Is There a God? Go Ask Alice

David Koepsell wrote the following article in The Free Inquiry magazine:

A recent study conducted at Johns Hopkins sought to explain the neurological effects of psilocybin, the active ingredient in the Psilocybe genus of mushrooms. While millions of amateur researchers have been investigating the subjective effects of so-called magic mushrooms for decades, and they've been used in Native American ritual for perhaps thousands of years, the psychopharmacological studies conducted by the researchers were intended to explore the potential therapeutic use and effect of the drug. Such studies have been conducted before, including significant studies in the sixties and seventies regarding the use of another popular compound, MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly known as ecstasy), in psychotherapy. Of course, these studies have typically been frowned upon in the context of the ongoing and largely fruitless "war on drugs"-which is why, perhaps, the latest results have been cast in the light of "spirituality."

The investigators of the magic mushrooms took pains to couch their findings in the language of spirituality, describing the effects as a "full mystical experience." Researchers also noted that a good majority of the subjects used in the study described feelings of well-being that lasted for months after they ingested the drug. About a quarter of the subjects, however, experienced depression, anxiety, and other negative effects. Nonetheless, the study offers interesting promise for potential therapeutic uses of psilocybin, or at least for considerable further study. Two things are striking about this study: the language used by researchers in describing the results and the rather odd reaction from some theologians.

Naturally, the notion that mystical experiences could be chemically induced threatens those believers who insist that direct experience of a deity is not simply a brain state. Linking supernatural or spiritual events to natural causes (rather than vice versa) undermines theology. This is perhaps why, in reaction to the results of the study, some theologians felt it necessary to alert people that magic mushrooms are not the ticket to a bona fide religious experience: "All this did was stimulate that part of the human personality that produced certain feeling states and altered states of consciousness," said theologian Dave Reed, a professor at the University of Toronto. "Those are no criteria for an authentic encounter with God" (CBC News, July 12, 2006).

Of course, we are left to ponder what would qualify as an "authentic" encounter with God, given that accounts of such encounters from saints and prophets are generally as trippy as those of your average stoner. Take, for example, the words of St. Teresa of Avila, who wrote in The Interior Castle that, during her mystical experiences, the soul "is utterly dead to the things of the world, and lives solely in God . . . I do not know whether in this state she has enough life left to breathe. It seems to me she has not; or at least that if she does breathe, she is unaware of it." What did she eat for lunch, do you suppose?

In fact, mystical experiences are not uncommon. The naturalist philosopher/psychologist William James described some common elements such experiences often share. He was also known to induce them chemically in experiments on himself. The common elements he noticed were: (1) ineffability: they involve emotive rather than intellectual components and are difficult to describe or understand; (2) noetic quality: they involve a transcendence of time and space; (3) transiency: they ebb and flow quickly and cannot be held onto for long; and finally (4) passivity: the experiencer is overcome, swept up in the state beyond control and beyond exertion of his or her will.

Neuroscience has actually shown a number of ways in which these experiences can be induced, including by electromagnetic fields and low-oxygen environments, in connection with which near-death experiences are also routinely noted. It is thus surprising that the scientists associated with the study felt compelled to back off any conclusions regarding the applicability of their study to a scientific understanding of the weight of the evidence for the existence of God based upon chemically induced mystical experiences: "We're just measuring what can be observed," said Roland Griffiths . . . who led the study. "We're not entering into 'Does God exist or not exist.' This work can't and won't go there" (CBC News, ibid.).

In fact, isn't one of the obvious conclusions of this and similar studies that mystical experiences are chemically or environmentally induced brain states and that no alleged encounter with God can be deemed any more or less authentic than ones brought about by hallucinogenic drugs or a lack of oxygen to the brain? A fair and honest path of further exploration, based upon this and other similar studies, would be to delve into the neurochemical basis for all mystical experiences, even so-called authentic ones, rather than to dismiss automatically, without such study, the potential that all experiences of this sort arise from brain states.

What seems likely at this stage, because of the potential of such studies to undermine traditional mystical theology and our nation's aversion to legitimizing therapeutic uses of drugs that are commonly abused, nothing further will come of this study, despite its interesting promise. In the meantime, we should feel comfortable with some preliminary confirmation of a thesis many of us hold: that mystical experiences do in fact occur, that they are completely naturalistically based, and that there is no basis to view those occurring in convents or seminaries as any more legitimate than those that occurred on the corner of Haight and Ashbury back in its heyday.

David Koepsell is the executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism and an assistant research professor at the University at


11 comments:

Anonymous said...

The basis is actually a criteria.

Valerie said...

"All this did was stimulate that part of the human personality that produced certain feeling states and altered states of consciousness."

What's interesting about this comment is that this may be exactly what all religious experiences do. The magazine "Science and Spirit" had an article a while back discussing traditional religious architecture including the fact that very high ceilings create a sense of spacial disorientation (managed by the cerebellum?) that is associated with feelings of wonder. It can be replicated in non-religious settings of similar proportions.

Similarly, we have lots of information about the way that religious services have evolved to take advantage of hypnotic techniques including chant, incense, rhythm, and repetition. We know how they take advantage of group process. We know how they take advantage of popular culture. (Like hypnosis, an optimal level of familiarity reduces critical thinking and increases comfort.) We know how they leverage the part of the human psyche that projects other human minds into the world (see Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer.)

The fact that psilocybens produce these experiences chemically rather than mechanically has little bearing on their ultimate significance. When feelings of transcendence are produced by mechanical means (cathedrals, recitation, repetition, glossolalia, hypnotic induction) these stimuli are then producing mediating chemical changes in the brain. At the level of brain chemistry we're all on drugs all the time.

Benny said...

Thanks, Lee, for a fascinating read :) Though I do wish the article linked to the original study. Here's a bit more info on the methodology employed in the study:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/07_11_06.html

Benny said...

Sorry John, I meant to thank you, not Lee (haven't had my morning coffee yet).

maybeitsnonsense said...

i have had chemically induced mystical experiences- some good and some terrible- I have also had mystical experience that were not 'chemically induced' The funny thing is that once I became a 'christian' I discredited the 'chemically induced' experiences- this is because drugs are 'bad' and cause you to think and see unreal things- hmmm- interesting. I would like to have more information on studies that valerie is talking about---

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
maybeitsnonsense said...

it can be said - athiesm is not based on a 'experience'- therefore in comparison to a mystical experience it would not be chemically induced- this blog is talking about "the experience" and provides another explanation to those that claim to have a "genuine encounter" with a living god-

but then again-all thoughts are chemical- so it can be said in this way -athiesm and all beliefs are chemically induced.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lekatt said...

Mainly interested in your take on near death experiences. I have been studying NDEs for over 20 years and can say no drug ever produced a real full-blown near death experience. The research now being done on NDEs by qualified scientific institutions show evidence that consciousness and brain are separate, and consciousness lives on after the death of the brain.

Here is a link to one of my articles: http://aleroy.com/FAQz02.htm

JC said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Down the old memory hole!

Hey, remember the book "1984" where Winston's friend the poet got put in a "re-education" camp because he left the word "God" at the end of a rhyme?

Thats where you'd take us if you could.