Are Spiritual Encounters All In Your Head?

Jesus AscendingNeurologists are coming to the conclusion that spiritual experiences might be from an anomaly from in the temporal lobe. Jeff Schimmel is one such case:

The 49-year-old Los Angeles writer was raised in a Conservative Jewish home. But he never bought into God — until after he was touched by a being outside of himself.

“Yeah,” Schimmel says, “I was touched by a surgeon.”

About a decade ago, Schimmel had a benign tumor removed from his left temporal lobe. The surgery was a snap. But soon after that — unknown to him — he began to suffer mini-seizures. He’d hear conversations in his head. Sometimes the people around him would look slightly unreal, as if they were animated.

Then came the visions. He remembers twice, lying in bed, he looked up at the ceiling and saw a swirl of blue and gold and green colors that gradually settled into a shape. He couldn’t figure out what it was.

“And then, like a flash, it dawned on me: ‘This is the Virgin Mary!’ ” he says. “And you know, it’s funny. I laughed about it, because why would the Virgin Mary appear to me, a Jewish guy, lying in bed looking at the ceiling? She could do much better.”

So he had his neurologist perform an MRI:

“My left temporal lobe looked completely different from the way it did before the surgery,” he says.

Gradually, it had become smaller, a different shape, covered with scar tissue. Those changes had sparked electrical firings in his brain. Schimmel’s doctor told him he had developed temporal lobe epilepsy — a disease that has fascinated doctors for centuries.

I have come to a similar conclusion about the Apostle Paul. I think he really did have an experience where he thought Jesus was talking to him — and is it really all that surprising? He had been on a warpath, killing Christians left and right for their beliefs, a fanatic in his Judaism. He was ripe for some kind of mystical experience, especially being “chosen.” And who better to speak to him than Jesus, the cult leader of the people he had dedicated his life to killing?

Yes, I think spiritual encounters are all in our heads.

This entry was posted in Psychology, Religion, Science, Superstition. Bookmark the permalink.

143 Responses to Are Spiritual Encounters All In Your Head?

  1. g h says:

    Whenever someone says that god “spoke” to them, I ask them when they plan to get medication for their auditory hallucinations (as schizophrenia is a serious condition).

  2. ncloud says:

    Yes, this makes a lot of sense. It also explains the variety of religious experiences, even among people who claim to believe the same thing (walk into any christian bookstore and note the wide array of books on the subject). I would also add though that a lot of people believe that “coincidences” are mystical experiences, when in reality they are usually forms of synchronicity.

  3. I have these seizures. It is very much like what people describe as a religious experience.

    I take medication.

  4. cypressgreen says:

    I ‘suffer’ from hypnogogic hallucinations and sleep paralysis.

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

    ***Sleep paralysis occurs when the brain awakes from a REM state, but the body paralysis persists. This leaves the person fully conscious, but unable to move. The paralysis can last from several seconds to several minutes…In addition, the paralysis state may be accompanied by terrifying hallucinations (hypnopompic or hypnagogic) and an acute sense of danger. (oh, yeah!)

    Sleep paralysis is particularly frightening to the individual due to the vividness of such hallucinations. The hallucinatory element to sleep paralysis makes it even more likely that someone will interpret the experience as a dream, since completely fanciful, or dream-like, objects may appear in the room alongside one’s normal vision. Some scientists have proposed this condition as an explanation for alien abductions and ghostly encounters.***

    Sometimes I see threatening things in my bedroom, usually figures or weapons hanging from the ceiling, and I throw myself from the bed. Or I can’t move. Or I wake my husband, screaming, and don’t remember it later!

    Once, before I knew what I had, I had the peculiar experience of waking paralized during a nap on the couch. Before fully awake, I was CERTAIN I heard someone coming up the walk outside the window and entering the front door. I awoke, unable to move. I couldn’t scream…just a little whimper came out. I tried and tried to move. Eventually (within a few minutes) I was able to twitch a knee and I then felt a burning sensation on the knee, which quickly spread in all directions from the knee. Only once a body part had the sensation did movement return to that area.

    I was home alone, in an empty dark house, waiting for Mom and Dad and sister to return. And don’t forget, I THOUGHT I heard someone enter. So I tried to go back to sleep to pass the time faster, and damned if it didn’t happen again!

    It was the was the most freaky ass experience I think I’ve ever had. But I didn’t find out what it was until years later.

