Are alcohol/drug induced mystical experinces valid?

[jpk1313]

I would argue that the mystical experience is to be judged as valid on the fruits of the experience. So if one arrives at a mystical experience through prayer but no change in ones world view (in a moral sense becuse all spiritual develoment is based on morality) happens than it is not valid. but if the drunk has a an experience (typicaly called a moment of clarity) where god speakes to him/her in their intoxicated state and this produces a shift in their moral attitude than it is valid. Further there are many reports from various people of the healing (spiritualy speaking) effect of peyote, mushrooms, dmt, ect. I my self had such an experience years ago that caused a 180 degree shift in my moral thinking brought on by mushrooms in which God communicated the basic message of the gosple to me. at the time I had no idea what the gosple message was so I obtained information on this “trip” i did not have preveously. Further to discount the idea of a mystical experience just becuse someone is influenced by something is to say that the grace of god is limited only to the sober mind which is an error. If one defines “drug” as something that when put into the body changes the way one precives reality than everything is a “drug”. Food when put into the body energizes the mind, the air we breath can do as much in fact there are breathing exercises that can put one into a trance state not all that different that a psychoactive drug, and any experince brought on by breathing exersises must also be counted as being influenced by “drugs” including prayer since prayer involves speaking which involves breathing. Further the argument that drugs/alcohol are wrong becuse they take away the use of reason, is at best half true. As one can do work, math problems, and what not under the influence of say weed (though something like surgery should be done with as clear a mind as possible). and the mind expanding properties of psycoactive drugs can bring on deeper understanding of mysteries both of the universe and of the self. Further the arguments against drug/alcohol use are from a negitive moral choice point of view like “I got drunk and slept with that bar star therefore alcohol is a moral wrong”. and does not take into consideration say the poetry of lord byron much of which was influenced by alcohol or the positive effects like the person who is hurting emotinaly who gets drunk and works through their pain while “on it” and comeing through it comes to a state of peace.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

Alcohol and drug-induced experiences are caused by placing oneself in a sin in the first place, so certainly not.

 

[jpk1313]

Alcohol and drug-induced experiences are caused by placing oneself in a sin in the first place, so certainly not.

why? what are your reasons for saying so? you are basicly saying “that painting is garbage” then walking away. You have added nothing to the argument. I put this in the philosophy section to stimulate debate. If you lack the knowledge or intellegence to engage in debate stay out of it.

 

[Lead_Me_Home]

Being intoxicated (willfully) is a sin. Therefore; revelations that are dependent or sought via hallucinogens are not valid. Gluttonous use of substances which intoxicate us not only abuse and defile our bodies, but they distract us from God.

2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

Catechism of The Catholic Church

 

[ThomasToo]

why? what are your reasons for saying so? you are basicly saying “that painting is garbage” then walking away. You have added nothing to the argument. I put this in the philosophy section to stimulate debate. If you lack the knowledge or intellegence to engage in debate stay out of it.

Though my reasoning is vastly different than that given by others [edit, Lead Me Home beat me to it: you should refer to his/her post above, he/she beat me to it. As a side note I have a friend is a recovering alcoholic and he has committed 2290 to memory.]

I would also encourage you to refrain from questioning others’ knowledge or intelligence.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

why? what are your reasons for saying so? you are basicly saying “that painting is garbage” then walking away. You have added nothing to the argument. I put this in the philosophy section to stimulate debate. If you lack the knowledge or intelligence to engage in debate stay out of it.

Fine, I’ll bite. I’m not quite sure why you seem to be offended, deciding to jab straight away.

Why wouldn’t God allow drug induced mystical experiences to be valid? Because you are sinning if you are compromising your state of consciousness with drugs- which is sin.

If you’re talking about other religions and their beliefs on this phenomenon, then that’s another story, but the Judeo-Christian God doesn’t use these instances to produce mystical experiences. The only time I could see God using them would be as a last resort to save a soul in danger of physical and spiritual death.

CCC:

2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: “Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.”

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. “Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.”

While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call “light”: if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[LilyM]

The heading indicates that the topic is about experiences that are INDUCED by alcohol or drugs. In other words the use of the alcohol or drugs produces or contributes to the experience. If that’s the question I’d say definitely not.

It is true that God can reach out to us, as He did to St Paul, even when we are in the midst of our sins, but that happens despite our sinful acts, and not because of them. If anything the clouding of our minds by sin probably makes such an experience LESS intense and less of a true mystical experience than it would be if we were in the state of grace.

So a true mystical experience cannot be one that is INDUCED by a sin.

 

[Areopagite]

Being heavily intoxicated or drugged definitely can put you into a spiritually sensitive state … i.e. you become very aware and receptive to spiritual influences. However, with drugs and high doses of alcohol, there is no guarantee that you are going to be protected from demonic influences. Saintly mysticism (as I’ve been told) is very similar to being inebriated and even high … but it has has the protection of the Holy Spirit with it, making you receptive to only heavenly powers. Drugs and inordinate drunkenness are thus dangerous, but they nonetheless can give one an experience of the divine … but maybe not only that.

This is what I’ve heard from those who have had some … experience.

