Is meditation risky for atheists?

[GliderGuider]

This is a mildly edited version of a comment I just put up in Religion. I thought it was worth asking other atheists for their thoughts.

The combination of meditation and depth psychology can remove many of the mental walls that compartmentalize our inner psychological landscape. As those barriers dissolve, various parts of one's psyche that were previously isolated are allowed to unite, and that process brings a welcome sense of being whole, complete and integrated.

What's fascinating is that this process is the psychological analog of what I consider to be the core spiritual experience - the dissolution of boundaries between the self and the rest of universe. Penetrating these conceptual walls of separation gives rise to the oceanic feeling of oneness that characterizes many mystical experiences.

As our inner psychological boundaries are removed, the outer boundaries seem to fall away as well, which is why meditation and inner work is an integral part of many spiritual traditions.

So while the exercises in the OP (meditation, visualization and breathing), are indeed more psychological than spiritual, they should be undertaken very cautiously by atheists - they may lead to inadvertent spiritual experiences.

I'm re-posting it here as background to the question: "Should meditation be viewed as risky behaviour for atheists?"

The reason is that the description above is pretty much what happened to me. I was a strong atheist for 57 years, then got involved in a group that promoted holotropic breathwork and meditation. As a result of my involvement in these activities I developed a profound spiritual sensibility, to the extent that I can no longer call myself an atheist without putting the word in air-quotes.

Any thoughts?

[laconicsax]

1. I don't think it's risky...unless you do it while operating a motor vehicle or heavy machinery.

[Angry Dragon]

2. perhaps we need better words

In my case I look at religion as a set of beliefs
these beliefs do not have to include any god or gods
just a set of beliefs one uses in their life

words can box you in

[GliderGuider]

4. I like that view, and I agree.

One of the big issues for me as a regular lurker/occasional participant in both Religion and A&A is that many people I meet these days IRL fall in the grey area between atheism and religion. They seem to inhabit a zone of personal spirituality whose characteristics are very personal and non-dogmatic. As a result they are hard to pigeon-hole with the usual labels. Better (and more widely understood) words are badly needed. As is a willingness to stop labeling people.

[Angry Dragon]

6. it is hard to get away from labels

it gives a starting point to understanding eachother

[GliderGuider]

8. We need to think of labels as starting points rather than ending points. n/t

[Angry Dragon]

9. YES

unless one is just interested in putting people in boxes
then they have no plans to understand

[Iggo]

31. I think you got boxed in by the word "risky".

From my POV there's nothing at risk.

[GliderGuider]

35. Yes, "risky" was the main mischief-word in my OP.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. No.

There are many atheists who practice various forms of meditation. IMHO meditation is not a religious practice, it is a form of mental exercise. It is about as "risky for atheists" as yoga.

[Angry Dragon]

5. However there are some whom that believe god resides inside each of us

so through meditation and yoga you are getting in touch of your godness

[Warren Stupidity]

26. People believe many things.

The neurology of mindfulness can be studied and observed.

[GliderGuider]

7. How much do you know about yoga?

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga

This terminology involving various yogas has given rise to the concept of the Four Yogas in modern Hinduism from the 1890s. These are

1. Karma Yoga
2. Bhakti Yoga
3. Raja Yoga
4. Jnana Yoga

In this usage, the term "Yoga" ceases to translate to "a system of meditation" and takes on the much more general sense of "religious path". Thus, Karma Yoga is "the Path of Action", Bhakti Yoga "the Path of Devotion" and Jnana Yoga "the Path of Knowledge", all standing alongside Raja Yoga, "the Path of Meditation" as alternative possibilities towards religious fulfillment.

I more or less follow a path of Jnana Yoga, but I'm quite sure that Bhakti Yoga would be quite hazardous (or even impossible) for an atheist. I'm sure of that because i tried it...

[Warren Stupidity]

10. I meant the American common yoga as practiced by millions of us.

Which is basically a very good form of exercise/meditation. I didn't intend to deny that there are religious practices associated with yoga. Heck I bowed to Shinto gods at my first dojo, but it wasn't really religious.

Anyway I actually can't imagine a real world situation that would "put my atheism at risk", which is why I am an atheist.

[GliderGuider]

11. Yes...

Anyway I actually can't imagine a real world situation that would "put my atheism at risk"

Neither could I...

