Psychedelic Drugs and Spiritual Experiences

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Mark, we know what you believe. Some of us have read these papers and studied these philosophers that you often quote (I'll scream if you put that Rorty video up again, because YES I have watched it). The bottom line is that we don't agree with you. Please don't act like it is some sort of settled question and the only reason people don't agree with you is because they are not educated enough or haven't read enough. That is a very condescending position and you've pushed it to its extreme in your posts here. As you very well know, there are many philosophers much more educated than you that disagree with your positions, so please, again, do not present your position as the only possible one for educated and well-read people.

Thank you.

ETA: And if you are going to condescendingly say you are not going to waste your time with this thread, then please keep your word and stop posting here.

 

Fyi, I thought I was defending your position, I have no clue how you saw it as critical. 

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

But... your story was about overdosing on cocaine, and not about psychedelics. They are absolutely NOT the same.

 

I understand where you are coming from but I do not agree with you. My earlier psychedelic experiences led me to where I am today. That does not make them less real or authentic. It just makes them part of my past path. I feel that God used them to lead me to Him. That makes that part of my life quite real and authentic to me.

There was quite a large amount of psychodelic effects going on in my friend at that moment. 

As for "where you are today" I assume that means a believing, practicing Roman Catholic, correct. If that's where God wanted you to be at this moment of your life, I've no doubt whatsoever you'd be there at thus point and God epuld have caused you to do it without illicit drugs. Today it is the Holy Spirit which gives you strength, not drugs. It was the Holy Spirit, not drugs, which has guided you to righteousness. 

[Darren10]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Fyi, I thought I was defending your position, I have no clue how you saw it as critical. 

Must be the drugs. 

/Juuuuuuuust kidding.

[deli_llama]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I just didnt know what the point of your post was, thanks for clarifying

No offense taken sir. I do understand (perhaps) the point (I am thinking) you are getting at though, and I feel it was a welcome addition to the discussion. 

 

[mfbukowski]

Just to clarify one remark I made here, I do not advocate taking drugs to achieve anything spiritual, and when I said I thanked God for my chemicals I meant just  that- my brain chemicals, which happened naturally, and allowed me to have mystical experiences.

My point is that what we know and see and experience are related to brain activity and by thanking God for my chemicals. I meant to thank God for the way my brain functioned so that I was able to communicate with Him.

This whole nonsense that somehow the fact that we have chemical reactions in our brains makes God in some sense "not real" is what I am attacking- I was not praising or encouraging taking drugs to stimulate such experiences.

We learn from everything we do, good and bad, we are here to know good and evil- that is why Eve ate the fruit.  It is best to know before hand what NOT to do - what experiments are NOT worth the possible adverse effects and that is always what I told my kids, and it seems to have worked in the alcohol and drug area

On the other hand I had to learn the hard way and in one sense I regret those lessons but on the other hand, knowing me well, I know they had to be learned the hard way

So please don't get me wrong on what I said.

[Gray]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I know you are wrong, but let's grant this assumption.

Suppose you capture the chemical reactions of being chased by a bear perfectly on your magic tape recorder computer thingy.

Suppose you later play it back.

Does that mean the bear was not real?

Or suppose on the other side of the question, you were able to capture the First Vision perfectly as you did the bear chasing you.

On playing it back, does that mean that God did not appear to Joseph?

Surely brain chemicals are related to how we experience the world but what we learn from those experiences ARE NOT the chemicals- it is the effect of the experience in our lives that changes our lives.

If you drove crazy and and a perfect recording of driving off a cliff - the experience and the chemicals- would that show others that they should not drive crazily?

Of what value is a discussion such as this one making the obvious point that chemical reactions are related to brain states to ANYTHING?

What is this supposed to prove?

That God is not "real" because He is just a chemical reaction??

What precisely is NOT a chemical reaction in the brain?   

All of reality is a chemical reaction in the brain- so the flip what??

Read the Rorty quote below yet once more

Everything and everyone you know is an electro-chemical brain state in your brain.  What's the point??

 

So go ahead and use your chemicals to bash other people's chemicals but just know it's still all "chemicals" or "experiences" - WORDS and solves nothing about anything REAL.  All you are doing is adding zeros but keeping the equation logically constant on both sides.  In other words its a waste of time.

OK now I really do need to go.

In the 60's I actually would thank God for my chemicals.  No kidding.

