The Marsh Chapel Experiment

[Limbo]

There was an interesting experiment done in the sixties that I was hoping we could discuss. The Marsh Chapel experiment, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment) aka the Good Friday experiment.

"The most systematic scientific study of how mystical experience alters people's lives will probably never be replicated. In 1966, Berkeley, Calif., physician Walter Pahnke randomly selected half of a group of 20 Protestant seminarians and gave them the hallucinogenic drug psilocybin before the entire group listened to a radio broadcast of a Good Friday service. Those who didn't receive psilocybin got a B vitamin that caused the skin to flush, thus serving as a placebo.

After the service, those who ingested psilocybin reported having had experiences resembling those of classic mystics, such as a feeling of oneness with God or ecstatic visions. The B vitamin group recalled more mundane reactions. Immediately afterward, participants learned whether they had received drug or placebo.

Six months later, the researcher surveyed the participants. After 25 years, another researcher contacted seven of those who had received psilocybin and nine who had gotten the placebo. In both follow-ups, members of the psilocybin group cited many more positive changes in their attitudes and behavior that they attributed to the Good Friday broadcast than placebo-group members did.

Pahnke's work suggests that healthy people who are open to mystical experiences and have them in supportive situations enjoy lasting, positive aftereffects, Wulff notes."

The above excerpt is taken from this article:

Into the mystic: scientists confront the lazy realm of spiritual enlightenment (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_7_159/ai_71191554) (very interesting article...if anyone wishes to discuss any other parts of it feel free to bring them up)

Is anyone familiar with this experiment, or anything similar? Has anyone had similar experiences?

Would anyone care to discuss the implications of this experiment?

[tsg]

"Pahnke's work suggests that healthy people who are open to mystical experiences and have them in supportive situations enjoy lasting, positive aftereffects, Wulff notes."

I don't see how it suggests this. All it says to me is that the people in the psilocybin group believed they were happier and attributed it to the Good Friday telecast. Post hoc ergo propter hoc and confirmation bias would seem to explain it sufficiently.

[calebprime]

Zen and the Brain is an interesting book--I'd be curious what someone here with some Zen experience would think of it...

here's a Google of 'shroom threads:

http://www.google.com/custom?q=psilocybin&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%3BAH%3Acente r%3BLH%3A75%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%2F images%2Fmisc%2Fsearchlogo.gif%3BLW%3A849%3BAWFID% 3A31746880203d5407%3B&domains=forums.randi.org&sitesearch=forums.randi.org

[Limbo]

I don't see how it suggests this.

I find it interesting that this is the part you focused on.

Was there nothing else you found interesting, either about the experiment or in the article?

What about the implications for organized religion? Or for whatever?

[tsg]

I find it interesting that this is the part you focused on.

It was the conclusion of the experiment.

Was there nothing else you found interesting, either about the experiment or in the article?

What about the implications for organized religion? Or for whatever?

I think the implications are that "religious experiences" can be explained by more mundane means.

[CrikeyBobs]

I find it interesting that this is the part you focused on.


What? The conclusion? Sounds like a reasonable thing to focus on.

However it does make me wonder what's in the wafer and wine that's dished out at communion. :p

Looking at the experiment itself though, I wonder how the participants were persuaded to take a potential hallucinogen? Were they told what it was or was it described in a more generic way?

[Limbo]

It was the conclusion of the experiment.


Well, the goal of the experiment was "to see if in religiously predisposed subjects, psilocybin (the active principle in psilocybin mushrooms) would act as reliable entheogen."

It seems that it does, yes?

I think the implications are that "religious experiences" can be explained by more mundane means.


Yet you seem reluctant to accept that a mundane "religious experience" can produce "lasting, positive aftereffects." Such positive effects are a hallmark of religious experiences, aren't they? Whether they are "mundane" or "supernatural", the happiness is real. Or is it your position that the happiness is an illusion?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Would anyone care to discuss the implications of this experiment?
It implies what I have long believed: church is better if you're high.

[tsg]

Yet you seem reluctant to accept that a mundane "religious experience" can produce "lasting, positive aftereffects." Such positive effects are a hallmark of religious experiences, aren't they? Whether they are "mundane" or "supernatural", the happiness is real. Or is it your position that the happiness is an illusion?

First, it is only people reporting that they were happier. Whether they were or not is anyone's guess. Second, whether something that makes people happier is necessarily a good thing is a loaded argument. If people are happier not knowing the truth, does that make it okay to lie to them?