    • Joe B says:

      I don’t sleep on my back anymore after a sleep paralysis experience (pressure on my chest, couldn’t move, then something brushed across my face, before I woke up) scared me enough to find out what it was. Then I realized that a crazy “dream” I had when I was a little kid and the somewhat frequent shocks awake from vertigo (especially fun when you’re bed is lofted) were sleep paralysis.

      Since then I’ve had a episode of sleep paralysis, but only vertigo when I accidentally fell asleep on my back.

      It’s scary scary stuff. I can see how it could get people believing in demons/ghosts/aliens.

  5. LRA says:

    Yes- when neuroscientists stick a magnet on a temporal lobe, all kinds of laboratory induced spirituality/religious experience goes on. Here is a review of spirituality and epilepsy from pubmed:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18171635?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

    Also see the related articles on the right of that page.

    • Reginald Selkirk says:

      But if those neuroscientists tell you, “I’m going to magnetize your lobes, and you’re going to have a religious experience,” there are serious issues with proper controls, placebo effect and self-fulfillment.

      • LRA says:

        True– which is why I posted the epilepsy article — seemed more convincing to me that this sort of well documented overstimulation of the temporal lobes is associated with “sprititual” experiences.

      • Olaf says:

        In this case it is not a palcebo effect, this one is real.
        But when you go to a a healer priest in some church, after spending many years and money to get on this podium hoping that he will heal you with the power of god. THAT is placebo! Suddenly you can walk! But behind the scenes when the camera is turned of,, you might collaps becaus of some injury caused by too much strain and your are worse than before. In that moment the placebo gave you so much adrealine that or a short moment you did not feel the pain.

  6. Reginald Selkirk says:

    Ronald Reagan ‘appears to Nancy’

    The former US First Lady, Nancy Reagan, says she still “sees” her husband Ronald, and talks to him.

    She told Vanity Fair magazine: “At night time, if I wake up, I think Ronnie is there, and I start to talk to him… And I see him.”

    QED

  7. DDM says:

    This would certainly explain everything written in the book of revelations.

  8. Yes they are in your head, because I experienced it many times as a Christian. It always coincided with very emotional moments.

    It’s amazing how I was able to convince myself it was “God’s presence” in me. Now I get the same feeling listening to really good music, watching a powerful movie or having a few good beers. It isn’t god, it’s chemicals flowing through you veins.

    • John C says:

      No, what you are describing is not a spiritual encounter but a temporal (earthly, fleshly) “feeling”. That is wholly different from a spiritual “vision”, revelation whose origins are in the eternal realm of spirit.

      • Aor says:

        So now you have the ability to declare that someone else’s memories and experiences were temporal rather than spiritual. If you have that ability, then so do I.

        I hereby declare that all of John C’s spiritual encounters are merely temporal earthly feelings. There, now its all even.

  9. Test says:

    Mystical experiences, revelations, “openings” in the realm of the spirit are very real, lovely, beautiful and a benefit of the deeper, spiritual life. They are reserved for those who are foolish enough, childlike enough to trust the love of the Father. Our believing Him, His true character so delights Him, for this is His very heart, that we would know what kind of a Father He truly is and so along with our believing comes great rewards and revelations from the eternal, true realm. I myself have experienced visions, one in particular so breathtakingly beautiful it is forever imprinted in my (foolish and trusting) mind, I can barely speak of it since any attempt to describe it in earthly terms seems only to detract from its splendor, its wonder and significance. I have volumes of writings, some ancient some modern from those who have recorded similar experiences throughout the ages.

    • Garrett says:

      Do these visions take place in your garage, by chance? Near some open paint cans, perhaps?

      • John C says:

        No, but your response is typical Garrett.

        • Garrett says:

          There’s probably a reason such a response is typical.

          • John C says:

            You have lost your childlike wonder, your innocence. I understand why you would say what you did, there was a time when I was as you are now. But…there is more.

            • Garrett says:

              You may be onto something there. I was raised a believer. But then I grew up.

            • John C says:

              Garrett, I understand your wording, what you are saying but one can not be “raised a believer” in the true sense for God has no grandchildren, only children. All we need to know Him being within us, hidden in every man.

            • Janet Greene says:

              I actually developed my “childlike wonder” and “innocence” when I dropped the idea of a blood-thirsty god (or any god). Now, I’m amazed at the beauty and complexity of people, nature, etc. I appreciate life far more because now I realize that this may be all there is. The odds against each of us existing are astronomical, and I appreciate that I am one of the privileged to be here, as a human being on earth. You don’t need a mythological, invisible peeping tom in the sky to appreciate life.

