Argument
from God Correlate:
We
can't demonstrate empirical knowledge of God to others, even if we
feel we have it ourselves. But if we can correlate something that is
empirical with God, the effects of God in the world then we could
know by association between sign and signified that there is divine
reality. Just as the fingerprint betrays the presence of the owner of
the fingers that made them, or the track in the snow proves the
presence of the creature that made it, so RE as the God correlate
points to the presence of God in reality zs the effect of the divine
upon our lives. As a theological example of this principle we can
draw upon the works of Schleiermacher. God is the correlate of RE as
God is the correlate of the feeling of utter dependence. In Speeches
on Religion
to it's Cultured
Dispersers
he seemed to be making the simplistic argument: “I feel
emotional when I pray to God so there must be a God to feel emotional
about...” [1] By the time He wrote his magnum opus Glaubenslehre
(the
Christian faith) he
had developed a much more sophisticated version. He
now understood these religious affections in a particular way, as a
feeling of utter
dependence. [2] Though critics often interpret the concept of “feeling” as an
emotional response the real crux of his argument turns the utter
dependence aspect. Rather than merely emotion
he's identifying the
feeling
as indicative of a religious capacity.[3]
We could think of it as a “religious instinct,” or
more properly a religious consciousness. It is from this sense of
consciousness that doctrines derive their meaning, as verbalization
of the sense.
This
sense of consciousness as part
of the basis of religion
offers a theoretical framework for connecting the sense of the
numinous to the notion of real experience of the divine. Of course
it's not a direct unmediated revelatory face to face encounter, but
like the track in the snow points to a presence not directly seen.
It
is the original pre-theoretical consciousness...Schleiermacher
believes that theoretical cognition is founded upon pre-theoretical
inter subjective cognition and its life world. The latter cannot be
dismissed as non-cognative for if the life world praxis is
non-cognitive and invalid so is theoretical cognition..He...contends
that belief in God is pre-theoretical, it is not the result of proofs
and demonstration, but is conditioned solely by the modification of
feeling of utter dependence. Belief in God is not acquired through
intellectual acts of which the traditional proofs are examples, but
rather from the thing itself, the object of religious experience..If
as Shchleiermacher...says God is given to feeling in an original way
this means that the feeling of utter dependence is in some sense an
apparition of divine being and reality. This is not meant as an
appeal to revelation but rather as a naturalistic eidetic or a
priori. The feeling of utter
dependence is structured by a correlation with its whence.[4]
This
conclusion
might be somewhat deflating for apologists, but there are two caveats
that might make it more palatable: (1) We
don't have to reduce religion to just feeling or to consciousness, we
don't have to totally
agree with Schleiermacher, we can understand doctrines and feelings
as bound up with the same reaction to reality and the consciousness
that obtains from sensing it. (2) we can construe the feeling as a
phenomenological approach rather than a definitive commentary upon
all of reality. If affections or consciousness based upon affections
are primary in belief, this does not mean that arguments are of no
value since people rationalize their feelings, and arguments help to
clear away the clutter and clarify feelings.
Critics
such as John Webster
et. al. Attack this
notion as a continuation of his mistake from On
Religion, that
Schleiermacher got the process backwards.[5] It is not feeling that produces doctrine biut doctrines that produce
feeling. The deep connection to
affections is dismissed as his Moravian upbringing, the mark of the
romanic era. “...The
feeling of utter dependence, which Schleiermacher thought universal
is an expression of the salient Christian virtue of humility with a
particularly Protestant emphasis on the utter helplessness of man to
save himself.” The argument is that Schleiermacher is just
generalizing, the feeling is merely a feeling about the world from
which he generalizes based upon his Christian upbringing. “All
religions do not simply
promote awe and connectedness to it.” [6] To the contrary,
thanks
to the M scale, we now know that these experiences are universal. The
feeling of utter dependence
is really about a sense of contingency, the radical contingency of
all things, and it's great
underlying unity, this equates to the sense of the meniscus and
undifferentiated unity one finds in mystical experience. While
Schleiermacher's feeling is not exactly mystical experience itself it
is very closely related. Thus the universality found in RE supplies
an answer to the criticism.
Thus
the presence of the sign (the experience) informs us of the presence
of the signified (God); like finger prints match the finger and thus
reveal the person who made the print. The association between the
divine and mystical experience is at least theoretically valid in
terms of an anthropological perspective; religious experience forms
the foundation upon which organized religions are built.[7] The sense of the numinous is a deep all pervasive since of love.
The basic assumption made by those who have the experience is
overwhelmingly that they have experience God. How can we know this to
be the case without already knowing that God exists and what it is
like to sense God's presence? We could set up criteria based upon
the nature of religious belief. What conditions would one expectorate
to prevail or what aspects would one expect to find in sensing God's
presence?
Criteria:
(1).