[Limbo]

First, it is only people reporting that they were happier. Whether they were or not is anyone's guess.


I see no reason to doubt it. I guess I might find a reason, if I felt threatened somehow by the notion.

TSG, I can't help but feel that your responses are based on fear. After all, the notion of "happiness" from a "religious experience" could be threatening to an atheist. You are an atheist, yes?

Are you threatened by the notion that "people who are open to mystical experiences and have them in supportive situations enjoy lasting, positive aftereffects?"

In any case, all this about "happiness" and "truth" is really beside the most important point, which is that "those who ingested psilocybin reported having had experiences resembling those of classic mystics." Which means that these are the kind of experiences (drug-induced or not) that have informed religions through the ages. Not necessarily con-artists trying to manipulate the gullible sheep through lies, which is what most atheists would have us all believe.

[tsg]

I see no reason to doubt it. I guess I might find a reason, if I felt threatened somehow by the notion.

TSG, I can't help but feel that your responses are based on fear. After all, the notion of "happiness" from a "religious experience" could be threatening to an atheist. You are an atheist, yes?

Are you threatened by the notion that "people who are open to mystical experiences and have them in supportive situations enjoy lasting, positive aftereffects?"

In any case, all this about "happiness" and "truth" is really beside the most important point, which is that "those who ingested psilocybin reported having had experiences resembling those of classic mystics." Which means that these are the kind of experiences (drug-induced or not) that have informed religions through the ages. Not necessarily con-artists trying to manipulate the gullible sheep through lies, which is what most atheists would have us all believe.

I find it interesting that the reason you think I am objecting to the conclusion is because I am an atheist.

We've had these "religion makes people happier" arguments here before. My considered opinion is "so what?"

[Limbo]

We've had these "religion makes people happier" arguments here before. My considered opinion is "so what?"


So what? Well, the aspects of religion which "makes people happier" can be separated from the harmful aspects.

But you're the one who focused on the whole "religion makes people happier" thing, not me. I think there are more important issues raised by experiments like this.

[tsg]

So what? Well, the aspects of religion which "makes people happier" can be separated from the harmful aspects.

I never said otherwise.

But you're the one who focused on the whole "religion makes people happier" thing, not me.

Um, no. Your words:

Yet you seem reluctant to accept that a mundane "religious experience" can produce "lasting, positive aftereffects." Such positive effects are a hallmark of religious experiences, aren't they? Whether they are "mundane" or "supernatural", the happiness is real. Or is it your position that the happiness is an illusion?

I am reluctant to accept, based on this studies findings, that a mundane "religious experience" can produce "lasting, postive aftereffects" because the study shows no such thing for reasons I have previously given. It shows that people who had a chemically induced religious experience also report having "more positive changes' throughout their lives. It does not mean the experience caused these changes. Correllation, not causation. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: A followed B, therefore A was caused by B. It's a logical fallacy.

Secondly, confirmation bias would, in people with a desire to take meaning from the religious experience, give them a reason to focus on the good things and ignore the bad things since the event. That they report that their lives had "positive atfereffects" since the experience does not mean they necessarily did. As all the subjects were members of a seminary, I would be more surprised if none of them associated a significance with the event. Beliefs based on faith tend to be self-confirming. The hits are remembered and the misses ignored.

So, no, I don't find this study or its findings to be particularly significant at all.

[The Atheist]

It implies what I have long believed: church is better if you're high.

Which is why the Church of England used to be known as "High Church". Dem cookies were gooooood!

So what? Well, the aspects of religion which "makes people happier" can be separated from the harmful aspects.

But you're the one who focused on the whole "religion makes people happier" thing, not me. I think there are more important issues raised by experiments like this.

Agree entirely - great stuff so far.

Atheists are often scared of accepting that religion can be good as well as harmful and don't like the fact (and yes it is factual) that religious people are happier, based upon self-measurement. I think it's understandable and I certainly admit to feeling that atheism is the intellectually superior position. The flip side of it is that to accept that contains a caveat that the superior system intellectually is not necessarily the superior one for any other part of life.

Also, religious people are unquestionably longer-lived and several universities have encountered health benefits, notably UMMC (http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/spirituality-000360.htm)

Good topic; count me in.

