We are all born with the idea of God

fitz0

nagirrac wrote: »

We have no objective data on a higher life form, but we have subjective data, which is an important distinction. I am not suggesting that we believe what is claimed in terms of eye witness data by religious believers, for example the miracles performed by Jesus Christ. We simply can't time travel back to validate or invalidate them, so you either believe them based on faith or you reject them based on how unlikely they are give our objective experience of the world. What I am suggesting is that we should take seriously the experiences of mystical experiences.

There are two approaches to knowledge and wisdom, the analytical scientific approach and the mindful mystical approach. Atheists generally discount the latter as having any value. I would argue strongly with this.

While on important distinctions I think it important to note that the 'mindful mystic' approach has no demonstrable value. It may have value in the mind of the faithful but it cannot demonstrate the claims it makes. Therein lies the main divide between these two approaches.

Of course, if you are going to include subjective 'data' then you have to include all the beliefs of all the people throughout all time. There have been so many small gods, aliens, creatures in the night that have been fervently believed real that to pick just one, whether it be the Christian god, the Hindu pantheon or any of the others, would be completely arbitrary. Rejecting other beliefs that are also subjectively understood as real just can't be done without relegating the mindful mystical approach to them to a lower level of truth than that which you choose to believe.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

There are two approaches to knowledge and wisdom, the analytical scientific approach and the mindful mystical approach. Atheists generally discount the latter as having any value. I would argue strongly with this. For example, if I were faced with a difficult moral dilemna, I would not employ science to try and resolve it, I would rely in deep meditative reflection and my life experience tells me this generally has a positive moral outcome.

And the history of humanity tells us otherwise. History is over flowing with examples of mistakes, errors and down right atrocities being carried out after the advice of prophets and oracles.

nagirrac wrote: »

The data is subjective but mystics accessing altered states of reality have lead to huge breakthroughs in all areas of human endevour in history (including science). Without drug induced mystical experiences the Beatles would have never moved much beyond their early 3 minute pop songs, we wouldn't have the wonderful novels of Philip Dick, Steve Jobs said one of the most important things he ever did in his life in terms of inspiration was taking LSD. There is strong evidence that all world religions originally stemmed from people taking mind altering substances like soma, mescaline and DMT.

None of those "advances" are tangible, nor can you show that they were the product of these drugs. Or to put it another way, people have written better music than the Beatles, written better novels that Philip K Dick and invented more amazing things than Steve Jobs without using mind altering substances.

There is no documented evidence that these drugs produce ideas or information that couldn't be gathered normally, ie no evidence that they extend human mental ability beyond normal parameters. Sure the people on the drugs might claim they had amazing experiences, but that is as much due to the mood altering effects as the drugs actually producing new physical methods of thinking.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

None of those "advances" are tangible, nor can you show that they were the product of these drugs. Or to put it another way, people have written better music than the Beatles, written better novels that Philip K Dick and invented more amazing things than Steve Jobs without using mind altering substances.

There is no documented evidence that these drugs produce ideas or information that couldn't be gathered normally, ie no evidence that they extend human mental ability beyond normal parameters.

Sadly you are completely incorrect. Do a little digging on the LSD research that was done in the US before the government intervened and banned the use of the substance. It is quite mindblowing to say the least. Multiple scientists who were unable to solve problems after months of work came up with solutions after ingesting LSD. Why would the Nobel prize winning scientist who invented PCR claim what he did, it is a highly controversial thing to admit to.

Opinions on music and literature are subjective by the way.. and I was talking about the visionary creativity of Jobs in terms of consumer tastes, he didn't invent anything.

Kidchameleon

Zombrex wrote: »

And the history of humanity tells us otherwise. History is over flowing with examples of mistakes, errors and down right atrocities being carried out after the advice of prophets and oracles.
.

Worth nothing the atrocities that science has led to. Atomic bomb etc.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Sadly you are completely incorrect. Do a little digging on the LSD research that was done in the US before the government intervened and banned the use of the substance. It is quite mindblowing to say the least.

Can you provide an example of something that was "mind blowing" (I assume you aren't using that literally).

nagirrac wrote: »

Multiple scientists who were unable to solve problems after months of work came up with solutions after ingesting LSD. Why would the Nobel prize winning scientist who invented PCR claim what he did, it is a highly controversial thing to admit to.

Which of these scientists came up with solutions that were impossible to come up with without taking LSD?

nagirrac wrote: »

Opinions on music and literature are subjective by the way.. and I was talking about the visionary creativity of Jobs in terms of consumer tastes, he didn't invent anything.

