...
> Personally, I tend to give a lot less credibility to spiritual experiences
> which reportedly occur under such conditions than those which occur
> unasked-for in the middle of an otherwise normal day to a person with no
> history or subsequent diagnosis of mental illness when that person is
> neither hungry, thirsty, fatigued, or under the influence of substances
> legal or illegal . . .
>
> > > If there is a "spirituality gene" and some people are lacking, if they
> > > feel deprived, might they be more inclined toward drug experiences to
> > > achieve such feelings?
>
> Perhaps, but how can one be sure those are genuine spiritual experiences
> (assuming at least for the sake of this discussion that such experiences
> are possible) rather than the effects of the drugs?
>
> -- Ronn! :)
What makes such spiritual experiences more genuine than others?
The way I look at it, HAVING the experience is the important part.
I agree, if one has a spiritual experience in atypical circumstances
one might be able to discount it, saying "It was the drugs, man."
But that is up to the individual. One can always deny such an
experience, or take it to heart. It's a choice.
Is your argument that a spiritual experience that happens
without any obvious trigger is more "miraculous"? I don't buy
that. A skeptic could always attribute it to something like
"undiagnosed focal epilepsy", and discount it anyway.
---David
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