[tsg]

Also, religious people are unquestionably longer-lived and several universities have encountered health benefits, notably UMMC (http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/spirituality-000360.htm)

Prayer. The act of putting oneself in the presence of or conversing with a higher power has been used as a means of healing across all cultures throughout the ages. Today, many Americans believe that prayer is an important part of daily life. In a 1996 poll, one half of doctors reported that they believe prayer helps patients, and 67% reported praying for a patient. Intercessory prayer (asking a higher power to intervene on behalf of another either known or unknown to the person praying; also called distance prayer or distance healing) is also being studied. Although it is particularly difficult to study the effect of distance prayer, current research in coronary care units (intensive care units in hospitals devoted to people with severe heart disease, like those who just suffered a heart attack) suggests that there is benefit. Compared to those who were not prayed for, patients who were prayed for showed general improvements in the course of their illness, less complications, and even fewer deaths.(bolding mine)

I checked the references at the bottom of the article. None of them support this conclusion. Several of them, in fact, say there is no significant difference between those who were prayed for and those who weren't.

[Pup]

The conclusions seem reasonable to me. I've always thought that most subjective experiences produced by the brain can occur naturally more easily in some people, or can be stimulated artificially in others, but really it's the same chemical activity.

When certain areas of the brain are stimulated, it produces a positive experience; other areas produce a negative one (which nonetheless may be a good thing, like feeling intense fear when you really do need to be spurred to take action in the face of danger).

People who have this "mystical experience" area stimulated, naturally or artificially, apparently report being happier. It's got nothing to do with religion or atheism. I'm an atheist, yet I've still naturally felt a sense of "mystical experience" without believing in god or the supernatural. You don't have to believe in the old hag to experience fear during sleep paralysis, or believe in reincarnation to experience deja vu. It's just part of how the brain works.

[The Atheist]

I checked the references at the bottom of the article. None of them support this conclusion. Several of them, in fact, say there is no significant difference between those who were prayed for and those who weren't.

Respectfully; well, not very respectfully, really - rubbish.

You're focusing on one small area. In a double-blind test, there's obviously going to be no benefit to the patient from intercessory prayer. It's the placebo effect with knowledge that they're being prayed for. If you can develop another method of inducing the same placebo effect in the same patients, then you can get rid of it. Meanwhile, it's perfectly relevant.

[Hokulele]

Zen and the Brain is an interesting book--I'd be curious what someone here with some Zen experience would think of it...


That sounds like a fascinating book. It has been a number of years since I formally sat Zazen, but I still use breath meditation to deal with things such as being stuck in traffic. Thanks for the mention, I'll check it out.

[tsg]

You're focusing on one small area.

I focused on that area because it jumped out at me as being the most extraordinary claim in the paper and because I had remembered studies which said pretty much the opposite. That the paper is willing to draw that conclusion despite citing references which do not support it, at best, makes the rest of the claims suspect.

As for the rest of the claims, even if they are true, I think its disingenuous to claim that "religion is beneficial to health" when it is only certain components of religion that are not unique to religion that provide the benefit.

And, I think its entirely disingenuous, bordering on cowardly, to imply that atheists only reject these claims because they are afraid of the implications if they're true.

[The Atheist]

I focused on that area because it jumped out at me as being the most extraordinary claim in the paper and because I had remembered studies which said pretty much the opposite. That the paper is willing to draw that conclusion despite citing references which do not support it, at best, makes the rest of the claims suspect.

Plenty of other sites around which are probably better links than that one. Having done it all before, I can't be arsed doing it again - the info's there if you want it.

As for the rest of the claims, even if they are true, I think its disingenuous to claim that "religion is beneficial to health" when it is only certain components of religion that are not unique to religion that provide the benefit.

Nope. You'd first have to show that the qualities are not unique to religion.

Away you go...

And, I think its entirely disingenuous, bordering on cowardly, to imply that atheists only reject these claims because they are afraid of the implications if they're true.

What a load of old cobblers. If that's a cowardly position, then it must apply in spades to the bloke who made it up!

I didn't say anything about that being the only reason, in fact, if you take a quick check, I said:

Atheists are often scared

Not "always scared", nor even "mostly scared".

Hint: always much better to quote people directly than argue what you think they said.

[tsg]

Plenty of other sites around which are probably better links than that one. Having done it all before, I can't be arsed doing it again - the info's there if you want it.

Well, if you can't be bothered to support your own claims, I'm sure as hell not going to do it for you.

Nope. You'd first have to show that the qualities are not unique to religion.