And no one has ever been a visionary about consumer tastes without taking LSD? According to Jobs the lesson he learned from taking LSD was that it is better to create things rather than make money. Hardly profound, was it?

Zombrex

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Worth nothing the atrocities that science has led to. Atomic bomb etc.

Science doesn't claim to be a method of expanding the human mind and moral thinking beyond its natural limitations.

Banbh

Thank you Zombrex for pursuing reason through the shifting sands of nonsense. You have the patience of Jobs.

Zombrex

Banbh wrote: »

You have the patience of Jobs.

Er ... is that a complement?

kylith

Zombrex wrote: »

Can you provide an example of something that was "mind blowing" (I assume you aren't using that literally).

Francis Crick admits to being on LSD when he discovered the DNA double helix.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/02/10/discoverer-of-dna-helix-was-high-on-lsd-when-he-figured-it-out.aspx

King Mob

kylith wrote: »

Francis Crick admits to being on LSD when he discovered the DNA double helix.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/02/10/discoverer-of-dna-helix-was-high-on-lsd-when-he-figured-it-out.aspx

I would not take that article in any way seriously considering who wrote it.

Geomy

Zombrex wrote: »

Science doesn't claim to be a method of expanding the human mind and moral thinking beyond its natural limitations.

Can you explain the above in layman's terminology please Zombrex.

It seems to me you did a bit of a begora jig around that one

kylith

King Mob wrote: »

I would not take that article in any way seriously considering who wrote it.

Fair enough. I'm in work at the mo and don't really have time to properly search, I figured that it was better than starting my post with 'I read on Cracked that...'. I know that it was reported in the Mail on Sunday:

Crick, who died ten days ago, aged 88, later told a fellow scientist that he often used small doses of LSD then an experimental drug used in psychotherapy to boost his powers of thought. He said it was LSD, not the Eagle's warm beer, that helped him to unravel the structure of DNA, the discovery that won him the Nobel Prize.

PopePalpatine

kylith wrote: »

Fair enough. I'm in work at the mo and don't really have time to properly search, I figured that it was better than starting my post with 'I read on Cracked that...'. I know that it was reported in the Mail on Sunday:

That claim had credibility...

...and now it's gone!

Undergod

nagirrac wrote: »

We have no objective data on a higher life form, but we have subjective data, which is an important distinction.

Subjective data? You mean anecdote?
If not, what on earth does "subjective data" mean? If it's open to interpretation and experienced differently by different individuals, what use is it in forming solid hypotheses?

nagirrac wrote: »

What I am suggesting is that we should take seriously the experiences of mystical experiences.

There are two approaches to knowledge and wisdom, the analytical scientific approach and the mindful mystical approach. Atheists generally discount the latter as having any value.

I think a mindful/mystical outlook can have many benefits, for example for mental health, but it isn't good at dealing with data or forming good theories about how the world works.

nagirrac wrote: »

I would argue strongly with this. For example, if I were faced with a difficult moral dilemna, I would not employ science to try and resolve it, I would rely in deep meditative reflection and my life experience tells me this generally has a positive moral outcome. There have been countless mystics in history that have made enormous contributions to how we evolved in terms of our knowledge and civilization. The methods employed vary, from mind altering drugs to meditation to chanting, dancing, etc.

What has this go to do with OP?
I am sure most people don't do scientific analyses of moral problems - but so what? That doesn't mean that such analyses can't be done. And people are notoriously bad at holding consistent moral positions.

nagirrac wrote: »

The data is subjective but mystics accessing altered states of reality have lead to huge breakthroughs in all areas of human endevour in history (including science).

I would argue that they're experiencing altered states of perception, rather than altered states of reality. The objective world doesn't change just cause you screwed around with your brain chemistry.

nagirrac wrote: »

Without drug induced mystical experiences the Beatles would have never moved much beyond their early 3 minute pop songs, we wouldn't have the wonderful novels of Philip Dick, Steve Jobs said one of the most important things he ever did in his life in terms of inspiration was taking LSD. There is strong evidence that all world religions originally stemmed from people taking mind altering substances like soma, mescaline and DMT.

I don't think Soma is a real thing.
I'm not gonna disagree that drugs and altered mental states can create good art - nice choice with PKD - but that's really got nothing to do with what I was talking about anyway.

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not advocating indulging in these substances, but the reality described by those who have is nothing like the reality we normally experience, and this same state can be accessed more safely through meditation. What we normally think of as consciousness is nothing like these experiences, they involve complete dissolution of the sense of self, out of body experiences, a reality that is completely holistic and yes, encounters with higher life forms, both benevolent and malevolent.

