h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Of course, it's a big assumption to make that all *religious* people experience mystical sensations. I've not conducted any research, but I'd be willing to bet that many are just going through the motions. The Emperor's New Clothes?

Think also of the many TV viewers in the 1970s who were convinced that Uri Geller was bending their spoons.

Same for you, though, Ictoan. Do you not know anyone who sells decent gear?

I wouldn't touch anything stronger than a nice bit of green. So maybe it's just that the drugs which give you such experiences are ones I don't want to mess with.

But then again everyone has a different reaction to the various drugs out there. Just because you have had such an expereince in no way indicates that I, or anyone else, can also have those experiences.

Who was it who first said the thing about 2 ways to enlightenment:
Spend 40 years in meditation - or
Spend 1 hour on medication

Although I haven't seen any figures for incidences of mental illness brought on by meditation.

I'm afraid that Bristol's finest has not led me to any religious revelations Ed, nor have the techniques from The Long, Dark Tea-Time of the Soul .

Correspondingly, there are also a fair number of people who've been hooked up to the god helmet and not felt anything.

I'm not claiming anything profound. Just common-or-garden I-n-I stuff. There's no point smoking the stuff if you don't even get that!

I suspect that very few people get the full-on Hildegaards (maybe that's why those who do are regarded as important mystics), and we don't tend to go around chewing stuff like peyote or amanita muscaria. But haven't most people had the 'Wow!' experience when, eg, listening to music, looking at art, or at a sunset, or down a telescope eyepiece? Possibly not - but I suggest that most religious revelation is composed of these small wows.

For comparison with 'The God Delusion', I've decided to read a pro-God book. In the absence of a single front-runner, the one I've settled on is 'Does God Believe in Atheists?' by John Blanchard.

I've picked this one for 3 reasons:

a) The title's great.

b) It's won an award.

c) An acquaintance has a copy and thinks it's good.

I'll let you know how I get on.

Gif

Eduard: you are right.
Teresa de Ávila used to take Átropa Belladona (bottanical name,Atropina is the main active sustance of this plant used to fight asthma)The plant has also sicotropic effects. The nun is famous for many things, e.g: her religious-sensual experiences ( she also had problems with Inquisition)and her levitations. Some say they were allucinations due to the plant. She said she felt her chest crossed by the love of God.
My sister in law, told me once when I "confess" my atheism that my life was devoid of spirituality without religion, I told her just the same Ed has mentioned about art, music, etc.

"But haven't most people had the 'Wow!' experience when, eg, listening to music, looking at art, or at a sunset, or down a telescope eyepiece? "

I dunno. Maybe. I guess I'm not sure what you are driving at. I think the nearest I've got to what people talk about as mystical experiences, or spiritual ones, is when I have been extremely relaxed and calm (and usually without the help of anything!). But that's all it feels like to me, just relaxed and calm and no worries. Not sure of this 'wow' experience. I've not had that reaction. There is one singer whose voice I find totally mesmeric and absorbing. I just experience it, not able to analyse it. And there are landscapes and spacescapes which I find fascinating. But not mystical in any way. Beautiful yes. Inexplicable (currently) maybe. But nothing non-physical.

"There's no point smoking the stuff if you don't even get that!"
Oh I dunno I've never had an 'oh wow, man, look at ....' type experience. Some long laughing sessions. And lots of chilled out talking about cobblers.

mistic: from greek mistikós, from myo, : to close. It is applied to mistery or hidden reasons. In theology, it studies the intuitive comtemplation of God and its relations with human mind.
Why this overdosis of information? because it may helps to understand that any mistical experience happen inside the brain and it is up the owner of each brain the explanation he can offer. It is no objective at all. I insist, brain activity named in differnt ways. A friend of mine told me she had a deep orgasm during relaxation. Is that mistical?

Well...maybe I *am* missing something, and that's why I'm an atheist. But I really do suspect that the term 'spiritual' simply gives extra weight to something that is actually somewhat prosaic. Don't get me wrong - these 'Wow' feelings are great and important and they're what makes life living etc. etc. - but its a brain thing, not a god thing. When I hear people talking about 'The spiritual', I really do think we're talking about the same thing. I've developed an allergy to the word.

Mariangus -
And my allergy is made worse by attitudes like your sister-in-laws. Religious ideas are given special status. 'Spiritual' matters are more important than everyday wows; Following god's teaching is more virtuous than simply being good to others. The word is 'sanctimonious'.

(Thinks: I can experience feelings of grandeur in a cathedral or in a mosque. Can Christians experience them in a mosque, or only in their own god's house?)

As for belladona - witches used to rub it into their genitals and it gave the sensation of flying - hence the stories about broomsticks.

Edward, I think I see where you are coming from.
"I really do suspect that the term 'spiritual' simply gives extra weight to something that is actually somewhat prosaic."

