino for that purpose.

A side thing, I found this debate really interesting. The title of the topic and conversations about black and white magic can seem misleading as to what exactly is being discussed but the topic matter I think is of relevance because they're discussing experience with a set of strong subjective dynamics of the variety that seem to be consistent across practitioners.

I'd figure that for mystic exploration the easiest thing to triangulate are the features that the experiences share in common. So many Golden Dawn et al. diaspora books these days seem like they're going toward trying to shake out differences between systems as well as what's salient vs. what's excess in terms of ritual and mental training.

Thank you and welcome to the Wrong Planet forums...
Are you on the spectrum?



I can speculate as to why you added my quote...
Rather than guess your intentions, could you explain what prompted you to do so and I will endeavor to respond to the best of my abilities...

Cheers m8...

I read recently (yesterday) about the use of an electromagnetic "God helmet" which calmed the brain and removed negative thought patterns...
From memory, I think they were talking about it creating a Zen like state of mind which facilitated accelerated learning...
Perhaps he was able to tap into something similar...<shrug>

Yes I am on the spectrum.

Re the quote: I asked you to return this favour "You on the other hand seemed to be fixated on trying to discredit me and my contributions..." [I am not. I might try to challenge an assertion but not attack the person]

"Not every conversation in the forums has to be in the form of a debate." [Which you seemed to be doing when you when saying 'it can't be proven'. Sounded debate like to me ]

I am simply *sharing* ideas...for the enjoyment of concept building/solidification... " [Which I was trying to do too. ]

I hope that is clear.

My motivation for posting that was due to my starting to get "pissed off" by your manner...
I am tired of some people "playing the person and not the ball..."
(I have been stalked on the internet for literally decades (less so these days...) simply because I have different opinions/perspectives to many people...)

I am not a fan of a confrontational intent...
Nor am I a fan of this:

Eristic arguments:

"In philosophy and rhetoric, eristic (from Eris, the ancient Greek goddess of chaos, strife, and discord) refers to argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument, rather than searching for truth. According to T.H. Irwin, "It is characteristic of the eristic to think of some arguments as way of defeating the other side, by showing that an opponent must assent to the negation of what he initially took himself to believe."[1] Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict, as opposed to resolving conflict.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic

What happened between us appears to be a simple misunderstanding...
This could simply be an example of "cognitive bias"...
Refer to my newest thread in this forum...

Once again, welcome to the forum...