DanielCC wrote:

That's an interesting idea - it fits quite well with the secular (as in not-specifically theist but not anti-theistic) account of heightened states of awareness, including of course self-awareness. 

Yeah the self-awareness part actually pointed me to look into this from that perspective. It would also explain the belief(s) that self is all there is. That would very much be in line with the image of God being separated from God Himself. The only way to bridge the gap between self (image of God) and God is for Him to create that bridge and that is via the redemptive power of Jesus Christ. What do you guys think? Also if you guys could link to any books that tackle this question from this perspective I would appreciate it.

As Christians, we can say several things with confidence straight off:

1. Spiritual experiences are to be judged by whether they confirm or contradict divine revelation. If we seem to be experiencing something that contradicts revelation, then we know right away that we're being deceived.

2. Genuine spiritual experiences cannot be induced or forced by technical means, because they must be initiated by God. Therefore, any seemingly spiritual experience we have as a direct result of a drug cannot be genuine. It may, however, be the case that a genuine experience either happens to coincide with, or is indirectly brought about by, drug use, such as by placing us in a position to be open to God, in the manner of the prodigal son coming to his senses in the company of the pigs.

3. It is perfectly possible to induce or force contact with demons by technical means. Demons are quite eager to deceive us into thinking they are angels or God himself, and people who take drugs for the purpose of inducing spiritual experiences are especially liable to falling for this deception.

Last edited by Seán Mac Críodáin (3/27/2016 2:37 am)

Hmm, that's right. I think that it's probably because unlike Pagan thought, Christianity was unwilling to give non spiritual creation full autonomy from God. Sprites, nymphs, fairies, and everything else, are not merely causally independent from God but have something like independent will with respect to God. For reasons that aren't immediately clear to me but which could probably be figured out, Christianity was unwilling to grant that a tree or a grove might have a will contrary to God's, though a demon or a man might. Nature seems to be God's stage and props in Christianity, and even when there are other forces at play, for instance demons possessing pigs, it is the demons taking over the creatures not something about pigs in particular. The spiritual realm, when it comes in contact with the natural, is inclined to use it as a puppet or an instrument or a place to make declarations.

Hmm, fairies nymphs and the like are harder, but I'm not sure how centaurs were to be understood. The gods obviously aren't straightforwardly bodily creatures, but what exactly are centaurs? They would be a kind of creature, wouldn't they? And so they would fit perfectly well within the spiritual hierarchy of Christianity.

More troubling is something that isn't bodily in any obvious way. Socrates' daimonion- the voice in his head that tells him to stop when he's making an error - better not be a demon, but only some people might be inclined to think it an angel, and it seems insufficient to merely psychologize it. There shouldn't be free agent spiritual entities both good and not subordinate to God.

Last edited by iwpoe (3/29/2016 3:22 am)

iwpoe wrote:

I'm not going to ask about this in the usual skeptical way, since I see no reason in principle that a psychedelic experience of God couldn't be thought of as a legitimate religious experience, but I never really asked about it so I thought this would be an interesting crowd to think about it with:

1. Are psychedelic experiences in any respect qualitatively similar to what would normally be called religious experiences?
2. If so, is there any reason, not starting from materialist premises, that we should consider them to be dubious?

A central doctrine in Catholic faith is that God acts in the soul of the faithful, both on a habitual basis, infusing us with an essential quality (sanctifying grace) and theological virtues (faith, hope and charity), and at specific points in time, illuminating our intellect to adhere to truth and reject error, and moving our will to do god and avoid evil. Thus Christianity is first of all about God working in our soul, and only then about us doing the works God wants us to do (Eph 2:10).

Now, since our soul is not created to be a pure spirit but the aristotelian "form" of a biological body, it interfaces both with God "above" it and our central nervous system (CNS) "below" it. So any change in the state of the CNS will have an effect on the soul. That change can take place as a result of a number of causes: ingestion of a substance causing changes in the concentrations of neurotransmitters or the state of their receptors, prolonged physical exercise (which causes such changes), etc.

Question is: how do effects on the soul coming from "above" compare with effects coming from "below"? I.e., how can we compare effects on the soul caused by direct divine intervention (either in conjunction with already divinely infused theological virtues or in preparation for their infusion) with effects on the soul caused by a chemical change in the brain?

Clearly I have just asked a rethorical question, since it should be obvious to any theist that a direct action by God can produce infinitely better results than the effect of a psychoactive substance in terms of our knowledge of Him and our love of Him, not to mention the supernatural effects of the initial infussion and subsequent increase of sanctifying grace and charity, which can result exclusively from direct divine action. Moreover, given that God has already taught us and given to us the means through which we can allow his action on us, namely Liturgy, prayer and prayerful reading of his Word, it would be an offense to Him to try to achieve "from below" something even remotely close (oxymoron intended) to what He is willing to do "from above".

On the contrary, it is thinkable that, if someone takes such an unwise path, God may deliver him or her as playground to the dark side.

So, my answer to your questions are:

1. No, they are not even remotely qualitatively similar.

2. Yes, there are most serious reasons to think that what the person gets is, in the best case, just the product of his own subconscious mind or even his anarchic neuronal activity, and in the worst case, the work of the dark side.

Going over the thread before posting this, I see that my comment is close to an expanded version of Seán Mac Críodáin's. Anyway, here it goes.
 

Last edited by Johannes (4/11/2016 10:06 pm)