Very much so. There was something recently about on the USA astronauts who had become very christian following his trip to the moon. Basically it turns out to have been a fairly typical case of not understanding how something could be (he had viewed the earth in space from the moon which I guess would be pretty moving for all of us) and then abdicating reason in favour of 'goddidit' as an explanation (OK, that's my interpretation of what he said, but his words were something like 'it was just impossible. How could such a thing exist. There must have been a creator to put it there and keep it going').

"any mistical experience happen inside the brain and it is up the owner of each brain the explanation he can offer."
It does indeed seem to be a particular response of particular individuals to particular stimuli. And the reaction is internal as you say, or subjective. What I find interesting is how many people look externally (or objectively) for an answer to those internal/subjective feelings/experiences.

So...either I genuinely don't feel these things that some people call 'religion'...or I've developed a mental framework which doesn't have room for religious explanations. I strongly suspect the latter. I've been an atheist since age 12, when I realised (in spite of a bishop's objections), that we don't need god to explain the universe. With that, the whole house of cards falls down.

Imagine that! Becoming an atheist as the result of a conversation with a bishop.



Anyway...My boss's boss's boss as talking to me about TGD at lunchtime. I've always known him as a churhgoer...but it looks like St Richard has won a new disciple.

wasn't a C of E Bishop was it?

" can christian experience them in a mosque" Depends on whether hey have religious ideas or religious ideas have them
I think you refer to Mandragora Officinalis, although probably they used belladona too ( for cosmetic reasons, bella dona: beautiful woman)
About the astronauts
Cheesus of the Great Power!!! Can the supernatural explain the natural world?
People seek poetic explanations, metaphors, we want spice our prosaic life. Religious is just a way. (although many get toxified)

Well...the non-religious have their poetry and metaphors too. But as far as I know, nobody fights over whether light is made of particles or waves. (Dawkins is brilliant on this topic, in the last few pages).

>> ...not especially concerned whether it's 1000 or 1001 angels who can dance on the had of a pin. <<

Ah but you should be because the question reveals the very essential flaw of all 'scientific' investigation, the need to quantify everything.

The question should be 'can angels dance on the head of a pin?' That's a philosophical question, an esthetic question, a question of religious interpretation.

But not good enough for scientists who make the assumption (or avoid it) and then ask for a head count.

I hate to spoil the last page of Dawkins for you but he ends with a glorification of the staggering and infinite power of quantification and how it has liberated us from our linmited perceptions.

It seems he has simply replaced notions of the unknown 'god' with knowable 'truths' and turned prayer and service into statistical analysis and probability calculations.

~jwf~

nnnn - I disagree with both your assessment of the last page, and your understanding of science. My only quibble is that his burka analogy is too emotive and open to misinterpretation.

is there an arguement for the non existance of god? in my philosophy class all i seem to get is arguements about the nature of god (the judeo-christian one)

so someone comes up with the "problem of evil" argument, and as far as i can tell that dosn't disprove the existance of god.

IE "god is said to be omipotent, omnibenelovent, omnicient (all knowing, unsure how spelt) therfore god knows of evil, has the power to do something about it and has the desire to do something about it, yet dosn't. De Facto God must not exist"

all this arguement does is prove that god isn't all loving, woop-de-doo, we've just called the most powerfull being in eternity a jerk.

and the big bang arguement "in the begining, there was nothing, which exploded" which raises all manner of fun questions like "who blew it up, why? how? are they running for the cosmic fire hose?"

simmalary with evolution: if YOU were all knowing and all powerfull, would you just wave your hand and create life, or spend a long and interesting time tinkering with it and watching it develop? I mean, God must get bored with the seven-day routine, how else do you keep such a massive interlect ocupied?

And for attacks on religion: How does religion effect God? Does an all loving being care what we think? (aside from being a bit hurt about people denying they exist all the time) Can we trust what aload of people claim about God? Does God fully sanction religion of any form? can preists/clerics/rabbis/prophets etc claim that they have been divinely apointed, or do they take it into their own hands? my point is it dosn't matter what a religion says or is attacked about, it wont make a diffrence to the existance of God

now argue.

Theodicy is examined at F78440?thread=2711424. Two answers to the problem are there presented. Both are from a generally Christian perspective.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theodicy

(What have I done now?)

TRiG.

My! What a lot of questions about god. Most odd - considering god doesn't exist. No, as you'll have gathered from philosophy (If your lectures are any good, and if you've been paying attention), I can't *prove* it. But given the lack of any evidence I'm aware of, it's very, very improbable.

Put it another way...I was told there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. I don't think there are - but I've been told they only come out when I'm not around. I did offer to lend my informan a camera, but apparently they're invisible fairies. What's a bonobo to do?

Suffice to say, if these fairies don't actually do any good, I can't be bothered with the pesky wee buggers. Same with god.

And here I thought Theodicy was a long book about one guy and his boat.