Seeing the Unseen

[Good4Nothin]

Religion and spirituality are all about things our physical senses don't perceive. They are also about aspects of our own minds that are normally hidden from us (called the unconscious or subconscious in psychology).

Some people are very focused on the perceptions of their physical senses. And some identify only with their conscious minds, and are not introspective.

If you are introspective, and if you sense that most of what goes on is behind the scenes or under the radar, then you might be more likely to be religious or spiritual.

Science and education are also factors. If you have been educated into thinking science and spirituality are opposed (even though they most definitely are NOT opposed), then you might shut down and deny your intuitions about the unseen.

 

[zyzygy]

Religion and spirituality are all about things our physical senses don't perceive. They are also about aspects of our own minds that are normally hidden from us (called the unconscious or subconscious in psychology).

Some people are very focused on the perceptions of their physical senses. And some identify only with their conscious minds, and are not introspective.

If you are introspective, and if you sense that most of what goes on is behind the scenes or under the radar, then you might be more likely to be religious or spiritual.

Science and education are also factors. If you have been educated into thinking science and spirituality are opposed (even though they most definitely are NOT opposed), then you might shut down and deny your intuitions about the unseen.

Prove that the unseen is there.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Religion and spirituality are all about things our physical senses don't perceive. They are also about aspects of our own minds that are normally hidden from us (called the unconscious or subconscious in psychology).

Some people are very focused on the perceptions of their physical senses. And some identify only with their conscious minds, and are not introspective.

If you are introspective, and if you sense that most of what goes on is behind the scenes or under the radar, then you might be more likely to be religious or spiritual.

Science and education are also factors. If you have been educated into thinking science and spirituality are opposed (even though they most definitely are NOT opposed), then you might shut down and deny your intuitions about the unseen.

If you are truely introspective, and honest with it, then you will be able to be spiritual, to have strong emotions associated with art and with human experiences of all of the universe.

The claim of the religious that only they are spirtual is as much a blatant lie as most of their claims.

The key difference is mostly about confidence and honesty. The dishonesty required to be religious suits many people.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Religion and spirituality are all about things our physical senses don't perceive. They are also about aspects of our own minds that are normally hidden from us (called the unconscious or subconscious in psychology).

Some people are very focused on the perceptions of their physical senses. And some identify only with their conscious minds, and are not introspective.

If you are introspective, and if you sense that most of what goes on is behind the scenes or under the radar, then you might be more likely to be religious or spiritual.

Science and education are also factors. If you have been educated into thinking science and spirituality are opposed (even though they most definitely are NOT opposed), then you might shut down and deny your intuitions about the unseen.

My personal belief is that it is all genetics. People are genetically inclined to have faith and follow religion. Some people, like myself, do not. Even as a kid going to sunday school, I never believed. It was just something I had to do. Fortunately my dad gave me the option once I was confirmed to go or not, and I never went again.

I think this explains why seemingly intelligent and rational people can throw away all logic and reasoning and believe in made up stories without any evidence. You even have scientists that go to church, so to me, that points to a genetic predisposition to believe. There probably are many more that don't really believe but religion has been ingrained in them.

This is Dawkins theory I believe (The God Gene- haven't read) that this is an evolutionary trait in humans to help them cope with the increase brain activity, ideas of self, and meaning of life. REligion helps them cope with this higher intelligence and some of the issues that can come along with it

 

[Good4Nothin]

My personal belief is that it is all genetics. People are genetically inclined to have faith and follow religion. Some people, like myself, do not. Even as a kid going to sunday school, I never believed. It was just something I had to do. Fortunately my dad gave me the option once I was confirmed to go or not, and I never went again.

I think this explains why seemingly intelligent and rational people can throw away all logic and reasoning and believe in made up stories without any evidence. You even have scientists that go to church, so to me, that points to a genetic predisposition to believe. There probably are many more that don't really believe but religion has been ingrained in them.

This is Dawkins theory I believe (The God Gene- haven't read) that this is an evolutionary trait in humans to help them cope with the increase brain activity, ideas of self, and meaning of life. REligion helps them cope with this higher intelligence and some of the issues that can come along with it

I think it may be partly genetic, or inherited somehow. However, we are NOT ignoring logic and reasoning! If I experience things it is logical to think they could be real! And atheists like Dawkins have NO science or evidence showing spiritual experiences are delusional.

