Materialism and those with "spiritual experiences"

by slimboyfat 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JamesThomas

  Is there another possibility that allows for the integrity both of materialism and of persons claiming such experiences?

  May I suggest that the actual difference between someone who believes that: "all that truly exists is the material world around us", and those who claim "spiritual experiences", is no difference at all. They are both instances of placing ultimate significance and reality on what is phenomenally experienced.

  What comes before all experience, be it "material" or "spiritual"? What silently witnesses all thought and phenomenal display? What does all the drama happen within? What unites everyone and everything? Who/what are you -- truly and purely -- at the core?

  j
• 

  kid-A

  Is there another possibility that allows for the integrity both of materialism and of persons claiming such experiences?

  Yes. Its called neuroscience:

  Neural correlates of religious experience

  European Journal of Neuroscience Volume 13 Page 1649 - April 2001

  Nina P. Azari, Janpeter Nickel, Gilbert Wunderlich, Michael Niedeggen, Harald Hefter, Lutz Tellmann, Hans Herzog, Petra Stoerig, Dieter Birnbacher and Rüdiger J. Seitz

  Abstract The commonsense view of religious experience is that it is a preconceptual, immediate affective event. Work in philosophy and psychology, however, suggest that religious experience is an attributional cognitive phenomenon. Here the neural correlates of a religious experience are investigated using functional neuroimaging. During religious recitation, self-identified religious subjects activated a frontal–parietal circuit, composed of the dorsolateral prefrontal, dorsomedial frontal and medial parietal cortex. Prior studies indicate that these areas play a profound role in sustaining reflexive evaluation of thought. Thus, religious experience may be a cognitive process which, nonetheless, feels immediate.

  Recent neuropsychological and functional imaging studies suggest that the prefrontal cortex holds representations of knowledge structured in the form of cognitive schemas ( Partiot et al., 1995 ). Cognitive schemas are mental representations containing organized prior knowledge about specific domains, inclusive of specifications of the causal relations among the attributes therein ( Taylor & Crocker, 1981 ). Religious attributions are made in accordance with religious schemas, which consist in organized knowledge about religion and religious issues, and include reinforced structures for inferring religiously related causality of experienced events ( Spilka & McIntosh, 1995 ). Prefrontally localized schemas manage such memories stored as representations in posterior brain areas ( Grafman & Hendler, 1991 ), and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is critical for memory retrieval and conscious monitoring of thought ( Fletcher et al., 1998 ; McIntosh et al., 1999 ; Duncan et al., 2000 ; Gallagher et al., 2000 ). The medial parietal area activated in the religious subjects was the precuneus, which has strong anatomical connections to prefrontal cortex ( Goldman-Rakic, 1988 ; Petrides & Pandya, 1984 ), and plays a key role in visual memory ( Fletcher et al., 1995 ). The dorsomedial frontal area we observed corresponds to the presupplementary motor area (pre-SMA) ( Rizzolatti et al., 1998 ). Pre-SMA receives strong inputs from the prefrontal cortex, as well as from the cerebellum ( Luppino et al., 1993 ), the latter of which now is understood to participate in a wide variety of both cognitive and noncognitive processes ( Allen et al., 1997 ). Converging evidence from both animal and human studies indicates that pre-SMA is important in automatically controlling the readiness for action processed by lateral parieto-frontal circuits ( Deiber et al., 1991 ; Tanji et al., 1996 ), and sustaining the preparation to act based upon the current contents of working memory ( Jahanshahi et al., 1995 ; Haxby et al., 2000 ).

