After discovering that Mormonism was false, many of us were left to reinterpret the “spiritual experiences” we had as Mormons, some of which were quite profound—at least that is how we viewed them at the time. Mormon friends and relatives might still insist that such experiences were literally from the “Holy Ghost,” and would have us believe that such experiences should trump both the negative facts about Mormonism, and the doubts that spring from such facts. An extreme extension of such a view provides for our eternal condemnation for turning away from such experiences, and thereby “denying the Holy Ghost.”

The typical ex-Mormon response to prior Mormon “spiritual experiences” is to call upon psychology and neuroscience to explain away such experiences. There is perhaps a hurried temptation to chalk them up to simple garden variety “feelings” and “emotions,” and equate such experiences with the feelings generated by art, music, the universe, love, or whatever. In any event, “spiritual experiences” are conveniently categorized as nothing more than a natural emotion, emerging from an oppressive religious context, and having no metaphysical implications. In this way, our spiritual experiences in the context of Mormonism are explained, and we can move on to adopt a worldview that is at last free of Mormonism, and free of any metaphysical commitments associated with such experiences. This fallback position is supported by psychology and neuroscience, which confirms that ordinary human emotions arise out of complex processes in the brain. So-called “spiritual experiences” by extension are also nothing but such processes. This position is cavalierly adopted in the skeptical literature without much thought or discussion, which makes it even more satisfying and acceptable.

My problem with the above view is that I think it is simply wrong, and sometimes disingenuous. Put simply, it is not a fair analysis of the nature of such experiences, as those having such experiences should know and admit. Of course, there is no doubt that Mormonism is false, and no amount of “spiritual confirmation” can change this empirical fact. Moreover, there is no doubt that much, if not most, of the “spiritual experiences” associated with Mormonism are nothing more than self-induced, purely emotional responses, to powerful external suggestion and manipulation. But certainly not all of such experiences—both in Mormonism and in other contexts, religious or otherwise—can be so explained. The central problem is that many of such experiences occur in a context where no such suggestion or manipulation is manifest; a context where the mind is not pre-focused on spiritual or religious questions, and where such experiences simply happen “out of the blue” so to speak. Sometimes the phenomenal quality of such experiences is very profound, and occasionally they encompass empirical facts that are subsequently verified.

Let’s be clear, I am not suggesting that there is a God that is speaking to a soul here. All I am pointing out in this post is that simplistic explanations of spiritual experiences as simply emotions or feelings, is both wrong by definition, and explanatorily inadequate.

It might be helpful at this point to cite a general example, taken from William James:

“But as I turned and was about to take a seat by the fire, I received a mighty baptism of the Holy Ghost. Without any expectation of it, without ever having the thought in my mind that there was any such thing for me, without any recollection that I had ever heard the thing mentioned by any person in the world, the Holy Spirit descended upon me in a manner that seemed to go through me, body and soul. I could feel the impression, like a wave of electricity, going through and through me. Indeed, it seemed to come in waves and waves of liquid love; for I could not express it in any other way.” (James, “The Varieties of Religious Experience.” Page 250)

Such accounts are common, and certainly cannot be explained as an emotional response to an external pressure or stimulus. Accounts like this occur in the context of Mormonism as well as in a variety of other contexts, religious and otherwise, and have been assigned multiple interpretations by those having them. Many of us, including myself, have had similar experiences. What do they mean, if anything?

No doubt, if the person having such an experience were hooked up to any number of brain imaging devices (e.g. EEG, PET, MRI, fMRI), a token-token correlation would be apparent between the phenomenal experience and brain state or function. In some contexts this has already been done, and such experiences have been loosely type-type correlated with neurological disorders, such as epilepsy, or other emotional states. But this correlative effect does NOT explain the experience, simply because the source, or ultimate cause, of the experience is not explained. Even assuming that the brain played a causal role in the experience, it is not at all obvious what triggered the underlying brain state in examples such as the one above. Although I am very much aware of the materialist explanations for such events, and am in general sympathetic to such explanations, I am personally dissatisfied with such explanations when attempting to address my own experiences. For me, they fall woefully short.

