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?

[Swami]

The experience itself is empirical evidence.

How is that empirical?

It is evidence that is based on events that are observed or experienced. Anyone can have this experience. In my case, I've taken an extra step by not only having an experience, but also replicating it, experimenting with it, and testing it.

What is the method of gaining such experience?

Meditation.

I want you to present your claim in such a way that can be tested in a lab. Can you do that?

Not every single part of the experience can be tested in a lab. I have presented the evidence that has been tested in the lab. I have a discussion on acquired savant syndrome. I've posted studies.

Science is also not about lab work but can also be about field research. This is what scientists need to engage more of if they want to have a "direct experience" of consciousness as opposed to just relying on "correlates" or "indirect" methods.

Easier still, we can do an experiment and not rely on anecdote claims?

Here is some insight from another discussion:

Anecdotes can become scientific evidence when enough people report the same experience. The experience I described earlier was personal but it's one that many have reported and that many more can experience for themselves. This is how NDEs came to be accepted by scientist. Perhaps it started out as a few accounts but then many came out, including children, reporting the same experience and now the NDE is accepted.

To add to my insight, I would even say that meditation itself should be considered as part of the scientific method. Unlike introspection which has seen acceptance and rejection from the scientific method, meditation is growing in interest. Also unlike introspection (which leaves the "mind" in place to potentially distort), meditation removes mind from picture leaving little room for distortion. It allows you to experience reality as it is.

[Bust Nak]

It is evidence that is based on events that are observed or experienced. Anyone can have this experience. In my case, I've taken an extra step by not only having an experience, but also replicating it, experimenting with it, and testing it.

Then by all means publish your work.

Meditation.

I tried that, yet no religious experience. Is that enough to falsify your thesis? If not then please produce a more detailed method.

Not every single part of the experience can be tested in a lab. I have presented the evidence that has been tested in the lab. I have a discussion on acquired savant syndrome. I've posted studies.

I saw that post, but what does savant syndrome have to do with religious experience?

Science is also not about lab work but can also be about field research.

That much fine. I am also including that as testable in a lab. But I have a feeling you aren't thinking of the likes of Darwin observing birds in the wild.

This is what scientists need to engage more of if they want to have a "direct experience" of consciousness as opposed to just relying on "correlates" or "indirect" methods.

How could the experience of one scientist be tested?

Anecdotes can become scientific evidence when enough people report the same experience.

Sure, the soft sciences work with polls and such. That's still scientists studying people, not scientists referring to their own individual experiences.

The experience I described earlier was personal but it's one that many have reported and that many more can experience for themselves. This is how NDEs came to be accepted by scientist. Perhaps it started out as a few accounts but then many came out, including children, reporting the same experience and now the NDE is accepted.

Accepted by whom? Certainly not the scientific consensus.

To add to my insight, I would even say that meditation itself should be considered as part of the scientific method. Unlike introspection which has seen acceptance and rejection from the scientific method, meditation is growing in interest. Also unlike introspection (which leaves the "mind" in place to potentially distort), meditation removes mind from picture leaving little room for distortion. It allows you to experience reality as it is.

It might be a good way of generating a new thesis, but it fails as a way to test a thesis.

[Swami]

It is evidence that is based on events that are observed or experienced. Anyone can have this experience. In my case, I've taken an extra step by not only having an experience, but also replicating it, experimenting with it, and testing it.

Then by all means publish your work.

I am working on a book deal now. I use this and my lectures as my main support. This is one reason I'm offering my insight here for free instead of setting a payment for each discussion.

Meditation.

I tried that, yet no religious experience. Is that enough to falsify your thesis? If not then please produce a more detailed method.

I don't agree with what you're saying. Even scientists have documented unique abilities that meditation leads to, like changes in brain structure, changes in neurobiological based behavior (previously thought to only react to drug therapy), changes in the field of awareness, and so on.

So why are you saying that meditation did "nothing" for you? This is how I can see truth from fiction.

Not every single part of the experience can be tested in a lab. I have presented the evidence that has been tested in the lab. I have a discussion on acquired savant syndrome. I've posted studies.

I saw that post, but what does savant syndrome have to do with religious experience?

