Talk:Religious experience/Archive 1

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles
User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation.

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!
 * Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikiquette_alerts, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This related category is also under target!

There doesn't seem to be a proper beginning to this article based on Wikipedia rules. There is no basic explanation of what a Religious Experienc is. Just an immediate plunge into the controversial issue of whether or not a religious experience is a psychosis. This isn't an article about whether or not Religious experiences are real or a result of psychosis and therefore I don't believe it should be the first thing someone reads when they reach this page. Discuss it further down by all means but it isn't a good way to start. I also find it a bit surprising that there is no mention aside from the "see also" section of the pioneering work of William James in this field. There is no real catagorising of types of religious experience or any links to historical characters who have been said to have had them, or any link to views of various religions on the subject. This article needs a lot of work. Ammi 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

But religion is a superstition. I don't understand the objection.--80.56.36.253 13:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that normal, orthodox religion rejects superstition in much the same way that science rejects pseudo-science. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientific research of religious experiences
I want to add a section called this (or something like it) to the main page. From experience I've discovered it's best to suggest it here first. It will give research of the type currently debated in places like New Scientist so is well in the public view. Here are a couple of links of the type I would like to use. is directly relevant and has links to some interesting papers.

I hate edit wars so would appreciate those who object to identify themselves and explain their objections. SOPHIA 09:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Causes of religious experiences
Shouldn't this article mention the causes of religious experiences? For example frontal lobe epilepsy and all the others. --80.56.36.253 13:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no academic consensus to support the idea that physiological chages in state are the cause of religious experiences. In fact, the $64 dollar question is whether they are caused by a hidden spiritual reality that has somehow and in some way been discovered during this period of experience so-labeled religious. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts
The lead is very unclear and poorly phrased. Also, a reference to William James' Varieties of Religious Experience would not be amiss. Polymathematics 03:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Direct/ indirect experience of reality
Just to explain a change I've made to the entry: I've removed the suggestion that philosophers today generally agree that it is impossible to have a direct experience of reality. True, there are transcendental realists and (very few) indirect realists, but many contemporary philosophers are "direct realists", i.e. they precisely believe that sensory experience gives us direct access to our physical environment. They may not be right, but at least it is a fact that there is no consensus in favour of the contrary claim, so that no such consensus can be used to support a thesis about the "mediacy" of religious experience.

Aleksandros 09:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The angel?
The first line of the article is confusing: "In religious experience, or sacred experience, the angel comes in contact with transcendental reality."

Shouldn't it say "a person" or "individual" instead of "the angel"? I'm new to this article so I didn't want to edit without discussion.--Pariah 05:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article's title scope be widened to "spiritual" or "esoteric" experience (just suggestions) since many thought currents nowadays separate religion from the others due to its political and/or ideological connotations and/or orthodoxy. I don't make any changes myself because I don't feel I have enough competence in the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.140.193 (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A more neutral introduction
i think the introduction could have a more neutral point of view like this

Religious Experience (or Spiritual Experience, Mistical Experience or Sacred Experience) is a Altered state of consciousness where an individual report the contact with a trancedental reality or enconter with god.

--Mateus Zica (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What Mateus Zica's suggests sounds much better to me than what is there now. And striking a balance between the philosophical with its specific sort of wiki-links (which is what is there now) and the psychological with its specific sort of wiki-links (which is what being proposed) would be even more towards the ideal. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought the old intro was not bad, but the new one is better. It's good to include a bit more perspective from psychology.  For clarity, I made some edits to the new intro for style/grammar and links.  Also, I changed God to divine, because religious experience does not always occur in a theistic context.--Pariah (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Spiritual awakening
Paul Brunton described an other kind of "awakening", too, called enlightenment by somebody else. I would like to mention this on the mainpage.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.82.3 (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Who has written this comment? Can somebody please make it seen? It has not been me. Austerlitz -- 88.72.8.40 (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Paul Brunton is WP:FRINGE. I'm not against a fringe section, but such content must not be allowed to sprawl throughtout the article.

Can I find out by myself? How? SineBot
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.94.242 (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain the meaning to me as far as Brunton is concerned?
 * Trying to understand what WP:FRINGE means I've gone to the site and found this: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study."
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.95.47 (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is Brunton's "particular field of study"? Which is the mainstream view Brunton departs from significantly according to your opinion?
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.82.49 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion Section
i think that the discussion section of this article is a little pointless, because its just a extension of Habel's point of view and its controversies.

Who agrees on the removal of this section?

