# Do you believe in spiritual experiences? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 26, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744 "2005-08-26T16:27:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/201 "2005-09-06T14:35:20Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The difference, of course, is that there is hard(pun intended) evidence of blowjobs existing. That’s true, but the point was that, just because you can “hack” the brain into thinking you are experiencing some sensation, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t things out there (external to your body) that give you the same sensation. i.e. it doesn’t mean that all such sensations are internally generated. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/202 "2005-09-06T15:56:05Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > You are the atheists version of the Christian fundamentalists. Your arguements are illogical and unreasonable and you simply refuse to see it. Illogical and unreasonable ? I’m the one who wants evidence; your the one who wants to believe with none. Faith by definition is not rational. Besides, have I called you evil or called for your punishment/death ? If you think I’m much like a fundamentalist, you’re wearing rose colored glasses. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Lying? Sure, some are lying consciouosly or unconsciously because humans are like that. Even scientists, being human, will lie for the sake of ego or money. Even scientists will unconsciously influence results or misinterpret results. So what? How does that statement contribute anything? Because lying is more probable than your mysticism. We have a huge amount of evidence for the existence of liars, none for supernatural powers. The same of course applies to hallucinations, self delusion and simple mistakes . I am simply not going to take hearsay evidence that something that violates the known laws of physics exists. Logically, the burden of proof is on you, not me. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > There is simply no reason to seriously consider mystical/spiritual explanations ( explanations we have no proof are even possible, much less true ) when perfectly plausible reasons for claims of NDEs already exist. > > > [@cosmosdan](#): > > > > This only means “no reason for you” and you can’t seem to understand how anybody might see things differently. It reminds me of someone saying “All you have to do is look at nature and you’ll know that God exists” > > All you have to do is look at the information provided and you’ see very clearly that some serious intelligent people do have a reason. That’s why we’re having this discussion. Once again this contributes nothing except your own prejudice. " Perfectly plausible explainations" that are very incomplete. Scientific information on brain function is still in it’s infancy and many unanswered questions remain. The fact that a God Helmet or a chemical can simulate something like a spiritual experience is interesting but doesn’t prove anything. No, there is no reason for anyone. Give me proof. Not subjective testimonials, but scientifically verified proof. Scientific information on the brain is incomplete, but it still exists. Mysticism on the other hand has no such evidence at all. People have been trying to prove such things as the soul and God and afterlife exist for thousands of hears, and have always failed. Intelligent people may believe in such things, but that’s because they want to believe. That’s why evidence is what matters, not the evidence-free claims of someone who happens to be smart. Once again, you are the one claiming something exists, not me. You are claiming something exists that violates known physical laws with no hard facts to back you up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; where is it ? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/203 "2005-09-06T16:05:39Z")
> [@dan](#): > > I’m unsure as to why the “saw it on TV” answer is more probable. Seems to me that is more probable to those who don’t believe, while another answer is more probable to those that do. Am I wrong? But that was only _one_ possible alternative natural explanation to compare to the spuernatural one: there are a whole host of others, any one of which removes the anecdote from the realm of scientific revolution and returns it to the mundane. > [@](#): > > What about other unexplainable knowledge such as the young boys discription of relatives who died before he was born. I realize there are other explanations, but isn’t this type of knowledge a factor, especially in young children? Again, let us compare _exactly_ what the boy said _into a tape recorder before any prior knowledge could have been intimated to him by someone else_, and assess as rigorously as we can how vague or specific that description really was. To simply allow such anecdotes to stand as evidence _unchallenged_ is a little like handing out blank lottery tickets which people could fill in after the result and claim the prize. **Polerius** : Yes, _both_ are experiences, with differences only in the mechanical origin of the photon emission and neurochemical action potential initiation. My question was whether “spiritual” experiences can be solely due to physical mechanisms, regardless of whether the neurons are stimulated by a carbon device with blonde hair or a silicon device with blonde pixels. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/204 "2005-09-06T23:42:13Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > But that was only _one_ possible alternative natural explanation to compare to the spuernatural one: there are a whole host of others, any one of which removes the anecdote from the realm of scientific revolution and returns it to the mundane. Yes, but how does that make it more probable? Is it more probable because it’s things we’re already familar with? Is it automatically more likely to be something we already know about than something we only suspect? If so, why? > [@](#): > > Again, let us compare _exactly_ what the boy said _into a tape recorder before any prior knowledge could have been intimated to him by someone else_, and assess as rigorously as we can how vague or specific that description really was. To simply allow such anecdotes to stand as evidence _unchallenged_ is a little like handing out blank lottery tickets which people could fill in after the result and claim the prize. I see that we cannot just accept these anecdotes as proof. That is why these things are being examined to try and determine their nature. If unexplained knowledge is claimed then we can examine the cases as much as possible. If a high percentage of that so called unexplained knowledge is explained then that would increase the probability that it is all explainable. If not, it still wouldn’t be proof positive but at least data worth consideration. I understand weighing the credibility of the evidence, but I don’t see why all datum except that gathered by recognized scientists should be completely dismissed. Isn’t it the volume of non scientific evidence that even prompts a study? I find Dr. Moody to be a serious, highly intelligent , non delusional , and honest. {so far} Why should I throw out the information he’s spent years gathering and give it no consideration? