# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/41 "2005-08-27T01:57:30Z")
> [@Jon the Geek](#): > > Why make up explanations? Calling something supernatural is like saying, “I know a cause, or at least the general nature of a cause, and it is not part of nature.” Calling it unexplained simply says we don’t know. > > But before I go too far on that line… what kinds of things do you think are worth attempting to explain through the word “supernatural”? You make a good point. To me whatever the truth is, it is perfectly natural, logical and reasonable. I say that while believeing that the things we say we “know” are a very small percentage of what is knowable. The term unexplained is fine by me. In my mind the term supernatural means this is something outside the boundaries of natural law as we understand it at this time. That is also fine because it is accurate. Lightning used to be explained as supernatural and now it is not. ---
**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:** [August 27, 2005, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/42 "2005-08-27T02:01:11Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Your argument is moot. If the senses are unreliable it doesn’t matter how many people are involved or how much checking is done. The results will still be unreliable. Its the common sense logic of if your foundation is faulty everything built upon it is also faulty. If you were right progress would be impossible. Our senses are imperfect, our minds are imperfect; but by testing, crosschecking and experimentation we progress. Besides, you still have no evidence that “spiritual” methods work at all; you haven’t even defined them. > [@lekatt](#): > > There has been good evidence that we can live without our brains for decades. No, we can’t live without our brains; Terry Schiavo anyone ? Our bodies might survive, but we are dead. > [@lekatt](#): > > Most people believe the reason we can do such amazing things is that we are part of a greater unseen intelligence sometimes called God. :rolleyes: “Most people” ? I don’t know anyone who believes that; you sound like you are describing the Borg Collective, not real people. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > What you refer to as irrational and superstious or mystical experiences are people trying to explain things they don’t understand. In many cases it’s something science cannot explain as well. > I wonder about your objection to the term supernatural. Do you prefer “Unexplained at this point in time”? I am often frustrated by zealots who ignore the plain evidence before them in order to cling to outdated traditions but when it comes to things that are not explained and that cannot be tested, I con’t figure out the objection to words like supernatural or spiritual. > > True spiritual seeking and science are both attempts to discover the truth. There are many areas where your vaunted tests are just not applicable and we still need to decide what we believe is the truth. “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. The problem with “spiritual seeking” is it doesn’t work, beyond making some people feel good. If that’s your goal, fine; I don’t go up to people at funerals and say “By the way, you realize belief in the soul is stupid and your sister is just rotting meat”; that’s impolite. If you claim to divine the origin of the universe by spiritual means, however, I will simply consider the claim void without evidence by a verifiable method. To make things clear; I have no problem with the purely subjective parts of spirituality. For example, if you feel an emotional connection to your fellow man, that’s just fine. An emotional connection is a purely subjective, emotional experience, and helps keep people from chopping each other to pieces. I only object to people who claim to _know_ things with no evidence or logic behind them, just feelings/faith. I find that attitude both annoying and unbelievable. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/43 "2005-08-27T02:17:05Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’m not trying to be smart alecky, but how do you differentiate between something that moves someone _spiritually_ and something that moves someone _emotionally_? Or, is it just a different way of saying the same thing? > [@Spiritus Mundi](#): > > Presumably, based upon how people describe the experience. this is not particularly unusual when dealing with the study of human experience, regardless of whether the discipline is psychology, philosophy, sociology, or theology. **Spiritus** ’s answer is a great first cut, **John**. IMO, there is a definable difference between the emotional and the spiritual in terms of the interior perceptions (or conceptions), particularly of the effect on the interior person. Defining that difference with any degree of clarity, though, is something I find it strangely hard to essay. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > It’s called “science” and “reason”. You test what you sense, other people test as well. You make theories about how the world works, and test those as well. Above all, nothing is held sacred; nothing is beyond question. Well, yes, nothing is so sacrosanct as to be beyond the purview of the scientific method. References to sacredness should be understood in the personal meaning and preciousness of the issue to oneself. Most of us learned at age 10 or so not to insult someone else’s mother in their presence; the parallel idea is that the personal religious feelings of another are entitled to similar respect, regardless of whether you think someone else’s mother to be an ugly fishwife or someone else’s God to be a megalomaniac tyrant, or the creation of a particularly ugly paranoid myth. However, the methodology to be used is, IMO, not that of the physical sciences. Just as dark matter or neutrinos cannot be detected with virtually any research device (short of a million gallons of tetrachloroethylene), the entities alleged to be “spirit” by religions are not necessarily subject to questions founded in physics. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/44 "2005-08-27T02:40:30Z")
> [@Jon the Geek](#): > > If I say, “in the spirit of friendship,” I mean in the emotion and with the intention of friendship; for friendship. I don’t need to imagine some invisible force connecting me to my fellow human beings. Why do we need more than our ability to be sensitive and vicariously experience feelings, thoughts, and experiences of other human beings, along with an ability to communicate, to have the connection you see as mysterious? Why give credit to that invisible and presumed-to-be non-physical force, when our physical brains (and their actions) can explain the connection? Relying on that force still seems insulting to me. I know some people really enjoy embracing superstions. Certain religious people enjoy a certain something about their beliefs so that they never seriously examine them. Thats not what I’m talking about. It isn’t a matter of need but a matter of expressing what is, what we think and feel, within the framework of words. It seems to me like you might say "I don’t feel the need or desire to use those words and I can’t understand people who do. Fair enough, It is\* possible\* however by avoiding the use of those words and concepts you may be avoiding something that is reality, and not imagined. Choose an explainantion offered by your physical brain if you prefer but that doesn’t make it any more true. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/45 "2005-08-27T03:16:49Z")
> [@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. It does huh? from Webster; 1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe 2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature You are incorrect. I recignize that some people who have certain beliefs will cling to them in the face of solid evidence against them, however, not everyone that entertains supernatural possibilities stop looking for other explanations. That is a completely unfair and inaccurate statement. I see true spirituality as seeking the truth, something that science attempts as well. > [@](#): > > **The problem with “spiritual seeking” is it doesn’t work, beyond making some people feel good**. If that’s your goal, fine; I don’t go up to people at funerals and say “By the way, you realize belief in the soul is stupid and your sister is just rotting meat”; that’s impolite. If you claim to divine the origin of the universe by spiritual means, however, I will simply consider the claim void without evidence by a verifiable method. Might I point out that the section I bolded is an example of you making a statement that is unverifiable. You object to others doing it but it works for you huh? > [@](#): > > To make things clear; I have no problem with the purely subjective parts of spirituality. For example, if you feel an emotional connection to your fellow man, that’s just fine. An emotional connection is a purely subjective, emotional experience, and helps keep people from chopping each other to pieces. I only object to people who claim to _know_ things with no evidence or logic behind them, just feelings/faith. I find that attitude both annoying and unbelievable. I have a problem with folks who claim to revere the truth and then continue to hold beliefs and suspend reason when faced with ample evidence. In areas where there isn’t suffucient evidence for or against then people make choices based on their own experiences, background, and preferences. I find it annoying when people consider their choice in these areas is the obvious smart one and those with different experinces who choose differently must be inferior or just goofy in some way. It’s BS. The spiritual experience and the spiritual journey resides within the individual in a place where science may have little to offer. That doesn’t make it less meaningful or genuine. The idea that unless something is verifiable under scientific terms it has no value is just ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/46 "2005-08-27T03:28:50Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > I believe people really have “spiritual experiences”, but I don’t think they are anything but a brain hiccup. Something short circuits, you have a weird sensation or a hallucination, and if it fits your particular mythology, it’s a spiritual experience. IIRC a scientist recently developed a helmet that can stimulate the so-called “God Module” in the brain ( with magnetic fields ) and produce spiritual experiences on demand; he can even make it a good or bad one. Thats pretty interesting. It doesn’t do anything to prove or disprove spiritual experiences. Baba Ram Dass used to try a lot of LSD. He described several of his trips as profoundly spiritual. After a while he decided that the drugs only allowed him to visit a place that he wanted to live in. Living there required a different type of effort. ---
