Evidence 1: Mystic experience can convert atheists to theism

[Swami]

A few months has passed since I posted a debate challenge to atheists regarding religious experience. To date, no atheist has taken up my challenge perhaps because there is some truth to what I'm saying. I hope that this will serve as a lesson to those so called skeptics and scientists who are so quick to dismiss religious claims.

Here is one interesting evidence of a woman who dropped scientific materialism after discovering the true nature of consciousness:

I was home alone, walking through the living room, not thinking of anything in particular, when suddenly my consciousness erupted. It no longer ended at the surface of my body but expanded outward, filling the surrounding space. I experienced everything around me as inside me and absolutely identical to myself. I was no longer Linda Johnsen; I was everything. The bliss of that single moment was beyond description.

I suddenly understood that the entire universe is held within an all-pervading, blissful awareness.

It wasn’t “as if� I was the universe. I really “was� the universe. It happened spontaneously, and even though it only lasted a few seconds, I emerged from it changed forever. Any confidence I had in the materialistic scientific paradigm collapsed. So did my naive belief that heaven—the most joyful place I’d heard of before that moment—was a physical site with streets paved in gold. I suddenly understood that the entire universe is held within an all-pervading, blissful awareness. It’s useless for you to argue that I must have been hallucinating or having some kind of epileptic fit. The experience was real. In fact, it was far more vivid than everyday reality and it set me on a lifelong quest to understand exactly what had happened and how I could make it happen again.

The flash of “cosmic consciousness� I experienced when I was 14 happens more seldom than the first two states of mystical consciousness just described, but bring up the subject in a large group and you’ll almost certainly find at least one person who’s had the experience. In this state the boundary between “self� and “other� dissolves and your individual consciousness merges with the living reality of everything around you, animate and inanimate. There’s a profound sense of coming home, of returning to a unity you suddenly “knew all along� was there, as if you’ve just awakened from a dream.

https://yogainternational.com/article/v ... xperiences

This experience is similar to many experiences that led me believe that there exist a consciousness that not only transcends body, but also, space, time, and yes, even the self.

To discussion:
Can mystical or religious experience convert someone to theism?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by Swami]

The claim that mystic experience can convert atheists to theism isn't contraversal. What lesson are we skeptics and scientists supposed to learn from this?

Scientists and skeptics always claim that they need evidence to be convinced. The lesson here is that the experiences that I bring up is more than enough evidence to convince the atheists.

Except that it isn't. You are conflating different things. YOU are presenting stories about OTHER people (and yourself) having experiences and converting from atheism. No one is denying that people can have an experience and covert to some theology. ALL theists arrive at theism by departing their initial atheism (without belief).

What you are NOT doing is providing evidence that can be examined and confirmed. I cannot replicate YOUR experience or OTHERS experience. At best I might be able to have some experience of my own, but this in no way confirms anything other than that I can have experiences too. Which, by the way, will never be exactly like whatever others experience since we do not yet have the technology to observe experiences.

If atheists already agree with what I'm saying, which is shown when no one accepts my debate challenge, then why are they not willing to put the lesson here into practice?

You are assuming none have. Many of us have meditated, had religious experiences, etc. The difference is that we have learned some other skills that allow us to examine our own experiences and question what is really happening. i.e. we test via other methods and look for other explanations before just jumping on whatever bandwagon others offer as the 'truth'.

The reason can't be that the experiences never happen to them because I have presented reliable methods for bringing on the experiences instead of having to wait for them.

Noted and already explained above. Just because I have an experience doesn't mean that I jump to unwarranted conclusions about what happened. I have dreams most nights, yet I don't live my waking life based on these experiences since they are usually all over the place and obviously are just my sub conscious mind working on whatever I've seen or heard recently in most cases. For those dreams I can't explain, I just leave them as "I don't know what that was about" rather than creating a new religion every week.

So what is it the reason? Pride or ego? Are they afraid? Or not ready for it or don't want the truth at all? I let the audience decide.

I think much of the audience has already decided, but they are free to chime in. We are busy telling you why we are not going to debate something where there is no debate. The reason, again, is there is no debate that experiences lead some people to make decisions. There is also no debate that atheists become theists.

