brade wrote:
One religious response to stuff like this is to concede that the effects of being moved upon by a divine external force can be physical, and so it isn't surprising that people undergoing such experiences also happen to have certain corresponding physical effects. Sadly (or not?), that claim is not scientifically testable.
Also, there's the potential response, which has already been hinted at, that what's being described by the subjects of these experiments, and what's being observed in these case, are not authentic mystical experiences. From the perspective of the believer, first, authentic mystical experiences are really [insert description here offered by defender of mystical experiences who claims her mystical experiences are authentic]. Second, authentic mystical experiences cannot be fully expressed using any known means of human communication.
I take issue with both responses. The first response has two problems, the first is that as a scientific explanation, you are violating parsimony. If something can be explained without invoking an incredibly supernatural being, then that explanation is more likely, because it has fewer assumptions. Basic science. I doubt that satisfies those that employ it however...
A further problem with discounting such arguments is by simply considering what it says about your god. Allow me to explain with a personal example:
When I was sixteen, after a lifetime of church-going, scripture reading, and prayer, I happened to have a religious experience. I mean, I could have sworn to you I felt god, and got this very difficult to describe feeling. Suddenly, all I wanted to do was live a life devoted to god and what I thought was his true gospel.
Over the years, I became very interested in science and (DAMN THAT DAWKINS) was convinced through reason that my religion was just incompatible with reality. One night looking at a nebula through my telescope, I was pondering the fact that I was literally made up of the dust of exploding stars, shaped by billions of years of natural processes. I had an identical experience. This time in a very non-religous setting. In fact, I have gotten in very "anti-religious" settings as well.
Stepping back, let us consider that my experience was never a "true" Mormon conversion experience, as believers often accuse me of. If that's the case, are they proposing that despite following Moroni's council, I actually got an answer that was NOT from god, but merely a natural experience, that I get at certain times in my life. However, if it WAS a religious experience the first time, then why would god grant me the exact same subjective experience in other very non-religious settings. The exact same problem exists when examining human experiences across cultures and religious barriers.
If god is using our brains as a means to communicate with the supernatural, then why do it in a way that is so easily influenced by external unrelated stimulii, and that can lead us to the WRONG conclusion. Makes no sense, when it is supposed to be oh so important to our salvation.
I am a horrible English writer, so let me know if something that doesn't make sense. I am much more familiar with the language of neurobiology and science, than I am with English and Philosophy.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
-Thomas Jefferson