[pokerfan]

12. No

I consider meditation to be more physiological than either psychological or "spiritual."

[GliderGuider]

13. Do you meditate?

If so, is there a style you prefer?

[pokerfan]

17. We all meditate

If you've ever been driving and find that you can't remember the last ten miles, it's likely because you were in a meditative state without even knowing it. The trick is to be able to put one's self into that state in a safe place rather than hurtling down the highway at 60mph.

But to answer your question, I do, though perhaps not as not as much as I would like. It's hard to find the time. My Mom practiced TM back in the day and I learned it from her. And a few years ago I picked up Meditation for Dummies which is more Zen oriented than Hindu. As I said, I don't necessarily consider it to be religious , any more than Yoga is. I see it more as a relaxation technique.

My aunt used to tell my mother that she was practicing Satan worship.

[AlbertCat]

28. Do you meditate? If so, is there a style you prefer?

I prefer meditating by listening intensely to Bach cantatas.... and I'm still a complete atheist.


How's that for mixing things up!


This week I can't get enough of

BWV 131 "Aus der Tiefen Rufe Ich"
and
the soprano aria "Seele, deine Spezerien" from the Easter Oratorio (the opening "sinfonia" and "adagio" are good too!)

It often works with Mozart string quartets too. These things can move me to a place I cannot describe in words. I forget about everything... even time, and just flow with the music... living in the moment.

Y'know.... Susan Blackmore talks about how listening to music or being mesmerized by a great work of art (or even a beautiful day or amazing sunset) is akin to meditation.

Interestingly, I believe I only know 2 or 3 people who "listen" to music. I mean, sit down and listen... not do something else while listening. Not looking at visuals to go with the music, or even listening to lyrics (I don't speak German for instance). Just Listening with a capital "L."

Alas!

[GliderGuider]

29. Interesting - classical music was my first introduction to that state as well.

I go naturally into a trance-like state when I sit down and listen, whether it's live or recorded classical music. I spent a number of years as a hard-core audiophile with a dedicated listening room that encouraged pure listening, and I'd always come back "into the room" at the end of a piece wondering where the hell I'd been for the last hour.

It's only classical music that does that to me, and typically Baroque and Classical period music, and some of the early Romantic period. Modern classical music not so much - Sibelius more than Shostakovitch, for example. I find it's a lot harder to meditate to rap or C&W :-/

I wonder how many other meditators have this experience?

[Neoma]

14. My view of meditation is just giving your mind a break from thinking.

I don't see how that changes world views, unless you do nothing else for decades.

[frogmarch]

15. I've tried it and have

always fallen asleep. I must be doing it wrong.

[pokerfan]

21. That is a very common problem

and in fact, I often use meditative techniques to cause myself to fall asleep. You are on the right track. The trick is to quiet the mind's constant chatter, it's internal dialogue but still keeping a focus on something, your breathing, a mantra, whatever your using. Hopefully not the highway while driving.

Meditating is like hitting a baseball: you just gotta relax and concentrate. (paraphrasing Bull Durham)

Don't try to meditate when you are tired or on a full stomach or if you have recently used alcohol.

And what's your meditation position? I call meditating laying down going to sleep. Even a comfy chair can be too sleep inviting. The classic cross-legged pose exists for a reason. At least if you start to nod off you will usually awaken and you can start over.

Practice makes perfect.

[frogmarch]

22. I've always been lying down on the couch

when I've tried it. Next time I'll sit cross-legged on the floor. On second thought, my dogs will think I want to play and will start bringing me toys to throw.

Well, I'll come up with some way to do it.

I think I hypnotize myself sometimes when I stare off into space thinking about this or that. Maybe that's what meditation is.

[pokerfan]

23. Some say that meditation is simply hypnosis without suggestion

Physiologically I think they're very similar as both involve trance like states and the brain producing theta rhythms. But meditation's goal is the absence of all conscious thought whereas hypnotherapy is aimed at a specific outcome like stopping smoking or making someone pretend to be a duck or something. So with hypnosis, there is still conscious thought.

It sounds to me like you are closer than you might think.

[GliderGuider]

33. That's a useful insight, thanks.

However, meditation can have different goals as well. Some schools focus attention narrowly on a mantra or breathing, some use "open focus" techniques of pure relaxation, some are oriented toward calming the mind, others towards stepping out of the ego into an "Observer" frame of mind.