    • dr.R. says:

      Have you read the post at all??? These experiences do not come from outside, or from some deeper spiritual realm, they originate in your own brain.

      If you really seek the truth, you should first and foremost make sure you’re not deceiving yourself.

      And if you see things that others can’t, you should talk to a doctor.

  10. John C says:

    Oops…sorry, forgot to retype name above…all the best.

  11. nomad says:

    And just think. We have taken these peoples hallucinations to heart; taken them as reality; Built enormous institutions on the visions of Paul. Mohammad. John. Are the voices in someone else’s head actually more credible than the voices in your own? I can hear Jim Jones saying “No!”

    • brgulker says:

      Whoa, some pretty big jumps there…one that strikes me (perhaps because of the brevity of your comment?)

      Seems like you’re implying that the church is founded on Paul’s vision, i.e., a hallucination. It’s not, nomad. If you’re not implying that, then no worries, but it sure seems like you are…

      • DarkMatter says:

        “If you’re not implying that, then no worries, but it sure seems like you are…”

        Why say this? But it will be more interesting to hear your opinion if you think the neurologists’ conclusion might be wrong.

        • brgulker says:

          Why not say it? I’m not trying to go on the attack, so I used a friendly-ish expression. No sense putting people on the defensive for no good reason.

          • DarkMatter says:

            “No sense putting people on the defensive for no good reason.”

            Oh I see what you are trying to do!

      • nomad says:

        Yes. That’s exactly what I am implying. Except that I am using the words hallucination and vision as a metaphor for Paul’s ideology, which comprises much of the New Testament and is the primary basis for Christian dogma and doctrine. Paul said “I would not have ye ignorant brother” and proceeded to pass on essential information to his followers. So far so good. He tells them what he knows about the metaphysical world. Fine. But where did he himself acquire this knowledge? Why have we in western culture taken his words as the Word of God? Did they come directly from God’s lips? Did God whisper them into Paul’s ears. Did he come to Paul in dreams or trances?

        • John C says:

          There is no “coming to” at all Nomad for as Christ said…this kingdom of God is within each of us. So rather, it came “from” his own depths within, that seed of Christ born of spirit and original and true paternity in that God is spirit (John 4:4). That same “Source” is hidden within every man.

          • nomad says:

            Uh…. What???

            • brgulker says:

              You heard him.

              :)

            • nomad says:

              Heard him. Just didn’t understand him. Let me rephrase that:
              Could you be less obfuscating?

            • John C says:

              Nomad…the concept of “God” being “up there” and man being “down here” is a fallacy and not what Christ taught (see John Ch 17). Christ re-enters the scene decalring that “the kingdom of heaven has come”. The people say (paraphrased) “where? we cant see it”. Christ responds…”its not a visible kingdom, for the kingdom of God/Heaven is within you”. Luke 17:21

              As part of an ongoing pilgrimmage, journey with Christ the internal Light (Christ IN you being the mystery of the ages Col 1:27) we are “awakened” to the true nature of man, a spiritual being but we only “see” with our natural eyes this external, physical self and so we THINK that is all there is. A closer inspection reveals there is more than our natural eyes can detect. Hence the spiritual (not religious) journey commences and we find ourselves following our spiritual Head (Christ) all the way home leading us back to where we came from, which is Father God’s great heart of love.

              So He says “follow me” home.

            • nomad says:

              No. I said *less* obfuscating. One thing I will point out though is I never said God was “up there”. I’m not *that* naive. If Paul was unaware of God and suddenly became aware, one of the two of them came to the other; so there is some coming somewhere by someone. Where this somewhere is does not have to be the sky. This God of Paul’s could have come from his interior. From a spiritual world. Or from the “creative imagination”.

          • Janet Greene says:

            Actually, I agree with John C. As a secular humanist, I do believe that the “source” resides inside all of us. There is a spark that makes us alive, our creative energy, ability to love, joy, etc – that comes from within. I think the mistake people make is that they attribute INTERNAL things to EXTERNAL beings. I don’t need to “ask jesus into my heart” or be “saved” to have this spark. And now I know that things I used to believe were god or jesus, were really me!

        • brgulker says:

          nomad, there are only a couple passages in which Paul references ecstatic experiences. Christianity does not stand or fall on those passages.