I wish I had an explanation for my own Mormon “spiritual experiences.” Some, of course, can be explained by sheer psychological manipulation. But others cannot. Notwithstanding, I am very confident in hindsight that they did not have anything to do with the truth of Mormonism, for the simple reason that overwhelming evidence confirms that Mormonism is false. I do not believe—God or no God—that information about the universe comes by revelation, irrespective of contrary empirical facts. Moreover, however powerful such experiences might be, there is no logical connection between the experiences of themselves, and any facts about the world, most especially Mormon doctrine or history. Though perhaps related in some way, “spiritual experiences” never seem to be a matter of specific, testable insight, as when a scientist has a eureka moment when struggling with a scientific problem, and later confirms that the insight was correct.

I suppose the lesson in all this is two-fold. First, I don’t think we need to feel that we have to explain away our Mormon spiritual experiences by simplistic references to psychology and neuroscience. Second, our “spiritual experiences” in whatever context they might be in, MAY—and I emphasize MAY—be a window to a reality that transcends scientific explanation. I find it intriguing that such experiences by their nature seem to encompass and direct us to the latter interpretation. When such experiences occur, we seem to be left feeling that there is something more going on than the complex firing of neurons in the brain.

(Recommended reading: William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience; William Alston, Perceiving God: The Epistomology of Religious Experience; Caroline Davis, The Evidential Force of Religious Experience; Anthony O’Hear, Experience, Explanation, and Faith; Johannes Ungar, On Religious Experience: A Psychological Study; R. Douglas Geivett (ed), Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology (particularly Part IV))

since leaving. What I've found is that it is my intuition or a sixth sense.

I had spiritual experiences in mormonism--one being, get this, dreaming about the man who would end up being my husband. I dreamt it twice and met him the day after I had the second dream. I found out 7 months later he is gay. I did marry him. So--not many people know about my dreams--but imagine the mind bender that was--finally meeting the person I thought I was supposed to marry.

Somehow we found our way out. I believe we saved each other from mormonism and, for whatever reason, that is why I met him.

BUT what I've learned is to listen to my own intuition. There were many times in my life that I was told by leaders to ignore my own inner voice and listen to them. I quit listening to them before I left the lds church.

The only reason Mormons believe it's the Holy Ghost is because they've been TOLD it's the Holy Ghost.

Take the Moroni challenge, for example. You're suppose to read the BofM and if you do it with a sincere heart, with real intent, blah, blah, blah, then the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth, blah, blah, blah.

So right from the get go, you're told if you get any good feeling it's the Holy Ghost. Good grief.

If I read Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" and get a good feeling, then it must be true! And that good feeling is coming from the Holy Ghost! Come on, folks, use your brain.

You know Mormonism is not true and the BofM is a bunch of bullplop, so any feelings about them are nothing more than your emotion endorphins running rampant.

Young men, if you read Playboy with an open and sincere heart, you will feel the Holy Ghost in your pants. If you feel the Ghost then it must be true so therefore, masturbation is not only good but it is commanded by God through the Holy Ghost!

I've had spiritual experiences at my grandpas funeral and at baccalaureate. But never at a Mormon church. Instead I get a headache. Weird experience there.

The experiences in the book warn of danger and save lives on a regular basis and are normal for most humans, especially the ones who aren't biased because of religious ghost delusions.

Animals have instints and humans have them too.

This is an interesting topic. When I was on my mission (Argentina Cordoba 77-79), I had major surgery. After I had recovered (such as I had), I received a letter from a second cousin I didn't know I had had who served in the same mission some 15 years earlier. It turns out she was seriously ill and was treated in the same hospital by the same doctor who treated me. This was very exciting and a confirmation to me of the truthfulness of the church.

I was visiting the home of some long-time members to whom I was telling this story. The brother got up from his chair and went into his bedroom and brought out a Bible with my cousin's name embossed on the cover. She had left it with the couple when she completed her mission.

That constellation of occurrences has always intrigued me. I don't have a specific explanation for it, although the way I make sense of it now is I was living a certain life that tended to constellate events that belonged to it. If I had been a Catholic perhaps I would have had a "Catholic" experience; if a Buddhist, then Buddhist experiences, etc.

in 2005 my sister and I backpacked across Europe.