Hope, forgiveness, love and social support. None of those are unique to religion and you'd be a fool to argue they are. But please, feel free.

Away you go...



What a load of old cobblers. If that's a cowardly position, then it must apply in spades to the bloke who made it up!

I didn't say anything about that being the only reason, in fact, if you take a quick check, I said:

Atheists are often scared

Not "always scared", nor even "mostly scared".

Hint: always much better to quote people directly than argue what you think they said.

And I stand by it. I know exactly what you meant, weasly qualifiers or not. But, for the sake of argument, let's take it at face value. Do you have any evidence that "atheists are often scared of accepting that religion can be good as well as harmful"?

[The Atheist]

Well, if you can't be bothered to support your own claims, I'm sure as hell not going to do it for you.

Suits me. Given your complete inability to understand plain English so far, I certainly wouldn't be bothering. Take that as you will.

Hope, forgiveness, love and social support. None of those are unique to religion and you'd be a fool to argue they are. But please, feel free.

Jesus, mate, if you shift the goalposts any further, they'll be in Australia!

Not a word of that is even fourth cousin to what I said.

Maybe you're trying to argue that a secular lifestyle is hopeless, lacks love and social support?

Please, re-read whatever it is you're arguing about and get back to me.

(But nice try at turning the argument into some weird straw position you made up!)

And I stand by it. I know exactly what you meant, weasly qualifiers or not.

Sorry, sunshine. You hand me a poisoned chalice to defend?

Evidence of the attitude? Read some threads.

My statement was completely specific and the word "often" is pretty unequivocal in its universal meaning. That my statement doesn't conform to whatever straw being you have in your hand ain't my problem.

You want to argue with me - go ahead, but argue what I've said, not what you wanted me to say. Dismissing it by calling it "weasly" is pathetic.

Au revoir

[Nihilus]

Would anyone care to discuss the implications of this experiment?

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.”
~George Bernard Shaw

[PixyMisa]

TSG, I can't help but feel that your responses are based on fear.
I can't help feeling that this tired and baseless assertion comes up whenever a woo is told that he is talking rubbish.

After all, the notion of "happiness" from a "religious experience" could be threatening to an atheist.
How? Deluded and happy is still deluded.

Are you threatened by the notion that "people who are open to mystical experiences and have them in supportive situations enjoy lasting, positive aftereffects?"
And they're deluded.

In any case, all this about "happiness" and "truth" is really beside the most important point, which is that "those who ingested psilocybin reported having had experiences resembling those of classic mystics." Which means that these are the kind of experiences (drug-induced or not) that have informed religions through the ages. Not necessarily con-artists trying to manipulate the gullible sheep through lies, which is what most atheists would have us all believe.
"Most atheists?" You have verifiable quotes from "most atheists" supporting this assertion?

[PixyMisa]

Atheists are often scared of accepting that religion can be good as well as harmful and don't like the fact (and yes it is factual) that religious people are happier, based upon self-measurement.
Name one.

[lupus_in_fabula]

I’ve read a fair amount by Tim Leary (and about him), The Good Friday experiment was an interesting one. I can’t remember where, but I think there’s a video that can befound on the web (perhaps google-video) where many participants were interviewed. If memory serves me well, it seemed as if those drug induced religious experiences had the effect which made the participant less dogmatic in their religious views afterwards, at least from a self-assessed point of view. I guess it boils down to set and setting, thus if this experiment would have taken place in a tightly controlled sect with a clearly defined dogma, the after effects might have been people with more dogmatic beliefs, who knows.

On the other hand, CIA tried to experiment with LSD for the purpose of some kind of “mind control” [gross oversimplification admitted by lupus] which failed miserably; LSD seemed to be uncontrollable in that regard. Or to use Leary’s take on it: The army tried to make better soldiers via LSD, but it just made them loose all interest in fighting. Somewhat related to that: there’s an interesting video clip about LSD tested on some British troops here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHajPo2QUE8

[The Atheist]

Name one.

Articulett springs to mind immediately.

[PixyMisa]

Articulett springs to mind immediately.
Okay, that's a name. Now, support this assertion with evidence.

[latent aaaack]

For one thing the subjects were self-selected for being willing to take strong drugs, meaning they had a positive attitude and open mind towards it to begin with. However they may not have been heavy regular users, meaning that particular experience may have stood out in their minds even 25 years later as being different. You might as well ask a glue sniffer if sniffing glue has positive effect on their enjoyment of Scooby Do marathons.