 

[Good4Nothin]

If you are truely introspective, and honest with it, then you will be able to be spiritual, to have strong emotions associated with art and with human experiences of all of the universe.

The claim of the religious that only they are spirtual is as much a blatant lie as most of their claims.

The key difference is mostly about confidence and honesty. The dishonesty required to be religious suits many people.

The word "spiritual" refers to non-physical things. So be definition you aren't spiritual if you deny the possible existence of anything "non-physical."

And that is another lie the New Atheists are always telling. Strong emotions associated wth art and humanity are not what we are talking about.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

I think it may be partly genetic, or inherited somehow. However, we are NOT ignoring logic and reasoning! If I experience things it is logical to think they could be real! And atheists like Dawkins have NO science or evidence showing spiritual experiences are delusional.

I don't think that is true. Human senses are notoriously flawed, and our brain fills in gaps in our senses, which doesn't necessarily mean its real. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 10 people can witness and event and their stories could all be different. They might have heard different things, put their own bias into what they perceived happened. A

All the religious people's so called experiences or spiritual events can be explained by human physiology. Everybody has moments of clarity, or experience conicidences. Faith based people will make a claim that it was god or a spiritual event. They put their own meaning into a normal event and claimed it must be god. Most of it is neurotransmitters in the brains firing. You can replicate spiritual events with psychadelic drugs. Native Americans would eat peyote or go into sweat lodges to stimulate spiritual events.

Everything religious people claim to be spiritual event can be easily be explained physiologically, even the white light and near death experiences

 

[zyzygy]

I don't think that is true. Human senses are notoriously flawed, and our brain fills in gaps in our senses, which doesn't necessarily mean its real. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 10 people can witness and event and their stories could all be different. They might have heard different things, put their own bias into what they perceived happened. A

All the religious people's so-called experiences or spiritual events can be explained by human physiology. Everybody has moments of clarity, or experience coincidences. Faith-based people will make a claim that it was god or a spiritual event. They put their own meaning into a normal event and claimed it must be god. Most of it is neurotransmitters in the brains firing. You can replicate spiritual events with psychadelic drugs. Native Americans would eat peyote or go into sweat lodges to stimulate spiritual events.

Everything religious people claim to be spiritual event can be easily be explained physiologically, even the white light and near death experiences

Can we 'create' God on demand?
Given that the neurological roots of religious experiences can be traced so accurately with the help of the latest neuroscientific technologies, does this mean that we could — in principle — "create" these experiences on demand?

parietal lobes during meditation
Decreased activity in the parietal lobes during meditation is shown here in yellow. Image credit: Dr. Andrew Newberg.
This is not just a theoretical question because in the 1990s, Dr. Michael Persinger — the director of the Neuroscience Department at Laurentian University in Ontario, Canada — designed what came to be known as the "God Helmet."

This is a device that is able to simulate religious experiences by stimulating an individual's tempoparietal lobes using magnetic fields.

In Dr. Persinger's experiments, about 20 religious people — which amounts to just 1 percent of the participants — reported feeling the presence of God or seeing him in the room when wearing the device. However, 80 per cent of the participants felt a presence of some sort, which they were reluctant to call "God."

Speaking about the experiments, Dr. Persinger says, "I suspect most people would call the 'vague, all-around-me' sensations 'God' but they are reluctant to employ the label in a laboratory."

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322539.php

 

[Good4Nothin]

I don't think that is true. Human senses are notoriously flawed, and our brain fills in gaps in our senses, which doesn't necessarily mean its real. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 10 people can witness and event and their stories could all be different. They might have heard different things, put their own bias into what they perceived happened. A

All the religious people's so called experiences or spiritual events can be explained by human physiology. Everybody has moments of clarity, or experience conicidences. Faith based people will make a claim that it was god or a spiritual event. They put their own meaning into a normal event and claimed it must be god. Most of it is neurotransmitters in the brains firing. You can replicate spiritual events with psychadelic drugs. Native Americans would eat peyote or go into sweat lodges to stimulate spiritual events.