Our father served his mission in England and Northern Ireland, so we decided to attend church at an area he'd served in.

We found the church in time for sacrament meeting, and sat down.

It was Fast & Testimony meeting. We hadn't talked to anyone yet, and a woman got up to bear her testimony. She talked about a wonderful elder who had served their years ago and some of the things he'd done that she remembered, and then she said, "His name was Elder <my last name>, and I am so full of emotion because his children are with us today!"

She pointed to us, and my sister & I started to freak out.

She continued, "I can tell, for they have such lovely curly hair, and Elder X was the only missionary I ever saw with that lovely hair."

My sister and I started to laugh, because our father has straight black hair, and honestly looks nothing like us. BUT- his companion at the time had really curly hair. Our dad always used to say, "You too have hair just like my companion in Belfast" so we were very familiar with it.

Still, it was an interesting coincidence that she remembered our father's name, and that she somehow linked us with the right companionship (even if she did it for the wrong reason).

...

Anywho- this doesn't completely relate to the topic... but kinda.

I dunno how she made the connection. It is something I can't explain. Maybe it was as simple as she heard us talking to each other, heard our Idaho accents, and subconsciously made the connection.

But I could only guess. There were far too many variables in play.

People have been having spiritual experiences since the dawn of time. They occur in all faith systems and are not unique to Mormonism.

We can say with certainty that Mormonism is false.

The power of suggestion is real.

People are free to believe whatever they want regarding their spiritual experiences.

Admittedly I am an anomaly.
I felt "the spirit" only twice (age 15, and age 26). Both were clearly prompted by external stimulus.

Since then I have tried to produce those same feelings, and am quite successful.
So for me, they are 100% emotional responses.

...

So I would like to focus on the ones you say are not that.
You said, "Some, of course, can be explained by sheer psychological manipulation. But others cannot."

I don't understand why you are attributing them to other sources.
Your example was of spontaneous feeling, but that doesn't mean unprompted.

We are constantly surrounded by stimuli (visible, auditory, thermal, radiation, etc...). In experiments they TRY to limit these variables, as it makes causal conclusions almost impossible.

For example I had a co-worker who was obsessed with trying to determine the exact algorithm for urinal selection. He observed people at my work, and drew up a big theory as to the exact causes of who picks which urinal, and the different choices based on the type of person you were. He was rather proud of it. BUT then he noticed that one urinal was 2 inches lower than the others, and he started doubting his conclusions.

I said, "If you want a variable free environment, you don't have one. That urinal's divider is rusted. The one over there is a few inches wider, allowing for a larger stance. The one on the near end is hidden from view. The chrome flusher is chipped on the 3rd urinal. etc..."

My point is this- if you think you can make a blanket statement that you are sure a subset of your experiences are not driven by external stimuli, but are spontaneous, then you haven't fully considered all the external stimuli.

I'm not saying your wrong (because I too cannot draw causal conclusions with so many variables), I'm simply saying that you need to re-consider external stimuli as a possibility, because you seem to have invalidly eliminated it.

Spiritual experiences don't only come from God. If you still believe the BIble....there are legions of fallens demons who continue to mimic both bad and good feelings.
Joseph Smith had "some kind" of spirit talking into his head. Can I verify that? No.
But my objective mind concludes he was a fraud. Leave feelings out if you want to prove something.

I've had a few strong spiritual experiences. One of them was how I was led miraculously to a woman who had just prayed the night before for church ministers.
Today, I can understand that the LDS church was perhaps good for her...at that time. Just like how the church was good for my first part of my life.

But, yeah. Discerning the spirit is very hard. It can't be TOLD. We just have to steer our feelings and thoughts ourselves. Isn't that a liberating thought?

Well thought out post, this topic interests me a great deal.