As an atheist the only threatening aspect of this to me is that it suggests positive benefits of drugs, which I'm missing out on by not using them. Maybe I'll try some of these kind when I'm older and have less to lose by losing brain cells.

But the mystic, religious trance-inducing effects of entheogens have been common knowledge and have been described in well known literature and other arts for a long time even before the mainstream counter culture period in the 60s.

[tsg]

Jesus, mate, if you shift the goalposts any further, they'll be in Australia!

Not a word of that is even fourth cousin to what I said.

You might want to actually read the paper you cited then:
Faith. A person's most deeply held beliefs strongly influence his or her health. Some researchers believe that faith increases the body's resistance to stress. In a 1988 clinical study of women undergoing breast biopsies, the women with the lowest stress hormone levels were those who used their faith and prayer to cope with stress.
Hope. Without hope -- a positive attitude that a person assumes in the face of difficulty -- many people become depressed and are more prone to illness. In a 35 year clinical study of Harvard graduates, researchers found that those graduates who expressed hope and optimism lived longer and had fewer illnesses in their lifetime.
Forgiveness. A practice that is encouraged by many spiritual and religious traditions, forgiveness is a release of hostility and resentment from past hurts. In 1997, a Stanford University clinical study found that college students trained to forgive someone who had hurt them were significantly less angry, more hopeful, and better able to deal with emotions than students not trained to forgive. Another survey of 1,400 adults found that willingness to forgive oneself and others and the feeling that one is forgiven by God have beneficial health effects. Some researchers suggest that emotions like anger and resentment cause stress hormones to accumulate in the blood, and that forgiveness reduces this build-up.
Love and Social Support. A close network of family and friends that lends help and emotional support has been found to offer protection against many diseases. Researchers believe that people who experience love and support tend to resist unhealthy behaviors and feel less stressed. In a clinical study of a close-knit Italian-American community in Pennsylvania, researchers found that the death rate from heart attack was half that of the United States' average. Researchers concluded that the strong social support network helped protect this population from heart disease.
Prayer. The act of putting oneself in the presence of or conversing with a higher power has been used as a means of healing across all cultures throughout the ages. Today, many Americans believe that prayer is an important part of daily life. In a 1996 poll, one half of doctors reported that they believe prayer helps patients, and 67% reported praying for a patient. Intercessory prayer (asking a higher power to intervene on behalf of another either known or unknown to the person praying; also called distance prayer or distance healing) is also being studied. Although it is particularly difficult to study the effect of distance prayer, current research in coronary care units (intensive care units in hospitals devoted to people with severe heart disease, like those who just suffered a heart attack) suggests that there is benefit. Compared to those who were not prayed for, patients who were prayed for showed general improvements in the course of their illness, less complications, and even fewer deaths.

Or did you not bother reading it because you didn't expect anyone else to either?

Sorry, sunshine. You hand me a poisoned chalice to defend?

Evidence of the attitude? Read some threads.

So, in other words, the answer is no, you don't have any evidence of your claim.

My statement was completely specific and the word "often" is pretty unequivocal in its universal meaning. That my statement doesn't conform to whatever straw being you have in your hand ain't my problem.

I have no idea how I might have gotten the impression that it's possible to imply something without stating it explicity. You might be right. But then, I'm not a hypocrite.

[Limbo]

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.”
~George Bernard Shaw


That's all well and good, but we aren't really talking about the 'happiness of credulity', if I understand Georges use of that word correctly.

cre·du·li·ty
–noun
willingness to believe or trust too readily, esp. without proper or adequate evidence; gullibility.

We are talking about mystical experiences, their long relationship with drugs. There is a difference between someone having a willingness to believe or trust too readily, esp. without proper or adequate evidence; gullibility, and someone having a profound experience of that which mankind calls "divinity".

I would prefer it if we were discussing the theological implications of this experiment (which bode ill for religion) but it seems posters are obsessed with the after-effects of such experiences (which bode ill for atheism). Ah, people and their narrow concerns. I love them, they are so cute.

"I exhausted rationalism at the age of twenty-four, and should have come to a dead stop if I had not proceeded to purely mystical assumptions. I am, and I always have been, a mystic." ~George Bernard Shaw (http://www.adherents.com/people/ps/George_Bernard_Shaw.html)

[PixyMisa]

I would prefer it if we were discussing the theological implications of this experiment (which bode ill for religion) but it seems posters are obsessed with the after-effects of such experiences (which bode ill for atheism).
You still haven't explained why you make this claim. You're saying that religious people are deluded. So?