Everything religious people claim to be spiritual event can be easily be explained physiologically, even the white light and near death experiences

Sometimes our experiences are illusions, or delusions, or hallucinations. The materialist trick is to say ALL our experiences are illusions, delusions or hallucinations UNLESS they agree with materialism!

So you can't possibly lose the argument. And NO, spiritual events have NOT been explained away. That is another materialist myth.

Because materialists decided in advance that their world view is correct, they can ignore evidence they don't like, and invent evidence they do like.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Can we 'create' God on demand?
Given that the neurological roots of religious experiences can be traced so accurately with the help of the latest neuroscientific technologies, does this mean that we could — in principle — "create" these experiences on demand?

parietal lobes during meditation
Decreased activity in the parietal lobes during meditation is shown here in yellow. Image credit: Dr. Andrew Newberg.
This is not just a theoretical question because in the 1990s, Dr. Michael Persinger — the director of the Neuroscience Department at Laurentian University in Ontario, Canada — designed what came to be known as the "God Helmet."

This is a device that is able to simulate religious experiences by stimulating an individual's tempoparietal lobes using magnetic fields.

In Dr. Persinger's experiments, about 20 religious people — which amounts to just 1 percent of the participants — reported feeling the presence of God or seeing him in the room when wearing the device. However, 80 per cent of the participants felt a presence of some sort, which they were reluctant to call "God."

Speaking about the experiments, Dr. Persinger says, "I suspect most people would call the 'vague, all-around-me' sensations 'God' but they are reluctant to employ the label in a laboratory."

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322539.php

Oh he SUSPECTS vague all-around me sensations are the experience of god. What a pile of utter BS.

 

[zyzygy]

Oh he SUSPECTS vague all-around me sensations are the experience of god. What a pile of utter BS.

The religious suspect that there is a god or gods.

" Dr. Persinger's experiments, about 20 religious people — which amounts to just 1 percent of the participants — reported feeling the presence of God or seeing him in the room when wearing the device. However, 80 per cent of the participants felt a presence of some sort, which they were reluctant to call "God."

He did no suspecting. The word reported is the hint here.

 

[PoS]

Prove that the unseen is there.

All you need is the key.

 

[zyzygy]

The “Shiva” God Helmet ® is a cutting-edge mind technology endorsed by Dr. Michael A. Persinger, whose laboratory God Helmet has been seen on dozens of television documentaries. It has elicited a wide range of spiritual experiences, visions, out-of-body experiences, paranormal perceptions. and even visions of God. It can be seen in many online videos. The Shiva God Helmet was used in the television program Paranormal Lockdown, which aired on Dec.11, 2018.

The God Helmet uses magnetic signals to gently stimulate the brain, eliciting spiritual sensations, moods, and experiences.

https://www.god-helmet.com/wp/god-helmet/index.htm


I asked Dr. Persinger how many people had seen God using the Koren Helmet, and this is what he said in reply:

"The problem is producing an environment in which people will report what they experience without anticipating ridicule on the one hand and not encouraging this type of report (demand characteristics) on the other.

Thus far, about 20 or so people have reported feeling the presence of Christ or even seeing him in the chamber (The acoustic chamber where the experimental sessions took place). Most of these people used Christ and God interchangeably. Most of these individuals were older (30 years or more) and religious (Roman Catholic). One male, age about 35 years old (alleged atheist but early childhood RC (Roman Catholic) training), saw a clear apparition (shoulders and head) of Christ staring him in the face. He was quite "shaken" by the experience. I did not complete a follow-up re: his change in behavior. Of course these are all reports. What we did find with one world-class psychic who experiences Christ as a component of his abilities was we could experimentally increase or decrease his numbers of his reported experiences by applying the LTP pattern (derived from the hippocampus) over the right hemisphere (without his awareness).

The field on-response delay was about 10 to 20 sec. The optimal pattern, at least for this person, looked very right hippocampal. By far most presences are attributed to dead relatives, the Great Forces, a spirit, or something equivalent.