I would also like to get your thoughts on whether or not such inexplicable experiences, that cannot be adequately explained by brainwaves or neurology or what have you, can happen to individuals that are not particularly emotional, or very rational types of people. I consider myself to be very rational and very short on emotion. I've had experiences where I thought the "spirit" was testifying to me, but it's become apparent that those experiences were not so far fetched that they trump other emotional experiences that I've had watching touching movies or reading books that really touch ones heart.

So, if one is painfully rational, and low on emotion, is it less likely for one of these inexplicable experiences to just happen out of the blue? Is it more likely to happen to an emotional person? If so, then one must seriously consider that it is in fact the brain generating it. To me, this has never occurred without solicitation, or without suggestion, manipulation or even meditation. And even given any of those circumstances, I've not had a singular experience that could easily be chalked up as life altering, and far and away more powerful than any other emotion experienced, religious or otherwise.

So while I don't doubt in the slightest that emotional/spiritual experiences have occurred to some that are so extreme, that outside unseen forces may have contributed, but if this is truly the case, then surely they happen to painfully rational people as much as they do highly emotional people. Thoughts?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2012 06:44PM by Mormoney.

I fit the bill for "painfully rational"
The only 2 times I felt "the spirit" are explained in my exit story: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?3,593419

...but I am 29, so I don't have as much experience with potential spontaneous feelings as some who are older.

“I would also like to get your thoughts on whether or not such inexplicable experiences, that cannot be adequately explained by brainwaves or neurology or what have you, can happen to individuals that are not particularly emotional, or very rational types of people.”

In my view, it is a mistake to try to explain such experiences by invoking psychological categories, and attributing such experiences to those that fit a predetermined, and loosely defined category. First, human beings cannot be neatly differentiated in terms of “emotional” or “rational” such as at make these categories useful in this context. Second, as a general empirical matter, such experiences happen to all types of people, and I know of no convincing evidence linking such people to psychological types.

Also, I would differentiate between an “emotional” experience and a “spiritual” experience. They are not the same in my view. The distinction is as follows: An “emotional experience” is tied to an identifiable event or circumstance that invokes an emotional response to such event or circumstance, such as a movie, lost love, or whatever. A “spiritual experience” has a transcendental element that goes beyond any particular life event or circumstance, and may or may not be accompanied by an emotion. For example, someone having a spiritual experience might be overcome with a sublime and subtle sense of awe, coupled with a feeling of transcendence, without having any typical “real-life” emotion, such as love, fear, anger, hate, jealousy, etc. If you want to say that the spiritual experience is also, by definition, an emotion, fine. But then you clearly have to differentiate the properties of this emotion from that of other emotions. As indicated above, they are not the same, and lumping them with other emotions does not provide any explanatory insight.

Perhaps more importantly, the logical inference that spiritual experiences can be “explained” by appeal to genetics, neuroscience, or psychology is flawed. Even assuming that people having such spiritual experiences have a common genetic, neurological, or psychological component, such commonality does not logically address either the ultimate source of the experience, or its metaphysical significance, if any. It is quite possible, for example, that a uniquely determined genetic or neurological commonality, if there is such, simply makes such people susceptible, or open, to metaphysical stimulation; Just as an antennae might be specifically and uniquely programmed to receive a particular wave frequency.

An example might help. Suppose we isolate a population of 100,000 people and determine that 1 percent happen to be gifted in mathematics. Through genetic testing we determine that all 1000 of the gifted individuals share a gene not shared by any other members of the population. We conclude that this gene is responsible for mathematical prowess. (Remember, this is a simplistic hypothetical example, not intended to make a claim about genetics) Now, what does this information tell us about mathematical truth? Or the relationship between mathematics and reality? Or even the validity of a theory espoused by any one or all of such gifted people. Of course, nothing. Similarly, the fact that people that have spiritual experiences MAY have a common genetic, neurological, or other feature in common, tells us nothing about the implications of their experiences. Just as mathematical theories and mathematical truth stand on their own, irrespective of biology or psychology, so do spiritual experiences. Now, of course, mathematical truth can be objectively determined (generally), where as the metaphysical aspects of spiritual experiences cannot. But in this discussion that is beside the point, because we admittedly are only speculating as to whether such experiences have metaphysical meaning. The point of this post is simply that they should not be hastily dismissed, and rationalized away, simply because they may have occurred in a Mormon context.

