Intoxication and Religious Experience

[Didymos Thomas]

Many scholars, teachers, clerics, and ordinary people claim that, through some means of intoxication, they can experience/have experienced the sort of religious experiences described by the major faith traditions. First, let me clarify intoxication – I mean the use of any mind altering substances, psycoblin, marijuana, MDMA, LSD, peyote, alcohol, cocaine, ect. Many psychoactive substances play a significant role in faith traditions. Marijuana and peyote are typical examples. In the sixties and seventies, many esteemed thinkers claimed that LSD has spiritual benefits.

I maintain that one would not be able to know, even for himself, that a supposed religious experience was indeed such a thing while intoxicated to a significant degree (which is why I have ignored caffeine, nicotine and other drugs not usually used to such an extent). Religious experience is something that, by nature, cannot be proven to an individual who did not have said experience. Thus, only the agent who had the experience has any grounds to establish the validity (for himself, though, such an experience seems to be significant only to him) of the experience. How can someone, who’s mind is significantly altered by an intoxicating substance, be able to tell the difference between the drug and the divine?

Having made some use of such substances, and having had experiences that, at the time, seemed to be spiritual in nature, I find myself to be in the minority with those who are also experienced with such substances. I have had such experiences (in order from most significant to least) with: LSD, peyote, psyclobin, a combination of cocaine and alcohol, and marijuana. Through these experiences, it seems to me that supposedly religious experiences have an extreme limit on their validity. While my objection from the above paragraph remains, I would like to say that I find room for some spiritual use – in that, through using such substances, a student can easily see that reality can be experienced in many different ways. Having seem this through the use of, for example, marijuana, one might be more inclined to recognized that each individual has uniquely individual perceptions of any given event. Past such a use as this, I can find no spiritual value in psychoactive substances.

[molok69]

I have some experience with `mind-altering` drugs, and have had some `strange` experiences, but I can`t say that they where religious. Religious experiences may be the result of a psychosis triggered by the drugs, and in a psychosis you can not tell what is real or not.

I find a discussion concerning the use of such drugs very interesting!

[boagie]

Originally Posted by molok69

I have some experience with `mind-altering` drugs, and have had some `strange` experiences, but I can`t say that they where religious. Religious experiences may be the result of a psychosis triggered by the drugs, and in a psychosis you can not tell what is real or not.

I find a discussion concerning the use of such drugs very interesting!

molok69,

I think the idea of intoxication needs to be expanded upon, for it is my belief that intoxication can result from an idea, certainly most religious beliefs must be some form of intoxication. I say that because the ideas introduced to a given population often shows the desired effect, a delusional belief in another world, a devalueing of this world in favour of this imagined world------Christianity the first nihilistic tradition? Remember the old saying you are what you eat, there is an element of truth right, so it is true of anything you consume, intoxication comes in many forms, perhaps what you believe is nothing more than the ideas you have become intoxicated with. Your thoughts----------the drinks are on the house!!

[Didymos Thomas]

I wasn't using intoxication in some symbolic fashion - I mean actual intoxication; being drunk, high, whatever.

Also, boagie, you make a great many statements that show a great deal of bias towards religion. I hope this is not the mistake of criticizing the whole of a population based upon the actions and thoughts of a portion of that population. I know you can do better.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I wasn't using intoxication in some symbolic fashion - I mean actual intoxication; being drunk, high, whatever.

Also, boagie, you make a great many statements that show a great deal of bias towards religion. I hope this is not the mistake of criticizing the whole of a population based upon the actions and thoughts of a portion of that population. I know you can do better.

Didymos Thomas,

I did not intend to imply the use of the term intoxication to be limited to the symbolic. About my bias against religion, yes indeed, no mistake there on your part. Criticizing must be done in general when we are speaking of a generality such a Christianity. I assume somewhere there are exceptions to the rule. "I know you can do better." Well, thanks much, but I think I am doing fine!!

[Didymos Thomas]

I did not intend to imply the use of the term intoxication to be limited to the symbolic. About my bias against religion, yes indeed, no mistake there on your part. Criticizing must be done in general when we are speaking of a generality such a Christianity. I assume somewhere there are exceptions to the rule. "I know you can do better." Well, thanks much, but I think I am doing fine!!

So, because some Christians do X, all Christians are guilty of X? As I said, you can do better.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

So, because some Christians do X, all Christians are guilty of X? As I said, you can do better.

Didymos Thomas,

There are two sides to most coins no matter how disappointing you might find that-----------pray for me! Christianity is an institution I do not intend to deal with the characteristic of a billion forms of Christianity, a billion individuals. In essence the kind of mentality involved in the faith of Christians takes in many religions.

[Didymos Thomas]

You are still making blanket generalizations about a wide variety of conflicting view points based on only a portion of those particular view points. Yes, there are twi sides to each coin, and many more sides to Christianity. If you do not intend to deal with the variety of viewpoints, that is fine; but instead you have dealt with them - you have ignored the variety, and insist on pretneding that such variety does not exist.

Philosophy requires that we be willing to examine issues that complicate our subjects.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

You are still making blanket generalizations about a wide variety of conflicting view points based on only a portion of those particular view points. Yes, there are twi sides to each coin, and many more sides to Christianity. If you do not intend to deal with the variety of viewpoints, that is fine; but instead you have dealt with them - you have ignored the variety, and insist on pretneding that such variety does not exist.

Philosophy requires that we be willing to examine issues that complicate our subjects.

Didymos Thomas,

I get the idea you want to play the victum, the majority playing victum is a real bore. Actually I would not have anything against Christianity if it had not turn itself into a political animal. I do not have any respect for Christianity, and I would just a soon not know of its existence, but as a political force it has made sure I cannot ignore it. Alright, you know I have no respect for Christianity, what is the particular you wish to have considered? Now don't pout, I am all ears!

[Didymos Thomas]

Victim? Hardly. I have enough intellectual honesty to be fair to other view points.

You continue to judge an entire population based upon but a portion of that population. Yes, the politization of the church is horrendous - Christians have caused many problems; however, whatever issues you might have, whatever issues I might have, with some Christians, there is no reason to condemn all of Christians.

I am sorry if you do not have the intellectual integrity, constitution or interest to honestly consider topics such as this. We can criticize Christianity all day - I'll join you, and I'll bet that our we share most of our criticism of Christianity.

Personally, I have not asked you to consider any particular opinion that might be related to Christianity - other than the opinion you have presented: "Criticizing must be done in general when we are speaking of a generality such a Christianity."