The attribution towards along a devil to angel continuum appears strongly related to the affect (pleasant-terror) associated with the experience. I suspect most people would call the "vague, all-around-me" sensations "God" but they are reluctant to employ the label in a laboratory. The implicit is obvious. If the equipment and the experiment produced the presence that was God, then the extrapersonal, unreachable and independent characteristics of the god definition might be challenged."

That's the important thing about the God Helmet. Even if only a few people saw God because of it, it creates a host of new questions - questions theology has never had to face before.
The God Helmet - How it works.

 

[Good4Nothin]

And we know that mystical experiences can result from hallucinogenic drugs, which have been used in many tribal societies for that purpose. That doesn't mean the drug creates the experience. It modifies the brain in some way that makes these experiences more likely.

Similarly, if it turned out that electromagnetic stimulation makes people experience the presence of supernatural beings, that would not mean the electromagnetism created the experience.

But the research xygwyg linked has usually failed replication and is not generally accepted. But he linked it anyway, because to him everything that claims to support materialism must be absolutely true.

 

[zyzygy]

And we know that mystical experiences can result from hallucinogenic drugs, which have been used in many tribal societies for that purpose. That doesn't mean the drug creates the experience. It modifies the brain in some way that makes these experiences more likely.

Similarly, if it turned out that electromagnetic stimulation makes people experience the presence of supernatural beings, that would not mean the electromagnetism created the experience.

But the research xygwyg linked has usually failed replication and is not generally accepted. But he linked it anyway, because to him everything that claims to support materialism must be absolutely true.

Ignore the evidence, as usual. Who is xygwyg? When you say supernatural beings, do you mean gods?

 

[Omega Man]

And we know that mystical experiences can result from hallucinogenic drugs, which have been used in many tribal societies for that purpose. That doesn't mean the drug creates the experience. It modifies the brain in some way that makes these experiences more likely.

Religious euphoria has been known for thousands of years to produce similar effects.


OM

 

[zyzygy]

Religious euphoria has been known for thousands of years to produce similar effects.


OM

These subjective experiences do not prove that a god or gods exist.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Ignore the evidence, as usual. Who is xygwyg?

So you actually think everything claimed by every researcher must be true? Replication doesn't matter? Every experiment tests exactly what the researcher thinks it tests? Experiments never have any defects?

There are many thousands of parapsychology experiments with positive results, but you won't accept any of them because they don't agree with materialism.

You select the evidence that you think supports materialism. You believe the researchers you agree with already, and ignore or deny the ones you don't agree with.

 

[Omega Man]

These subjective experiences do not prove that a god or gods exist.

Not unless your god goes by the name of Serotonin.


OM

 

[lwf]

And we know that mystical experiences can result from hallucinogenic drugs, which have been used in many tribal societies for that purpose. That doesn't mean the drug creates the experience. It modifies the brain in some way that makes these experiences more likely.

Similarly, if it turned out that electromagnetic stimulation makes people experience the presence of supernatural beings, that would not mean the electromagnetism created the experience.

But the research xygwyg linked has usually failed replication and is not generally accepted. But he linked it anyway, because to him everything that claims to support materialism must be absolutely true.

Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. It is possible that psychedelic drugs unlock hidden senses to see into other realms, but for that to be true you need to assume the existence of hidden senses and other realms without any evidence for such. Isn't it simpler to assume that the drugs themselves are altering one's brain and that this alteration of our neural activity is what is creating these emotional subjective experiences, since we already know that altering neural activity can do this?

 

[zyzygy]

So you actually think everything claimed by every researcher must be true? Replication doesn't matter? Every experiment tests exactly what the researcher thinks it tests? Experiments never have any defects?

There are many thousands of parapsychology experiments with positive results, but you won't accept any of them because they don't agree with materialism.

You select the evidence that you think supports materialism. You believe the researchers you agree with already, and ignore or deny the ones you don't agree with.

Wrong yet again.

God Helmet Experiment Finally Replicated
Independent God Helmet researchers have ruled out suggestibility as an explanation for its altered states, sensed presences and otherworldly effects.
https://www.prlog.org/12464266-god-helmet-experiment-finally-replicated.html

 

[zyzygy]

So you actually think everything claimed by every researcher must be true? Replication doesn't matter? Every experiment tests exactly what the researcher thinks it tests? Experiments never have any defects?