The constant in all cases seems to be an increase in one's psychological openness (aka suggestibility). That's where the mischief in my OP came from: the suggestibility of meditative states makes it possible for ideas to sneak in from left field (or the right cerebral hemisphere if you will), and those ideas may not be fully aligned with a rationalist view of reality...

[pokerfan]

34. Oh, I agree

There's a meta goal or I wouldn't bother with it. My point was that there wasn't a direct goal as there is with hypnotism.

[DavidDvorkin]

16. Isn't this the same as asking if any subjective experience can undermine one's atheism

If it can, then I have to wonder what that atheism was based on, to begin with.

[Odin2005]

18. Meditation has actually strengthened my lack of belief.

Because meditation is about being conscious of reality as it is, instead of projecting belief systems on it.

[GliderGuider]

20. As you say,

(M)editation is about being conscious of reality as it is, instead of projecting belief systems on it.

That was precisely what shifted me away from my previous dogmatic position of logical positivism. It opened up the possibility that there are subjective experiences that transcend time and space that can carry great personal meaning.

It didn't turn me into a Hindu or a Baha'i, but it weakened my self-identification as an "atheist" by quite a few notches and made it possible for me to identify with Advaita, for example.

[ZombieHorde]

19. Zen Buddhists are often atheists, and they meditate all the time. nt

[Warpy]

24. I don't know why the hell it would be

After all, I did a lot of acid in the 60s and no supernatural anything presented themselves and if gods and demons aren't going to turn up under those circumstances, there just aren't any out there worth considering.

I started to meditate when I was 13 or 14 as a way to deal with the pain the adults around me said I didn't have because kids didn't get arthritis. (wrong again, Ma!) I only found out later I'd been doing rather classic jhana meditation. I only knew that half an hour of deep concentration got me two or three hours with less pain.

Meditation will definitely take you places you'd never anticipated, but calling them dangerous seems just a little odd. Perhaps it might threaten a world view held by some atheists, especially Randians, but it wouldn't threaten the people, themselves. They might even get to be a little more human if the experience didn't cause them to flee, shrieking.

[iris27]

25. No. Things can be "spiritual" without being religious or even supernatural, and IMHO, this is what

meditation taps into.

If I tried to describe my love for my husband to another person, I suppose it might sound somewhat spiritual. But I don't see that as some sort of "risk" or "threat" to my atheism, which at its core is just a declining to embrace the religions that have been suggested to me as possible truths.

Meditation, at least to me, is primarily just biofeedback combined with introspection.

[GliderGuider]

30. Yes, that's basically my view as well.

"Meditation" per se doesn't presuppose any outcome, it just calms and opens the mind for inner exploration. What we find when we go in there, and what meaning we give it, depends on the individual.

I will cop to my original question being a little mischievous, but in the interest of prompting thought on what meditation is, the differences between spirituality and religion, the relationship between atheism and the various forms of materialist, positivist philosophy etc.

I won't say that meditation itself tipped me into a more "spiritual" interpretation of reality, but it did open me up so I could see and work with those tendencies in myself more easily.

That experience has prompted me to wonder whether "atheism" can be isolated just to the lack of belief in objectified, culturally-defined gods (as its definition implies), or it there is some deeper link to positivist world-views. The former I have no problem with, it's the latter that has shifted for me since my experience with meditation began a few years ago.

[AlbertCat]

27. depth psychology can remove many of the mental walls that compartmentalize our inner psychological

Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2012, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Since this sounds like psycho-babble baloney with not a shred of scientific evidence.... I'll say, NO. Meditation is as harmless to atheists as listening to music or looking at art.

please define:

mental wall
psychological analog (and its processes)
core spiritual experience
inner psychology (boundaries)....as opposed to outer psychology (boundaries)
inner work
spiritual experience (inadvertent or no)



Deepak... is that you?

I don't mean to sound TOO snarky or antagonistic at all, but you can't put out a flurry of terms like that and expect people to know what you mean.

[GliderGuider]

32. As I said just above,

My original question was a bit mischievous, and that prompted the language I used. I do think that the insistence on "scientific evidence" is a barrier to understanding in this area, a position I've moved towards since I essentially abandoned my lifelong positivist viewpoint in favour of something more personal and subjective.