          Where exactly Paul got all of his knowledge is a question I obviously cannot answer. As I said, there are a couple in which he appeals to some type of ecstatic experience. There are others in which he refers to the Torah. There are others in which he appeals to contemporary philosophy. There are others in which he refers to “commands from the Lord,” presumably writings or sayings of Jesus that had been preserved or passed down. There are others in which Paul appeals to the teachings of the other apostles that had been passed down to him during his time in Jerusalem when he was taught by the apostles.

          And that’s the most I can think of off hand.

          Yes. That’s exactly what I am implying. Except that I am using the words hallucination and vision as a metaphor for Paul’s ideology…

          Paul’s teachings are not grounded in a hallucination. As I’ve said, there are a couple passages that appeal to some type of mystical experience, and as I’ve said, Christianity does not stand or fall on those passages.

          Your original claim was that Christianity was founded on the hallucination of Paul (John as well?). I don’t think Paul’s writings support that claim.

          • nomad says:

            “Your original claim was that Christianity was founded on the hallucination of Paul. ”
            ” Except that I am using the words hallucination and vision as a metaphor for Paul’s ideology,”

            Gee I love cut and paste; so I don’t have to reformulate the answer to a question I have already answered.

            “Where exactly Paul got all of his knowledge is a question I obviously cannot answer. ” That’s a mysterious hole you can drive 25 trucks abreast through, yet somehow you take it on faith that Paul’s words are the word of God. Doesn’t that seem just a little bit irrational?

            • nomad says:

              I suspect that much of what Paul writes in his letters are notions and practices already established by the initial followers of Jesus. He probably found the rudimentary features of Christianity already established, mourning their recently murdered leader. It must have reminded this cosmopolitan Jew of a cult that flourished in his hometown of Tarsus. The cult of the pagan god who resurrects. Suddenly Paul has a brilliant idea. He must have thought, if I combined the Jewish messiah myth with the Mithras myth I could increase the appeal of Christianity and convert gentiles. Anyway, some of his knowledge, especially about the Eucharist probably came from Mithraism.

          • vorjack says:

            “Paul’s teachings are not grounded in a hallucination.”

            Granted. His teachings seem to come from a mix-mash of sources. But his authority comes from his vision. He makes that clear in Galatians and 1st Corinthians.

            Yes, he’s interpreting scripture, but so are thousands of other Jews at the time. Why should we accept his interpretations over those found in the Misnah?

            Yes, he may have spoken to other apostles – though he specifically distances himself from the Cephas & James in Galatians. But we know that there were already many different strains of Christianity already, so which apostles did he talk to?

            So ultimately, we accept Pauline Christianity over Ebionite Christianity (for example), because of his authority. And his authority stems from two factors, which he explains in 1Cor. 9:
            1. He has seen a vision of Jesus
            2.He has successfully started Christian communities.

            I suspect that his de jure authority stems from the first, but his de facto authority stems from the second. His communities have survived, while the Jewish-Christian sects died off. We’re all Paulines, because that’s what survived.

            • John C says:

              The reason it has endured is because what Paul spoke came from the true, eternal realm wherein truth is found.

            • brgulker says:

              vorjack, First, good post.

              But second, you’ve left out what a very significant reason for Paul’s apostleship and thus his authority, as you put it. In Acts 15, Paul is commissioned as an apostle by the apostles. In Galatians, Paul speaks of a “revelation” that he has had, which may be some type of experience; I’d have to look that up.

              It seems to me, however, that his acceptance as an apostle by the apostles has just as much to do with his authority as an apostle as anything else might have.

              Or maybe that’s what you reference with, “he may have spoken…”

              His communities have survived, while the Jewish-Christian sects died off. We’re all Paulines, because that’s what survived.

              Perhaps. That is one way of looking at the history of it. Have you heard of EP Sanders? He’s got some interesting theories on Paul that are very much related to the conversation about Jewish-Christian sects.

            • LRA says:

              Yet, all this talk about authority doesn’t address the very clear metaphyiscal/ epistemoloigcal problems that the neuroscience causes. The fact is that we can reproduce visions in a lab. We can study visions in epileptic populations, and having done so have quite demystified the process. Sorry, mystics, but it IS in fact ALL in your head. (And don’t even get me started on ablation studies…)

          • Aor says:

            If Paul did not have his vision/hallucination, then all of his subsequent writings would have either been quite different or not existed at all. This means that without those hallucinations Paul would have been nothing to Christianity. Nothing. Completely unimportant. Nobody would care about his writings. Without that hallucination, Paul would have had nothing of worth to teach to early Christians. In that case, I think it is safe to say that those hallucinations are in fact the basis of Paul’s teachings. Without the hallucination, he’s not a Christian.