When you are dealing with something that is so subjective as an "experience" the best you are gonna get is empirical anecdotal evidence.

Even if you monitored the brain waves of the people, you still have to rely on them identifying "right now I'm having the experience."

I do think people are striated into rough psycological groups (albeit with very fuzzy and often overlapping boundaries).

For instance, by your semantics I have never had a "spiritual" experience.

Even the term I use for "awe" or "wonder" doesn't match yours, because they equate more closely with "currently unknown" and "look how much I can learn there."

I think your point is valid- that you have a different feeling for 1 type of event as another... but in my mind since both "emotional" & "spiritual/trancendental" boil down to "a type of feeling" the distintion you are trying to make between the 2 is unclear to me (but again, that could just be because I have never had an experience that I would categorize into your "spiritual" bucket [at least not yet]).

You make a very good point. It is empirically unsound to assume that reported spiritual experiences are all of the same cloth. Many can be explained away as "simple garden variety 'feelings' and 'emotions'," to be sure, but a few cannot. Of these few, the subject has *also* experienced the kinds of heightened emotional experiences elicited by Beauty, Truth and Goodness, whether in art, music, love or what you will. And the subject *insists* that, no, this spiritual experience is much *much* different from this other experience. Experiencing the Burkeian Sublime, if you will, as heightened as it may be, is felt as categorically different from a spiritual experience that seems to hit one, well, like how one would expect God would hit one, should God exist and do that sort of thing.

For those who have been hit in such a fashion, I completely understand why they feel the experience comes with all sorts of "metaphysical commitments."

Being hit in such a fashion seems to be universal, but gets expressed in the cultural mode of the locality. This is where I think the "Masks of God" idea is most helpful. God appears in the garb the person most recognizes but is itself not that garb, so to speak. Indeed:

"If there be higher powers able to impress us, they may get access to us only through the subliminal door."

--William James--
--Varieties of Religious Experience--



It is that "If" which makes William different from his father. His father, iconoclastic to his very bones, and confirmed Swedenborgian, had no "if" to temper his aversion to the nuisance of being a "self". He preferred himself and his own thoughts, period.

William's Godfather, R.W. Emerson, posed so many "ifs", implicitly, as to make one dizzy with wonder if any of them are really an "if". Emerson is the embodiment of Whitman's increasingly famous:

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then, I contradict myself.
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"

--Walt Whitman--
--"Song of Myself"--

"O you man without a handle," was Henry James senior's vexed outcry to Emerson's 'like-water' mind. So who knows what Emerson *really* believed, wherein lies his "ifs"? But as to his experience, having read huge chunks of him, I don't think he felt an "if" when he wrote (and William repeated as if his own):

"God enters by a private door into every individual."

--Ralph Waldo Emerson--
--"Intellect"--

Emerson certainly wasn't above repeating himself:

"Into every intelligence there is a door which is never closed, through which the creator passes."

--Ralph Waldo Emerson--
--"Experience"--

Who or what or where is this "creator" that passes through a door we all possess and is never closed? Neuro-babble is completely beside the point here. Those three Ws can only be troped as a voice "in the bottom of my heart":

"Henceforth, please God, forever I forego
The yoke of men's opinions. I will be
Light-hearted as a bird, and live with God.
I find him in the bottom of my heart,
I hear continually his voice therein.
And books, & priests, & worlds, I less esteem
Who says the heart's a blind guide? It is not.

...

"The little needle always knows the North,
The little bird remembereth his note,
And this wise Seer within me never errs.
I never taught it what it teaches me;
I only follow, when I act aright.
Whence then did this Omniscient Spirit come?
From God it came. It is the Deity."

--Ralph Waldo Emerson--
[Journal Entry, October 9th, 1832]

Yes, that is still a youthful Emerson, responding to himself after complaining about running into the specious, fallacious and altogether false things people say about God and Heaven in everyday conversation. Such conversation made him "uneasy," which was rather inconvenient for a young minister. So he resigned and went to Europe. [His wife had died of TB, aged 19, the year before…so talk of heaven by little old ladies *would* be difficult.] Emerson had plenty of time and experience left in his life (he had yet to meet Mill, Carlyle, Wordsworth and Coleridge) to make for a few solid "ifs".