What's been interesting to me is how this shift happened without any movement towards religion or theism at all. that says to me that atheism and positivism are in fact quite different beasts. Virtually all positivists seem to be atheists, but the reverse may not necessarily be true, that all atheists are positivists.

And all this is just a bit of thinking out loud.

[sakabatou]

36. No.

I just use it to clear my head.

[RueVoltaire]

37. Atheists should not be afraid of meditation, for crying out loud!

Meditation is about quieting the mind's chatter, thinking deeply, feeling time and space expand as you concentrate on the present, rather than simply dwelling in memories of the past, and thoughts of the future. Clearing the mind in meditation is not brainwashing, it's a exercise in clarity.
Also, I believe that the "oceanic feeling" that comes in meditation, relates to our very science - just consider the mysteries of particle physics, and the human brain:

[GliderGuider]

38. Oh, I completely agree.

Meditation is definitely an exercise in clarity. OTOH, the things that become clear can sometimes seem a little surprising in the fading light of one's pre-existing world-view.

I suppose my pot-stirring was intended to invite atheists to reflect again on the differences between religion and spirituality. Meditation tends to undo the former while facilitating the latter. The distinction between the two can often be lost in the sturm und drang over the guys in funny hats and the behaviour of their flocks of sheep.

If I became emperor of the universe, my one and only act before abdication would be to require everyone on the planet to meditate for half an hour a day for the rest of their lives. It's a great psychological purgative.

[lazarus]

39. meditation has never fostered "spirituality" in me in any way

Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

I'll admit that spirituality and organized religion are completely different, but religious tendencies and spirituality are the same root impulse towards magical thinking. No, thank you.

[GliderGuider]

40. That's why I said it might be "risky" rather than "dangerous"....

No action has the same effect on any two people, but trends can be discerned. You and I have had opposite responses to meditation, but that's neither here nor there. Our experiences are "weather events", while the effect I'm talking about is more like climate change.

It's interesting that my shift toward spirituality hasn't resulted in any noticeable increase in my magical thinking. Quite the opposite, in fact. As a logical positivist I used to cling to the beliefs that human beings were in full control of their actions, were a different order of life from all else on the planet, could fix anything we broke, and were rationally perfectible. Now that was some serious magical thinking. Thanks to my meditation-induced shift in perspective, I'm no longer prey to it.

[lazarus]

42. I've never believed those things either

well, the free will stuff I believed until science showed us there isn't such, but I've known since biology class we're not a different order of life.

[DuaneBidoux]

54. I don't agree with you...

First of all, realize that there are many different definitions of spirituality. For me spirituality is concerned with what is ultimately important in the universe. That is just my definition. Spirit, as I define it, is what is manifest in existence around me. But my spirituality does not require magical thinking--in fact I believe just the opposite. I'm not even sure I believe in a non-material reality.

For me spirituality is not non-rational but trans-rational. It is an effort to appreciate existence in such a way that we will be able to shed the backage of evolution that is so threatening our species now. I do believe that the breakthrough meditation discovered by Buddhists is something unique that will ultimately be useful for our species and proven by science as valuable.

I have meditated and used drugs. Both can be useful for finding this place I am talking about (but only one is a hell of a lot of fun).

The most powerful meditation I ever had was a 10 hour meditation sitting on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon (totally deserted and unfrequented by tourists). I don't know what happened exactly, and it may easily be explained by completely materialistic explanations (i.e., neuronal firing patterns etc.), but that one moment changed me forever. I walked away with a peace that has never left me. With an assurance that whether or not my soul lived on I could face my mortality as an authentic person.

I walked away and knew that sometime, eventually, maybe a thousand or one hundred thousand years from now that it would be possible for enough humans to attain a place that would finally allow us to quit killing each other. I knew it because I had achieved it, at least temporarily--but it didn't demand that anyone else do the same--which is why it will ultimately work for the species.

But then again certainty is dangerous...so I could be full of shit.

[GliderGuider]

65. I had a similar experience, but mine was much shorter

I was meditating on a tiny flower picked from a lawn, attempting to see it directly without applying any labels to it at all. The only way I have to describe what happened is that "the observer, the observed and the observation" collapsed into a single dimensionless, timeless point. I have no idea how long this state lasted, probably no longer than 5 or 10 seconds. Like you, I haven't been the same since.