It is an experience of omniscience. How do you know something at an expert level without having learned it? How would this knowledge come to you suddenly instead of always having it from birth? This all suggests that our brain or memory already knows everything and that we all just have to tap into it.

Science is also not about lab work but can also be about field research.

That much fine. I am also including that as testable in a lab. But I have a feeling you aren't thinking of the likes of Darwin observing birds in the wild.

Actually, my thinking is along the lines of Darwin's observations in the wild or that of any field researcher.

This is what scientists need to engage more of if they want to have a "direct experience" of consciousness as opposed to just relying on "correlates" or "indirect" methods.

How could the experience of one scientist be tested?

It can be tested but not in all of the ways that other subject matters are tested. Lets use transcendent or unitive experience as an example. First, to establish the ability of being able to transcend self or individual perspective I would require that an independent subject be able to have the same experience. Lets say that a small child, who knows little to nothing about unitive experience, goes through one, and reports the same types of details that the one scientists reports. A second point would be to be able to replicate the experience. You might say still say that these aren't being tested by outside observers, but that is the limitation of the subject matter - the subjective aspect of consciousness. If any third person test could be done it would be from studying the after effects or information that meditation leaves behind after long term practice. For information, it would be knowing about something that would not be known about through ordinary means, like the mind of a person or even how to play a piano without learning (musical savants).

Even if you doubt me on the first two points then please explain to me how do you have a "direct" experience of consciousness. To date, scientists do not know how to directly observe consciousness from third-person. Can you imagine that consciousness is the most readily available phenomenon but yet they have never observed nor explained it?

The experience I described earlier was personal but it's one that many have reported and that many more can experience for themselves. This is how NDEs came to be accepted by scientist. Perhaps it started out as a few accounts but then many came out, including children, reporting the same experience and now the NDE is accepted.

Accepted by whom? Certainly not the scientific consensus.

NDEs are accepted by scientists. What is not a scientific consensus is the validity of these NDEs, that is, whether they are hallucinations or real objective events.

To add to my insight, I would even say that meditation itself should be considered as part of the scientific method. Unlike introspection which has seen acceptance and rejection from the scientific method, meditation is growing in interest. Also unlike introspection (which leaves the "mind" in place to potentially distort), meditation removes mind from picture leaving little room for distortion. It allows you to experience reality as it is.

It might be a good way of generating a new thesis, but it fails as a way to test a thesis.

What you're basically arguing or disagreeing with me on is that my method is different than some standard science, and therefore it's not a test.

You are getting away from the spirit of science. The spirit of science is to be "objective" - perceiving reality as it is. This does not require that all methods be uniform across all scientific fields. Believing that all science branches share one standard set of scientific method or approach is a myth because each science has specialized methods. What I'm proposing is a "specialized" method.

[Bust Nak]

I am working on a book deal now. I use this and my lectures as my main support. This is one reason I'm offering my insight here for free instead of setting a payment for each discussion.

Book deal? I was thinking a scientific journal.

I don't agree with what you're saying. Even scientists have documented unique abilities that meditation leads to, like changes in brain structure, changes in neurobiological based behavior (previously thought to only react to drug therapy), changes in the field of awareness, and so on.

So why are you saying that meditation did "nothing" for you? This is how I can see truth from fiction.

I don't see how that qualify as an a disagreement. Why would any of that imply I did in fact had an religious experiment when I did mediation?

It is an experience of omniscience. How do you know something at an expert level without having learned it? How would this knowledge come to you suddenly instead of always having it from birth? This all suggests that our brain or memory already knows everything and that we all just have to tap into it.

Even if I take that claim for granted, how does our brain or memory knows everything mean there is any truth to medication related religious experience?

Actually, my thinking is along the lines of Darwin's observations in the wild or that of any field researcher.

Yet there you were, appeal to subjective experience that affects no one else but the guy having the experience.

It can be tested but not in all of the ways that other subject matters are tested. Lets use transcendent or unitive experience as an example. First, to establish the ability of being able to transcend self or individual perspective I would require that an independent subject be able to have the same experience. Lets say that a small child, who knows little to nothing about unitive experience, goes through one, and reports the same types of details that the one scientists reports. A second point would be to be able to replicate the experience...