Life Transforming and vital in a positive life-affirming sense
(2)
It would give us a sense of the transcendent and the divine.
(3)
No alternate or naturalistic causality could be proven
These
criteria are based upon the nature of religious belief and experience
taken from all major world religions. More
to the point they are derived from the works of W.T. Stace who argues
that
in all world religions there are certain claims about certain types
of
experiences that answer our most basic existential questions.[8] These claims about answering
the basic questions and positively affecting our lives constitute
some of the most basic truth claims of world religions. If these
claims are justified we should see these conditions in the criteria
met. Religion
in general seems to attempt to make sense of the nature of being
human, to construct and then explain the Human problematic, or the
human condition.. This
knowledge is said to tranform the the lives of those who have such
experiences. The content of the experiences themselves include a sense of the Holy, a sense of the sacred, the imparting of noetic
content, these are all communicated in the texture of the experience
itself. This realization
accounts for criteria 1
and 2.
It
is only reasonable to think that the
experience might be an experience of a reality involving the divine,
since it indicates the validity truth claims of religion. It is
equally reasonable and scientific to assume that if no counter
causality found the God based conclusion is warranted. Thus, we have
Criterion 3.
These criteria are fulfilled by the data, and that allows us to
derive the following argument from the criteria.
Argument:
(1)
Real effects come from real causes
(2)
If effects are real chances are the cause is real
(3)
the effects of mystical experience are real
(4)
Therefore, the cause of mystical experience is real.
(5)
the content of mystical experience is about the divine
(6)
Since the content of ME is about the divine the cause must be the
divine
(7)
Since the cause is real and it is divine then the divine must be
real.
(8)
Naturalistic alternate casualties can be answered
(9)
Therefore belief in the divine is warranted by ME
Justification
for P1 “measurably transformative in a positive sense” is
reflected in the findings throughout the 50 year period during which
the body of researched has been collected. A huge number of studies
corroborate these findings, not all of them use the M scale but they
all use various measurements. Many of them use standardized
measurements already in place for happiness and self actualization
and other such affects. I have selected a range of studies that spans
the time period. Two of the first scientifically rigorous scientific
studies on the topic were Robert Wuthnow (1978) [9] and Kathleen Noble (1987) [10]Summary of their finds are as follows:
Wuthnow:
*Say
their lives are more meaningful,
*think
about meaning and purpose
*Know
what purpose of life is
Meditate
more
*Score
higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
*Less
likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame,
and having lots of friends
*Greater
value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping
needy
*Reflective,
self aware
Noble:
*integration,
allocentrism,
*psychological
maturity,
*self-acceptance,
self-worth,
*autonomy,
authenticity, need for solitude,
*increased
love and compassion
*Experience
productive of psychological health
*Less
authoritarian and dogmatic
*More
assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
*intelligent,
relaxed
*High
ego strength,
*relationships,
symbolization, values,
Lukoff
and Lu (1988) conducted a literature search reflects many studies
demonstrating the transforming effects of religious experience, some
of them using the early version of the M scale.[11] For example Finney and Maloneyh (1985) found contemplative prayer
was instrumental in improvement in psychotherapy.[12]Hood (1977) found high correlation between mystical experiences and
self actualization, persons of relatively high self actualization
were more likely to have had mystical experiences. [13] Other studies (not in Lukoff and Lu) include Greeley who, “found
no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic
experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or
psychopathology. His 'mystics' were generally better educated, more
successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated
substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being.” [14] Sullivan, using a large quantitative base of former mental patients
found that 48% identified spiritual practices as crucial to their
healing and this was corroborated by those ho cared for them. [15] This is just a small sample of the studies that demonstrate the
transformative aspects.
Justification
for P2 cannot be reduced to naturalistic cause and effect will
be dealt with mainly below in answering the argument on brain
chemistry. P3
affects of Mystical
consciousness are independent of other explanations and the effects
are real we should assume that they are genuine experiences of
something transcendent of our own minds. That
they are independent of counter causality derived from 2. That they
are real is derived from the measurable effects in 1. P4,
experience of something: The content of the experience is
about the divine, or ultimate reality. Even when the experience is
interpreted by the receiver not to be about God the receiver has been
known to act in ways that are consistent with belief in God.
Moreover, the experiences described tend to match those described as
experiences of the divine. Ergo it’s just a matter of
interpretation. Secondly, the vast majority of those who have these
experiences do believe they are about God. [16]
This
final point about the universal nature is of particular interest,
When doctrinal explanations and differences of tradition are
controlled for, the experiences themselves are the same the world
over. Even among atheists, those who have religious experiences
respond to them in the same way that religious believers do. This
might indicate that these people are all experiencing an objective
reality which is external to the human brain. There is a voluminous
and ancient tradition of writing about experiences by people from all
over the world, who claim to have experienced the divine. Mystics and
philosophers have catelogued such writings. Two of the most
noteworthy examples are Mysticism by Evelyn Underhill,[17] and Teachings of the Mystics by Philosopher W.T.