**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:** [August 27, 2005, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/47 "2005-08-27T03:29:36Z")
> [@Wakinyan](#): > > \*\*Der Thris \*\* said: “So, are you arguing for solipsism, or some kind of extreme relativism?” > > No, certainly I do not, and I really don’t understand how you can interpret my post as such – do you and I have the same understanding of the term ‘solipsism’? My view of the world and my part of it is quite the opposite of solipsism. > \*\* > Miller\*\* said: “it’s just that knowledge is cumulative across generations,” > > That is not necessarily the truth. If you would be right, Nazi ideologists would be 100% right 1940, for instance. If they would’ve won the war, would you argue that banning Dalí and Picasso would be the result of a sort of cumulative knowledge across generations? > > What is truth this particular morning – whether it’d be the charactiristics of the jew or of the ghost – isnt’t necessarily scientific truth. Probably it’s anything but ‘scientific’. Though scientific research – needless to say, hopefully – is invaluable, the conclusions of it might be political or idealogical or just plain zeitgeist or nonsense or whatever. > > You’ll find the “scientific truth” you looking for; whether you’re a christian or an atheist. > > Point is, if everybody everywhere around the world always had – or could have, as far as we can judge – similar experiences… dismissing this as some faulty brain function… that’s not scientific, that’s stupid. > > (And that has nothing to do with the bottomless stupidity of the christian church the last thousand years. We’re talking experience, not religion.) I don’t quite understand you, but I’ll try to answer. First, you seem to arguing either that there is no objective reality ( solipsism ), or that truth is what you happen to believe ( extreme relativism ). I’m arguing that the world and the truth are what they are, and that our perceptions or lack thereof don’t change them. Our beliefs about the world have become more accurate over time because we have investigated the world, therefore our present beliefs are ( mostly ) superior to those that existed 500 years ago; they are inferior to those that will exist. The Nazis are not a good arguement against this; they were blatently irrational and just plain wrong about lots of things. Miller said that our knowledge was increasing; he didn’t say we had reached some sort of state of perfect knowledge and rationality. Your comment about the jew and the ghost is just incoherent. As far as everybody having similar experiences, that’s to be expected. We all have the save basic type of brain, therefore we have the same kind of design flaws. It’s like the eye; we all have eyes with blind spots, which means that we are all subject to the same optical illusions. That doesn’t mean that the illusions are real, however; it just means we are all flawed the same way. > [@Polycarp](#): > > Well, yes, nothing is so sacrosanct as to be beyond the purview of the scientific method. References to sacredness should be understood in the personal meaning and preciousness of the issue to oneself. Most of us learned at age 10 or so not to insult someone else’s mother in their presence; the parallel idea is that the personal religious feelings of another are entitled to similar respect, regardless of whether you think someone else’s mother to be an ugly fishwife or someone else’s God to be a megalomaniac tyrant, or the creation of a particularly ugly paranoid myth. I think you are confusing _having_ respect and _Showing respect_ . Showing respect is something I must do as a civilized member of a civilized society, unless I want to get in fistfights all the time. I may consider person A’s beliefs utter nonsense, but I normally don’t say so for politeness’s sake. If his belief impinges on me or others who disagree, then I feel free to voice my disrespect for it; I feel the same if the validity of a belief is under discussion, like here. Having respect is different; I do not believe I have an obligation to feel unearned respect for anyone or anything. Just because someone holds a belief does not make it worthy of respect. The fact that a belief is religious does not give it a pass; it just means I have to be careful the person in question isn’t one of the more violent fundementalist types. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > > [@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. > > It does huh? from Webster; > 1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe > 2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature > You are incorrect. I recignize that some people who have certain beliefs will cling to them in the face of solid evidence against them, however, not everyone that entertains supernatural possibilities stop looking for other explanations. That is a completely unfair and inaccurate statement. I see true spirituality as seeking the truth, something that science attempts as well. My definition and Webster’s seem pretty similar to me. “Unknowable” and “of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe” are rather similar in meaning; magical/miraculous is basically the same as “departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature”. I didn’t say that spiritual seekers weren’t seeking the truth; I said they stopped doing so in a manner that can succeed. ---
**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:** [August 27, 2005, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/48 "2005-08-27T03:43:18Z")
> [@cosmodan](#): > > > [@Der Trihs](#): > > > > \*\* > > The problem with “spiritual seeking” is it doesn’t work, beyond making some people feel good. \*\*If that’s your goal, fine; I don’t go up to people at funerals and say “By the way, you realize belief in the soul is stupid and your sister is just rotting meat”; that’s impolite. If you claim to divine the origin of the universe by spiritual means, however, I will simply consider the claim void without evidence by a verifiable method. > > Might I point out that the section I bolded is an example of you making a statement that is unverifiable. You object to others doing it but it works for you huh? No; if you claim something exists - like non-subjective results from a spiritual experience - it is your obligation to prove it. It is not mine to prove a negative. > [@cosmodan](#): > > I have a problem with folks who claim to revere the truth and then continue to hold beliefs and suspend reason when