[tama]

87. Making smoking pot obligatory

is what another friend has suggested for psychological purgative...

[amyrose2712]

41. Isn't there a helmet that can make you feel the same way?

And I don't mean this to be snarky. It just made me think of this ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

[frogmarch]

43. Cool.

I wish he'd said what non-religious people experience when wearing the god helmet. If he did, I missed it.

[amyrose2712]

44. I think that clip is a small clip of a longer documentary.

I don't recall exactly but I think they do mention it. I watched it a while ago.

[DuaneBidoux]

45. This goes to the heart of phenomonology

No matter how hard we try to use words to discuss inner phenomena of mind it is not the experience itself. No matter what we say about what we experience ultimately it is not the same as empirical evidence. I can say I experience a feeling of "peace" and you can say the same too--but that doesn't mean the two are even remotely similar.

If we both look at the same thing and say it is yellow we still can't assume we see the same yellow. Maybe we see two different things but since we always consistently see two different things we consistently call them yellow.

[DuaneBidoux]

46. There is also audio sounds that can induce the same state.

I meditate mostly because I've discovered it is the only way I can turn off my motormind long enough to physically rest and get some much needed mental rest as well--I also find that afterwords it seems my memory improves for several days (at least it SEEMS that way to me).

I bought some cds called Holosync and they induce a number of different states--it's possible that the sounds induce them just because I think they do but I do know there is empirical data that says certain sounds do change brain waves in very specific ways.

I'm very interested (and excited) by the findings concerning brain states and meditation etc. and have no doubt that tremendous understanding of how to develop certain mental states in order to achieve certain results in the brain/mind will occur in the coming years.

[DuaneBidoux]

47. I've meditated for years and feel fairly well ensconced in my agnosticism

It's possible I'll one day become either a true believer or a firm atheist but I don't believe it will be from my meditation.

In any case the way I use meditation is to focus or decontract my mind. I count from 1 up while I breathe and if I miss a beat or forget what number I'm on then I start over. The goal here is to develop focus.

On the other end of the spectrum I breathe focusing only on my breath at a deep sensate level and the "goal" (and of course you don't want a goal here) is to learn how to clear my mind of thoughts and words (which I view as cognitive structures). Here I am trying to exercise the ability to be able to put my thoughts to rest.

I do believe that meditation can be very powerful and that science is uncovering why and in what ways it is powerful--there is nothing there in my world that demands a supernatural force.

[GliderGuider]

48. I don't think meditation can move one toward certainty.

While there are many styles of meditation, there are, as far as I can tell, two broad categories. "Serenity" styles (that Buddhists call samatha) calm and quiet the mind. "Inquiry" styles (called vipassana) are undertaken from the starting point of the the calm mind and help one examine the nature of one's subjective reality, to help develop an awareness of conditioned patterns as well as an awareness of change and impermanence.

Samatha meditation won't lead one out of closely held beliefs, though it may make it easier to to live with their effects. Vipassana, on the other hand, will tend to lead one away from conditioned patterns of belief - away from certainty and towards a more open stance on the nature of reality. Away from atheism and towards agnosticism, in this case.

The "risk" for atheists is not that meditation will suddenly open the door to belief in the supernatural, but that it may make it impossible to maintain the firm belief that there is nothing beyond the material.

[laconicsax]

49. That's a fine straw man.

Atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief in a god. That's it. There's no "firm belief that there is nothing beyond the material."

[GliderGuider]

50. That's semantically true.

However in practice, explicit or strong atheism often appears to be a logical consequence (or companion view) of a materialist or positivist worldview - and that worldview definitely is a belief. It's actually the materialist beliefs that meditation leads one away from. If those are weakened, the consequent atheism weakens as well.

Weak or implicit atheism would be less at risk, since it's not a positive belief-statement.

To balance it out a bit, theistic beliefs are at risk from meditation as well. However, from what I've seen the effect of meditation on theists tends to move them more towards an amorphous new-age style of belief system rather than toward outright agnosticism.

I guess the point is that if one's self-image springs from a strongly codified set of beliefs - no matter what they are - inquiry style meditation will tend to weaken the beliefs, and may in consequence require one to re-evaluate the source of one's sense of self.