Stace.[18] Many other such writers have included these experiences. Thirdly,
grounded in empirical evidence, the universal nature of such
experiences implies a source external to the human mind. When I say
“external” I mean it originates externally but is experienced
internally. This includes human brain structure and brain chemistry
as a conduit not that it circumvents natural processes. W.T. Stace
shows that, as Ralph Hood Jr. put it, “within and eventually
outside of the great faith traditions mysticism has flourished.” [19]
Stace
offers five characteristics that demonstrate the commonalities to
mystical experience; these are characteristics that are found
universally in all cultures and in all forms of mystical experience:
The
contemporary interest in the empirical research of mysticism can be
traced to Stace’s (Stace, 1960) demarcation of the phenomenological
characteristics of mystical experiences (Hood, 1975). In Stace’s
conceptualization, mystical experiences had five characteristics
(Hood, 1985, p.176):
1. The mystical experience is noetic.
The person having the eerience perceives it as a valid source of
knowledge and not just a subjective experience.
2. The
mystical experience is ineffable, it cannot simply be described in
words.
3. The mystical experience is holy. While this is
the religious aspect of the experience it is not necessarily
expressed in any particular theological terms.
4. The
mystical experience is profound yet enjoyable and characterized by
positive affect.
5. The mystical experience is
paradoxical. It defies logic. Further analysis of reported mystical
experiences suggests that the one essential feature of mysticism is
an experience of unity (Hood, 1985). The experience of unity involves
a process of ego loss and is generally expressed in one of three ways
(Hood, 1 976a). The ego is absorbed into that which transcends it, or
an inward process by which the ego gains pure awareness of self, or a
combination of the two. [20]
Argument
II: from Universal nature of mystical experience
(1)
mystical experiences themselves, apart from their explanations, are
universal to all faiths and cultures (but not all individuals).
(2)
Religious concepts and symbols are culturally bound not genetic
(proof: they all differ in content).
(3)
since the experiences are the same but the explanations differ we
must assume the explanations are not the true causes.
(4)
Religions concepts and symbols are culturally bound and it is
prematurity to say they are genetic (evidence to follow).
(5)
therefore, since the experiences themselves are not cultural but
universal (from1) and we can't say they are genetic (from 2 and 4)
therefore these are experiences of an external reality; ie a reality
external to our own mimnds.
The
other aspect of importance to this work is the universality argument.
The universality argument could be taken as a warrant for belief, but
I use it here to show that there’s a reason to equate these
experiences with Supernature. When Hood took out the name specific to
a religious tradition (from the M scale) and just asked general
questions about experience, the experiences described were the same.
This indicates that what is being experienced is the same for all the
people having religious experiences. This is actually the same as
saying Stace’s theory was validated. If it wasn’t validated they
would not describe the same experiences. The indication is that there
is an objective reality all of the mystics experience. The reason is
because religion is a cultural construct. If they were just
describing a constructed set of expectations resulting form culture,
the experiences would be conditioned by culture not transcending it.
So that means Iranian Muslims experience what they think of as
“Allah” and Baptists in Cleveland experience what they think of
as “Jesus” in the same way. This is should not be the case if
they are merely experiencing culturally conditioned constructs. The
implication is that they may be experiencing an objective reality
that both understand through culturally constructed filters. Thus,
there is a good indication that some external reality is experienced.
One would then be warranted in thinking that this external reality is
God, since the content of experience and its result on people's lives
correlate with the objections of God belief in general.
Common
Core Vs. Perennial Philosophy
Hood
takes these kinds of statements as phenomenological and descriptive
of a personal experience. The true nature of that experience as
unmediated is not important. The issue is that its universality,
since it should be culturally constructed, is indicative of more than
just a trick of brain chemistry or cultural constructs. Hood argues
for what is called “the common core hypothesis.” This is not the
perennial philosophy one often finds discussed as part of mystical
experience. The distinction is that perennial almost constructs a
separate religion out of mystical experience and puts it over against
faith traditions. The common core hypothesis merely recognizes that
there is a common core experience that is universal to “mystics,”
and thus it can be argued that it’s an apprehinsion of some reality
external to just human brain structure. Yet it doesn’t try to
collapse faith traditions into a particular theological formulation.