faced with ample evidence. In areas where there isn’t suffucient evidence for or against then people make choices based on their own experiences, background, and preferences. I find it annoying when people consider their choice in these areas is the obvious smart one and those with different experinces who choose differently must be inferior or just goofy in some way. It’s BS. > The spiritual experience and the spiritual journey resides within the individual in a place where science may have little to offer. That doesn’t make it less meaningful or genuine. The idea that unless something is verifiable under scientific terms it has no value is just ridiculous. I never claimed that science was the only source of value or meaning, I claimed it was the only effective means we have to discover the objective facts. Spirituality is a dead end when it comes to facts, science is not. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/49 "2005-08-27T03:45:55Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Not sure what you mean by “my teacher,” but I certainly won’t argue against the subjective nature of reality. Which is a large part of the reason I reject most notions of the supernatural. We have enough trouble acheiving consensus on the things we can all perceive. \*\*To start haggling over the merits of things only perceived by one person strikes me as an exceptional waste of time. > \*\* > > However, to what extent should the knowledge that we do not have complete knowledge affect the conclusions we draw about the world today? \*\*We can still only work with what we know _now_, not with what we hope we’ll know tomorrow. > \*\* I really appreciate what you said here, especially the lines I bolded. I would point out that as individuals and as societies we have to make choices nearly everyday about things we don’t know. We make choices, as Christians, Muslims, Atheists, agnostics, etc, everyday based on what we believe, without knowing exactly what the outcome will be. I don’t care much about what people say they believe or don’t believe. I do care about the choices those beliefs prompt them to make because that’s where beliefs affect reality. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/50 "2005-08-27T04:20:58Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > My definition and Webster’s seem pretty similar to me. “Unknowable” and “of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe” are rather similar in meaning; magical/miraculous is basically the same as “departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature”. Um…no. They are only vaguly similar at best. My definition “Unexplained at this point in time” which you made a point to seperate from supernatural seems every bit as valid.{perhaps more so} The one I used in another post " something outside the boundaries of natural law as we understand it at this time" is pretty close to Webster. > [@](#): > > I didn’t say that spiritual seekers weren’t seeking the truth; I said they stopped doing so in a manner that can succeed. then please explain this from your previous post. > [@](#): > > 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. Thats where the “at this time” comes in. We may choose certain terminology now for things as yet unexplained but that doesn’t mean the seeker is closed to new information as it is presented. That only helps refine and clarify our beliefs. The concept of yours is false. Your statement that the spiritual seeker cannot succeed in finding truth is only your opinion for which you can provide no credible evidence to support. It seems you are doing the exact thing you critisize those with spiritual beliefs for. There’s a word for that. Begins with H. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/51 "2005-08-27T04:34:10Z")
Does a mentally unbalanced person, truly believe that his/her perceptions are ‘real’? _Not_ meant as a dig to people of faith, but simply wondering what the difference is between delusion and faith. Does a tree falling in the forest while no one’s listening make a sound? Is there such a thing as an ‘objective reality’? And, furthermore, by which means are we currently able to answer said question _objectively_? Furthermore, what’s to debate here if we can’t agree on the very premises that need to be granted in the response I realize the above does not constitute, in any way, a straight-forward response. But I don’t know, given our current limitations, that there is any kind of cut&dried response. FWIW, while refusing to label them, I’ve a few life-altering experiences. Just don’t think the supernatural had anything to do with them. ‘Spiritual’ as currently defined, is a term that lacks meaning for me – for it means little else that ‘we don’t currently have an alternative valid explanation.’ ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/52 "2005-08-27T04:41:54Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > No; if you claim something exists - like non-subjective results from a spiritual experience - it is your obligation to prove it. It is not mine to prove a negative. I made no such claim. If you’re refering to people who present their personal religious beliefs as if they were scientific and historical facts, then I agree, it’s annoying. In this case it is you who made a rather blanket unprovable statement and presented it as fact. > [@](#): > > I never claimed that science was the only source of value or meaning, I claimed it was the only effective means we have to discover the objective facts. Spirituality is a dead end when it comes to facts, science is not. I see. I don’t believe\* facts\* are limited to the physical world that is testable by science, but that is a tangent for another day. Since this isn’t what the OP is about I have to wonder why you even brought it up. ---