            • nomad says:

              I don’t know if I would go that far. Essentially I agree with brgulker. I’m just using “hallucination” as a metaphor for the teachings as a whole. Paul would have been a powerful influence regardless of how he came to Christianity. It just so happens he came to it by way this hallucinatory experience. Without it, his conversion may have never happened. Paul’s claim to fame is his mission to the gentiles. He is probably responsible for establishing the modus operandi that allowed the early church to proliferate in non-Jewish areas: The incorporation of pagan practices. Most Christian holidays, as you know, have pagan origins. I contend that Paul initiated this process by introducing Mithraic sacramental practices into the nascent church.

  12. BoringPostcards says:

    This article reminds me of the theory of the “bicameral mind.” I think this theory of how our brains evolved is very close to the truth, and probably explains the human race’s long-standing belief in the supernatural.

    • John C says:

      No, human’s long standing belief in the supernatural is due to humankind originating from that realm, the supernatural itself having been our “natural” state prior to its “fall” from that high, and beautiful place of the spirit realm.

      Within us is a sort of latent memory of the original, paradaisical condition, we long for it to be re-instated in us but have mostly given up re-ascending to that pristine place. The kingdom of heaven being within us.

    • Robert says:

      Perhaps that “paradaisical condition” was simply our childhood; loved and protected by our parents. That is what we long for.

  13. Garrett says:

    John C wrote: “Garrett, I understand your wording, what you are saying but one can not be “raised a believer” in the true sense for God has no grandchildren, only children. All we need to know Him being within us, hidden in every man.”

    Balderdash.

    • John C says:

      Thank you, but I think I will not respond as your pre-disposition is so strongly opposed to receive or even consider anything other than your current position, respectfully.

      • Garrett says:

        I’m not predisposed to oppose different points of view. But I do take issue with those who speak in circles and reject science. Like those who essentially say, “The Bible is true, because The Bible says so.”

        I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t believe in gods or the supernatural, but if someone presents concrete evidence that suggests I should, I’ll receive it willingly. But nonsense talk doesn’t impress me in the least.

        • John C says:

          The “evidence” you seek can not be found by natural means/minds, but IT most certainly can be found, known. It is other-worldy, spiritual and so must be experienced in that same heavenly (spiritual) realm.

          But this requires a mighty trust, a childlike condition is a pre-requisite as Christ taught. If we really want to know and are willing to die to our own beliefs, positions and earthly mindsets, then we will surely know and be known.

          • Custador says:

            So John – you accept that you’re closed-minded, then?

          • cynic says:

            “but this requires a mighty trust, a childlike condition is a pre-requisite as Christ taught.”

            a childlike condition is the perfect condition for imaginary friends

            • John C says:

              There is One who is the Authentic…One. If you find Him, rather are found by Him then you have found the “pearl of great price” within. He is worth searching for, worth being searched out for.

            • cynic says:

              but why does it require ‘foolishness’ and ‘childlikeness’ to find him

            • John C says:

              Cynic…because the small child’s mind does not question or pervert the intention, nature and heart of its Father toward it, as we are so inclined to doubt, object, etc. And isnt that what we love so in children? Their vulnerability, innocence, beauty?

              The old writer George Macdonald said it this way:

              THERE IS A CHILDHOOD into which we have to grow, just as there is a childhood which we must leave behind. One is a childishness from which but few of those who are counted wisest among men have freed themselves. The other is a child-likeness, which is the highest gain of humanity.

              and…

              BROTHERS, SISTERS, have you found our King? There he is, kissing little children and saying they are like Him (God).

            • cynic says:

              “And isnt that what we love so in children?”
              Stupidity is cute in a child but not in an adult (unless one is a supermodel )

              any adult who sustains the mind of a child is classified as being retarded or mentally handicapped
              As for the quote : i guess if George Macdonald said it , we must all agree.

              what about the foolishness? what’s your answer for that

            • John C says:

              Foolishness is merely tied to the perception of being a fool for believing in what one can neither see with his natural eyes nor prove in the realm of science, so hence it appears quite “foolish” to many except for the one who has found its simplistic genius and irony.

            • Aor says:

              Prove it, John. Prove there is only one. Is this like Highlander, did the gods fight it out on rooftops with big shiny swords?

      • Garrett says:

        This video seems relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

        My apologies if that video has been discussed previously on this site, as I am new to this site.

        • Joe B says:

          It’s been posted here before (I remember doing it in the comments a while back, but that probably wasn’t the first time it was here), but it’s worth rewatching, so I wouldn’t sweat it.