"I exhausted rationalism at the age of twenty-four, and should have come to a dead stop if I had not proceeded to purely mystical assumptions. I am, and I always have been, a mystic." ~George Bernard Shaw (http://www.adherents.com/people/ps/George_Bernard_Shaw.html)
So?

[The Atheist]

Okay, that's a name. Now, support this assertion with evidence.

http://forums.randi.org/search.php?do=finduser&u=4130

[The Atheist]

You might want to actually read the paper you cited then:

Or did you not bother reading it because you didn't expect anyone else to either?

Of course I've read it. The bad news for you is that you first need to read and understand what I said. This constant changing the subject and moving the goalposts is just making you look like CFLarsen, which is mildly unfortunate for you.

So, in other words, the answer is no, you don't have any evidence of your claim.

:s2:

Just as I said....

I have no idea how I might have gotten the impression that it's possible to imply something without stating it explicity. You might be right. But then, I'm not a hypocrite.

Thanks for that, you've proved me right nicely. You need reading recovery my man. I said it explicitly. After that, I even pointed out that I said it explicitly. Your claim now that I didn't is just absurd.

In future, just argue with yourself - then you can make up whatever positions you like to attack. Oh, hang on, that's exactly what you are doing!

:pythonfoot:

[tsg]

Of course I've read it. The bad news for you is that you first need to read and understand what I said. This constant changing the subject and moving the goalposts is just making you look like CFLarsen, which is mildly unfortunate for you.

*sigh*

Your words:

Also, religious people are unquestionably longer-lived and several universities have encountered health benefits, notably UMMC (http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/spirituality-000360.htm)

"religious people are unquestionably longer-lived" Sounds like a claim of health benefits from religion to me. The paper you cited, which I pointed out the flaws in, is making the same claim. So tell me, exactly what have I misrepresented? What goalposts have I moved?


Thanks for that, you've proved me right nicely. You need reading recovery my man. I said it explicitly. After that, I even pointed out that I said it explicitly. Your claim now that I didn't is just absurd.

I have changed nothing. From the get go I said "implied". Check your own reading comprehension skills.

[Jekyll]

, or anything similar? Has anyone had similar experiences?

I've had positive experiences with 'shrooms.
I didn't find God, but still got the rest of the benefits, the feeling of oneness, mild hallucinations, and a lasting feeling of the emotional significance of the event.

[The Atheist]

*sigh*

Your words:

"religious people are unquestionably longer-lived" Sounds like a claim of health benefits from religion to me. The paper you cited, which I pointed out the flaws in, is making the same claim. So tell me, exactly what have I misrepresented? What goalposts have I moved?

You sigh then try that rubbish? You really do amuse me.

All you did was point solely at intercessory prayer. Even then, you got it wrong, which just emphasises that you shouldn't have even bothered.

I'll show you just how easy it is.

You go into Google and type in two words - religion & longevity and you will find enough to keep you going. Are you so slow as to not be able to do that simple task? Just to help you a bit further, this one is from Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990517064323.htm), via the University of Colorado. It is factual that the devout live longer.

Your somewhat peculiar claim - which remains unsupported - was that "hope, love and society" are what causes the difference. That is clearly bollocks, unless [I repeat] secular people are unloved, hopeless and have no social skills.

Then again, you may be speaking from personal experience...

I have changed nothing. From the get go I said "implied". Check your own reading comprehension skills.

Oh dear, another epic fail. When all you have is tossing my suggestions back to me while remaining completely wrong on every count, you really do have some work to do.

[Limbo]

I've had positive experiences with 'shrooms.
I didn't find God, but still got the rest of the benefits, the feeling of oneness, mild hallucinations, and a lasting feeling of the emotional significance of the event.


Thanks for sharing Jekyll.

When you say 'I didn't find God'...were you looking? Did you take the 'shrooms in a religious/spiritual context?

[Jimbo07]

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.”
~George Bernard Shaw

Thank you. That's the one I was thinking of...

... I wouldn't be surprised to find some atheists afraid that religion has positive benefits. I think some (Hitchens, maybe?) go too far in ascribing evil to religion, missing the very obvious that we're all human. Regardless...

