DiscussMormonism.com

Some squirm at the notion that drug experiences are on the same level of "true" religious experiences. If manifestations of religious or spiritual experiences are simply the result of firing synapses in the brain, it would severely undercut the idea of an objective existence of "God." Dr. Andrew Newberg, an associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has pioneered neuroimaging techniques of both believers and non-believers alike. He found certain areas in the temporal lobe were excited during prayer or meditation, this is where the brain rates the significance of events which are then strongly internalized.

http://media.www.lsureveille.com/media/ ... 9295.shtml

Being "high" on Christ and life seems take on a whole new meaning. What about the devout and other deeply religious people, are they addicted? It's certainly possible. John Bradshaw, a former cocaine addict and now self-help guru and evangelical, equated the two experiences' effect on dopamine levels. Dopamine, a chemical produced naturally in the body, plays a key role in pleasure, mood and addiction to other foreign drugs. Cocaine and nicotine employ it to encourage the user to continue use, and now prayer and meditation have been found to raise dopamine levels. Calling out the devout as "addicts" may seem extreme, but when taking into account their commitment to their faith, reliance on scripture and a compelling urge to continue to partake in religious ceremonies, it certainly is not a far leap.

Thought provoking.

I have to admit that when I was a TBM I was high on Mormonism, and didn't need alcohol. When I left Mormonism, I turned back to my other source of "getting high".

Ray A wrote:Thought provoking.

Indeed. It provokes me to think that it might be time to up my dose.

Unfortunately, these are nothing but correlations that prove nothing about causation. The idea that there are certain areas in the brain that mediate spiritual experiences is hardly conducive to a disproof of the existence of spiritual experiences, or that certain psychoactive drugs can activiate the same areas and produce similar feelings or perceptions (given that these areas are the areas in which such experinces are processed and stored.

I'd like to suggest, in a little bit of a Buddhist vein, that the real "opiate" of the people is in fact mortality itself: the material universe that we, in our illusory assumption that that material universe is all there is, believe to be the sum total of all perceivable phenomena. Row, row, row your boat...

Coggins7 wrote:Unfortunately, these are nothing but correlations that prove nothing about causation. The idea that there are certain areas in the brain that mediate spiritual experiences is hardly conducive to a disproof of the existence of spiritual experiences, or that certain psychoactive drugs can activiate the same areas and produce similar feelings or perceptions (given that these areas are the areas in which such experinces are processed and stored.

I'd like to suggest, in a little bit of a Buddhist vein, that the real "opiate" of the people is in fact mortality itself: the material universe that we, in our illusory assumption that that material universe is all there is, believe to be the sum total of all perceivable phenomena. Row, row, row your boat...

I don't think that material phenomena prove anything. The perennial question is, as asked by all philosophers through the ages, what is the causation? What creates the spark? Scientists may observe the phenomena, but not understand causation. I do not for one minute deny the possible legitimacy of genuine spiritual experiences "beyond the brain". The brain may only be a mechanism, or a conduit. I believe there is more to us than mere material mechanism, and science has not proved nor disproved anything in this area. They all state that these phenomena cannot disprove there is a God, nor prove it.

I also believe that we are "intuitive", that we can grasp things by intuition. Studies have shown that animals also have intuition (rejected, of course, by the "citadel of science"), and Darwin did some studies on the similarities between animal and human behaviour as far as emotions are concerned, and concluded they were uncannily similar. This in no way excludes God. It just means "He" is not parochial to any religion, in fact any species. How I miss "Lassie". Not to mention "Flipper". There is, I think, a synchronicity in all creation, because we all have a common origin in some "pondscum" about 4 billion years ago. Somehow we emerged from this to create a Windows version - Pondscum XP.

Would television qualify as the PCP of the people?

Would Mormon Discussions be the caffeine?

This same subject was the focus point for a challenge between the poster known as Robin and myself.

It started out as just a discussion on the benifits of substance use as pertaining to spirituality and then someone got in a twist about it.

Anyways, long story short, Robin was supposed to go until X-mas without God/Christ/Religion and I was going to go until X-mas without substances.

Robin's journal that was kept on the old board (sorry, it seems to have been wiped out during the move here) was a fascinating read.

Personally, the fact that you cannot have a single spiritual experience without your brain releasing mass quantities of DMT (a Schedule 1, psychadelic hallucinogen) into your system. . . it says a lot to me.

If a "drug" is what makes us feel our connection to God, and that "drug" is produced naturally in our body, and we created God. . . .

Bryan Inks wrote:This same subject was the focus point for a challenge between the poster known as Robin and myself.

It started out as just a discussion on the benifits of substance use as pertaining to spirituality and then someone got in a twist about it.

Anyways, long story short, Robin was supposed to go until X-mas without God/Christ/Religion and I was going to go until X-mas without substances.

Robin's journal that was kept on the old board (sorry, it seems to have been wiped out during the move here) was a fascinating read.

Personally, the fact that you cannot have a single spiritual experience without your brain releasing mass quantities of DMT (a Schedule 1, psychadelic hallucinogen) into your system. . . it says a lot to me.

If a "drug" is what makes us feel our connection to God, and that "drug" is produced naturally in our body, and we created God. . . .

Hey, DMT in the brain. So, I am illegal, I guess, in some way, just for existing. Interesting thought....

I read Newberg's book a while ago and wasn't surprised by the correlation. I know from personal experience that the clearly distinct spiritual events that occurred to me (I'm not talking about warm fuzzies) felt very much like I imagine a shot of heroin would feel like. I've never done heroin but I've heard that it is so addictive because it causes an instant sensation of nirvana. (at least at the beginning). Once having experienced that spiritual sensation, I did indeed crave it. Having discovered, with the help of the LDS church, that fasting helped induce those experiences, I fasted every single Sunday for the couple of years after joining the church. It did help bring on those sensations, but normally not as strong as that first one, the truly addictive one. I've actually toyed with the idea of learning to do intense meditations for the sole purpose of recreating those events.