Doing specific things to brain chemistry triggers consistent results. Wow.

nagirrac wrote: »

What is interesting from a scientific point of view is that entering these altered states has led to significant scientific breakthroughs. The Nobel Prize winning Biochemist Kary Mullis who invented PCR made the somewhat shocking claim that he would never have achieved what he did without the use of LSD.

Don't see that as shocking - I have read of people who take moderate doses of LSD to help them with maths. It's an altered mental state, you can see things from a different point of view. How does this relate to collecting data on a higher life-form?

nagirrac wrote: »

So to suggest that only objective reality matters and mystical altered states of mind are not valuable to the human condition or valuable to expanding our knowledge is false.

I never said that, and it doesn't even make sense from my point of view. Objective reality is all that exists. Altered states of mind are interesting and may be useful.

nagirrac wrote: »

We can discount some of the subjective claims of mystics such as encounters with higher beings,

So... why bring this up as a counterargument to what I said?

nagirrac wrote: »

but we cannot discount the significant creative power unleashed by people in these states.

Agreed. But as data, all it tells us is "these states make people act different." So nothing to do with what I said.

Zombrex

kylith wrote: »

Francis Crick admits to being on LSD when he discovered the DNA double helix.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/02/10/discoverer-of-dna-helix-was-high-on-lsd-when-he-figured-it-out.aspx

And...? Was working out the structure of DNA beyond the powers of a normal, not on drugs, human brain?

Zombrex

Geomy wrote: »

Can you explain the above in layman's terminology please Zombrex.

It seems to me you did a bit of a begora jig around that one

It is pretty simple, science doesn't claim to do the things that people are claiming mind altering drugs allowed prophets and oracles to do, so comparing the two is rather irrelevant.

kylith

Zombrex wrote: »

And...? Was working out the structure of DNA beyond the powers of a normal, not on drugs, human brain?

Maybe it just need him to come at it from a different perspective, and LSD helped with that.

Zombrex

kylith wrote: »

Maybe it just need him to come at it from a different perspective, and LSD helped with that.

Possibly, but that isn't the claim. The claim is that these drugs advance human mental ability beyond what is naturally occurring.

LSD might have helped him look at things differently. But so could a walk in the mountains (a favorite of Einstein). I haven't seen any evidence that LSD or other drugs allow the brain to do things it normally couldn't do.

joseph brand

"We are all born with the idea of God. "

I'm going to assume that we are all introduced to the idea of god, which starts with baptism (for us Irish folks). Which god, depends on geography.

I'm not sure if looking back through time would do any good, as people knew less and believed in cloud gods, grass gods and sock gods. They were ignorant, through no fault of their own.

All it took was some smooth snake oil salesman such as; Jesus, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Jones, David Koresh etc . . to con a group, with the lure of a fluffy heaven, and like a snowball, it kept rolling, gathering more victims.

We are all born (most of us) with the idea that we're not terribly excited about our own death. Religion purports that it has the magical key to 'everlasting' life. All you have to do is give the church some money, and let them tell you how to live. It's not much. :rolleyes:

Btw, in every argument / debate that I have with my folks, the words 'death' and 'heaven' appear more than most. Nothing ever about the teachings of jesus. It basically boils down to; "I want to go to heaven." That's. It.

joseph brand

Zombrex wrote: »

Possibly, but that isn't the claim. The claim is that these drugs advance human mental ability beyond what is naturally occurring.

LSD might have helped him look at things differently. But so could a walk in the mountains (a favorite of Einstein). I haven't seen any evidence that LSD or other drugs allow the brain to do things it normally couldn't do.

One thing that drugs do, for sure, is, they open the mind. Drugs are probably an antidote for theism and conservatism. Probably.

The drugs I have in mind (not literally), are weed and MDMA. Sam Harris talked about experimenting with MDMA on a podcast with Joe Rogan. He didn't knock it, but he was also nervous of promoting it.
IIRC, Harris likened meditation to 'tripping'. No wonder those monks like meditating so much, they're all out of their bins.

Anyway, an open mind is a better mind.

Geomy

Zombrex wrote: »

It is pretty simple, science doesn't claim to do the things that people are claiming mind altering drugs allowed prophets and oracles to do, so comparing the two is rather irrelevant.

Maybe irrelevant to yo but to others who lean more twoards an esotheric/mystical way of thinking its relevant

GCU Flexible Demeanour

joseph brand wrote: »

Drugs are probably an antidote for theism and conservatism. Probably.