Why does this need a scientist who has had this religious experiment at all? Why not just banks of subjects who have had religious experiments, like the usual soft science approach?

Even if you doubt me on the first two points then please explain to me how do you have a "direct" experience of consciousness. To date, scientists do not know how to directly observe consciousness from third-person. Can you imagine that consciousness is the most readily available phenomenon but yet they have never observed nor explained it?

Sure, it's a hard problem.

NDEs are accepted by scientists. What is not a scientific consensus is the validity of these NDEs, that is, whether they are hallucinations or real objective events.

Okay, but NDE as hallucinations isn't very interesting.

What you're basically arguing or disagreeing with me on is that my method is different than some standard science, and therefore it's not a test.

Close enough. More accurately, I would instead say your method is different than standard science, and therefore it's not scientific.

You are getting away from the spirit of science. The spirit of science is to be "objective" - perceiving reality as it is. This does not require that all methods be uniform across all scientific fields.

It does require repeatability, it does require falsifiability. That much is uniform across all scientific fields, even the soft sciences.

[Swami]

I don't agree with what you're saying. Even scientists have documented unique abilities that meditation leads to, like changes in brain structure, changes in neurobiological based behavior (previously thought to only react to drug therapy), changes in the field of awareness, and so on.

So why are you saying that meditation did "nothing" for you? This is how I can see truth from fiction.

I don't see how that qualify as an a disagreement. Why would any of that imply I did in fact had an religious experiment when I did mediation?

What scientists have documented are the baby steps that lead you into your full potential. For instance, where meditation has been documented to increase awareness when it comes to being more aware of unconscious mental activity, the full potential is to increase your awareness to where you can be aware of the entire universe.

I brought this up because it seems you gave up after trying once or twice. You make it sound like meditation did nothing for you. If you've experienced the baby steps, then why stop there? The type of meditative experiences that I bring up take time to master and you build on it gradually.

Here are 4 stages you need to know to reach some of the unitive experiences I refer to:
Dharana -> Dhyana -> Samadhi -> Samyama. I describe these 4 stages here.

I will not continue debate with anyone who has not shown any willingness to learn and experience these things for themselves. The entire lesson behind this discussion is that the experience will expose the error of materialism and this will convince you to leave atheism.

[Neatras]

The entire lesson behind this discussion is that the experience will expose the error of materialism and this will convince you to leave atheism.

This is not the premise you started this topic with. It was not "I will show you that having this experience will CONVINCE you to leave atheism," it was that "mystic experience CAN convert atheists to theism." You have altered the premise, and additionally, you have revealed that your purpose this whole time WAS to give a "lesson," not to progress debate. You have opened your discussion to a debate forum, so you will not make much progress limiting who can participate in this discussion.

[Swami]

The entire lesson behind this discussion is that the experience will expose the error of materialism and this will convince you to leave atheism.

This is not the premise you started this topic with. It was not "I will show you that having this experience will CONVINCE you to leave atheism," it was that "mystic experience CAN convert atheists to theism." You have altered the premise, and additionally, you have revealed that your purpose this whole time WAS to give a "lesson," not to progress debate. You have opened your discussion to a debate forum, so you will not make much progress limiting who can participate in this discussion.

I assume that the majority of viewers want to learn as opposed trying to debate or find some disagreement with me. The reason for this is that the Western scientific view leaves them unsatisfied. If scientists had all of the answers to consciousness then there would not be any curiosity about my view. I would be out of business, but as it stands I find many more wanting to learn because my worldview fills in the void where your scientists can't.

You only "debate" when you know something of your own, and therefore when a view comes up contrary to that you dispute it. So why should I engage in debate with atheists and Western scientists when they have no knowledge of their own to stand by when it comes to consciousness? They may know a lot of little things but do they know the big questions, like its origin and nature? Has any one of them experienced consciousness in its pure form?

If not, then they have something to learn. This is why I am more than justified in looking at my views as lessons that should be experienced. After you experience it, then we can debate. But many times than not, the experience itself converts the person and at that point there is no more debate - they are already convinced.



This is a summit between neuroscientists and the Dalai Lama. The Western scientists surround him like students and the Dalai Lama provides the direction that they are seeking.

