It's an interesting theory, although I think this paper stretches the available evidence way too far in most cases. As a former Mormon, it's interesting to consider, though.
As an aside, this is an interesting point:
> One of the major negative side effect of psychedelic experimentation is delusional ideation, and one of the
most common pathologies associated with frequent high-dose psychedelic experimentation is persistent
recurring delusions of grandeur.
Psychonauts will tell you that psychedelics are effective at destroying or weakening the ego. And yet, there's a phenomenon where some users come out of it with an incredibly inflated ego and narcissism. If you've spent any time with psychonauts or read much from any of the online communities you'll know what I'm talking about.
They'll often say that the world would be better if everyone just took LSD, but stuff like that does make me wonder. Not everyone comes out of a transformative psychedelic experience as a better person.
In "How to Change Your Mind", Michael Pollan talked about the theory of psychedelics acting as a sort of super placebo. They seem to have the ability to shake you out your regular hardened neutral pathways, encouraging new ways of thinking and looking at the world. That may be part of why they have such promise as a therapeutic tool, but also why careful and considered use is still important.
"If you forget yourself, you become the universe." - Hakuin
Religious traditions emphasizing the mystical help you interpret something like 'becoming the universe' as a deep interconnection with living beings and universal compassion. Without that kind of grounding, from a certain frame of mind, you can feel like king of the universe instead.
It's really not something to mess around with, in my opinion. I'm pretty sure I've unlocked the same sorts of states the hard/manual way, and I was really glad to have the backing of the understanding of a mature religious tradition to put it into constructive context. It's not by any means an unconditionally good thing, it's nothing that should be allowed anywhere near an unprepared mind.
As an also former mormon, I think psychedelics would explain a LOT of the things that are spoken about, longed for, but never seen and which make one's 'testimony' dwindle because those spiritual experiences never come.... though, I stopped believing only after reading the CES Letter and other church history stuff, but I was less active at the time.
"Or maybe he just made stuff up? You don't need drugs for that."
It wasn't just him, though.
According to the paper:
"These early Church members sought direct experience with God and believed that Joseph Smith had the power to grant their desires. Confidence in their Prophet was not misplaced. Between 1829 and 1836, under the supervision of Joseph Smith, many early Mormon converts enjoyed heavenly visions and spiritual raptures."
"It appears that soon after the Church was organized in New York and later in Ohio, members partook of wine in sacrament meetings which occasioned visionary states and strange behaviors not typically associated with alcohol consumption or intoxication..."
"However, after Joseph’s death in 1844, the great visionary period of Church history came to an end. ... So stark was the dearth of visionary experience that in 1864, twenty years after Joseph Smith’s death, members would ask Mormon Apostle George A. Smith, "...why it is that we do not see more angels, have more visions, that we do not see greater and more manifestations of power?""
To this day you can find people speaking in tongues and hearing God speak to them, et cetera, et cetera. Again, no drugs required. People are wired for worship and all they need is a little peer pressure to guide them.
I think that guided psychedelic experiences can be wonderful opportunities for spiritual journeys -- no church needed :-)
I once worked for a Jewish think-tank.[1] People would regularly send all manner of material with dubious--i.e. racially prejudiced--connections to Israel or Jews. I remember someone once sent a huge tome--literally hundreds of pages, if not more than 1000--which purported to show that Muhammed was schizophrenic. At the time I just assumed the author was possibly schizophrenic himself, or otherwise possessed of some mental disorder as was so often the case. (Your run-of-the-mill anti-semite or Islamophobe doesn't have the stamina to write such a long work.) Only later in life would I learn and realize that the whole idea of prophets as schizophrenics is rooted in (or at least could be rooted in) an interesting, legitimate hypothesis. But my opinion of such inquiries, particularly when focused at established religions, was largely the same then as it is now: it feels disrespectful and pointless, like a physicist accosting a group of Catholics with literature about how transubstantiation is impossible, or a biologist explaining the implausibility of a virgin birth. It's far more likely that the itch being scratched is some kind of animus toward or other peculiar interest in the group; not a serious, scientific pursuit. And indeed if you read the above paper or Google the author, it's obvious that he does have an ulterior motive regarding what he believes should have been the rightful evolution of Mormon theology and practice. In other words, for whatever scientific merit this paper might have, it's probably better to approach it as a theological squabble. Or don't approach it at all--the "spiritual" potential of hallucinogenic compounds is hardly in dispute by anyone, and so subjecting oneself to such a work is merely to dive into a theological dispute, of which there are countless and counting.