But isn't this uneasiness caused precisely because he has experienced something much more profound, something beyond our everyday language, and indeed beyond all the words hitherto written on Earth? I think yes. Experience of this sort is what gave him motive for metaphor. For example, in his utterly unique first foray into publishing (1836, privately), *Nature*, he writes the strangest thing:

"I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God."

Now, that is something other than a simple garden variety of 'feelings' and 'emotions'! And it is something other than the Burkean Sublime, which Emerson values but is also weary of because it can lead one astray. And finally, it's something beyond the reach of "if". It simply *is*.

Emerson's entire life is a lesson to us about Metaphysical Commitment. He experienced something so profound it could not be denied, and drove him to share it with us. His metaphors are the garb of his Experience.

Human




***H.B. allow me to again share something specific to the 'Henry Bemis' in you:

"A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across the mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. Yet he dismisses without notice his thought, because it is his. In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts; they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty. Great works of art have no more affecting lesson for us than this. They teach us to abide by our spontaneous impression with good-humoured inflexibility then most when the whole cry of voices is on the other side. Else to-morrow a stranger will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to take with shame our own opinion from another."

--Ralph Waldo Emerson--
--"Self Reliance"--

Human:

Thank you for these literary insights. When it comes to such matters, I am the student, and you are the teacher. I accept such position humbly.

Best Regards,
HB

People who have profound spiritual experiences will often be completely convinced that it came from outside their own mind. I don't buy it, but I do think that the brain and consciousness are much more complex than an individual can realize. Processes go on constantly in the subconscious and sometimes connect with the conscious part in unexpected ways.

We are probably all deluded in our own theory of how our mind works. I am with Sam Harris in believing that a person can have experiences every bit as profound as those of the religious without believing in God at all.

There is the experience and then there is the interpretation of the experience. It's not quite that neat a division because they affect one another, but it is a difference worth keeping in mind.

A question that comes up with your use of the word "deluded," which perhaps you use playfully--Do you think Sam Harris et al tend to see our brain, thought processes, etc. as pathological? Comments I've read from him, Dawkins, and Dennett as well as comments from atheists on the board give me that impression. I could be wrong, but there seems to be a bend toward assuming psychopathology. (I don't assume psychopatholgy, by the way--my bent.)

There's nothing inherently pathological about how our minds work. I just think we view our own consciousness in a simplistic way and don't see most of what's happening between our own ears. That sort of delusion is not pathology.

For example, people who think they have a soul that can separate from the body in some way are delusional, and that includes most of us.

I have never had a spiritual experience.

I have never read a peer-reviewed article from a prominent medical journal that says anything about humans having a soul. Until medical science can identify and discuss "the human soul" then I will continue to believe that the soul does not exist.

The soul is simply another example of delusional humans inventing magical stuff as part of their wishful thinking.

This reminds me of the man who put a dying man on a sensitive scale during his death to attempt detection of the mass of the soul. He claimed that he did find that it weighed a gram or two....

Thanks for posting this. I have read the discussion with great interest.
One of the reasons I left mormonism is because as a life-long member I had plenty of emotional experiences there--and while watching TV, and listening to music, and reading, etc, etc. I could never reconcile those experiences--which all seemed the same somehow--with the one truly significant spiritual experience in my life. It is an experience that I cannot relate because I have never been able to put it into words. When I try I realize that it was a "turn and take a seat by the fire" experience (thanks for that BTW).
As I left the church and studied more about other religions I borrowed a phrase from Buddhism: spontaneous enlightenment, because that seemed to best describe what happened to me.
You have given me more to think about Henry Bemis. Also, Human, I appreciate your comments. Nice addition to the discussion.
I think I'll go look up some Emerson.

Thank you, bluejeanbabyqueen. Bemis is the one poster who consistently rouses me to type something out.

Here's the key to all of Emerson:

"Do not set the least value on what I do, or the least discredit on what I do not, as if I pretended to settle any thing as true or false. I unsettle all things."