        • Custador says:

          It won’t let me watch, but if it’s the same video about open mindedness that Daniel posted a few months back – I agree, it’s very relevant. Theists (and I use that as a blanket term for all believers in supernatural things) tend to use the phrase “open mindedness” with a huge degree of hypocrisy attached.

        • DarkMatter says:

          There are also others who believe in shutting down their brains.

      • Custador says:

        As Garret points out below, you’ve just effectively accused him of being closed-minded when he’s already pointed out that he keeps and open mind and will gladly admit the existence of God if some conclusive evidence is placed in front of him.

        You, on the other hand, are extremely closed-minded. You explain certain emotional responses as “God did it”, based on no evidence whatsoever, and refuse to accept that any other explanation could be valid – even an explanation with a mountain of evidence.

        Can you see the hypocrisy in your own statements, John?

    • brgulker says:

      Being open-minded is extremely hard. Most times, I feel like it’s counter-intuitive, almost as if it’s against our nature.

      Do you think there’s evolutionary factors at play? At some point in our evolutionary history, was it beneficial for us to think in terms of out-group / in-group?

      Or am I merely grasping at straws…

      • Custador says:

        I think the evolutionary explanation is quite simple. We have evolved to believe absolutely what we are taught before the age of about 8. At that age, we lack the cognitive capacity to understand long and involved reasoning, but we can usually rely on our parents having our best interests at heart. Simple lessons like “big dogs are dangerous” can actually cause people to have a life-long fear of dogs, for example. So, when a parent teaches their child from infancy that God created the heavens and the Earth in seven days and that the Bible is the one true word of God – we believe it absolutely. After all, we can tell our parents are not lying to us, because they so obviously also believe it absolutely. We are extremely resistant to the idea that something which we have accepted as fact for our entire lives might actually be wrong, and taken with our natural resistance to “un-learning” these childhood lessons, I would suggest that an explanation for theistic closed-mindedness is pretty straightforward :-)

      • Question-I-thority says:

        Closed mindedness does appear to fit the evolutionary model. Many suggest that in-group/out-group prejudice has power but also personal survival. It would probably have been valuable to strongly hold a position about the world that helped one survive than to be waffling about with possibilities.

        I wonder tho if counter-intuitive is the right word since we all employ evidence seeking in mundane ways. It may be that the problem is more specifically related to the way in which we formulate and then hold ‘world views’ or some such.

      • Olaf says:

        The question is what do you mean with beeing open minded?
        Most people that say that I am not open minded are themselves very close minded.

        They do not dare to take the possibility that their religion is wrong. They do not dare to question themselves if the Greek God is the real god and their god only a fictional character. They do not dare for the possibility that the Hindu gods are real and their own god not.

        The close minded is: it is in the bible, so it must be true, no questions asked.

  14. JeremyO says:

    If the majority of people suffer from this. Wouldn’t those who don’t be the ones with the anomaly?

    • Reginald Selkirk says:

      1) Who says a majority of people experience this?

      2) No. The majority of people experience cognitive ilusions and perceptual illusions, and yet we can unanbiguously state that these are illusions, and even investigate the biological basis for them.

      3) The point is that no supernatural component is necessary to explain these things, even if the person may believe otherwise.

      • JeremyO says:

        An anomaly is something that is strange or unique. Given that an overwhelming majority of people on earth have religious experiences, that would mean those of us who don’t would actually be the anomalous ones.

        • brgulker says:

          I see your point, JeremyO, but I’m not sure that every person who’s religious has had such a mystical or ecstatic experience. I don’t know of any data either way.

        • Custador says:

          Define “religious experience”, though. I’ve seen Mohammed, Jesus and the Devil on several occasions. Hell, I’ve had a long and involved conversation with The Angel of Death. I’m pretty sure, though, that those experiences had more to do with the LSD that I’d taken than with me being a candidate for prophet or messiah!

          • Jabster says:

            Generally if you can claim charity status for it, set-up schools funded by the tax payer and say that your world view trumps others then it’s a religious experience otherwise it’s something else — well except in a few hundred years anyway when we we could have Custadorains.

          • Garrett says:

            And when I was young, I more or less believed that various healings were religious experiences (even though I might not have used that phraseology). This was due to my being raised in Christian Science. But I now believe (and have believed for many years) that those healings came about as a result of the passage of time. Aches and pains and wounds do heal over time, and we have scientific/medical/physiological reasons to explain why that is so. We do not have any evidence that some supernatural being heals.