**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:** [August 27, 2005, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/53 "2005-08-27T04:43:08Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > > [@Der Trihs](#): > > > > I didn’t say that spiritual seekers weren’t seeking the truth; I said they stopped doing so in a manner that can succeed. > > then please explain this from your previous post. > > > [@Der Trihs](#): > > > > 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. > > Thats where the “at this time” comes in. We may choose certain terminology now for things as yet unexplained but that doesn’t mean the seeker is closed to new information as it is presented. That only helps refine and clarify our beliefs. The concept of yours is false. Your statement that the spiritual seeker cannot succeed in finding truth is only your opinion for which you can provide no credible evidence to support. It seems you are doing the exact thing you critisize those with spiritual beliefs for. There’s a word for that. Begins with H. I’m not being a hypocrite; I’m paying attention. There is an enormous amount of evidence for the success of science; the fact that we are communicating by the Internet not the least. How many objective facts have been discovered by spiritual means ? Any ? I’ll say it again : _It is your obligation to prove something exists, not mine._ It is NOT my obligation to prove a negative. You haven’t even proposed a mechanism by which spiritual seeker _could_ discover objective facts, much less evidence that they have. For thousands of years, people tried to understand the world by spiritual quests and relied on divine/spiritual “revelations”; as a result humanity largely stagnated. This changed with the developement of science, because it _works_. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/54 "2005-08-27T04:47:37Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Does a mentally unbalanced person, truly believe that his/her perceptions are ‘real’? _Not_ meant as a dig to people of faith, but simply wondering what the difference is between delusion and faith. > > Does a tree falling in the forest while no one’s listening make a sound? > > Is there such a thing as an ‘objective reality’? And, furthermore, by which means are we currently able to answer said question _objectively_? > > Furthermore, what’s to debate here if we can’t agree on the very premises that need to be granted in the response > > I realize the above does not constitute, in any way, a straight-forward response. But I don’t know, given our current limitations, that there is any kind of cut&dried response. > > FWIW, while refusing to label them, I’ve a few life-altering experiences. Just don’t think the supernatural had anything to do with them. ‘Spiritual’ as currently defined, is a term that lacks meaning for me – for it means little else that ‘we don’t currently have an alternative valid explanation.’ And so you choose not to label your experiences with the term spiritual. Fine. Your perogitive. Have you chosen a label or have you decided that a label is unnessecary. Either way is okay. It’s also okay if others prefer the spiritual label for those experiences. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/55 "2005-08-27T05:34:15Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > I’m not being a hypocrite; I’m paying attention. There is an enormous amount of evidence for the success of science; the fact that we are communicating by the Internet not the least. Never said otherwise. We might disagree on what constitutes success but I recognize scientific advances and their usefulness. > [@](#): > > How many objective facts have been discovered by spiritual means ? Any ? I’ll say it again : _It is your obligation to prove something exists, not mine._ It is NOT my obligation to prove a negative. You haven’t even proposed a mechanism by which spiritual seeker _could_ discover objective facts, much less evidence that they have. As I said,I’ve made no claims about spirituality that require me to provide evidence. I never presented it as a good source for objective facts. You said " > [@](#): > > I never claimed that science was the only source of value or meaning, I agree. It isn’t. > [@](#): > > For thousands of years, people tried to understand the world by spiritual quests and relied on divine/spiritual “revelations”; as a result humanity largely stagnated. This changed with the developement of science, because it _works_. The search for truth has moved slowly forward in the spiritual arena and perhaps more quickly in the scientific arena. Behavioral Science, Sociology, and Phycology have a long way to go to prevent some of the horrors that man perpetrates on his fellow man useing some of our nifty scientific advances. It’s in the area of man’s relationship to man that I find the value in the spiritual quest. Regardless of whether you agree or not for whatever reasons, there is still a lot more truth to discover about ourselves and our world. In those areas that are as yet unknown,and beyond our current ability to measure I will continue to choose my own beliefs. You are free to do the same, Don’t think what amounts to your unvalidated opinion has any more weight than anyone elses. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/56 "2005-08-27T08:13:52Z")
> [@](#): > > **Wakinyan** : There’re some people who say: It’s all in your head, subjective, therefore it’s not real. > > Well, then, please point to something that’s is not in your head? The color, the shape, the dimensions, the smell – your whole experience is in your head, even though your teacher says it is objective truth, outside of you. I think I understand what you are saying. We depend on our brains to interpret what our eyes see. Our brains store our memory of scents, etc. The entire scientific method is dependent on what is perceived by a number of observing brains. I have read quite a bit about Dr. Persinger and his ability to stimulate a sense of a spiritual presence with a “helmet.” I can’t provide a link at the moment, but I think that it’s important to note that he does not make any value judgment about the ability to stimulate the brain in such a way as to cause this perception. I have had one really intense experience. It was as real as any other experience and more memorable than any other. I would have absolutely no problem with believing or accepting that the source of this experience was the stimulation, in some way, of one part of my own brain. That doesn’t make it less real. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/57 "2005-08-27T12:13:08Z")