[Swami]

Seriously though, there is WIDE discussion on what actually constitutes a religious experience:

So, one woman's mystical experience can be another woman's psychotic episode.

None of which comes anywhere near demonstrating that In the Beginning, Yahweh/Brahma/Zeus/Allah/Jesus/Whoever, created the Heaven and the Earth.

Which is what we need to determine before we can take another step down the rabbit hole of religion.

However, no True Atheist would ever get their sporran in a spin over a religious experience/psychotic episode and convert to anyone's theo.

Religious experiences are a type of experience that has a connection to religious belief. There are as many different religious experiences as there are religions but under my view it doesn't mean that they are false. They all have some truth to them, common features, common goals, etc.

Your source says that we are left with difficulties determining which experiences are valid. This is not a difficulty if you have been following my message on this site and taking it seriously.

Meditation is an objective method and tool that provides a way to have voluntary religious experiences. Anyone can do it for themselves. It can be repeated and experimented with. This is what you would use to not only have the experiences but to also test them. The involuntary out-of-body experience that apostle Paul had can be had voluntarily through meditative methods.

[Swami]

If atheists already agree with what I'm saying, which is shown when no one accepts my debate challenge, then why are they not willing to put the lesson here into practice?

Not sure what you mean here. What exactly are we not putting into practice? From what you wrote, presumably you think demanding empirical evidence is somehow an indication that we are missing something. What is that something? That we don't think mystic experience can be convincing to those experiencing them? We certainly don't think that.

The experience itself is empirical evidence. What many atheists are not doing is trying to have the experience for themselves so that they can have the evidence. Instead, many atheists want others to explain the experience to them and when I do so I am attacked and bullied.

I never want people to just go by what I say. It is easier if you have the experience for yourself so you can realize the error of materialism.

[Swami]

Scientists and skeptics always claim that they need evidence to be convinced. The lesson here is that the experiences that I bring up is more than enough evidence to convince the atheists.

What you are NOT doing is providing evidence that can be examined and confirmed. I cannot replicate YOUR experience or OTHERS experience. At best I might be able to have some experience of my own, but this in no way confirms anything other than that I can have experiences too. Which, by the way, will never be exactly like whatever others experience since we do not yet have the technology to observe experiences.

I have not only talked about my experience and approach, but I have referenced even Western thinkers who are exploring my view.

There is good reason to accept that reality is built on consciousness. It is a fact that scientists have not discovered the nature of consciousness.

You are assuming none have. Many of us have meditated, had religious experiences, etc. The difference is that we have learned some other skills that allow us to examine our own experiences and question what is really happening. i.e. we test via other methods and look for other explanations before just jumping on whatever bandwagon others offer as the 'truth'.

Have you had the experiences that I recommended? You see in my belief, the most important experience is that which leads to the nature of consciousness. To do this, you have to be able to discover consciousness in its pure form. This is what led me to take the Eastern perspective seriously. I realized that discovering the nature of consciousness led me to the very nature of reality.

I'm a bit skeptical that you have really experienced. You talk about the experience as if it did nothing for you. If the experience is about nothing, then why are Western scientists showing growing interest in researching meditation? Why is there evidence that meditation calms the mind, expands your field of awareness, and changes brain structure? For you not to even experience these things is questionable or you are engaging in bad quality meditation.

Here is William's insight

Also, while the claim they have tried is sometimes made, it is only their word in which one can believe them or not. Some theists would find it very difficult to believe a non-theist - about this - on their word, and would assume the more likely explanation is that they just say they have tried and nothing happened, in order to help them win their arguments. Other theists would simply assume that the non-theists were approaching technique in a manner which created natural blockages to genuine experiences.
It has also to be factored into the likely causes of this unwillingness/inability to experience the 'spiritual' because many non-theists have already decided that everything a human can experience of that nature is 'in the head' of the one experiencing it - a product of a diseased or malfunctioning brain.
As such, how would a non-theist with that kind of belief, be able to trust any experience which theists claim are 'spiritual' if they are already convinced otherwise?