 

[Black_Angel_1]

I would argue that the mystical experience is to be judged as valid on the fruits of the experience. So if one arrives at a mystical experience through prayer but no change in ones world view (in a moral sense becuse all spiritual develoment is based on morality) happens than it is not valid. but if the drunk has a an experience (typicaly called a moment of clarity) where god speakes to him/her in their intoxicated state and this produces a shift in their moral attitude than it is valid. Further there are many reports from various people of the healing (spiritualy speaking) effect of peyote, mushrooms, dmt, ect. I my self had such an experience years ago that caused a 180 degree shift in my moral thinking brought on by mushrooms in which God communicated the basic message of the gosple to me. at the time I had no idea what the gosple message was so I obtained information on this “trip” i did not have preveously. Further to discount the idea of a mystical experience just becuse someone is influenced by something is to say that the grace of god is limited only to the sober mind which is an error. If one defines “drug” as something that when put into the body changes the way one precives reality than everything is a “drug”. Food when put into the body energizes the mind, the air we breath can do as much in fact there are breathing exercises that can put one into a trance state not all that different that a psychoactive drug, and any experince brought on by breathing exersises must also be counted as being influenced by “drugs” including prayer since prayer involves speaking which involves breathing. Further the argument that drugs/alcohol are wrong becuse they take away the use of reason, is at best half true. As one can do work, math problems, and what not under the influence of say weed (though something like surgery should be done with as clear a mind as possible). and the mind expanding properties of psycoactive drugs can bring on deeper understanding of mysteries both of the universe and of the self. Further the arguments against drug/alcohol use are from a negitive moral choice point of view like “I got drunk and slept with that bar star therefore alcohol is a moral wrong”. and does not take into consideration say the poetry of lord byron much of which was influenced by alcohol or the positive effects like the person who is hurting emotinaly who gets drunk and works through their pain while “on it” and comeing through it comes to a state of peace.

Alcohol and drugs alter our state of mind.

Hallucinations: Anything that alters our perception of something through the use of one or all our five senses.

If you see something that isn’t really there. Its an illusion.

If you hear something that didn’t actually happen (or make a sound) then it’s an illusion.

If you smell something that isn’t there it’s an illusion.

If you taste something that isn’t there it’s an illusion.

If you feel something that feels different then what it actually feels like, then it’s technically an illusion.

Our perception of reality corresponds to our sense of touch. If we cannot feel it, it doesn’t not exist.

Of course this only applies if said reality applies to all other senses.

IE: If you can hear, see, smell and taste something, but you can’t feel it, then it doesn’t exist.

Because the senses other then touch, can be deceived with no more then a simple thought within our heads. But we confirm its existence through touching it.

Being intoxicated, alters your 5 senses. Your 4 senses are greatly altered. Because your brain is affected. But your sense of touch is still intact.

 

[ThomasToo]

Alcohol and drugs alter our state of mind…

Just to be clear, your argument is just that no mystical experiences are valid and those induced by psychopharmacology don’t represent anything special or different? I don’t disagree with you if that is your argument, I just want to make sure I’m understanding you.

 

[TheAtheist]

Just to be clear, your argument is just that no mystical experiences are valid and those induced by psychopharmacology don’t represent anything special or different? I don’t disagree with you if that is your argument, I just want to make sure I’m understanding you.

Doesn’t that depend on how we define mystical?

There been a bit of an explosion recently in neurology and the neurosciences about studying the brain under induced meditative states. Usually, such states have been considered the “doorway” to what those of a religious inclination would describe as mystical experiences.

Those altered periods of consciousness do have distinct differences with ones brought on by pharmacological therapies - not only in terms of the neurobiological mechanism that brings them about but also in terms of affects, specifically one’s mental awareness.

The question devolves down to how to interpret the phenomena were seeing. Obviously, some of us are not inclined to attach/accept certain metaphysical propositions that come with said phenomena - unless data can be produced to support said propositions.

 

[TheAtheist]

Further there are many reports from various people of the healing (spiritualy speaking) effect of peyote, mushrooms, dmt, ect. I my self had such an experience years ago that caused a 180 degree shift in my moral thinking brought on by mushrooms in which God communicated the basic message of the gosple to me. at the time I had no idea what the gosple message was so I obtained information on this “trip” i did not have preveously.

Now i’m hardly the great storehouse of Catholic Canon Law and theology, but i always thought the Christian religious traditions as a whole tend to look down on the use of substances to provoke communion with their god.

Although your commentary reminds me of an article i read a while back by a researcher at Hebrew University regarding what Moses experienced on Sinai.

“‘Moses was high on hallucinogenic drug when he received Ten Commandments,’ claims top academic”

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-525993/Moses-high-hallucinogenic-drug-received-Ten-Commandments-claims-academic.html#ixzz0ktJ7GrU0

haaretz.com/hasen/spages/960403.html

---

Frankly, though, i take the her thesis with an incredibly large dose of salt.

 

[ThomasToo]

Doesn’t that depend on how we define mystical?

There been a bit of an explosion recently in neurology and the neurosciences about studying the brain under induced meditative states. Usually, such states have been considered the “doorway” to what those of a religious inclination would describe as mystical experiences.

