Skip to main content

Mystical Experience



A dialogue.

MYSTIC: I know there is a God. I have attained cosmic consciousness and have touched His face.

ATHEIST: There are lots of problems with that, but I'll start with this -- the rest of us have no way of knowing that you aren't lying.

MYSTIC: I don't care, dude.

EPISTEMOLOGIST: But I care. If only a small portion of the human race has mystical experiences, and if they are locked up, so to speak, inside the consciousness of each one, then do they inform the rest of us at all?

ATHEIST: That's what I said.

EPISTEMOLOGIST: I heard you. BUT ... since our friend has gone off into his reveries and only you and I can talk....

MYSTIC:  Om mani padme hummmmmmm

EPISTEMOLOGIST: I'd like to point out that there is another side to this.  The point in favor of an argument from mysticism to the existence of a God is that it IS an argument from experience. It is possible that some of them are lying, but it seems unlikely that all of them are lying. And if any of them are truly representing their experiences, then it follows that SOMETHING happened to them.

It could be that they are right about what happened to them, and it could be that they are wrong. But those who say they are wrong should have to present a good theory about how they are wrong, and always wrong for that matter in much the same way. So on its face, anyway, such experience is an argument for the existence of God, just not a decisive one. 

ATHEIST: First, I'm not sure I should have any such burden. But second, if you wish to call it an argument at all you should be clear that this is a courtesy, that you are including very weak arguments in the ambit of arguments. Third, I contend that the burden you impose can be met. Julian Jaynes, for example, suggests that what we call mystical states were common in the "bicameral" era, and that similar states that come about now are "vestiges" of that era. If you believe that, then you probably also believe there is a neurological explanation of the religious experiences that does not require the existence of a God or gods.

EPISTEMOLOGIST: Well, yes, but now you're using "ifs."






Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
17 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more