[DuaneBidoux]

53. I consider myself an agnostic in a way meaningful for me but an atheist in that...

I'm atheist in that I don't believe in the traditional definition of any kind of gray bearded man sitting on a throne as master of the universe.

I don't believe Jesus was God any more than I believe that Apollo was a god.

I'm an agnostic in that I am open to the possibility that there is a larger purpose or force than we understand in the universe--whether that force is supernatural (which I don't believe likely but note I say "likely&quot or material (in the sense that there is a creative force, or Eros that is an inherent part of existence itself. When you think about it existence itself is a creative force, right?

[GliderGuider]

55. Yes, that's about how I would describe myself as well.

Last edited Thu Jan 12, 2012, 12:03 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm an atheist when it comes to objective gods, an agnostic in my epistemology, a non-dualist in personal practice, and a Pyrrhonian skeptic when it comes to beliefs in general.

Regarding the supernatural:

In order to define "supernatural" we first have to define "natural", and that seems to be more and more difficult as the boundaries are pushed back. Speculatively speaking, take an 11-dimensional multiverse as the "natural" setting; now postulate a being that exists only in dimensions not perceptible to us but whose actions result in effects in our dimensions. Would such a being be "supernatural"? Language is a real challenge in these discussions.

[DuaneBidoux]

62. Like your post...

Gotta' admit that one way or another existence itself is pretty amazing. And the science we are uncovering now (multiverse as a strong possibility, quantum physics (quantum entanglement etc.)) is mind boggling beyond, perhaps, our ability to really grasp it--at least at this stage of our mental evolution.

I just hope that when it comes to evolution in cognitive abilities this isn't where we max out, otherwise I think the species is probably in one shitload of trouble.

[GliderGuider]

63. Our cleverness has already far surpassed our wisdom

So yes, we're in a shitload of trouble...

[DuaneBidoux]

52. With your last statement I don't see a problem...

And maybe that is why you put risk in quotations. I think certainty is the dangerous path for humans.

You said:
"The "risk" for atheists is not that meditation will suddenly open the door to belief in the supernatural, but that it may make it impossible to maintain the firm belief that there is nothing beyond the material."

I've frequently, after reading about such phenomena as quantum entanglement or the possibility (now being closely investigated since the OPERA claim) of superluminal particles thought that there is probably an infinitely more complex reality than we are now comprending--perhaps more complex than we CAN comprehend with the current limits of rational thought and the brain as it has evolved up to this point.

Yea, I'm not a big fan of "evangelical certainty" on any subject.

[Alexande1304]

51. I don't think

that meditation is risky for anyone

[marginlized]

56. I see it as a physical discipline

not unlike many other physical disciplines. A form of exercise that controls or calms your mind.

Sam Harris talks about the effects of meditation a lot. Its an area that needs further study.

[GliderGuider]

57. That's not the only aspect of meditation though.

I talk about the samatha and vipassana styles of meditation above. What you're describing is samatha. The style I find most interesting is vipassana, which has very different goals.

[darkstar3]

58. I can't believe anyone could be so blind as to type "inadvertent spiritual experiences."

Let me put it this way: Meditation is "risky" (mildly offensive terminology, btw) to atheists who have no idea what their brain is capable of.

[GliderGuider]

59. Yes, I suppose it's impossible to have an inadvertent spiritual experience

After all, you can only have a spiritual experience if you define it as such. If you can't define any experience as "spiritual" then it becomes just another WTF.

And yes, I know "risky" was a mischief-word. One person's mild offense is another person's weak humour...

[darkstar3]

60. The question your post begs is simple:

How do you define something as "spiritual"?

[GliderGuider]

61. Actually, my post does not beg that question, since an answer is not necessary for the discussion.

If you mean it begs for that answer, well, here's my personal response.

I define an experience as spiritual if it prompts my speculation that some aspect of the being-formerly-known-as-me might exist outside of the perceived dimensions of time and space. By definition that means that such experiences are purely subjective, and have no relevance to anyone but me.

[darkstar3]

64. So if your definition of spirituality is entirely personal and subjective,

and you think that spiritual experiences can only be had by those who can define experiences as spiritual, this leads me to two questions:

1. Doesn't this mean that a "spiritual" experience is entirely what you make it?
2. How can you possibly communicate with others about "spiritual" experiences when it's probable that you have entirely different ideas of what constitutes "spirituality"?