There are many thousands of parapsychology experiments with positive results, but you won't accept any of them because they don't agree with materialism.

You select the evidence that you think supports materialism. You believe the researchers you agree with already, and ignore or deny the ones you don't agree with.

Name some and then we can discuss them. Are you aware that nobody has ever won the James Randi challenge? Do you actually think that everything claimed by the religious and the woo fans is true?

 

[Conaeolos]

If you are introspective, and if you sense that most of what goes on is behind the scenes or under the radar, then you might be more likely to be religious or spiritual.
Science and education are also factors. If you have been educated into thinking science and spirituality are opposed (even though they most definitely are NOT opposed), then you might shut down and deny your intuitions about the unseen.

Personally, most of the ardent atheistic materialists I have met are above average in terms of being introspective, so I hesitate to conclude that is a major factor. Temperamentally though there does seem to be something at play. I also disagree, it is be categorized as being ‘unseen’ as the unconscious is always seen one way or another in the metaphors/methods of the person.

For sure though there is an ardent belief this ‘unseen but experienced’ is unreal and lessor in meaning than that of other 'outside' experiences. Schizophrenics are an interesting case to me in this regard. For ethical reasons it has not been extensively studied, but from what I’ve read, if you listened to the testimonies of a delusion and recreate it with special effects and actors (to the detail) the reaction is not as recorded. So intuitively there is an acknowledgement of what is ‘outside the mind’ and ‘inside the mind’ even when that is not consciously encoded and acted upon.

All the religious people's so called experiences or spiritual events can be explained by human physiology.

The crux of where I believe we (e.g. Good4Nothin & I) split from skeptics here (e.g. Sampson Simpson).

I think everyone acknowledges, cause and effect does flows out to in:
[outside our minds] => Brain => [experiences inside our brains]

Evidence: psychotics, neuron induction, brain damage …

And everyone sees that as different from: “Magical thinking”, which has cause and effect flowing in to out:
[experiences inside our brains] => Mind => [outside our minds]

Evidence: psychological help, placebo effect, longer average physical lives for more actualized people, death of babies with needs only care styles…

But because we find evidence of a two way street, we unlike skeptics choose instead of simply assuming the former real and the later less meaningful[only effect by what is inside the brain]; we question the relationship of cause and effect itself:

[experiences outside our minds] => brain/mind <= [experiences inside of our minds]

If both are true and cause or effect can be sourced in either verified reality [direction] by way a of third unified system, than suddenly where someone who see cause and effect of the former: sees ‘silly imaginary stories’ we see as powerful language to experience powerful unseen forces driving limitless miraculous changes in the outside world. Unlike, magical thinkers though we do not go so far as to dismiss the meaningfulness either of the physical manifestation of reality.

 

[Cephus]

I think it may be partly genetic, or inherited somehow. However, we are NOT ignoring logic and reasoning! If I experience things it is logical to think they could be real! And atheists like Dawkins have NO science or evidence showing spiritual experiences are delusional.

You'd have to prove you're actually experiencing them though. But religious experiences, at least in every single case I've seen, the believer has an experience they cannot explain, then they immediately leap to an explanation that they made up out of whole cloth, because they don't like not knowing. Just making something up doesn't mean it's really what happened. Until the religious can objectively prove that God was responsible, nobody ought to take their empty claims seriously.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. It is possible that psychedelic drugs unlock hidden senses to see into other realms, but for that to be true you need to assume the existence of hidden senses and other realms without any evidence for such. Isn't it simpler to assume that the drugs themselves are altering one's brain and that this alteration of our neural activity is what is creating these emotional subjective experiences, since we already know that altering neural activity can do this?

No, it is not simpler. And no, we do not know that altering neural activity can cause complex mystical experiences.

If you come from the perspective of dogmatic materialism, then of course it seems simpler to explain away every non-material experience as being somehow created by the brain.

How the brain could possibly create these experiences is entirely unknown. Still your wild guesses turn out to be the simplest explanations.

This is a typical misuse of Occam's Razor, materialists do this all the time.