  Thus, we suggest that religious experience may be a cognitive process, mediated by a pre-established neural circuit, involving dorsolateral prefrontal, dorsomedial frontal and medial parietal cortex. Because religious attributions are made in anomalous or ambiguous situations, when a person does not know what to expect or what to do, yet actively and persistently seeks a solution, a persistent, internally generated 'readiness' emerges, which subsequently serves to re-activate the religious schema in the presence of salient religious cues ( Proudfoot, 1985 ). For the religious subjects of this study, biblical Psalm 23 was the salient religious cue. There is substantial evidence from the psychology of religion to suggest that people are 'prepared' for religious experiences ( Spilka et al., 1996 ). This 'readiness' is probably mediated by the dorsomedial frontal cortex, leading to the commonly reported felt immediacy of religious experience. The experience, however, becomes religious when the subject has consciously identified it as consistent with the subject's own religious schema ( Proudfoot, 1985 ). This cognitive process most probably involves the dorsolateral prefrontal and medial parietal cortex ( Fletcher et al., 1995 ; Partiot et al., 1995 ). Consequently, subsequent self-initiated religious actions will reinforce the subject's personal religious schema ( Proudfoot, 1985 ; Spilka & McIntosh, 1995 ).

  F ig . 1. Significant activations for the contrast 'religious-recite' vs. 'rest' in religious subjects, rendered onto canonical T1-weighted image of SPM97d (P < 0.001, uncorrected for multiple comparisons). Shown are the left, dorsal and right view of the brain. Scans for each subject were realigned and spatially normalized onto the PET template, and smoothed using an isotropic Gaussian kernel with FWHM set at 20 mm. The SPM grey matter threshold was set to its default value. For task comparisons, an ancova (analysis of covariance) model was fitted to the data for each voxel.
• 

  the dreamer dreaming

  after my disconnection from the BORG collective, I came to the point of believing that materialistic atheism could explain just about everything and then I had some very odd -beyond natural explanation experiences and nothing to tell me what they meant. but one thing they showed me: materialism could not explain everything.

  since that time, the reason for my name on this board... I have come to understand that no experience I have is actually outside my mind which means that like a dream, some weird things can appear to happen without actually happening anywhere else but my mind...including the possibility that everything I am experiencing right now is also just a dream...just a dream....

  thats me in the corner thats me in the spot light ...

  ....losing my religion.....

  REM

  I have since had two past life regressions with suprizing results and an out of body experience....and while I cannot expect anyone to accept my word for these things, I believe everyone can have them...but without them giving them any concrete answers, just a lot more questions .(^_^).

  it seems to me that no honest person, (assuming others actually exist )

  can hold any belief system or BS to be the same as a fact OF experience....

  it also seems to me that honest people are not rewarded nor respected--- the best liars= politicians, clergy and people paid to lie- actors, are the most rewarded.

  while the honest are taken advantage of more than anything.
• 

  Mysterious

  No I don't think it's right to label what other people believe or as it were "put them in your box with you". However, I do think it's only natural that someone would want to be able to have a belief system that satisfactorily explained the world to them which would include being able to account for other people's experiences.
• 

  nicolaou

  Who/what are you -- truly and purely -- at the core?

  In the introduction to his book 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' Bryson makes the comment

  "It is a slightly arresting notion that if you were to pick yourself apart with tweezers, one atom at a time, you would produce a mound of fine atomic dust, none of which had ever been alive but all of whic had once been you".

  But of course we're more than our mere material composition and hopefully 650,000 hours on this rock. Doesn't make us spiritual - it just makes us more than just material.

  Nic'
• 

  Carmel

  An interesting conundrum you have before you sbf! It's the central issue when someone arrives on the scene (a Moses, a Jesus, a Muhammed a Baha'u'llah) and claims to represent the divine. Either that person is a) telling the truth regardless of how out of sinc with contemporary world view is in vogue with the masses) or b) the person is exceptionally delusional beyond the run-of-the-mill nitwit or 3) the grandest of fabricators who has exceptional knowledge none of us possess and uses it to conjure up the wildest of schemes. Your delimma then is to prove or disprove for yourself which of the three is the case.