You totally misread me and skipped way ahead of anything I said. Don't be so hasty. Anything we experience (whether or not there is some correspondence to something outside of ourselves or not) only registers to us because there is some kind of physical process going on in the brain. Even storing a memory is a physical process. All emotional and spiritual experiences have to have a physical component in our brains - otherwise they would never register as experiences. That's all I'm saying, so please don't fill in the gaps with something I didn't argue.

[MiserereNobis]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So I am a liar, we all need to repent of something

So why not refute my position?  I guess I hit a nerve or something

Oh well you get your wish even if you do not choose to take on the issues I have raised.

I'm sorry for being so grumpy -- I was annoyed for external reasons last night and your post just totally rubbed me the wrong way. I should have just kept my mouth shut instead of going off on you. I apologize.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Surely brain chemicals are related to how we experience the world but what we learn from those experiences ARE NOT the chemicals- it is the effect of the experience in our lives that changes our lives.

Another way of looking at this is that the "effect of the experience" is directly proportional to our ability to choose, and it is our choice that "changes our lives."

[MiserereNobis]

7 hours ago, Darren10 said:

There was quite a large amount of psychodelic effects going on in my friend at that moment. 

Do you mean he had also taken psychedelic drugs? Because cocaine is not a psychedelic in any way, shape, or form.

7 hours ago, Darren10 said:

As for "where you are today" I assume that means a believing, practicing Roman Catholic, correct. If that's where God wanted you to be at this moment of your life, I've no doubt whatsoever you'd be there at thus point and God epuld have caused you to do it without illicit drugs. Today it is the Holy Spirit which gives you strength, not drugs. It was the Holy Spirit, not drugs, which has guided you to righteousness. 

Yes, God wants me to be a Roman Catholic. I absolutely agree with you that God could have led me here any way He chose. I can't play "what if" with God, however, so all I'm left with is how He actually did lead me here.

Also, peyote use in the Native American Church is not illicit.

[MiserereNobis]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This whole nonsense that somehow the fact that we have chemical reactions in our brains makes God in some sense "not real" is what I am attacking

Yes, I totally agree with you here.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm sorry for being so grumpy -- I was annoyed for external reasons last night and your post just totally rubbed me the wrong way. I should have just kept my mouth shut instead of going off on you. I apologize.

No problem. 

Since I am perfectly even tempered and never sarcastic or angry here, I can let it go.

Of course I can relate! 

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you mean he had also taken psychedelic drugs? Because cocaine is not a psychedelic in any way, shape, or form.

Yes, God wants me to be a Roman Catholic. I absolutely agree with you that God could have led me here any way He chose. I can't play "what if" with God, however, so all I'm left with is how He actually did lead me here.

Also, peyote use in the Native American Church is not illicit.

Yes, there were other drugs involved. Cocaine is what put his body into overdrive and could not handle the load any longer.

I strongly doubt God "guided you" or "influenced you" to taker a psychedelic drug to gain spiritual experiences towards Him. To the contrary, I think He prompted you to NOT take the drugs but you did so anyway. I think He let you make that choice despite the Holy Spirit telling you not to take it. Despite your taking the drugs contrary to God's will, you had an overall positive outcome and I thank God for that.

Peyote may not be illicit in the strictest sense of the word but isn't it more or less equivalent to LSD (not to be confused with LDS  ) ?

 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

I strongly doubt God "guided you" or "influenced you" to taker a psychedelic drug to gain spiritual experiences towards Him. To the contrary, I think He prompted you to NOT take the drugs but you did so anyway. I think He let you make that choice despite the Holy Spirit telling you not to take it. Despite your taking the drugs contrary to God's will, you had an overall positive outcome and I thank God for that.

I think you're drawing conclusions about me and my path to God without knowing really anything about me, my path, and my relationship to God. It seems a tad presumptuous for you to tell me what God was telling me to do, what the Holy Spirit was telling me to do, and what God's will was concerning me 10-15 years ago. Wouldn't I be the one in the better position to relate that?

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

you had an overall positive outcome and I thank God for that.

I really don't think I could have gone from point A (agnostic/atheist) to point C (Roman Catholic) without having gone through point B (spiritual seeker, including time with psychedelic spirituality). Now, I know that God can do whatever He chooses, but as I said before I don't want to play "what if" with God. Instead, I'll stick to what He actually did. He used my experiences in point B to lead me to point C and what I learned in point B remains with me and part of my Catholic spirituality today. And I, too, thank Him for that.