--Mateus Zica (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the section can be safely removed. It doesn't really add much to the article.--Pariah (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, his philosophical-based viewpoint struck me as refreshing, especially in the presence of all the well-written psychological viewpoints. Then again, how is Habel's work viewed in the academic community? If his work is considered somewhat controversial, putting back some of his material with comments to this effect would a good thing. If the honest academic consensus is that his work is truly WP:FRINGE, then its removal was okay. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think more research is needed. I also found the philosophical view to be a good one--and rather than fringe; in fact, his views seemed to reflect the consensus of work from anthropology.  The problem with the section was that it didn't really add much that isn't said in the earlier section on Habel, and the way it was written it seemed like WP:Synthesis.  But if we can find another way to elaborate on such work, properly referenced, I see no reason why we can't have a discussion section later on.--Pariah (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On second glance, I see exactly what you're saying. It's really better this way.  I just hold on to the sentiment that the introduction could benefit from more diversity (e.g. philosophy). --Firefly322 (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the introduction could use a bit more elaboration. At the very least, we can summarize the article in the intro, briefly touching on major theories, mentioning the religious, philosophical, and scientific perspectives.  We could also add material from researchers we haven't really mentioned much, such as Mircea Eliade, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber--although I think Durkheim and Weber were focused on the effects of religion on culture more than on individual experience.  My problem is that I'm only vaguely familiar with their work--Pariah (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Some summarization of the article to improve the lede sounds like an excellent way forward. I don't know where Emile Durkheim or Max Weber discusses religious experience (or if either does). Wow! Mircea Eliade is someone I've never heard of before, but obviously should have.  At any rate, I suspect that these figures and their work might be better represented in the aritlce Relationship between religion and science.  --Firefly322 (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure in what works Durkheim or Weber discuss their ideas, but I know that Weber talked a lot about the charisma of individual religious figures, which may be inspired by religious experience. Durkheim talked about the way that groups tend to worship totemic or symbolic objects. In his view, nationalism, loyalty to a military force, and a church congregation were all different manifestations of the same thing. Durkheim talked a lot about the experience of a group dedicated to the same ideals--which is definitely a form of religious experience; just not the individual, mystical sort of thing we have tended to focus on in the article. He wrote a book called The Elementary Forms of Religious Life that was very influential.

I don't know much about Eliade, except that he wrote a lot about myth and symbols, and elaborated a lot on the whole Sacred-Profane dichotomy (which I think came from Durkheim). He also talked about eternal return--which was the way sacred myths and rituals would bring the practitioner back to "mythic time"--a sort of state of mind where the myths of the past are re-enacted in the present, or outside of conventional time. I'm not sure if this helps for the article, but it's stuff we can think about.--Pariah (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientific views
First: I want to say a big thanks to Mateus Zica for taking the time to reorganize the article and add some significant content. I think it's important to have a section on scientific views of religious experience as well.

I have some small concerns about it, but I think they can be easily addressed. My worry is that science has a way of "explaining away" religious experiences, in a way that tends to invalidate them. Because of this, we need to cite the section carefully, and perhaps provide some counter-explanations from a religious standpoint (if we can find any), just to balance it out.

Other than that, keep doing what you're doing--the article is looking much better than before. Cheers,--Pariah (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I second these comments of appreciation towards Mateus Zica and must extend them to Pariah as well. The article is in fantastic shape. A Nip/Tuck-like "miracle."  I also share the worry of "explaining away" religious experience.  Though I can add that established religion often dismisses Religious experience as icing on the cake that is really quite unnecessary if not in childish taste. I think I have a source at any rate.  --Firefly322 (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a section that religious experience is seen as validating religious beliefs. Its view is different than the rest of the article.  It needs more P&Qs minded too (spelling is a little bad). My apologies. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also Charles Coulson as an example a modern scholar might be a little bit dated. I used a 1966 source. In time as my knowledge grows, I'll update it. My apologies if my contribution is not quite up to the standards set by Mateus Zica nd Pariah. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for words of appreciation, Firefly--and you are deserving of them as well. The section on validating religious belief goes a long way toward balancing the section on scientific views.  It seemed pretty good to me.  It's okay if the references are a little dated--you can always add more as you find them.  Overall, the section looks fine--so, no apologies are necessary :)--Pariah (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also--thanks again to Mateus for adding the new references to the scientific views section--Pariah (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

History Section
what about creating a section about the history of religious experience and the relationship of humans with it, from pre history to moderm times. What you think ?

--Mateus Zica (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's a very good idea, although it might be an equally large job. We would need lots of source material and cross-cultural examples.  I'll keep my eyes open for any specific examples to add.--Pariah (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Diagram of a Religious Experience
I have been bulding a diagram of a religious experience, to try to explain to some friends of mine about religious experience, and also to illustrate a wikibook i am Developing (on the Wikibooks of portuguese language : " Experiência religosa "). If you like it and want to use it anywhere, fell free to use.


 * 1 - The characteristics of the brain (eg: inteligente, emotional situation, etc)
 * 1.2 - The cultural background of the subject (eg: religous beliefs, worldview,etc)
 * 2 - The technique used to have a religious experience (eg: Meditation,Praying,Chanting,etc)
 * 3 - Substance or equipament used to have a religious experience (eg: Entheogens,stimulation of the brain with magnetic fields,etc ) (picture used : a Dimethyltryptamine chemical compound)
 * 4 - A particular religious experience
 * 5 - Permanent changes in the brain after the religious experience (eg: changes in moral values,changes in religious views,changes in the meaning of life,etc)
 * 5.1 - Descritions of a religious experience (eg: writing of description of religious experiences, or description passed thru talking)
 * 5.2 - Point of view of the religious experience the subject had (eg: "it was a encounter of Jesus", "i had a union with god",etc)

--Mateus Zica (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)