The value of religion, one way or another, has little bearing on questions about the physical nature of God's (non)existence.

[tsg]

You sigh then try that rubbish? You really do amuse me.

All you did was point solely at intercessory prayer.

The other aspects of religion they credit with having health benefits, as I pointed out here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3524533#post3524533), are not unique to religion. The two that are, aren't supported by the references the paper itself cites.

I'll show you just how easy it is.

It's your claim. You support it. I'm not wading through the entire internet to guess at what you think supports the claim.

You go into Google and type in two words - religion & longevity and you will find enough to keep you going. Are you so slow as to not be able to do that simple task?

That's it. I'm done. When you decide to act like an adult, let me know.

[Limbo]

... I wouldn't be surprised to find some atheists afraid that religion has positive benefits. I think some (Hitchens, maybe?) go too far in ascribing evil to religion, missing the very obvious that we're all human. Regardless...


Yes. This is one of my problems with some atheists. I think it's the responsibility of atheists who don't 'go too far' to inform those who do. Fight the fear!

The value of religion, one way or another, has little bearing on questions about the physical nature of God's (non)existence.


Yes. That's where I was hoping this thread would go. What does this experiment say to you (or anyone) about the nature of "God"?

[PixyMisa]

Yes. This is one of my problems with some atheists. I think it's the responsibility of atheists who don't 'go too far' to inform those who do. Fight the fear!
What fear?

Yes. That's where I was hoping this thread would go. What does this experiment say to you (or anyone) about the nature of "God"?
Define ""God"".

[PixyMisa]

http://forums.randi.org/search.php?do=finduser&u=4130
That's the same response you get when you ask many believers for their evidence for the existence of God; they start babbling about flowers and butterflies and rainbows; their personal lack of comprehension leads them to create a nonexistent and nonsensical entity to suit their own biases.

In short, you're full of it.

[The Atheist]

That's the same response you get when you ask many believers for their evidence for the existence of God;

Excuse me, but that's drivel.

You asked for evidence, I gave you Articulett's posts. There is ample evidence in amongst her posting over a prolonged period, but if you think I'm going to sift through her vomit to find a specific peice for you, you're sadly mistaken.

Nice of you to compare me to a believer, though. Highly appropriate when talking about Arti.

Bye now!

Yes. That's where I was hoping this thread would go. What does this experiment say to you (or anyone) about the nature of "God"?

That's easy to answer: "Nothing at all".

[PixyMisa]

Excuse me, but that's drivel.

You asked for evidence, I gave you Articulett's posts. There is ample evidence in amongst her posting over a prolonged period, but if you think I'm going to sift through her vomit to find a specific peice for you, you're sadly mistaken.
You said that Articulett is afraid of the possibility of good consequences from religion.

I asked you for evidence.

You pointed to everything she's ever written. No specifics. No analysis. No reasoning. No thought.

That's exactly the same behaviour you get with believers who have never bothered to consider their positions.

Nice of you to compare me to a believer, though. Highly appropriate when talking about Arti.
Non-sequitur. Your irrationality here has no bearing on Articulett's position, whatever it might be.

That's easy to answer: "Nothing at all".
I mostly agree with you there. The experiment says nothing about the nature of God, but it does speak to religious experience, if that's what Limbo means by ""God"".

[Olowkow]

I have been listening to a podcast called "The Good Atheist" (ITunes) for quite a while.
http://thegoodatheist.net/about/

It is just two bright guys in their late 20's, who were raised as atheists, Jacob Fortin and Ryan Harkness discussing various topics. There is something compelling about these two in that they are extremely honest with each other and with their audience in a sort of almost naive way.

Well, the latest episode (3/12/08) was just Jacob recounting a tale of a "spiritual experience" he had about 8 years ago. This is his summary of the program:

After a little bit of an absence, I decided to record a very special podcast this week. Rather than have my trusty host at my side, I wanted to record something a little bit more personal for you guys, so you could really understand my motivations for the site, as well as come to realize how spiritual experiences are really just a rationalization of something far more simple, and in my mind, something far more meaningful. I hope you all enjoy it.

I will summarize it briefly. When he was 20, he and a friend spent a year just trying to decide what to do with their lives. They finally decided to start a website to host unknown authors who wanted to publish. After much enthusiasm, they finished setting up the website. Jacob was astonished to discover that he received an email the first day proposing a project which was exactly what he had dreamed of all his life. Their first customer!