  Now, by what criteria does one do that? There are biblical standards left to us, but they are vague by most standards and perhaps run the risk of circular reasoning when one claimant defines the way to identify the legitimacy of a future spiritual giant in some "end time" then equates to this person's own "return". A complicated and amazing milue to wade through and remain in some semblance "objective". We from a "Christian" heritage are not alone in this challenge. All of the world religions have the concept of the "return" in one form or another and give various clues for humanity to follow.

  I like that you are getting to the essence of the very basis of "belief" and some of the previous comments are in line with my own conclusions. The tradegy in most of our lives is that we want a reasonably quick answer. Maybe just one book or one study class and it would all fall in place. My experiance is that it takes much longer to change one's world view and shed years of accumulated conclusions. Truth, my friend, is in deed, relative and I believe if sought with diligence will manifest itself to any and all that persue it.

  carmel
• 

  lowden

  As is the guy who thinks that ALL perspectives are equally valid - they aren't

  IMO, the above comment is a most valid point, probably the most valid yet. Nice one Nic!

  Some comments on this thread seem to suggest that to challenge anothers belief is a bad thing, a sin.

  I challenge Fascism, Nazism, Christianity, Islam and many more! I personally do NOT think that these beliefs are good. I will also challenge ANYONE that pushes them towards me.

  I also don't believe that the original sentiment of this thread was to say that what HE believed was the only thing that was right!!

  Conclusions have been jumped to way too quickly. Simmer down.

  Peace

  Lowden
• 

  slimboyfat

  Well thanks for all your thoughtful replies.

  I am really quite surprised by the position that many of you have adopted, namely that a materialist asking how others' caims can be reconciled to a materialist view of the world exhibits intolerance. I had really not expected that reaction, but if I am calling into question deeply held convictions about experiences of a spiritual nature I suppose I should have anticipated it. I was really hoping to hear from Narkissos and Jgnat as well, as I suspect they may have interesting perspectives on this issue. Maybe they can still weigh in at some point.

  Some seem to be arguing that I have no right to ask such a question, and that by doing so I am displaying intolerance. I should just accept that while I find the supernatural hard to credit, others are perfectly reasonable to believe in things I believe are not reasonable. No advice is given as to how I should go about juggling such contradictory convictions in my head, I am simply presented with the implication that to do otherwise is not decent. One poster even has the strange notion that not maintaining these contradictory sets of convictions would result in cognitive dissonance when in fact the opposite is the case: cognitive dissonance would result precisely from unrealistically trying to force myself to believe both in materialism and in the reasonableness of accepting others' supernatural experiences as real encounters with other beings.

  I really have to take issue with this idea that materialism is an intolerant worldview. Since rejecting the Witnesses' beliefs I believe I have become much more tolerant of others' points of view. Especially where it is clear that there is no right answer we should live and let live: hairstyles, political views, sexual mores, ways of bringing up children, what is a "worthwhile" passtime and complex moral issues to do with property and the use of violence. I have come to accept that there simply are no right and wrong answers to many such issues, and that in many areas our understanding is completely socially constructed.

  At the same time I have not become a total relativist either. I don't believe it is a matter of opinion, for instance, that water boils at 100 degrees celcius at sea level. Nor for that matter can mathematical rules be said to be the result of knowledge that is merely socially constructed. Certain laws of nature would hold whether we were aware of them or not, whether we are there to observe them or not. I do not believe that the supernatural can in any way be said to fall into the former category of things about which humans merely have opinions and no real objects obtain. It is a pure nonsense to say that whether there is an afterlife or not should be viewed as a mere matter of opinion in the same way that choosing a political party at election time is a matter of opinion. Either the square root of 16 is 4 or it is not; either there is an afterlife or ther is not; either there is a God or there is not.