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2005, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/205 "2005-09-06T23:47:16Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I find Dr. Moody to be a serious, highly intelligent , non delusional , and honest. {so far} Why should I throw out the information he’s spent years gathering and give it no consideration? Because that is all he is. He doesn’t actually have any hard evidence, and without hard evidence, it is unreasonable to believe in things, beyond a cetain scale. Sure, so that need not stop you from believeing it, but it does mean that he can not call his postion ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/206 "2005-09-07T00:40:29Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I find Dr. Moody to be a serious, highly intelligent , non delusional , and honest. {so far} Why should I throw out the information he’s spent years gathering and give it no consideration? I believe that he is serious and highly intelligent. We have no way of telling whether he is non-delusional and/or honest. The point is, though, that _none_ of this has any bearing on the fact that what he does is collect stories from people that agree with his viewpoint. I could do that. You could do that. That fact that he has collected many stories does not make them any more true, though. Reality is not a popularity contest… ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/207 "2005-09-07T02:35:39Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Illogical and unreasonable ? I’m the one who wants evidence; your the one who wants to believe with none. Faith by definition is not rational. Would you like examples? Dandy. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Der Trihs** > > “Supernatural” is a claim that the subject is magical/miraculous/unknowable; “Unexplained at this point in time” is a claim that we don’t know. One of my problems with words like supernatural is that they cut off further inquiry; if someone believes that a subject is beyond natural law, he stops looking for natural explanations. That’s why I call such belief’s “sterile”; they derail any useful attempt to understand the subject at hand. Here you claimed that the term supernatural didn’t mean, “unexplained at this time” {which I showed to be false} and that those who believed in the supernatural stopped looking for further scientific input, {which I also showed to be incorrect} I find this type of sweeping generlization to be illogical and unreasonable. That led you to this illogical gem. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Der Trihs > > The problem with “spiritual seeking” is it doesn’t work, beyond making some people feel good. in a later post you qualified this by saying that spiritual seeking can’t lead to objective fact. Perhaps it was your wording that made it seem like another sweeping generalization. Later you incorrectly claimed once again, that those who believe in the supernatural aren’t open to realistic input. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Der Trihs** > > Superstition has always been a method of cutting off inquiry; why look further if you “know” the truth ? Even if the superstitious do try to investigate something, they will fail. Crystal balls, divine inspiration and psychic powers won’t tell you anything useful. Oh and this one. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Der Trihs** > The Bible is full of stuff about God; and\*\* if you don’t buy the Bible, there is no reason to believe in him at all\*\*. bolded section. Easily shown to be nonsense which you refused to acknowledge. Being fair, you did attempt to qualify this one later as well, so perhaps it is just your haste that brings out the illogical in you. It is illogical and inreasonable none the less. BTW Faith is not illogical. It is a necessity. We all operate on some form of faith. We must. > [@](#): > > Besides, have I called you evil or called for your punishment/death ? If you think I’m much like a fundamentalist, you’re wearing rose colored glasses. Like a fundamentalist in this sense only, You have your own set of beliefs and you can’t seem to understand that reasonable intelligent people have valid reasons for believeing differently than you. > [@](#): > > . I am simply not going to take hearsay evidence that something that violates the known laws of physics exists. Logically, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Nobody is asking you to. Since I am not trying to prove anything to you I assume no such burden. > [@](#): > > No, there is no reason for anyone. I have a big problem with this. The fact that so many people do believe shows this is obviously wrong without some qualifiers. I assume you mean there is no reason that can be objectively verified by all people. I wouldn’t disagree. What I would disagree with would be statement that only those objectively verifiable reasons are valid. A subjective spiritual experience can be a valid reason for that individual to believe. > [@](#): > > Once again, you are the one claiming something exists, not me. You are claiming something exists that violates known physical laws with no hard facts to back you up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; where is it ? Nothing is required unless my goal is to convince you that my beliefs are the correct ones. I have no such goal. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/208 "2005-09-07T02:55:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I believe that he is serious and highly intelligent. We have no way of telling whether he is non-delusional and/or honest. The point is, though, that _none_ of this has any bearing on the fact that what he does is collect stories from people that agree with his viewpoint. I could do that. You could do that. That fact that he has collected many stories does not make them any more true, though. Reality is not a popularity contest… I agree that sheer numbers don’t equate to truth. I make a judgement call that based on the nature of his responses he is non delusional and honest. Further investigation might change my mind. What exactly do you think his vewpoint is? What did he say in the interview that you find objectionable? You seem to think he contrived his belief and then went out looking for anyone who would agree. It seems to me that he was exposed to the NDE phenomenon and had enough reasons to continue his investigations. He isn’t trying to establish any spiritual beliefs with his research that I can see. He is reporting the results of his studies. He doesn’t present his research as a scientific. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/209 "2005-09-07T03:02:25Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Because that is all he is. He doesn’t actually have any hard evidence, and\*\* without hard evidence, it is unreasonable to believe in things\*\*, beyond a cetain scale. Sure, so that need not stop you from believeing it, but it does mean that he can not call his postion Seems like you didn’t finish your post. I don’t agree with the statement I bolded. I think we can believe in things based on subjective evidence {in fact we all do don’t we} and it is perfectly reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/210 "2005-09-07T09:53:55Z")
> [@dan](#): > > Yes, but how does that make it more probable? Is it more probable because it’s things we’re already familar with? Is it automatically more likely to be something we already know about than something we only suspect? If so, why? Yet again, this is the essence of Ockham’s Razor: it is generally useful to stick with one kind of explanation if it really does _explain_, rather than jump for the outlandish or revolutionary option. Yes, the accused _could_ have been framed by his long lost identical twin, but _on balance_ it is more likely that he did actually commit the crime he was filmed committing. Yes, the UFO _could_ be an alien spacecraft, but _on balance_ it’s more likely to be the blimp known to be flying in that area. Yes, it _could_ be a ghost of Henry VIII opening those doors, but _on balance_ a guy dressed up is more likely. Again, deliberating on the nature of NDE’s is no different to doing the same for ghosts, UFO’s or unlikely conspiracies in this respect. But, ultimately, you’re quite right that there is no _inherent_ reason to discount the identical twin, alien spacecraft or genuine Tudor phantom. Our brains are biological computers receiving input, and our beliefs and opinions are the “outputs” of that computation. No given output is _automatically_ correct. > [@](#): > > I don’t see why all datum except that gathered by recognized scientists should be completely dismissed. Isn’t it the volume of non scientific evidence that even prompts a study? It is _not_ completely dismissed: I and any rational skeptic still assigns a non-zero probability to it being a genuinely supernatural phenomenon - tiny, perhaps, but still not _zero_. And these anecdotes do indeed prompt studies: heck, people like Susan Blackmore have dedicated their entire _careers_ to studying them. Unfortunately, no significant departure from chance has been observed except in experiments which later revealed serious flaws. > [@](#): > > I find Dr. Moody to be a serious, highly intelligent , non delusional , and honest. {so far} Why should I throw out the information he’s spent years gathering and give it no consideration? Like I say, I don’t give him _no_ consideration, and I don’t think he’s particularly dishonest (indeed, I don;t think outright dishonesty plays anywhere near as much a part in NDE anecdotes as in other paranormal phenomena). Nor is he literally “delusional” from a mental health perspective. I simply feel that those precious few “impossible information” ancedotes contain a _mistake_ somewhere in the Chinese-whispered telling, such that they _can_ actually be explained by vivid, life-changing dreams. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2005, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/211 "2005-09-07T12:25:27Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Yet again, this is the essence of Ockham’s Razor: it is generally useful to stick with one kind of explanation if it really does _explain_, rather than jump for the outlandish or revolutionary option. Yes, the accused _could_ have been framed by his long lost identical twin, but _on balance_ it is more likely that he did actually commit the crime he was filmed committing. Yes, the UFO _could_ be an alien spacecraft, but _on balance_ it’s more likely to be the blimp known to be flying in that area. Yes, it _could_ be a ghost of Henry VIII opening those doors, but _on balance_ a guy dressed up is more likely. Again, deliberating on the nature of NDE’s is no different to doing the same for ghosts, UFO’s or unlikely conspiracies in this respect. That makes sense. I appreciate your explaination. It has helped clarify OR for me. Even though I count myself a believer I try to remain honest about the things we know vs the things that remain mysteries. When I use terms like God or Spirit, or supernatural they are merely attempts at discussing the mystery without clinging to rigid concepts. “Unexplained at this time” There are areas where science only has theories based on pretty sketchy information. It has occured to me that if if I accept a spiritual reality then it is entirely possible even probable that a spiritual reality will nver be proved or disproved by science rooted in the physical. So we are left to choose what we believe. > [@](#): > > Like I say, I don’t give him _no_ consideration, and I don’t think he’s particularly dishonest (indeed, I don;t think outright dishonesty plays anywhere near as much a part in NDE anecdotes as in other paranormal phenomena). Nor is he literally “delusional” from a mental health perspective. I simply feel that those precious few “impossible information” ancedotes contain a _mistake_ somewhere in the Chinese-whispered telling, such that they _can_ actually be explained by vivid, life-changing dreams. I see. I decided long ago that spirituality and religion that didn’t transform you as a person was pretty shallow and perfuntory. For me that’s the reason these explorations should continue is precisely those life changing experiences whatever their source. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744.md?page=10)