Moreover, the common core hypothesis just takes the common core as a
phenomenological reality not a theological or ontological demand
about reality. Yet mystical experience “promotes a special type of
human experience that is at once unitive and non-discursive, at once
self fulfilling and self-effacing.” [21]
Counter
argument: brain structure
The
major objection to the universality argument stems from a vast
movement that has arisen just since the turn of the century, the
rapidly expanding field of Neuro-theology (or Cognative Science of
Religion):
In recent years a number of books have been published in
the United States which argue that religious experiences and
activities can be measured as neural activity in the brain...these
theories purport to explain why there are common patterns of
religious behavior and experience across culture which are observable
in the field of comparative religion..Most such theories assert that
as our understanding the brains activities develop through
exploration of its underlying structures and mechanisms so the origin
of religious experiences and ritual behavior will be revealed...These
theorioes purport to explain why there are common paterns of
religious behaviors and experience across cultures.[22]
R.
Joseph states, “that
The
brain
underlies all experience
of living
human beings is an absolute statement
It subsumes all religious
phenomena
and all mystical
experiences
including
hyper lucid visionary experiences,
trance states, contemplating God and the experience of unitary
absorption.” [23] Since
religious experience is linked to brain chemistry it must be the
result of brain chemistry, thus there’s no reason to assume it’s
indicative
of any sort of supernatural causation.
This view has become standard in the scientific community. Tiger and
McGuire state:
Religion as a process generates remarkable action,
countless events, numberless provocative artifacts. Yet what factual
phenomenon except perhaps slips of ancient holy paper underlies and
animates one of the most influential and durable of human endeavors?
We've an answer. Shivers in the moist tissue of the brain confect
cathedrals our proposal is that all religions differ but all share
two destinies: they are the product of the human brain. They endure
because of the strong influence of the product of the human brain.
The brain is a sturdy organ ith common characteristics everywhere. A
neurosurgeon can work confidently on a vatican patient and another in
mecca. Same tissue, same mechinisms. One such mechinnism is a
readiness to generate religions.[24]
Skeptics
argue that the experiences
have a commonality because they are all produced by human brain
structure. In other words the names from the various religions are
the constructs but the experiences that unite the subjects and that
transcend the individual cultural filters are the same because they
are products of a shared structure that of the human brain. Ilkka
Pyysiäinen and Marc Hauser state the argument:
Considerable
debate has surrounded the question of the origins and evolution of
religion. One proposal views religion as an adaptation for
cooperation, whereas an alternative proposal views religion as a
by-product of evolved, non-religious, cognitive functions. We
critically evaluate each approach, explore the link between religion
and morality in particular, and argue that recent empirical work in
moral psychology provides stronger support for the by-product
approach. Specifically, despite differences in religious background,
individuals show no difference in the pattern of their moral
judgments for unfamiliar moral scenarios. These findings suggest that
religion evolved from pre-existing cognitive functions, but that it
may then have been subject to selection, creating an adaptively
designed system for solving the problem of cooperation. [25]
In
other words, the discussion about origins of religion there are two
genetic choices, a specific gene, or spandrels. The weight of the
evidence, according to Pyysiäinen and Marc Hauser, leans toward the
latter (spandrels: pre-existing cognitive functions based upon
combined genetic functions from other areas). The deeper level of
complexity comes with the finding that religion evolved from
spandrels and yet it is still subject to adaptation manifesting in a
system for cooperation (religion). What their findings really suggest
is that moral motions are more basic than religious doctrine and that
moral decision making transcends social structure or organization.
Religion is perpetuated because its conducive to cooperation but
there is an underlying sense or moral motion that's tied to the
specific religious affiliation. Moral reasoning is not the same as
mystical experience. Religious experience is a passive apprehension
and moral decision making is an active use of deductive reasoning.
Moreover, in finding religion is not original adaptation they are
really negating the brain structure argument for uniformity of
religious experiences. Their findings show that moral decisions
transcended the religious background, thus the religious symbols,
ideas, and presumably experiences are not reducible to moral motions
since the latter transcends the former.[26] If religious experiences are of the same nature because of the state
of human brain structure we should expect to find a conformation
between moral motions religious experience. Frederick
Schleiermacher argued that religious religion is more than just
enhanced ethical thinking. [27] This has led to the widely accepted theory of the religious a
priori. Religion is
understood as it's on discipline separate from ethics. The a
priori is seen as a
“special for of awareness which exists alongside the cognitive,
moral and aesthetic forms of awareness and is not explicable by
reference to them.”[28]
As
an argument about the origin of religion, the genetic aspects would
only be the proximate cause. It doesn't rule out a distal cause in
the divine. As an argument about the origin of religion, the genetic
aspects would only be the proximate cause. It doesn't rule out a
distal cause in the divine. Andrew Newberg, one of the pioneers in
researching neural activity of religious experience and God talk
tells us that none of the research disproves God, nor
could it:
…Tracing
spiritual experience to neurological behavior does not disprove its
realness. If God does exist, for example, and if He appeared to you
in some incarnation, you would have no way of experiencing His
presence, except as part of a neurologically generated rendition of
reality. You would need auditory processing to hear his voice, visual
processing to see His face, and cognitive processing to make sense of
his message. Even if he spoke to you mystically, without words, you
would need cognitive functions to comprehend his meaning, and input
form the brain’s emotional centers to fill you with rapture and
awe. Neurology makes it clear: there is no other way for God to get
into your head except through the brain’s neural pathways.