  I find it really hard to understand that some seriously believe that we should just somehow accept that the plurality of views on materialism versus supernaturalism are equally valid. Are they really saying that there is no real answer to the question whether there is an afterlife? Do they contend, for instance, that somehow angels can both exist (for believers) and not exist (for nonbelievers) at the same time? Really? If I believe my neighbour owns a cat, give it a name, and even call out to it now and again in passing, even though my neighbour states that he has no cat, should we really be satisfied with resolving the matter by saying: for you there is a cat, and for your neighbour there is no cat - just leave it at that and do not question each other further on the matter, you have your own beliefs after all, and we must be tolerant of each other. Perhaps believers may be offended by such a trivial comparison, but in principle there is no difference: either God, the devil, fairies, angels, goblins, pixies, ghosts or the neighbour's cat have existence or they do not.

  Perhaps when many talk about there being no absolute truth in such matters though, they really don't mean what they are saying. Perhaps it is a call for pragmatic relativism, rather than an outright assertion of absolute relativism. I have not seen any posters take this stance, but if it is underlying what some of you are contending then I can see how this is a more reasonable position than the absolute relativist position. Maybe you feel that while in principle there may be a definite yes or no answer to supernatural claims about various beings on other planes of existence, in practice we must accept that humans at this point simply do not have access to data that would allow us to draw definite conclusions on the matter. In that way the case can be made for simply agreeing to differ on such issues, all parties concerned conceding that while they may have suspicions one way or the other, no one can be sure about such things and so should not be dogmatic or judgmental. I can see where that point of view comes from, and I have a lot more respect for it than for the absolute relativist claims of those who genuinely maintain that differing realities somehow obtain at the same time.

  However, I think even the pragmatic relativist position flounders somewhat when we consider how important the issues involved are. Just consider if/when someone claims to have found a cure for cancer how should/do others react? Is it not reasonable for others to look for verification, inquire how the cure was arrived at, the methodology, the case studies? Over such an important issue in most lands the governement would get involved in verifying or disproving such claims, and rightly so for it would affect the lives of so many one way or the other. Now I am not in any way saying that goverment can arbitrate in "spiritual" matters, but I am saying that those who claim spiritual experiences should expect that such important assertions be investigated by their peers. After all, if someone claims to have had direct access to the almighty then, if we are truly taking the claims seriously, are not the ramifications of such a discovery many times more siginificant than even a cure for cancer? If claims of a cure for cancer are rightly put under the spotlight, how much more so should claims of a particular approach to an unseen Deity!

  In fact it would rather be an insult to believers and to those who claim "spiritual experiences" if us materialists did not seek properly to investigate them. If we simply agreed to differ without discussion that would be like patting a person on the head who verbalises belief in the tooth fairy, "well if she is real to you.." How such an attitude can be promoted as liberal or "tolerant" I can't fathom. Just because the issues involved are difficult and emotive doesn't mean we should avoid grappling with them, it means we should tackle them all the more!

  Slim
• 

  Warlock

  More and more I find myself coming to a materialist view of the world. I don't believe in afterlife, ghosts, angels, auras, astrology, revelations and the like. So what am I to make of people who claim to have spiritual experiences?

  Why do you have to "make" anything of those people at all? If I don't believe in something, I just don't. If someone believes in that thing that I don't believe in, they just do.

  Warlock
• 

  Narkissos

  In the objective reality of a finite universe (assuming, for the sake of discussion, that it is finite and unique -- strictly speaking a universe, not a pluriverse) there is potentially room for an infinity of subjective experiences and just as many imaginary representations of the unique reality as there are subjects to perceive it.

  Mysterious' remark strikes me as very insightful though:

  I do think it's only natural that someone would want to be able to have a belief system that satisfactorily explained the world to them which would include being able to account for other people's experiences.

  Indeed, all imaginary representations, or theories, tend to be totalitarian and deny the others inasmuch as they are perceived as concurrent. This also applies to the "tolerant" ones which tolerate everything but intolerance. Even those who assume that every belief system is valid in its own right actually deny the validity of any exclusive system -- which in turn makes their inclusivism exclusive and self-contradictory. This seems an unsuperable limit to me.