That just reminded me of a quote, sounding a element of caution about the nature of the antidote.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fear_and_Loathing_in_Las_Vegas_(novel)
What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole life-style that he helped to create...a generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption that somebody-or at least some force-is tending the Light at the end of the tunnel.

Cork Boy

Zombrex wrote: »

Possibly, but that isn't the claim. The claim is that these drugs advance human mental ability beyond what is naturally occurring.

LSD might have helped him look at things differently. But so could a walk in the mountains (a favorite of Einstein). I haven't seen any evidence that LSD or other drugs allow the brain to do things it normally couldn't do.

Psychotropic drugs (mushrooms, LSD, DMT, etc) drugs operate by temporarily affecting a person's neurochemistry, which in turn causes changes in a person's mood, cognition, perception and behavior.

It's not just about a different viewpoint or seeing things from a different angle. Like hypnosis, LSD has been used in therapy in order to regress through a person's memory that they cannot do by themselves.

This is just one example. In layman's terms, psychotropic drugs have the ability to (de)enhance brain functions as neurotransmitters and receptors are affected by the drug

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Possibly, but that isn't the claim. The claim is that these drugs advance human mental ability beyond what is naturally occurring.

LSD might have helped him look at things differently. But so could a walk in the mountains (a favorite of Einstein). I haven't seen any evidence that LSD or other drugs allow the brain to do things it normally couldn't do.

The claim is that mystical experiences enhance creativity. Regardless of the method used (meditation and drugs being the two most common) the result is the same, quieting the mind and suppressing the noisy chatter of the ego leads to enhanced creativity. Exactly what Einstein would have been doing in his mountain walks by the way. The following quotes from Einstein actually sums up perfectly what I am referring to:

"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science (my italics). Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear, is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, this knowledge, this feeling is the core of the religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I regard myself as a profoundly religious man..... The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self".

From "After Einstein" by Barker and Shugart, and "The World as I See It" by Albert Einstein. Einstein is making the distinction here between mysticism and religion, a distinction that sadly most atheists miss because of their (quite valid) anti organized religion mindset. Mysticism involves an open mind, organized religion involves a shut mind for most of its adherents. Religion is dogma, but strict belief in materialistic reductionist science is also dogma.

You will not find much contemporary scientific data on LSD, etc. as these substances have been illegal since the mid 60s. Very few people would openly admit to taking an illegal substance, Jobs and Dr. Karl Mullis would be exceptions (although apparently Mullis was told to shut up talking about LSD if he wanted to get his Nobel prize). The research into LSD was mainly done from 1950 to 1965, there were over 1,000 scientific papers generated during this time and 6 conferences held. LSD was hugely beneficial in treating mental illness and alcoholism (much higher rates of recovery than any other method ever tried) as studies from the time showed. Ironic that the substance that helped people addicted to the most dangerous of all drugs was banned.

For more on the topic, in particular the link between meditation and creativity, and indeed the link between mental illnes and creativity, I would recommend the work of Nancy Andreason.

nagirrac

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That just reminded me of a quote, sounding a element of caution about the nature of the antidote.

Timothy Leary was almost singlehandedly responsible for the war on drugs which started in the mid 60s. Advocating mass consumption of psychedelics was totally irresponsible. He was a complete idiot and his legacy is the 50 year suppression of valuable research using psychedelics.

dybbuk

I can understand that you feel that strongly about the war on drugs.
But you must understand yourself that you are at least exaggerating.
Blaming Leary for the war on drugs is like blaming the witches for the witch-hunt or the Jews for the Holocaust, and the fact that his advocacy backfired does not make him an idiot just unskilled in politics.

fitz0

nagirrac wrote: »

Advocating mass consumption of psychedelics was totally irresponsible.

Why?

nagirrac

fitz0 wrote: »

Why?

From what I know of it, LSD in low dosage is one of the safest recreational drugs. However, in large doses and in uncontrolled settings I believe it can be psychologically dangerous. I think there were better ways of advocating the use of recreational drugs than the confrontational Leary approach which ultimately led to a harsh government crackdown. In fact, it can be argued that it didn't effect recreational use much as it is still available on the street, but it did put an end to the research and the use of LSD to treat certain conditions.

nagirrac

dybbuk wrote: »

Blaming Leary for the war on drugs is like blaming the witches for the witch-hunt or the Jews for the Holocaust, and the fact that his advocacy backfired does not make him an idiot just unskilled in politics.

I accept that to some degree. There were certainly better approaches that may not have led to such severe government intervention in my opinion.

dybbuk

That may be. But ultimately it is the Government that wages the war on drugs. Making Leary to a scapegoat is absolutely not fair and I suggest you search your soul for your motives.