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Peyote may not be illicit in the strictest sense of the word but isn't it more or less equivalent to LSD (not to be confused with LDS  ) ?

A great scene from Star Trek IV

Peyote is a cactus whose psychoactive compound is mescaline. It is similar to LSD in the sense that they are both in the psychedelic category. LSD, however, is purely synthetic. Peyote is perfectly legal for use in the Native American Church but is illegal outside of the NAC.

I said it in a previous post but I do want to say it again. I do not see myself ever using psychedelics again. They served their purpose for me. The analogy I used was they were like a boat to get me across the river and now that I am across it would be silly to sit down in the boat when the boat is on dry land. It wouldn't get me anywhere. It would be even sillier to get in the boat and go back across the river, as that would be going backwards.

I also do not advocate the use of psychedelics in the sense that I tell people they should try them. I leave that up to each individual and their relationship with God. For most I think they would not be beneficial, though not necessarily harmful.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think you're drawing conclusions about me and my path to God without knowing really anything about me, my path, and my relationship to God. It seems a tad presumptuous for you to tell me what God was telling me to do, what the Holy Spirit was telling me to do, and what God's will was concerning me 10-15 years ago. Wouldn't I be the one in the better position to relate that?

I really don't think I could have gone from point A (agnostic/atheist) to point C (Roman Catholic) without having gone through point B (spiritual seeker, including time with psychedelic spirituality). Now, I know that God can do whatever He chooses, but as I said before I don't want to play "what if" with God. Instead, I'll stick to what He actually did. He used my experiences in point B to lead me to point C and what I learned in point B remains with me and part of my Catholic spirituality today. And I, too, thank Him for that.

A great scene from Star Trek IV

Peyote is a cactus whose psychoactive compound is mescaline. It is similar to LSD in the sense that they are both in the psychedelic category. LSD, however, is purely synthetic. Peyote is perfectly legal for use in the Native American Church but is illegal outside of the NAC.

I said it in a previous post but I do want to say it again. I do not see myself ever using psychedelics again. They served their purpose for me. The analogy I used was they were like a boat to get me across the river and now that I am across it would be silly to sit down in the boat when the boat is on dry land. It wouldn't get me anywhere. It would be even sillier to get in the boat and go back across the river, as that would be going backwards.

I also do not advocate the use of psychedelics in the sense that I tell people they should try them. I leave that up to each individual and their relationship with God. For most I think they would not be beneficial, though not necessarily harmful.

Are you Native American?

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are you Native American?

I'm ashamed to say that I thought MiserereNobis was a woman, I will try harder to notice next time. 😕

[MiserereNobis]

45 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are you Native American?

No, as I answered before I am white, but I had Native American friends who were members of the Native American Church. In my state anyone involved in a bonafide NAC ceremony is exempt under the law.

 

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm ashamed to say that I thought MiserereNobis was a woman, I will try harder to notice next time

And I am male  But I have a deep love of the Blessed Virgin Mary, so I understand.

 

[Stargazer]

On 7/9/2017 at 0:59 AM, Bernard Gui said:

In a recent study, several religious leaders participated in an experiment to test if using psychedelic mushrooms compared with or enhanced spiritual experiences.

1. Would you participate in such a study?  No.

2. Is this a valid way to test spiritual experiences?  No.

3. Do you believe your experiences with the Spirit as a Latter-Day Saint can be tested in a lab situation or replicated at will?  No.

4. What would be a valid scientific test of your experience and would you subject it to such testing?

 

I'm pretty sure that God is not a lab animal.  Nor a force of nature, such as gravity or electricity.

Ancient magicians sought to control supernatural forces by working out code words and key phrases which would produce consistent results every time.  This is why a witch doctor dances around the campfire in a particular direction (e.g. clockwise), reciting certain words in according to a certain tune or timing, shaking a rattle or other noisemaker, while wearing particular regalia.  It is hoped that, regardless of the merits of the case, that the exact replication of the "keys" will produce the desired results in a reliable fashion.  If God were a machine that responded to inputs, then there might be a point to all this.  But God is a conscious entity with free will of his own.  And very frequently God seems to operate on his own volition regardless and sometimes in direct contradiction to any inputs.

I've experienced several instances of divine intervention in my life, including direct answer to prayer in the forms of informational answers to questions and the granting of requests, as well as unasked-for tailored interventions.  Each of these experiences were so individualized that I don't think it remotely possible to set up experimental conditions in such a way as to attempt to replicate the results.