--R.W. Emerson--
--"Circles"--

Cheers,

Human

Hi Henry,

Interesting topic, no excellent topic!

Please watch this video

http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

This neuroscientist suffered a stroke that temporarily wiped out her left brain. Watch how profoundly she describes her "spiritual" experience. You may also be aware that deep spiritual experiences can be induced by magnetic fields being applied to the temporal lobes of the brain. Theist feel "God" and atheist feel a oneness with the universe. Now you mention how some HG like experiences seem to defy any attempt to find a causal etiology. But, considering that only a fraction of our brain activity is in conscious awareness it is quite possible that James' experience was triggered by processes in his brain.

I wanted to believe in spiritual matter and entities outside of myself. I even tried out of body exercises to verify that some part of us could exist outside of our physical bodies. I had some interesting experiences but completely failed to find any evidence that I was looking for. None of the above proves that your hunches are wrong. But, if you ask the question "what evidence is there that something is influencing my brain outside of my body?" I think you will be left with only physical explanations. I hope I am understanding your concerns. I have had several "Holy Ghost" testimony building experiences when I was a TBM, btw. And like you I now know better. My two cents, WRA

There is much of interest here, but I will have to respond by bullet points:

1. I read Bolt-Taylor's book several years ago. Her story is interesting as a first hand account of her experience, but woefully short on theoretic insight, and logically problematic on a number of levels. Some such deficiencies may themselves be the result of her stroke. In any event, she is not a major player in the theoretical debate on these issues.

2. The fact that some level of "spiritual experiences" can be induced by scientific techniques, or are sometimes the product of brain disease or trauma (Taylor), is of importance only to highlight token-token correlations between brain states and consciousnes states generally. I find this point trivial, because all conscious states, including hallucinations and dreams, have such token-token neurological states. Why would we think spiritual experiences would be any different. Just as with other such conscious states, this fact, of itself, tells us nothing as to what external stimulous may have "triggered" or otherwise might have been involved, in generating such states, and thus what their ultimate source was.

3. Causation is a difficult concept, particularly in modern science where spontaneous events occur with probability functions. Note, here, that causation can also imply contraints, such that a brain state, and corresponding conscious state might be the result of contraining influences, rather than postive events. On such consideration, spiritual experiences might be generally inhibited by normal brain constraints, and surface only when such constraints are removed, e.g. by trauma or whatever. Normally, when someone has a stroke we expect by empirical experience that their cognitive capacities will be reduced. Having a "spiritual experience" in this context suggests a violation of thermodynamics, and might be better explained by the removal of contraints. This is speculative, of course, but something interesting to think about.

4. In a prior post I discussed at some length the nature of evidence, and why there was evidence for such things as independent "souls" that survive death. That post would apply here as well.

5. Of course, what we may want to believe is irrelevant to what is actually real. Personally, I find the idea of an immortal soul equally as troubling as mortality, if not more so. So, I have honestly no personal, psychologicl motivation (that I am aware of) for any position I take on this Board. Most of the time, I offer only food for thought.

Thanks for your response.
HB

Great thread, very thought provoking!

A couple of things came to mind as I read through the posts. I too have had some experiences that I used to explain in fairly supernatural ways. I've also lived in cultures where that was very common, even for highly rational people within those cultures. As I coasted rather gently into atheism, I wondered how to make sense of these experiences and those of others. I don't think of myself as insane, and I certainly don't think my friends who have had some pretty bizarre experiences are insane either. Nor are we just ignorant or deluded, or at least not more than the basically ignorant and deluded state that most humans are in most of the time.

I guess I've come to 'rest' in a place that doesn't really provide secure answers. Rather, I try to keep a couple of more reliable truths in mind when it comes to these experiences. I'm pretty okay with this resting place, it seems a fairly defendable and agnostic stance, given our physical and mental limitations. There is nothing wrong in my mind with saying, I don't know.