[benchwarmer]

Scientists and skeptics always claim that they need evidence to be convinced. The lesson here is that the experiences that I bring up is more than enough evidence to convince the atheists.

What you are NOT doing is providing evidence that can be examined and confirmed. I cannot replicate YOUR experience or OTHERS experience. At best I might be able to have some experience of my own, but this in no way confirms anything other than that I can have experiences too. Which, by the way, will never be exactly like whatever others experience since we do not yet have the technology to observe experiences.

I have not only talked about my experience and approach, but I have referenced even Western thinkers who are exploring my view.

Sure, but you are providing no evidence other than people are having experiences and some people are exploring things. How can I scientifically examine your experience?

There is good reason to accept that reality is built on consciousness.

Opinion noted, but that's not evidence.

It is a fact that scientists have not discovered the nature of consciousness.

I don't think anyone is denying that and this is the problem.

You are assuming none have. Many of us have meditated, had religious experiences, etc. The difference is that we have learned some other skills that allow us to examine our own experiences and question what is really happening. i.e. we test via other methods and look for other explanations before just jumping on whatever bandwagon others offer as the 'truth'.

Have you had the experiences that I recommended?

How would I ever know? All you can do is talk about your experience. I can't examine it to know if it matches any of mine.

You see in my belief, the most important experience is that which leads to the nature of consciousness. To do this, you have to be able to discover consciousness in its pure form. This is what led me to take the Eastern perspective seriously. I realized that discovering the nature of consciousness led me to the very nature of reality.

I'm a bit skeptical that you have really experienced.

Being skeptical is good. Since I cannot offer you evidence of my experiences either, all you can do is take my word for it. Just like I have to take your word for your experiences.

By saying what you just said, you have proven my point.

You talk about the experience as if it did nothing for you.

I said no such thing. I simply stated I've had experiences and also used other methods to figure out if I should do something about them. Perhaps it would help to know that I used to be a Christian. Perhaps not.

If the experience is about nothing, then why are Western scientists showing growing interest in researching meditation?

Strawman, I said no such thing.

Why is there evidence that meditation calms the mind, expands your field of awareness, and changes brain structure? For you not to even experience these things is questionable or you are engaging in bad quality meditation.

Who said I didn't experience these things? You are arguing with yourself at this point.

Here is William's insight

Also, while the claim they have tried is sometimes made, it is only their word in which one can believe them or not. Some theists would find it very difficult to believe a non-theist - about this - on their word, and would assume the more likely explanation is that they just say they have tried and nothing happened, in order to help them win their arguments. Other theists would simply assume that the non-theists were approaching technique in a manner which created natural blockages to genuine experiences.
It has also to be factored into the likely causes of this unwillingness/inability to experience the 'spiritual' because many non-theists have already decided that everything a human can experience of that nature is 'in the head' of the one experiencing it - a product of a diseased or malfunctioning brain.
As such, how would a non-theist with that kind of belief, be able to trust any experience which theists claim are 'spiritual' if they are already convinced otherwise?

All fine and dandy, but I used to be a theist. Now what?

[Tcg]

[Instead, many atheists want others to explain the experience to them and when I do so I am attacked and bullied.

"We don't agree", is being attacked and bullied?

I never want people to just go by what I say.

I think it's rather safe to say that people aren't going by what you say.

It is easier if you have the experience for yourself so you can realize the error of materialism.

What error of materialism?


Tcg

[SallyF]

Meditation is an objective method and tool that provides a way to have voluntary religious experiences. Anyone can do it for themselves. It can be repeated and experimented with. This is what you would use to not only have the experiences but to also test them. The involuntary out-of-body experience that apostle Paul had can be had voluntarily through meditative methods.

Really …?

The serious, long-lasting nature of some of the negative experiences reported, however, are cause for concern. People who experience depression, suicidal feelings or other serious problems after meditation should seek medical help.

Analysis by Bazian
Edited by NHS Website
https://www.nhs.uk/news/lifestyle-and-e ... e-effects/

As I say, one woman's religious experience can be another woman's psychotic episode.