      • DarkMatter says:

        Can religious reasonings proof the existence of their gods? Can one religion proofs the non-existence of gods of other religion by religious reasonings?

  15. John C says:

    There is a place (within us) wherein once we have experienced the liberating life of truth and life that we will no longer accept anything less, that is where I am. This does not mean that I am close-minded, for I have had to be, ironically very open minded to arrive at this wonderful place. I am close minded to the false if you want to phrase it in such a way.

    The truth accepts no less than complete life and liberty and so I am no longer content to wander in the desert of human reasoning as before. This is a place offered to all, not that I have fully arrived or am anyone special, nonetheless having tasted of this heavenly state (within) I press on gracefully.

    • Garrett says:

      You say the evidence for the supernatural cannot be found by “natural means/minds.” But you claim to have found the evidence. So, pray tell, how did you find it?

      Was it in The Bible? That can’t be it, because The Bible would constitute natural means.

      Was it with Iraq’s WMDs?

      Was it something told to you by a priest or preacher? Nope. Couldn’t be that.

      Was it in a dream that you had? A drug-induced dream, perhaps?

      I know it may seem like I’m being sarcastic, but these are honest questions…well, most of them are.

      • John C says:

        What is essentially happening is that we “pierce the veil” that separates flesh and spirit. This takes you into the “holy of holies” or that place where God resides within, that realm of spirit. Cloaked in our humanity (that which Christ took with Him to the cross) is that which separates us from Him…in us. But once we “reckon ourselves, old false, inherited identities dead” and “leave all” as Paul says and agree with Christ as to our new and true identity we can begin the trek back to the realm of the spirit, the realm of light…within from whence we came, were originally created in and lived in fellowship with God before sin (death, separation) occured.

        It seems foreign to us now being “in the body”, encased in flesh but we are truly spiritual beings and so, every once in a while we “hear” our hearts (spirit man) calling to us, reminding us gently of our spiritual origins if we will have “ears to hear”. But most dont trust Father enough to follow Him back home, wont “sell out” cuz it makes no “sense”, is not reasonable to our natural minds, is too costly. But if we do…

        Its like we “unearth” a precious pearl, that pearl of great price within our very selves, and like the parable says, we “sell everything”, all identifying, external values in order to possess IT (Christ) within, that “treasure in earthen vessels”.

        • Garrett says:

          What Paul and other writers/editors of The Bible had to say is irrelevant, because that would constitute “natural means.”

          You’re talking in circles again, John.

        • Custador says:

          ” This takes you into the “holy of holies” ”

          I just laughed so hard that my coffee squirted out my nose and drowned my keyboard – thank goodness for spares!

          You and I have very different ideas about the holiest of holies, I think…

          • John C says:

            Oh Custador…you didnt know? Or…what is man that thou art mindful of him? There is more to you my friend that you know. Else, why has Christ paid such a dear and costly price…but that you might really know. He thinks more of you than yourself for He judges aright, by righteous judgment.

            • Custador says:

              Er…. You know I was referring to vaginas, right? Just so we’re clear?

            • John C says:

              Yes, because you are currently earthly, physical and not spiritually minded. That can change Custador, if you want it to.

            • Custador says:

              John C, you are officialy giving everybody diabetes.

            • John C says:

              I dont follow you there Custador…unless you mean “sweet, sugary stuff”?

            • Janet Greene says:

              I hope when you say “holiest of holies” to your wife, and she gives you a meaningful wink, you don’t accuse her of being too “earthly” and “physical” and not “spiritual” enough. You could end up lonely pretty fast (just a friendly warning).

        • Custador says:

          Also, you still haven’t addressed the question about your own closed mind, John.

  16. L. Jerome says:

    John C:

    Do you have Latter Day Saint influences or background?

  17. cynic says:

    you are too much John C

    everyone else use logic and reason but John C sorta goes out of his way to babble from within and without the bible
    it’s like we’re all speaking English and he’s inventing his own language as he goes along

    • DarkMatter says:

      Many still give him special pass here.

    • Olaf says:

      Actually that is exactly what he does.
      He is trying to fit reality to his believes, so he invents stories to prove that his believe must be true.
      But sometimes reality is too strong to be fit into his believes so he then revert to some kind of technobable, playing with impressive and fuzzy words that have no meaning at all, just to convince himself that his believe must be true.
      If everything fails than he will revert to standard manipulation techniques to covince you that his believe is true.