Correspondingly, God cannot exist as a concept or as reality anyplace
else but in your mind. In this sense, both spiritual experiences and
experiences of a more ordinary material nature are made real to the
mind in the very same way—through the processing powers of the
brain and the cognitive functions of the mind. Whatever the ultimate
nature of spiritual experience might be—weather it is in fact an
actual perception of spiritual reality—or merely an interpretation
of sheer neurological function—all that is meaningful in human
spirituality happens in the mind. In other words, the mind is
mystical by default. [29]
Just
being connected to brain chemistry is not enough to disprove the
universal experience argument.
The
problem with the brain structure argument is that even though we all
have human brain structure we don’t all have the same kinds of
experiences. We can’t assume that universal experiences come from
brain structure alone. First, not everyone has mystical experience.
Even though the incidence rates are high they are not 100%. We all
have human brain structure but not all have these experiences.
Secondly, even among those who do there are varying degrees of the
experience. William James saw it as a continuum and Robert Wuthnow,
one of the early researchers who did a modern scientific study on the
phenomenon also theorized that there is a continuum upon which degree
of experience varies.[30] If the brain structure argument was true then we should expect to
always have the same experience; we should have the same culture. We
have differing experiences and even our perceptions of the same
phenomena vary. Yet the experience of mystical phenomena is not
identical since it is filtered through cultural constructs and
translated into the doctrinal understanding of traditions that the
experiencers identify as their own.
The
brain Structure argument is based upon the same premises
reductionists take to the topic of consciousness and brain/mind. They
assume that any subjective experience is ultimately the result of
brain chemistry. There really is no reason to assume this other than
the fact that brain chemistry plays a role in our perceptions.
There’s no basis for the assumption that any mental phenomena must
originate in brain chemistry alone.
In those arguments a sense usually emerges that any
involvement with the natural cancels the supernatural. I suggest that
this is the ersatz version of supernature. The alien realm,
juxtaposed to the natural realm and brought in as a counter to
naturalism, this is the false concept of Supernatural that Eugene R,
Fairweather spoke about.[31] The original concept of supernature is that of the ground and end of
the natural. Thus it would be involved with nature. The ground/end of
nature is the ontology of supernature and pragmatic working out of
the phenomenon would be the power of God to lift human nature to a
higher level, as discussed by Fairweather and aslo Mathias Joseph
Scheeben.[32]How can human nature be elevated without supernature being involved
with the realm of nature? Thus, if it is true that bonafide
experiences of God are mediated by brain chemistry, then the fact
that supernature works through evolutionary processes and
physiological realities such as brain chemistry is hardly surprising.
Some
studies have explored questions about brain function and the texture
or mechanics of mystical experience. Van Elk et al explore the
hypothesis that the sensation of supernatural presence is an
adaptation from the need to over-detect presences of predictors in
the jungle. There findings did not coroborate that hypothesis. He
does makes the statement that it otherwise lacks empirical proof.[33] In other words if one sets out on a jungle trail, and there is
darkness, sensing a predictor and turning back from the trek would be
helpful. If the sensation was wrong and there was no predictor the
mistake of being wrong would be less graven that of being right but
ignoring the sense. Thus, the sensation of presence is selected for.
This might be used by a skeptic to answer the argument from mystical
experience. Elk has five experiments that that seek to explore
weather processing concepts about supernatural agents enhances
detection in the environment.
Participants
were presented with point light stimuli representing kinds of
biological motion, or with pictures of faces embedded in a noise
mask. Participants were asked to indicate if the stimuli represented
a human agent or not. In each case they used three “primes,” one
for supernatural, one ofr human, one for animal. They found that
supernatural primes facilitated better agent detection.xxxiv
So the argument is that the perceived presence of agents in
threatening situations and tendencies to anthropomorphizing leads
stronger belief in ghosts, demons, angels, gods and other
“supernatural” agency. [35] They point to a body of work consisting of several studies showing
that particular paranormal beliefs are a reliable predictor of
illusory perceptions of faces and agency detection. These studies
include Willard and Norenzayan (2013), Reikki et. al. (2013), and
Petrican and Burris (2012).[36] “although these studies provide tentative support for the relation
between agency detection and supernatural beliefs, the notion that
reigious beliefs are a byproduct of perceptual biases to detect
patterns and agency has been challenge by several authors...”