[1] It was principally concerned with fostering U.S.-Israeli military ties. Most of it's members didn't identify as Jewish, though the name of the organization had "Jewish" in it, and most of the staff identified as such.
"my opinion of such inquiries, particularly when focused at established religions, is largely the same then as it is now: it feels disrespectful and pointless"
I'm not sure why trying to find out what the real origin of established religions was is disrespectful or pointless.
They are pretty key questions in anthropology, archaeology, and theology. Plenty of believers who have the highest respect for religion engage in such questions, but I don't see why they should be off-limits to others either.
If it is in fact the case that established religions were rooted in entheogen use, that doesn't mean that they're devalued in any way, and proof of this might actually reconnect believers to their roots and open their eyes to the value of visionary plants for communing with their dieties.
Some have speculated that entheogen use might lead to a religious revival, and might actually draw many more people back to established religions. How is that disrespectful or pointless?
Every piece of pseudo-scientific, anti-semitic trash that ended up on the conference table (as lunch time reading) during my stint at the aforementioned think-tank has strongly influenced how I approach topics such as this. The ability to dissemble and justify anti-semitism (or anti-Mormonism, or anti-theism, or anti-anything) is difficult to appreciate if you haven't literally been at the receiving end of it.
Like I said, there may be some merit there. But much like claimed inventions that bare suspicious relationships to perpetual motion machines, you develop a more sophisticated filter for this kind of stuff when exposed to it. Whether the material is right or wrong is beside the point. If it has merit then invariably it will come in a different package sooner rather than later. Time is scarce, and attention is oxygen for people with an ax to grind.
Of course, reasonable people can disagree. It's a judgment call. But we all apply these sorts of qualitative filters, whether we're willing to admit it or not, and I happen to be basing mine on [what I believe to be] some experiential wisdom, which I'm sharing.
Like I said, the notion that schizophrenia and auditory hallucinations could be plausible explanations for the experience (and credibility) of historical prophets (as well as for oracles and other spiritual figures) is perfectly legitimate. In fact, personally I'd be surprised if there wasn't a substantive connection. But, honestly, what's the purpose of trying to analyze in tedious detail Islam (or Christianity, or w'ever) in that manner? Only with a hopelessly naive and simplistic conception of religion could it matter; organized religions are only nominally predicated on such stories. On the balance of probabilities, anyone expending such an effort invariably has suspect motives--not necessarily malicious, just not well suited to scientifically constructive discourse. There are many other avenues of exploration that don't involve such a conspicuous preoccupation. Ditto regarding a paper discussing the "entheogen theory of the rise of Mormonism."
> organized religions are only nominally predicated on such stories
This strikes me as an absolutely non-factual and perhaps even propagandistic statement.
The entire premise of an organized religion is based on the stories of that religion! Otherwise, you just have a (more or less) conservative bureaucracy with a few rituals thrown in (rituals that, without said stories, are without origin).
> Whether the material is right or wrong is beside the point. If it has merit then invariably it will come in a different package sooner rather than later. Time is scarce, and attention is oxygen for people with an ax to grind.
What??? Saying that "whether the material is right or wrong is beside the point," is maybe the most absurd thing I've heard today. Regardless of the package, if something is true, it is true. With your mentality, one can construe very absurd conceptions of morality.
After all, it's mightily important that we don't tell the common folk the Earth is not the center of the universe, because <insert_religious_reason>. Galileo is a strange man with strange views (only supported by an equally strange Prussian fellow). I think those views will, if correct, surely come in a more acceptable package at some point.
————
As a note of personal bias, I find it hard to sympathize with people who foster military ties as you claim to have.
13 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 41.8 ms ] threadAs an aside, this is an interesting point:
> One of the major negative side effect of psychedelic experimentation is delusional ideation, and one of the most common pathologies associated with frequent high-dose psychedelic experimentation is persistent recurring delusions of grandeur.
Psychonauts will tell you that psychedelics are effective at destroying or weakening the ego. And yet, there's a phenomenon where some users come out of it with an incredibly inflated ego and narcissism. If you've spent any time with psychonauts or read much from any of the online communities you'll know what I'm talking about.
They'll often say that the world would be better if everyone just took LSD, but stuff like that does make me wonder. Not everyone comes out of a transformative psychedelic experience as a better person.
In "How to Change Your Mind", Michael Pollan talked about the theory of psychedelics acting as a sort of super placebo. They seem to have the ability to shake you out your regular hardened neutral pathways, encouraging new ways of thinking and looking at the world. That may be part of why they have such promise as a therapeutic tool, but also why careful and considered use is still important.