      The only problem is….. it only works on weakly minded.
      People that get easily be influenced. People that will not aks questions if this could all be true? Hide the truth by claming that he is searching for THE truth so people are not asking questions.

  18. John C says:

    I think you guys know that when Daniel posts a post like that, I’m gonna chime in, throw in my 2 cents worth…not that you guys would value it quite that high, lol.

  19. John C says:

    And with that I’m off to my youngest daughters high school graduation ceremony! I wish you all a WONDERful evening!

    • Daniel Florien says:

      You should tell her that she’s welcome here, I’d be interesting to see what John C’s daughter thought about all of this. :)

  20. Lorena says:

    Gradually, it had become smaller, a different shape, covered with scar tissue.

    Hey, I always suspected that the religious had something smaller, deformed, and different in their brains. I wonder what happened to my left temporal lobe when I de-converted, did it grow to its right size? :)

    On a more serious note, I thought it was the right temporal lobe that could be stimulated to cause mystical experiences. But maybe is both lobes.

  21. fftysmthg says:

    If your mind is too open your brain falls out.

  22. Janet Greene says:

    One person believing in the unbelievable is mentally ill. Millions of people believing in the unbelievable are “saved”.

  23. Great post… something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. I know that personally, I can attribute all the times I ‘heard God’s voice’ or had a ‘sign from God’ that I was also emotional and/or really wanted an answer. So my brain… in its infinite wisdom… gave me an answer so I’d just give it up already.

  24. Olaf says:

    Actuay this god-sense in the brain migth have an evolutionary advantage.
    It means that in a group people tend to follow a leader blindly just on faith.

  25. Janet Greene says:

    For me, this paraphrased bible verse says it all:

    “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
    whosoever believeth in him, will believe in anything.”
    –Unknown

  26. atheistlove says:

    the mind can forge multiple behaviours at once, multi-layered thought patterns,but when those layers get distanced so to speak, they can become multiple independant thoughts or voices.
    everyone finds themselves having a half-conversation with themselves once in a while! yea? well most!! but some people tend to have this happen to an extreme ,aka, –god has talked to me– no its your free-will telling you what you want to hear, –satan told me to– pretty mutch the same but a deeper psycosis that brushes aside all their moral structure, THAT OTHER VOICE CAN GET QUITE LOUD, so to speak! even if you acnowlage that you dont want it, for some people the only way they see of quietening the voice is to do what it says………the mind is a scary place.

  27. EinWulf says:

    John C regurgitates the same tedious comments and observations over and over again. I’ve never seen him engage in a meaningful conversation on this site – his responses invariably degenerate quickly into burbling that has a loose, largely incomprehensible religious theme. There’s just no point in attempting a coherent conversation – not matter what you put in, you eventually get the same garbage out.

    It’s tiresome and boring and rather a shame; I do find myself wondering what more he could accomplish if he didn’t have this obsession, whatever the exact nature of it is, it is hard to tell. Perhaps I am being very unkind and in person he is an extremely productive, outward-looking individual, a joy and pleasure to be around, full of interesting observations on what it means to be alive in this real world, with all the rest of us and our oh-so-human failings. But looking at his posts, I do doubt it. As I said, I find it quite sad that he apparently cannot be ‘something more’.

    • Janet Greene says:

      But you gotta admit that some of his gobbley-gook (sp?) is quite poetic. It’s kind of like a politician. They can fill hours with beautiful words. But there is little actual meaning or substance behind them. But I think John C makes this blog more colourful, actually.

  28. cynic says:

    “it is hard to tell. Perhaps I am being very unkind and in person he is an extremely productive, outward-looking individual, a joy and pleasure to be around, full of interesting observations on what it means to be alive in this real world, with all the rest of us and our oh-so-human failings”

    for all we know he may be John C Reily
    and if that is the case, i just want him to know that i enjoyed step brothers

  29. daniel james says:

    Jesus Christ! The redundancy of this post is astounding. OF COURSE they are all in our heads. THAT IS WHERE IT HAPPENS.

  30. jacob says:

    I thought you might be interested in learning about OUR Jewish traditions which embrace the real Christ. We are the Frankist Association of America. One of our members has a new book out:

    http://www.amazon.com/Real-Messiah-Throne-Origins-Christianity/dp/1906787123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245892844&sr=8-1

    These are our teachings passed on through generations. If you can’t afford the book you can see the website of one of our teachers – http://www.stephanhuller.blogspot.com.

    Shalom

    Beth El Jacob Frank

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>