(Bulbulia, 2004, Lisdorf 2007, and McKay and Efferson, 2010). [37]
While
it may be true that some aspects of mystical experience are
genetically related, and may be related to agent detection, that is
no proof that mystical experience originates wholly within a
naturalistic and genetic framework. First, because these studies only
demonstrate a correlation between supernatural beliefs and agency
detection. There is no attempt to establish the direction of a causal
relationship. If there is a connection between supernatural and agent
detection it could as easily be that awareness of supernatural
concepts makes one more sensitive to agent detection. Secondly, of
course just being genetically related doesn't reduce the phenomenon
wholly to genetic endowments. Thirdly, there is a lot more to
mystical experience than agent detection. Both involve sensing a
presence beyond that point the differences are immense. I am not even
sure that facial recognition and sensing a predator are similar
enough to count for anything. In sensing being observed one is not
usually aware of visual ques as one would be in facial recognition.
There's no guarantee that the quality of the sensing is the same.
Feeling the divine presence is much more august and involves levels
and textures. Such an experience is, overall, positive, life
changing, transformational (even noetic) but merely feeling one is
being observed could be creepy, negative, or even trivial. The vast
differences can be spelled out in the tiebreakers I discuss in The
Trace of God.
Tibreakers
If
supernature manifests itself in the natural realm through brain
chemistry then the conclusion that this is somehow indicative of the
divine could go either way. We can’t rule out the divine or
supernatural just because it involves the natural realm. What then is
the real distinguishing feature that tells us this is inductive of
something other than nature? That’s where I introduce the “tie
breakers.” There are aspects of the situation that indicate the
effects of having the experience could not be produced by nature
unaided:
(1)
The transformative effects
The
experience is good for us. It changes the experiencer across the
board. These effects are well documented by that huge body of
empirical research. They include self actualization, therapeutic
effects that actually enhance healing form mental problems, less
depression better mental outlook and so on. Summarizing the results
of two of the major studies:
This
is not merely a list of warm fuzzies. The results represent actual
life transformation and change of world view. The results are
dramatic and positive; well grounded psychological health, a deep
sense of meaning and purpose in life, overcoming fear of death and
overcoming physical addictions. Examples, Patricia Ryan's study finds
that abuse victims often come to view God in more cosmic and
impersonal terms. Or they become embittered and turn away from God,
victims of childhood trauma and abuse often report that they felt the
abuser was trying to destroy their soul and that this was the one
inviolable core that could not be destroyed. This sense was related
to mystical experience. [38]Loretta Do Rozario studied patients who were either dying or in
chronic pain. She found that mystical experience elevated the sense
of illness and pain to a level of the “universal search for meaning
and self transcendence.” The subjects reported that the experience
ot only enabled them to cope with pain and fear of death but also
enabled them to experience joy within the hardship. [39]
Skeptics
often advance the placebo argument, but it is neutralized because
Placebos require expectation and a large portion of mystical
experience is not expected. It’s not something people usually set
out to have. Without being able to argue for placebo effect there is
really no way to account for the transformational effects. [40]Moreover, while placebo get's used against any claim about the mind
there's actually a much more narrow range to which it rightly
applies.
...People
frequently expand the concept of the placebo effect very broady to
include just about every conceivable sort of beneficial, biological,
social or human interaction that doesn't involve some drug well known
to the pharmacopeia. The concept of placebo has been expanded much
more broadly than this. Some attribute the effects of various
alternative medical systems such as homeopathy or chiropractic to
placebo effect. Others have described studies that show the positive
effects of enhanced communication, such as Egbert's as the ploaebo
response without the placebo.[41]
Thus
the burden of proof is upon the skeptic to prove that placebo even
applies to religious experience.
(2)
Noetic aspects to the experiences
These
are not informational but there is a sense in which the mystic feels
that he has learned soemthing about the universe as a result of the
experience. This usually is on the order of “God loves me” or
“all is one.”
(3)
The experience contains the sense of the numinous or sense of the
holy.
This
is closely related to the Noetic sense and they clearly overlap but
there is a distinction. The snse of the Holy could be more general
and gives the sense that some unique and special aspect of reality
exists. Some noetic qualities might be considered doctrinal in
nature. “all is one” is a doctrinal statement. While I don't
advocate using mystical experience to shape doctrine, because the
shaping of doctrine in the Christian tradition revolves around pre
given principles in revelatory texts, the nature of these qualities
indicates more is going on than just misfire of some neuron.
(4)
why positive?
These
experiences are never negative. The only negativity associated with
mystical experience is the sense of the mysterium tremendum,
the highly serious nature of the Holy. That is not a lasting negative
effect. If this is nothing more than brain chemistry and it’s just
some sort of misfire where the brain just forgets to connect the
sense of self to the part that says “I am not the world,” why is
it so positive, transformative, vital? It’s not often that such a
positive experience results form a biological accident.