Those altered periods of consciousness do have distinct differences with ones brought on by pharmacological therapies - not only in terms of the neurobiological mechanism that brings them about but also in terms of affects, specifically one’s mental awareness.

The question devolves down to how to interpret the phenomena were seeing. Obviously, some of us are not inclined to attach/accept certain metaphysical propositions that come with said phenomena - unless data can be produced to support said propositions.

I think most people here would agree that a genuine mystical experience is the contact with something supernatural. I don’t know that most would agree, for example, that electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe would create a valid religious experience (This Is Your Brain On God, Jack Hitt, Wired).

 

[TheAtheist]

I think most people here would agree that a genuine mystical experience is the contact with something supernatural. I don’t know that most would agree, for example, that electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe would create a valid religious experience (This Is Your Brain On God, Jack Hitt, Wired).

Welcome to the great gulf that divides traditional religious sensibilities with the “new age.”

Heck, Sam Harris is essentially shopping around “atheist spirituality” as a genuine mystical experience that doesn’t contact anything supernatural.

Although upon further reflection of the comments by our Catholic friends on this board, an interesting cross-cultural/Ecumenical question does arise.

For those traditional religious schemas that DO use pharmacological substances to provoke mystical experiences - are you folks essentially saying that they are acting in sin and exposing themselves to negative influences? (Dare i call their beliefs satanic? Or is that too strong of a word?)

 

[ThomasToo]

“‘Moses was high on hallucinogenic drug when he received Ten Commandments,’ claims top academic”

…

Frankly, though, i take the her thesis with an incredibly large dose of salt.

You just reminded me I also remember being told (not by teachers, I think by a fellow student) that the gospel of John and the book of Revelation were written under the influence of hallucinogenic mushrooms.

For those traditional religious schemas that DO use pharmacological substances to provoke mystical experiences - are you folks essentially saying that they are acting in sin and exposing themselves to negative influences?

Could it be possible that they think the only mystical experience available under such influence be inherent evil (e.g. demons &c)?

 

[StrawberryJam]

It’s an interesting topic. I am not sure how helpful this article will be in the conversation, so forgive me if it is not. This article has convinced me that there are many things that can trigger these experiences. Alcohol or drugs, or simply too much CO2.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100408-near-death-experiences-blood-carbon-dioxide/

Of course, I reject all claims of contact with the supernatural.

Have a berry nice day!

 

[jpk1313]

Now i’m hardly the great storehouse of Catholic Canon Law and theology, but i always thought the Christian religious traditions as a whole tend to look down on the use of substances to provoke communion with their god.

Although your commentary reminds me of an article i read a while back by a researcher at Hebrew University regarding what Moses experienced on Sinai.

“‘Moses was high on hallucinogenic drug when he received Ten Commandments,’ claims top academic”

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-525993/Moses-high-hallucinogenic-drug-received-Ten-Commandments-claims-academic.html#ixzz0ktJ7GrU0

haaretz.com/hasen/spages/960403.html

---

Frankly, though, i take the her thesis with an incredibly large dose of salt.

Well if Christianity condems the use of substances to commune with God then it will have to comdem itself since it uses wine at mass. though we call it blood it still has the accident of wine and one can become drunk from it. So if god can speak to us through his blood it is not that much of a strech to assume he can do so as well through other substances such as peyote or pot.

 

[ThomasToo]

Well if Christianity condems the use of substances to commune with God then it will have to comdem itself since it uses wine at mass. though we call it blood it still has the accident of wine and one can become drunk from it. So if god can speak to us through his blood it is not that much of a strech to assume he can do so as well through other substances such as peyote or pot.

I’m guess the Church would be opposed to someone becoming drunk on the consecrated sacramental wine. A sip of wine is hardly the same as getting so stoned one starts hallucinating.

 

[stringbeanduck]

I’m not sure what you mean, by mystical experiences. I’m gonna assume you mean tripping. The Catholic answer is no. Anything or anything in excess to the point that causes us to completely lose the use of our reason is grave matter. Some people will choose to use plants and herbs to inspire / invigorate their minds to create something or simply to relieve stress. This is not a sin provided they do not become harmful to one’s health or deteriorate their reason so that they can’t make rational decisions.

 

[hope000]

I think they are not valid. The reason is that they give an illusion of having a mystical experience of connection with the Divine. However, it is not a true connection experience, and has many other horrible consequences. Relying on these drugs for a mystical experience is like holding a postcard of Paris up to your face for years, saying how you love Paris but you never need to even go there because you have this amazing photograph. You stare at the photo at the expense of your health, career, and relationships. And you never make it to Paris, of course. Only to the delusion in your mind.

Would God want humans to risk going permanently insane or engaging in risky behavior (like thinking we can fly…) as the only way to reach Him?

The fruits of these drugs are a mix of lies and truth; the appearance of a religious experience without the benefits, and lies in the mix. We know about evil, and how it mixes lies with the truth in order to deceive us.

The tendency of those who use them to feel enlightened and therefore separate and isolated from their brothers and sisters also does not look like good fruit to me.