1. I think a lot of the recent science is showing that our main operating system is the unconscious one; it picks up the vast majority of informational input through the senses, and it makes the vast majority of decisions that keep us functioning. That to me suggests that an experience we become conscious of can be triggered by all kinds of sensory input that we don't have access to consciously. It can feel supernatural, but may be quite material in origin, and we can't just 'look closer' and find out the materialist source of the experience. Many things really are truly closed to us even when it comes to our own experience, our own bodies and minds.

2. I'm pretty convinced that D'Amasio is right, our emotions ARE our intelligence, so I don't try to seperate out some sort of inner superior rational self that can make sense out of the experiences I'm having, mysterious or mundane. A powerful emotional experience isn't inferior to my more rational moments. Remembering this helps me avoid overly binary thinking, especially when faced with an experience that is more complex.

3. Because we are narrative beings and we create and need stories in order to make sense of the world, its practically impossible not to come up with a story that seeks to 'explain' an experience we become conscious of. But just because the story can hold together and 'feel' right, doesn't make it true in a more empirical way. I think its pretty common to feel pretty settled in a story, and then a new piece of information enters the picture and we go back and see things in an entirely new way. When it comes to 'spiritual' experiences, I am now pretty comfortable accepting that whatever story my mind/emotions settles on, the story is just a story, and not something that can be tested in some other way. Most of the time anyway. Sometimes there are empirical lessons to be learned, but I don't obsess over them. I've never felt the need to go back and 're-explain' my spiritual experiences, the ones that used to have a supernatural story attached to them. I can reinterpret them to some degree, but that is just another story and no more empirically justifiable. I'd have to have the experience again in my new state to really give some weight to a new interpretation.

4. I think luck and chance are very significant forces in our lives. Again, our story making nature often hides their impact, but that doesn't mean they weren't factors. I've lived in places where the cultural norm is not nearly so convinced of individual agency, and luck is far more valued (and of course feared too). Supernatural and magical things can appear to happen, but luck and chance make better explanations to me than the supernatural. Even if the story I create for them still feels magical, I know again that this is just my nature to tell stories. The stories don't have to be true.

5. There are still things to be discovered. It seems that are still some very gigantic holes in our modern understanding of even basic things about the mind, the universe, the theory of everything. Maybe it will turn out that quantum effects do impact us at a macro level. Who knows. In the meantime, being both open and agnostic seems pretty adaptive, especially on an individual and personal level.

Most of these ideas have developed over time and after a lot of reading and thinking. I doubt they are profound in any way lol, more like a way of making sense of my own life and the lives of people I care about:) I wish I could list some titles off the top of my head that have influenced me, but I'd have to go back and do a little research.

Thanks for that.

I have some things to say but I'm on a little hand held device and just can't write out thoughts well poking with one finger.

What I liked is your valuing being agnostic on a range of things. There is nothing wrong with saying 'I don't know'. In fact, since most of us really don't much of anything, really, saying 'I don't know' is simply being honest.

This is a very good post. I think that we need not throw out the baby with the bath water when it comes to these experiences. I am studying Kundalini energy which is a latent energy that lays dormant in most people. This energy when released opens your Chakra's allowing you to be opened up to the "spiritual" side of life (that that is not physical). I find that this energy when released and the experiences that are had by the individual are directly related to the beliefs and teachings of the individual. Somewhat like life after death experiences being described in relation to the beliefs and teachings the individual has and believes to be true. This indicates, not that the experience is invalid, but that the "reality" of the experience is interpreted by the individual him/herself. In other words our experiences as mormons were valid but how we interpreted them may not be. At first, after I left the church after 30 some years, I wanted nothing to do with spiritualism, but we cannot deny that it exists we have had these experiences. My experience tells me to look within, because only I can come up with the answers!

I found my Mormon "spiritual experiences" (warning voices, and visual impressions (visions) and vivid dreams with messages were from one of two sources. The 'feeling' spiritual experiences the church wants you to believe in are not spiritual or valid at all!

1. Spirit guide/passed relatives. Normally very specific information is provided about either past or future.

2. Subconscious/soul. Normally, communicates in symbols or story so very seldom a specific answer but a story or various symbols and words form to describe the answer or used to communicate a message. This information can also relate to the past or the future.