[GliderGuider]

66. The answers are simple.

1. Yes, a "spiritual" experience is entirely what one makes it.
2. It's possible in the same way one can discuss going to a country the other person has never been to. One describes the experience without assuming a shared base of knowledge. In this case, if I want someone else to understand that I consider an experience to be "spiritual", I have to define my term - as I just did for you.

Edited to add, I would call the experience I described in post #65 a "spiritual" experience by my definition.

[darkstar3]

67. On #2, I don't see a complete answer to my question.

Namely, I wonder how you avoid the "I guess you had to be there" aspect in light of #1.

[GliderGuider]

68. You can't avoid it.

Same as trying to describe the feeling of being in a Moroccan souk... You have to accept that the words will convey an imperfect impression of the experience.

[darkstar3]

69. But everyone knows where Morocco is, how to get there, and mostly what they'll need to do

in order to go and share in the experience of a Moroccan souk. You can't say the same thing about an experience that is entirely what you make it.

From your definitions, a "spiritual" experience is something vague that can only be had by those who strongly desire such experience. In other words, "you find what you look for". Furthermore, it is impossible for you to effectively convey that experience to others. So I ask, as a final note, how the OP is anything but a poor attempt at a tongue-in-cheeck jab by po-mo'ers at those who don't share their views?

[GliderGuider]

70. You're busily putting words in my mouth

From your definitions, a "spiritual" experience is something vague that can only be had by those who strongly desire such experience.

Not at all. A spiritual experience is anything but vague to the person who has it. There is also no requirement for strong desire. For instance, the experience I described in post #65 was neither vague not strongly desired. It just happened. It can be difficult to communicate the experience and its personal significance to to someone else, but that's a different matter.

In other words, "you find what you look for".

No. You find what is there to be found. You may interpret it based on previous knowledge.

Furthermore, it is impossible for you to effectively convey that experience to others.

"Impossible"? Again, not at all. I've successfully communicated my experience with the flower to others, even those who have not had it or anything like it. It helps if they've read of the experience of the Buddha when he looked at the planet Venus, but even that isn't necessary. All that is necessary is a desire to understand, and a lack of desire to block the communication.

how the OP is anything but a poor attempt at a tongue-in-cheeck jab by po-mo'ers at those who don't share their views?

You mean like atheists wandering over to the Religion group and posting mischievous articles? I'd say it's somewhat less egregious than that.

[darkstar3]

71. Now you're reversing your position.

When spirituality is completely different, personal, and subjective for each individual, there is inherent vagueness in the concept. Now you say it isn't vague. Which is it?

You also said, far above now, that it is indeed impossible to have an inadvertent spiritual experience. That means you must seek out, or desire, a spiritual experience in order to have one. Now you say there is no requirement for desire. Which is it?

The old phrase is "you find what you look for" for a reason: There most certainly doesn't have to be something there to be found.

You've communicated your experiences, but was that communication effective in any way? Did the audience you spoke to actually comprehend the breadth and depth of your experience? Did they grasp the full concept of spirituality that you personally hold, since it likely doesn't mesh with their different, personal, and subjective definition?

I doubt it.

As for your last comment, why do you refer to "atheists" in such an external way? I thought I remembered reading a post of yours in which you self-identified as a non-believer?

[GliderGuider]

72. Well, I can see I'm not about to convert you to spirituality ;-)

There's a reason I used the term "lack of desire to block the communication" in my previous post.

You are free to think what you wish, of course. Neither of us believes in God, so we both belong here. I used the term "atheists" in an external way in the hope that it would prompt you to look on that behaviour as an outsider might.

And yes, I'm a non-believer - not a disbeliever, but a non-believer. That net extends far past the idea of gods or spirituality.

[darkstar3]

73. Oh, a non-believer, not a disbeliever.

Yeah, that's clearer now.

I think you might want to do a little research on the binary nature of belief. As for blocking communication, I'm not the one arguing both sides on the nature of spirituality. When you figure out whether or not it is vague, and when you figure out whether or not it requires the desire for spiritual experience, let me know.