[Neatras]

I assume that the majority of viewers want to learn as opposed trying to debate or find some disagreement with me.

As this is a debate site, I have to question your methodology for determining the motivations of "the majority of viewers." Did you pull this assumption out of thin air?

You only "debate" when you know something of your own, and therefore when a view comes up contrary to that you dispute it. So why should I engage in debate with atheists and Western scientists when they have no knowledge of their own to stand by when it comes to consciousness?

Because this is a debate forum, the rules mandate that debates will take place, and you have been disputed on multiple claims by opponents that you appear to be bemoaning your requirement to engage with, on a debate forum.

This is why I am more than justified in looking at my views as lessons that should be experienced. After you experience it, then we can debate.

You have been challenged, multiple times, with claims of meditation that do not lead to the conclusions you have reached. They clearly do wish to engage in debate, however you are gatekeeping who can debate with you on arbitrary terms that ultimately do serve to make your "lessons" into mere preaching. You are, using rhetorical trickery, demanding that all potential debate opponents go through your experience, reach your conclusion, and ultimately come to agree with you, otherwise they are not... allowed to disagree with you? Anyone who looks on in this forum could readily observe that your methodology of gatekeeping is orchestrated specifically to eliminate ALL dissent from ALL sources.

But many times than not, the experience itself converts the person and at that point there is no more debate - they are already convinced.

Your entire scheme is so painfully obvious. "Until you have had the experience, we will not debate. But when you have the experience, you will not want to debate because you will agree with me. If you have had the experience, but do not still agree with me, then you have not had the experience and we will not debate."

Your requirements for debate are best summed up as the following:
"Agree with me, or you are not worth debating."

This is not conducive to a debating environment.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 48 by Neatras]

There is reason for me to doubt the experiences of some here. One obvious reason is because of my own experiences. I have close to 10,000 hours (over 2 or 3 decades) of meditative experience under my belt. I have studied certain forms of meditation in-depth. Not to brag, but most people that I encounter on American based sites are no where on my level. At best, they have a very superficial understanding of meditation and little experience with it. Throughout this discussion and others, I have also posted examples of others who have experienced and come to the same conclusions I have.

All of the above points leads me to doubt the experience of the 1 or 2 skeptics here. If this issue wasn't brought up in the context of a debate, where there is a lot of ego to "win", then I'd be more open to accepting conclusions that differ from mine. This may not be enough to prove my point but then you can always try to have the experience yourself instead of relying on the word of anyone here.

When you are able to transcend self, then come back and offer your perspective. Here is some insight:

Under certain circumstances, the subjective sense of one’s self as an isolated entity can temporarily fade into an experience of unity with other people or one’s surroundings, involving the dissolution of boundaries between the sense of self and “other.� Such transient mental states of decreased self-salience and increased feelings of connectedness are described here as self-transcendent experiences(STEs). These temporary mental states are proposed to be experienced along a spectrum of intensity that ranges from the routine (e.g., losing yourself in music or a book), to the intense and potentially transformative (e.g., feeling connected to everything and everyone), to states in between, like those experienced by many people while meditating or when feeling awe.

Mystical experiences are a particularly intense variety of STE. Some people report that during mystical experiences the sense of self can fall away entirely, creating a distinction-less sense of unity with one’s surroundings (Hood, 2002; James, 1902; Newberg & d’Aquili, 2000; Stace, 1960), though descriptions of mystical experiences also appear to vary across cultural contexts (Katz, 1978). James (1902) noted that mystical experiences involved: transiency (they are brief), ineffability (they are difficult or impossible to fully describe in language), passivity (they feel overwhelming), and have a noetic quality (they feel real; Yaden et al., 2017). In addition to the dramatic changes to one’s sense of self, mystical experiences can change other fundamental aspects of consciousness, such as the senses of time and space (Hood, 1975; James, 1902; MacLean, Leou

The Varieties of Self-Transcendent Experience in Review of General Psychology (American Psychological Association)

[Tcg]

[Replying to Swami]

Here is Bib Dylan in a similar situation. Of course Bob Dylan admitted that he was nothing but a song and dance man.



I wonder if the Dali Lama would be willing to be as honest?


Tcg