(5)
bad evolutionary theory
Mystical
experience has not been tied to gene frequency. So the argument about
adaptation has to rest upon the intermediaries that it provides, such
as surviving long winters so one can have gene frequency. Yet all of
those kinds of experiences flaunt the explanatory gap of
consciousness. Why should we develop a mystically based sense of the
world to get through hard long winter when we could more easily
develop a brain circuiting that ignores boredom? Then this adaptation
that is only there because it enabled us to get through being snowed
in has such an amazing array of other effects such as life
transformation and better mental health, and leads to the development
of such complex fantasisms of errors as religious belief and
organized religion. It’s so inefficient. Surely survival of the
fittest should take the course of least resistance?
(6)
Navigation in life
Mystical
experiences enable navigation in life, these experiences and their
effects enable us to get through and to set our sights on higher
idealistic concepts and ways of life. They provide a sense of self
actualization, authentication, and enable the subjects to bear up in
the face of adversity. Rozario writes about those in her study who
suffered chronic pain or were dying: “The inner awareness of
wholeness despite the odds points to an explicit experience of life
which can transcend form and matter. This experience of wholeness or
consciousness extends and challenges the view of disability and
illness as only a myth making and revaluing opportunity in the lives
of people.” [42] Gackenback, writes:
These
states of being also result in behavioral and health changes. Ludwig
(1985) found that 14% of people claiming spontaneous remission from
alcoholism was due to mystical experiences while Richards (1978)
found with cancer patients treated in a hallucinogenic drug-assisted
therapy who reported mystical experiences improved significantly more
on a measure of self-actualization than those who also had the drug
but did not have a mystical experience. In terms of the Vedic
Psychology group they report a wide range of positive behavioral
results from the practice of meditation and as outlined above go to
great pains to show that it is the transcendence aspect of that
practice that is primarily responsible for the changes. Thus improved
performance in many areas of society have been reported including
education and business as well as personal health states (reviewed
and summarized in Alexander et al., 1990). Specifically, the Vedic
Psychology group have found that mystical experiences were associated
with "refined sensory threshold and enhanced mind-body
coordination (p. 115; Alexander et al., 1987). [43]
[1] Frederick
Schleiermacher, Speeches on Religion to it's
Cultured Dispersers. New York:
Cambridge University Press, Trans. Riichard Crouter,1996, 24-5
[2] Frederich
Achleiermacher, On The Christian Faith. Edinburgh:
T. and T. Clark, Trans. H. R. MacKintosh and J.R.Stewart, 1986,
76-8
[4] Robert R. Williams, Schleiermacher the Theologian: Construction
of the Doctrine of God. Minneapolis MN: Fortress Press, 1978, 4.
[5] John
Webster, Kathryn Tanner, and Ian Torrance, ed., Oxford Handbook of
Systematic Theology, Oxfor:Oxford University Press, 2007, 421.
[6] bid.
[7] David
Steindl-Rast, “The
Mystical Core of Organized Religion,” Copyright © 1989 by David
Steindl-Rast. Used by the Council on Spiritual Practices with
permission.First appeared in ReVision,
Summer 1989 12(1):11-14. Online resource, URL:
http://csp.org/Steindl-Mystical.html
(accessed 1/2/16)
[8] Stace,
Mysticism and Philosophy,, op.cit., 42-44.
[9] Robert, Wuthnow,"Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests."
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18 (3), (1978), 59-75.
[10] Kathleen D. Noble, ``Psychological Health and the Experience of
Transcendence.'' The Counseling Psychologist, 15 (4),(1987).
601-614.
[11] Lukoff, David & Francis G. Lu (1988). ``Transpersonal psychology
research review: Topic: Mystical experiences.'' Journal of
Transpersonal Psychology, 20 (2), 161-184.
[12] Finney
and Maloneyh, “An Empirical Study of Contemplative Prayer as an
Adjunct to Psychotherapy,” Journal
of Psychology and Theology 13 (4) 284-90.
[13] Ralph
Hood Jr., “Differential Triggering of Mysticalo Experiences As A
Function O Self Actualization,” Review of Religious Research, 18,
1977, 264-70.
[14] Charles T. Tart, Psi: Scientific Studies of the Psychic Realm,
New York: Dutton, 1977, back in print ed. 2001, 19.
[15] W.
Sullivan, “It Helps Mev Be A Wholoe Person: The Role of
Spirituality Among The mentally Challeneged.” Psychological
Rehabilitation Journal, 16 (1993) 125-134.
[16] Ralph Hood Jr. “The Common Core Thesis in the Study of Mysticism.”
In Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies
Alter Our Understanding of Religion. Patrick Mcnamara ed.
West Port CT: Prager Publications, 2006, 119-235.
[17] Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism: A study on the Nature and
Development of Man’s Spiritual consciousness. New York:
Dutton, 1911
[19] Ralph Hood Jr. “The Common Core Thesis in the Study of
Mysticism.”op. cit., 119-235
:www.voyle.com/impact.pdf+Hood+scale+and+religious+experience&hl=en&gl
=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&ie=UTF-8
[21] Matilal (1992) in Ralph Hood Jr. “The Common Core Thesis in
the Study of Mysticism,,,.” op. Cit., 127.