[GliderGuider]

74. I've mentioned Pyrrhonian skepticism before

It's sort of like an extreme agnosticism. One can believe in an idea, one can disbelieve in it, or one can say "I have not decided yet, I'm still investigating." That third option is what I call non-belief. So from that point of view, the nature of belief is trinary...

[darkstar3]

75. Except that when you haven't decided, you still don't believe.

What that POV does is manufacture a place to sit on the fence.

[GliderGuider]

76. Yes, exactly.

One sits on the fence until one decides. However long that takes.

[darkstar3]

77. Did you miss the part where I said that position was manufactured?

No, you just didn't care. Good luck communicating from that manufactured position.

[GliderGuider]

78. All positions are manufactured.

Did I miss a part that said only certain manufactured positions are legitimate?

This is a board for atheists and agnostics. I've identified myself as a weak atheist and an extreme agnostic. Beyond that, all else is chit-chat. I'm not sure what's put you on edge, beyond the fact that I don't share your particular belief-set.

[darkstar3]

79. What put me on edge?

Read the OP. Not to mention your po-mo "it's not binary, you just don't see it" attitude. This entire subthread and most of the thread in general shoves a single underlying thought to the front again and again: atheists wouldn't be atheists, but rather spiritual people just like you, if only they'd open their minds a little bit. It's another well-worn stereotype that I find disgusting and trying on my patience.

I don't care what you believe, but I would appreciate it if you and others would stop telling me that the only reason I don't agree with you is because my mind is allegedly closed.

[GliderGuider]

80. You're taking it too personally.

I've never said (and never even thought) that the only reason you don't agree with me is due to closed-mindedness. I certainly don't think that atheists would (automatically/magically) become spiritual if they opened their minds. I do think that open-mindedness is a positive quality for everyone, and I do sometimes put forth ideas that require an open mind to investigate. Sometimes my ideas are outside of peoples' comfort zones. So long as I don't violate the TOS I don't see a big problem with that. In fact, I see it as a good thing.

[darkstar3]

81. That was impressively passive-aggressive.

[GliderGuider]

82. All I've been trying to do is respond to your questions.

You're the one who's been asking, and then getting snotty about my replies.

[darkstar3]

83. Some people don't respond well to passive-aggressive behavior.

[GliderGuider]

84. And some people project.

[darkstar3]

85. "Say goodnight, Gracie."

[GliderGuider]

86. G'night, Gracie.

[GliderGuider]

91. Sorry to re-open this, but the "po-mo" accusation against Pyrrhonism is amusing

Last edited Sun Jan 15, 2012, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

given that the philosophy was invented in ancient Greece in the 1st century BC. and then heavily investigated by Kant, Hegel and Hume.

That is all.

[awoke_in_2003]

88. it all depends on what you define meditation as...

the modern world is nothing but hustle and bustle. Can't go anywhere without our smart phones, donchya know. Every body needs some time during the day to be alone and just focus on clearing the mind. I recently started shaving with shaving soap and brush and using a straight razor. For 30 minutes a day the only thing I think of is doing what I have to do to get a good shave. My wife knows it is my "Me" time and leaves me be. May sound crazy, but it helps me get in the right frame of mind to face the day.

[sarcasmo]

89. This reminds me of the new Christians shouldn't do Yoga memo

going around here in west Michigan.

[GliderGuider]

90. Harumph! Eastern spiritual innovations are a threat to everyone...

Yoga, meditation, Harry Potter...

[stone space]

92. The main risk is boredom, but that can be cured by meditating with a pencil and a pad of paper. (nt)

[intaglio]

93. Nope

Done 2 forms myself: the bog standard sit and concentrate on a mandala, a koan similar to refine concentration; and the Tai Chi moving meditation. Both got me to the ecstatic state (the Tai Chi was easier).

[RussBLib]

95. I've had "spiritual" experiences while using drugs...

...especially LSD and other psychedelics. I use the term "spiritual" in the sense of the Japanese "yugen."

While the experiences were profound, I am still an atheist. A psychedelic or meditative experience doesn't change the outside world.

The LSD experience didn't make me feel like there was a god. It made me feel like I WAS god.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. I've tried it. Nothing happens.

I do yoga for the fitness aspects of it. Been doing it for quite a while now actually. Doesn't do anything to my mind.

But my physical flexibility is improving, so that's cool.