OR
they activated their latent schizophrenia.
Religious traditions emphasizing the mystical help you interpret something like 'becoming the universe' as a deep interconnection with living beings and universal compassion. Without that kind of grounding, from a certain frame of mind, you can feel like king of the universe instead.
It's really not something to mess around with, in my opinion. I'm pretty sure I've unlocked the same sorts of states the hard/manual way, and I was really glad to have the backing of the understanding of a mature religious tradition to put it into constructive context. It's not by any means an unconditionally good thing, it's nothing that should be allowed anywhere near an unprepared mind.
It wasn't just him, though.
According to the paper:
"These early Church members sought direct experience with God and believed that Joseph Smith had the power to grant their desires. Confidence in their Prophet was not misplaced. Between 1829 and 1836, under the supervision of Joseph Smith, many early Mormon converts enjoyed heavenly visions and spiritual raptures."
"It appears that soon after the Church was organized in New York and later in Ohio, members partook of wine in sacrament meetings which occasioned visionary states and strange behaviors not typically associated with alcohol consumption or intoxication..."
"However, after Joseph’s death in 1844, the great visionary period of Church history came to an end. ... So stark was the dearth of visionary experience that in 1864, twenty years after Joseph Smith’s death, members would ask Mormon Apostle George A. Smith, "...why it is that we do not see more angels, have more visions, that we do not see greater and more manifestations of power?""
I think that guided psychedelic experiences can be wonderful opportunities for spiritual journeys -- no church needed :-)
[1] It was principally concerned with fostering U.S.-Israeli military ties. Most of it's members didn't identify as Jewish, though the name of the organization had "Jewish" in it, and most of the staff identified as such.
I'm not sure why trying to find out what the real origin of established religions was is disrespectful or pointless.
They are pretty key questions in anthropology, archaeology, and theology. Plenty of believers who have the highest respect for religion engage in such questions, but I don't see why they should be off-limits to others either.
If it is in fact the case that established religions were rooted in entheogen use, that doesn't mean that they're devalued in any way, and proof of this might actually reconnect believers to their roots and open their eyes to the value of visionary plants for communing with their dieties.
Some have speculated that entheogen use might lead to a religious revival, and might actually draw many more people back to established religions. How is that disrespectful or pointless?
Like I said, there may be some merit there. But much like claimed inventions that bare suspicious relationships to perpetual motion machines, you develop a more sophisticated filter for this kind of stuff when exposed to it. Whether the material is right or wrong is beside the point. If it has merit then invariably it will come in a different package sooner rather than later. Time is scarce, and attention is oxygen for people with an ax to grind.
Of course, reasonable people can disagree. It's a judgment call. But we all apply these sorts of qualitative filters, whether we're willing to admit it or not, and I happen to be basing mine on [what I believe to be] some experiential wisdom, which I'm sharing.
Like I said, the notion that schizophrenia and auditory hallucinations could be plausible explanations for the experience (and credibility) of historical prophets (as well as for oracles and other spiritual figures) is perfectly legitimate. In fact, personally I'd be surprised if there wasn't a substantive connection. But, honestly, what's the purpose of trying to analyze in tedious detail Islam (or Christianity, or w'ever) in that manner? Only with a hopelessly naive and simplistic conception of religion could it matter; organized religions are only nominally predicated on such stories. On the balance of probabilities, anyone expending such an effort invariably has suspect motives--not necessarily malicious, just not well suited to scientifically constructive discourse. There are many other avenues of exploration that don't involve such a conspicuous preoccupation. Ditto regarding a paper discussing the "entheogen theory of the rise of Mormonism."
This strikes me as an absolutely non-factual and perhaps even propagandistic statement.
The entire premise of an organized religion is based on the stories of that religion! Otherwise, you just have a (more or less) conservative bureaucracy with a few rituals thrown in (rituals that, without said stories, are without origin).
> Whether the material is right or wrong is beside the point. If it has merit then invariably it will come in a different package sooner rather than later. Time is scarce, and attention is oxygen for people with an ax to grind.
What??? Saying that "whether the material is right or wrong is beside the point," is maybe the most absurd thing I've heard today. Regardless of the package, if something is true, it is true. With your mentality, one can construe very absurd conceptions of morality.
After all, it's mightily important that we don't tell the common folk the Earth is not the center of the universe, because <insert_religious_reason>. Galileo is a strange man with strange views (only supported by an equally strange Prussian fellow). I think those views will, if correct, surely come in a more acceptable package at some point.
————
As a note of personal bias, I find it hard to sympathize with people who foster military ties as you claim to have.