In other words, all attempts to test God in a lab situation are barking up the wrong tree.  Or the equivalent of using a voltmeter to measure your spouse's love and devotion.

 

 

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

A great scene from Star Trek IV

I especially liked the part about Scotty showing the Plexicorp manager about transparent aluminum!

"Just use the keyboard!"

"How quaint!"

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by Stargazer

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm pretty sure that God is not a lab animal.  Nor a force of nature, such as gravity or electricity.

Ancient magicians sought to control supernatural forces by working out code words and key phrases which would produce consistent results every time.  This is why a witch doctor dances around the campfire in a particular direction (e.g. clockwise), reciting certain words in according to a certain tune or timing, shaking a rattle or other noisemaker, while wearing particular regalia.  It is hoped that, regardless of the merits of the case, that the exact replication of the "keys" will produce the desired results in a reliable fashion.  If God were a machine that responded to inputs, then there might be a point to all this.  But God is a conscious entity with free will of his own.  And very frequently God seems to operate on his own volition regardless and sometimes in direct contradiction to any inputs.

I've experienced several instances of divine intervention in my life, including direct answer to prayer in the forms of informational answers to questions and the granting of requests, as well as unasked-for tailored interventions.  Each of these experiences were so individualized that I don't think it remotely possible to set up experimental conditions in such a way as to attempt to replicate the results.

In other words, all attempts to test God in a lab situation are barking up the wrong tree.  Or the equivalent of using a voltmeter to measure your spouse's love and devotion.

 

 

Thank you for this response. It parallels my experiences and conclusions.

 

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

No, as I answered before I am white, but I had Native American friends who were members of the Native American Church. In my state anyone involved in a bonafide NAC ceremony is exempt under the law

Sorry...I missed your response. Wouldn't this be cultural appropriation? 

[MiserereNobis]

48 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Sorry...I missed your response. Wouldn't this be cultural appropriation? 

Not if I was invited

 

[rodheadlee]

On 7/9/2017 at 3:47 PM, Bernard Gui said:

So you would agree that taking a substance may not necessarily result in an experience specific to what is needed or wanted?

No it would depend on the personality of the subject. The thing is most of my memorable spiritual experiences were in answer to prayer. How is a  drug going to warn me that my wife has cancer?

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

No it would depend on the personality of the subject. The thing is most of my memorable spiritual experiences were in answer to prayer. How is a  drug going to warn me that my wife has cancer?

What if a drug could make you more aware of the Spirit? I had a drug shut down my internal awareness of the Spirit.  I felt/envisioned it as a black space in my brain, as if part of what I imagine is my Self was blacked out.  Perhaps one could use the analogy of pulling most of the connecting wires so that only a very limited frequency was exchanged.

I assume there are drug caused opposite experiences.  The question is are they actual communication between God and man or not.  Continuing the analogy, additional inputs were added that increased definition and perhaps moved communication into a hot spot as opposed to a low bar zone (just moved from land line to wireless, may come back to make analogy consistent along one form of technology).

If you have seen Star Trek, maybe we could use the analogy of "pattern enhancers" for transporting for a drug that increases spiritual openness and "transporter inhibitors" or "scramblers" for blocking the Spirit or being unable to decipher it while being aware of its presence.

Or one could just use the usual person to person communications as analogies...I prefer them because I think spiritual communication is just that.

There are drugs that interfere with awareness and ability to pay attention to what the other person is saying.  Otoh, there is at least caffeine which can improve ability to concentrate, which may enhance awareness.  I think it is pretty easy to relate to these analogies and perhaps this last one isn't even an analogy, we are just not consciously aware yet that spiritual communication is occurring as we are when we write or speak to each other.  We may at times pick up nonverbals that cause us to believe a person is lying or angry even when words are neutral.  Maybe the spirit is operating in more that type of realm at the moment.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

No it would depend on the personality of the subject. The thing is most of my memorable spiritual experiences were in answer to prayer. How is a  drug going to warn me that my wife has cancer?

You may have misunderstood my point. I cannot imagine how taking a drug could provide such personal, specific, and prophetic information as you describe, just as I cannot conceive of an experiment that would replicate or explain the shared revelatory event that precipitated my engagement to Sister Gui. I asked another participant about this but the answer was not clear to m.

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Not if I was invited

 

Some NAs would disagree. Our Pueblo friends never shared the kiva ceremonies with us, and we did not pressure them to reveal anything about them. Vine DeLoria is critical of this kind of sharing.