At this point, Jacob describes in a very eloquent and personal way the intense feelings of happiness and joy he had at this prospect. He compares it to the feelings a person might have when undergoing a religious epiphany. For him it was a milestone in his life. There was something very touching about his articulate and sensitive explanation of this day, and he said that it changed his life forever.

He was overcome with emotion to the extent that he thought he would faint, and just wanted to share it with his friend who was still in class. He waited and waited and finally his friend came home after a couple of hours.

After a brief pause, he states, "Oh, yes, there is a final part to this story." I will leave this part out, since it is so unbelievable and touching, you have to hear it for yourself.

[Nihilus]

We are talking about mystical experiences, their long relationship with drugs. There is a difference between someone having a willingness to believe or trust too readily, esp. without proper or adequate evidence; gullibility, and someone having a profound experience of that which mankind calls "divinity".
It's not the experience itself that is the issue, but the conclusions wrought from those experiences...which can admittedly be emotionally fulfilling and blatantly illogical at the same time.

I would prefer it if we were discussing the theological implications of this experiment (which bode ill for religion) but it seems posters are obsessed with the after-effects of such experiences (which bode ill for atheism).
And what exactly are those implications?

[Jekyll]

Thanks for sharing Jekyll.

When you say 'I didn't find God'...were you looking? Did you take the 'shrooms in a religious/spiritual context?

Nope, just recreationally.

But the test you're talking about doesn't tell us anything about the nature of religion.

It reminds us that a classical religious experience,with hallucinations, a sense of oneness with the world or spacial/temporal distortion can also present when you take hallucinogens. Oh, and that people can find tripping more emotionally significant than church.

[Limbo]

It's not the experience itself that is the issue, but the conclusions wrought from those experiences...which can admittedly be emotionally fulfilling and blatantly illogical at the same time.


The contents of the experiences and the conclusions wrought from those experiences can be somewhat intertwined. Through what William James called overbeliefs.

Overbeliefs are "religious conceptions that a person brings to a religious experience, not only postexperientially in the process of it's interpretation and reportage, but also preexperientially as a contribution to the contents of the experiences."

"The mystical feeling of enlargement, union, and emancipation has no specific intellectual content whatever of its own. It is capable of forming matrimonial alliances with material furnished by the most diverse philosophies and theologies, provided they can only find a place in the framework for its peculiar mood." -William James

All in all, James referred the 'common core' of mysticism to the unconscious mind. Mystics conscious experiences were highly variable because their overbeliefs were integrated within.

And what exactly are those implications?


Well, there is much I have to say about this but to start with, such experiences which can profoundly improve quality of life are not dependent on having a particular theology, philosophy, ideology. They transcend theology, dogma, culture, modern times, science, gender, race, etc. That's why there can be intellectually and emotionally fulfilled "atheistic mystics".

A bit of a thought experiment. If the experiment had been performed on people of another religion, do you suppose there would have been similarities? What if it had been performed on a UFO cult? Would people have reported seeing visions of aliens instead of visions of Jesus?

Or if it had been performed on Buddhists? Would any of them have seen visions of Kwan Yin, perhaps?

Or if it had been performed on atheists? Would they have seen nothing, yet experienced the rest of the benefits?

So experiences like those of 'classic mystics' can be induced and studied. This allows us to see the role of overbeliefs in the shaping of the experiences. Since a great deal of world religion and ancient mythology (not to mention modern mythologies such as UFO cults) is informed by ancients having similar (classic) experiences, this can shed light on theological problems which plague us all in one way or another.

Anyone familiar with the God Helmet (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGod_hel met&ei=Hd7bR8D4IJ_IiAH6kaHHBQ&usg=AFQjCNENeaHC9ze_6wVRdXNoc2ZOYwCcDg&sig2=Inkp81Tk_2HtFEJua51egg)?

[bokonon]

What does this experiment say to you (or anyone) about the nature of "God"?
It's all in your mind.

[Limbo]

It's all in your mind? That's the best you got?

Well that's a start but it tells us nothing, really.

It's sort of like judge on Iron Chef (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Chef) saying "it's all in my stomach" when asked about the food.

[bokonon]

It's all in your mind? That's the best you got?

Well that's a start but it tells us nothing, really.

It's sort of like judge on Iron Chef (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Chef) saying "it's all in my stomach" when asked about the food.
I don't mistake drug-induced hallucinations for insights into the nature of reality. If you do, knock yourself out.