> [@Jon the Geek](#): > > But before I go too far on that line… what kinds of things do you think are worth attempting to explain through the word “supernatural”? I think I missed this in my response. Anytime I might use the word supernatural it would be another way of saying unexplained. In my family there’s a story about my aunt. She was doing the dishes when she looked up and saw her Dad, my grandfather, standing in the door. She was surprised and turned to wipe her hands and take off her apron. When she turned around again he was gone. She soon discovered that he had passed away shortly before she “saw” him. I have no explanation but I don’t rule out the supernatural. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/58 "2005-08-27T14:01:42Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > I think I understand what you are saying. We depend on our brains to interpret what our eyes see. Our brains store our memory of scents, etc. The entire scientific method is dependent on what is perceived by a number of observing brains. > > I have read quite a bit about Dr. Persinger and his ability to stimulate a sense of a spiritual presence with a “helmet.” I can’t provide a link at the moment, but I think that it’s important to note that he does not make any value judgment about the ability to stimulate the brain in such a way as to cause this perception. > > I have had one really intense experience. It was as real as any other experience and more memorable than any other. I would have absolutely no problem with believing or accepting that the source of this experience was the stimulation, in some way, of one part of my own brain. That doesn’t make it less real. The near death experience is the spiritual experience being researched today by more scientists than any other. Their findings are consistent with the beliefs of the experiencers. Unfortunately main stream science chooses to deny this science exists. Now, main stream science has never produced a valid NDE with any kind of stimulation. The only way possible to do so is to kill the subject, then bring them back to life, and there is no guarantee you will get a NDE that way either. What the media, skeptics, and main stream science show and call NDEs are only an element or two of the real experiences. After all, if they were to show real experiences they would not be able to explain them away with brain theories. So they don’t go there. I can understand why they do this, it is simply a matter of vested interests. Understandable they don’t want to give up their favorite theories or the money they get to work with them. However in good time this oversight will come to the forefront and things will change. I can’t possible show enough cites to cover what I said here, the material is to extensive. But rest assured I am in posession of it, and can give cites on almost any phase of it. I thought I would try something a little different instead. Jane Roberts is the author of the “Seth” books. There are about eight of them, and each is about a thousand pages long. They cover the spiritual world as completely as I can understand. Seth dictated the books to Jane while she was in an altered state of mind. This is some of the most beautiful prose I have ever read and wish to share only a tiny bit. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/59 "2005-08-27T14:03:12Z")
Sorry I hit the wrong button. > [@](#): > > Seth: “I have been sent to help you, and others have been sent through the centuries of your time, for as you develop you also form new dimensions, and you will help others. I am in this room [speaking to Robert] although there is no object within which you can place me. You have a vehicle to use, a body that you call your own, and that is all. You are as disembodied as I. I come here as though I appeared through a hole in space and time. What you call emotion or feeling is the connective between us.” > > "Now, there are no limitations or divisions to the self. You can indeed depend upon seemingly unconscious portions of yourself. The seemingly unconscious portions of your body draws energy from food and molecules, from the air to form your body. All this happens because the inner portions of your being operate spontaneously, joyfully, freely; and all of this occurs because your inner self believes in you, often even while you do not believe in it. The you that you consider yourself to be is never annihilated. Your consciousness is not snuffed out, nor is it swallowed, blissfully unaware of itself, in some nirvana. You are as much a part of a nirvana now as you ever will be. You are in the process of expanding your psychic structure, of becoming a conscious participant with the soul. You are becoming what your soul is. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744/60 "2005-08-27T14:07:36Z")
Jesus said: Luke 17:20: Jesus said: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. The pieces of the puzzle fit. The logic is clear. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-believe-in-spiritual-experiences/318744.md?page=4)