Logic tells me God doesn't exist but my heart says otherwise.

[Chas]

What, then, is the significance of these experiences?

I think it probably varies from person to person but some indisputable benefits reported universally and throughout history include an enhanced sense of freedom or will power, determination in the face of fear or conflict, increased peace in times of mental distress, a broadening of one's perspective that can and has led to important discoveries about one's self or the world at large, and sometimes even the cure of physical ailments, psychosomatic or otherwise.

Those effects and their mechanisms are a fit subject for science. Each person's internal, irreproducible experience, however, is not.

[Mudhammam]

Those effects and their mechanisms are a fit subject for science. Each person's internal, irreproducible experience, however, is not.

How is that so? On what basis are you asserting that science cannot record these internal, perhaps "irreproducible" (though I don't see why this necessarily be the case) experiences, in search of underlying psychological principles and their mechanistic correlates?

[Chas]

Those effects and their mechanisms are a fit subject for science. Each person's internal, irreproducible experience, however, is not.

How is that so? On what basis are you asserting that science cannot record these internal, perhaps "irreproducible" (though I don't see why this necessarily be the case) experiences, in search of underlying psychological principles and their mechanistic correlates?

They are internal, not accessible as objective facts.

[Mudhammam]

They are internal, not accessible as objective facts.

Right, but we must still regularly rely on subjective reports when determining objective causes.

[ShaMan]

Well it may not be a god as we believe, but yes, there sure is something out there, or within that is greater than anything we could ever imagine.......so call it god if you want, myself I call it the essence, or the source. Whatever we call it doesn't matter, its stupid to fight over a mere label, because both parties don't really have a clue.

I'll go one deeper. We, all beings, are part of one knowing, and sometimes we mistake the uniqueness of our individual expressions as dissonant notes, when in fact, the symphony that is all of life is in perfect harmony at all times, and it is in those instances, where our senses are heightened, when we most clearly see our-self for the one that we are.

[Chas]

They are internal, not accessible as objective facts.

Right, but we must still regularly rely on subjective reports when determining objective causes.

There's no 'must'; we may take them into consideration.

---

Well it may not be a god as we believe, but yes, there sure is something out there, or within that is greater than anything we could ever imagine.......so call it god if you want, myself I call it the essence, or the source. Whatever we call it doesn't matter, its stupid to fight over a mere label, because both parties don't really have a clue.

I'll go one deeper. We, all beings, are part of one knowing, and sometimes we mistake the uniqueness of our individual expressions as dissonant notes, when in fact, the symphony that is all of life is in perfect harmony at all times, and it is in those instances, where our senses are heightened, when we most clearly see our-self for the one that we are.

One knowing? Really? What does that even mean?

[bennyboy]

^ I fully agree, Ben. I think it's fair to say that scientists and atheists who ignore the significance that these experiences contain, as insights into the nature of human consciousness and its entire (often subconscious) scope--which include religious or mystical states--are not being terribly scientific or rational.

What, then, is the significance of these experiences?

It depends very much on the specific experience. Let's take one particular experience-- the feeling that "all is one," that the self is really indistinguishable from the rest of the universe, and that all living things are intimately connected rather than separate. This experience can be so powerful that it turns a person's world view upside down.

I think this experience represents a fundamental truth, and one that is perfectly in accordance with the reality of the universe as we see it. I'd say "all is one" is probably more factually sound than "I'm super-important, so get out of my way, asshole *honks car horn*."

It also has the advantage of bringing a sense of peace: if I'm just a part of the universe, just star dust, just dirt animated by the sun-- then what do I really have to worry about? I'll enjoy my life, make my mistakes, and then all the "stuff" that makes me will be released back into the universe. I'd say a philosophically-driven change in world view which results in a more contented, peaceful life would be significant indeed. And EVEN IF the experience that caused this changed got attached to ideas about God, it would represent an improvement for many.

[ShaMan]

I'll go one deeper. We, all beings, are part of one knowing...

One knowing? Really? What does that even mean?

The short answer is... you already know.

[Mudhammam]

There's no 'must'; we may take them into consideration.

How else could a scientist know what chemical variations are causing or corresponding to in a person's internal experience? Telepathy?

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0

[Chas]

There's no 'must'; we may take them into consideration.

How else could a scientist know what chemical variations are causing or corresponding to in a person's internal experience? Telepathy?

You misunderstood what I said. We can measure some things, there is no objective measure of 'experience'.

I am responding to "must rely on subjective reports". Chemistry is not subjective.

---

One knowing? Really? What does that even mean?

The short answer is... you already know.

That is not an answer; that is pathetic cosmic woo.