Both of these only happen inside the head of the patient/practitioner.

Neither would be enough to convince THIS New Atheist that any version of "theo" existed outside the imaginations of humans.

[Swami]

Sure, but you are providing no evidence other than people are having experiences and some people are exploring things. How can I scientifically examine your experience?

This is an extension of the hard problem of consciousness. How can you use 'third-person' methods to examine first-person phenomenon. The answer is that you can not, or at best you would be very limited. To access the reality that I've been describing would take getting the senses and mind out of the way, but the problem with Western materialist science is that they only want to rely on these imperfect tools.

There are studies that provides some limited support for what I'm saying, but to see the big picture would take scientists being willing to leave the mind and senses behind.

There is good reason to accept that reality is built on consciousness.

Opinion noted, but that's not evidence.

I offered these reasons in other discussions. The lesson of this discussion is that if you want the evidence then it is available if you are willing to experience.

Have you had the experience that I recommended?

How would I ever know? All you can do is talk about your experience. I can't examine it to know if it matches any of mine.

Please refer to the description in post 1. Have you had this experience? Do you know what it involves? Are you able to have this experience again? If you can not answer these questions then you most likely have not experienced like you think you have.

I'm a bit skeptical that you have really experienced.

Being skeptical is good. Since I cannot offer you evidence of my experiences either, all you can do is take my word for it. Just like I have to take your word for your experiences.

By saying what you just said, you have proven my point.

The reason that I'm skeptical is that your reaction is outside of the norm. Everyone who have religious experience always end up questioning materialism or they are agnostic. My approach is straightforward and so is the experience. You either experience consciousness without any mental content or you don't. You either transcend "self" or individual perspective or you don't.

You talk about the experience as if it did nothing for you.

I said no such thing. I simply stated I've had experiences and also used other methods to figure out if I should do something about them. Perhaps it would help to know that I used to be a Christian. Perhaps not.

What methods? Perhaps it would be good to know that I also followed what Western science told me. But it was studying consciousness that drove me away from it. When scientists accept that something exists but yet they can not observe it nor deal with it directly, but they keep trying in vain, then it's time to move on to another approach. It's time that they get over their ideological and methodological bias and embrace the Eastern approach on this matter.

I recommend that you read B. Allan Wallace's book, Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge - especially chapter 3.

All fine and dandy, but I used to be a theist. Now what?

IN all of my experience in dealing with others who have gone through these experiences, I can honestly say I don't believe you. You want me to believe that as a theist your religious experience made you an atheist? I simply do not believe you.

Here is what I suggest. Leave the site for a month. Stay clear of taking sides whether it be atheist or theist. I say this so you can take ego out of the picture. Then have the experience again. After that come back and tell us your view.

[Swami]

What error of materialism?


Tcg

A few months ago an atheist posted an article of a physicist claiming that he can solve anything. He was on track to the theory of everything. Curious of this, I clicked the address to read the article. I got to the part that talks about consciousness. And there, in the middle of the article I found one or two lines of this physicist admitting that he has not explained consciousness. I asked myself how can someone so intelligent end up make himself look stupid and to even show confidence in this.

Then I realized that like many other scientists, this physicist simply did not realize the error of materialism. This error is not knowing the place of consciousness in nature. How could you be so confident that you can explain everything when you can not explain consciousness?

[Tcg]

What error of materialism?


Tcg

A few months ago an atheist posted an article of a physicist claiming that he can solve anything. He was on track to the theory of everything. Curious of this, I clicked the address to read the article. I got to the part that talks about consciousness. And there, in the middle of the article I found one or two lines of this physicist admitting that he has not explained consciousness. I asked myself how can someone so intelligent end up make himself look stupid and to even show confidence in this.

Then I realized that like many other scientists, this physicist simply did not realize the error of materialism. This error is not knowing the place of consciousness in nature. How could you be so confident that you can explain everything when you can not explain consciousness?

This doesn't answer my question. I'll state it again in case you missed it:

• "What error of materialism?"

Reveling the error of materialism would require providing verifiable evidence of the immaterial. You haven't even attempted to do so.


Tcg