[22] George D. Chryssides
and Ron Geives, The
Study
of Religion
an Introduction
to key ideas and methods.
London, New Deli, New york: Bloomsbury, 2nd
ed. 2007, 59-60.
Chryssides is
a research fellow with the University of Birmingham. He has an MA
in Philosophy and D Phil in systematic theology from University of
Glasgow. Among the books he mentions as examples of the trend are
Why God Wont Go
Away, by
E. Aquili andAndrew
Newberg (1999)
, and Nuero-Theology
by R. Joseph (2003)
[23] R.
Joseph, Nuero-Theology:Brain,
Science, Spirituality, Religious Experience.
University Pr; 2nd edition (May 15, 2003) 22.
[24] Lionel Tiger and Michael McGuire, God's Brain, Amherst, New
York: Prometheus Books, 2010. 11.
[25] Ilkka Pyysiäinen and Marc Hauser, "The Origins of Religion:
Evolved Adaption or by Product." Science Direct: Trends in
Cognitive Science, Volume 14, Issue 3, (March 2010), 104-109.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661309002897
[27]Adrian Hastings, Alistair Mason, Hugh S. Pyper. The Oxford
Companion to Christian Thought:Intellectual,
Spiritual and Moral Horizons of Christianity, New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 2000, 483
In the Trace of God
I do two chapters defending Schleiermacher's notion and the
religious a priori against reductionist based attacks by
philosopher yne Proudfoot. (Hinman, Trace...op. Cit.,
179-241).
[28] David Pailin, “The Religious a priori,” Westminster
Dictionary of Christian Theology, Louisville Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, Alan Richardson and John Bowden,
ed.,1983, 498.
[29]Andrew Newberg, Why
God Won’t God Away: Brain
Science and the Biology of Belief. (New York, Ballentine
Books), 2001, 37.
xxx
Robert Wuthnow, “Peak
Experieces, Some Empirical Tests,” Journal
of Humanistic Psychology 183
(1978) 61-62.
[30] Eugene R. Fairweather, “Christianity and the Supernatural,” in
New Theology no.1. New York: Macmillian, Martin E. Marty and
Dean G. Peerman ed. 1964. 235-256
[31] Mathias Joseph Scheeben in Fairweather, Ibid.
[32]Michiel
Elk, Bastiaan T. Rutjens, Joop van der Pligt,& Frenk van
Harrveled (2016) Priming of Supernatural agent concepts and agency
detection, Religion, Brain and Behavior, 6:1, 4-33, DOL:
10.1080/2153599X.2014.93344
[35]Ibid.,
5. A.K. Willard and A. Norenzayan, “Cognative Biases Explain
Religious Belief and belief in life's purpose,” Cognition 129
(2013), 379-391. T. Reikki, M.Litterman, et. al. “Paranormal and
religious believers are more prone to illusary face perception than
skeptics and none believers.” applied cognitive psychology 27
(2013) 150-155, and R. Petrican and C.T. Burris, “Am I a
Stone? Over attribution of agency and Religious Orientation,”
Religion and Spirituality 4 (2012), 312-323.
[36]Ibid.,
6. J. Bulbulia, “The Cognitive and Evolutionary Psychology of
Religion,” Biology and Philosophy 19, (2004) 655-686, A.
Lisdorf, “What's HIDD'n in the HADD,” Journal of Cognition
and Culture 7, (2007), 341-353, and R. McKay and C. Efferson,
“Subtitles of Error Management,” Evolution and Human
Behavior, 31 (5)(2010) 309-319.
[37]Patricia
L. Ryan, “Spirituality Among Adult Survivors of Childhood
Violence: a Literary Review.” The Journal of Transpersonal
Psychology, Vol. 30, no. 1, (1998) 43.
[38]Loretta
Do Rozario, “Spirituality in the Lives of People With Disability
and Chronic Illness: A Creative Paradigm of Wholness and
Reconstitution.” Disability and Rehabilitation: An
International and Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 19, no. 10, (1997)
427.
[39]Hinman,
Trace...Op cit., 291.
[40]Daiel
E. Morman, ayne B. Jonas, “Deconstructing the Placebo Effect and
Finding the Meaning Response.” Annuals of Internal Medicine, Vol.
136, issue 6, (19 March 2002), 471-476. Dr. Moreman is an
anthropologist at University of Michigan.
[41]Rozario,
op.cit. 102.
[42] Jayne
Gackenback,Transpersonal
Childhood Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature
Review and Theoretical Integration.
Unpublished paper (1992) Online
resouirce
http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/cehsc/ipure.htm
accessed 1/19/16.
