5 ms·

I don't want my scientists talking about "sacred knowledge." To me that points to a problem with psychedelics.

by mbrock 11y ago

enkephalin 11y ago
i see it as just being a catchy title for a book about "Psychedelics and Religious Experiences".
- mbrock 11y ago
  For a scientist, it's a very provocative title. Sacred knowledge is exactly what science isn't.
vtbg 11y ago
I understand your response, and think it is good (even scientific) to keep an open mind - fire was once seen as magic too.
- mbrock 11y ago
  Yeah... back before science... I don't have an open mind about sacredness or God being scientific concepts. That doesn't mean I'm closed-minded, as psychonauts like to imply. I'm just wary about scientists veering into this mystical, religious, shamanistic stance.
  - pantalaimon 11y ago
    I think the misunderstanding is based on the use of words that are already 'loaded' with meaning, as sago pointed out quite well in another comment. The point is that those experiences are real and have always been a part of the human condition. There is nothing supernatural about this, nothing bending the realms of physics. It's all about psychology and how things 'feel', how consciousness works and how it goes beyond the single individual in a group setting. All that mystical language imho is due to a lack of better words.
sago 11y ago
Religious studies is a secular, academic discipline. Your concern over words like 'sacred' is a function of living in a cuture where apologists and evangelists dominate such language. It isn't a necessary indicator that there's a problem when such language is used. Entheogen might mean 'generating god within' from a rather naive and reductionist translation of the greek, but in the field it has a more specific meaning relating to the use of a substance in a ritual context. Entheogens, and using them in not-ritual contexts to try to replicate experiences reported by ritual participants, is interesting and broadly scientific. Religions are and have been wildly popular structures for guiding and interpreting subjective experiences, and in many cases the framework for pre-scientific medicine and mental health care. It is interesting to ask what kind of mental states they are better at generating and what effects those have. To study that is not to admit that the religion has the right story of why those experiences arise and what they mean. We can ask what the religious experience of 'transcendence' is and how it is induced and what is happening in the brain without buying into the idea that it is an experience of oneness with the infinity of the divine consciousness (or whatever story any particular user wants to tell). Such an explanation might be significant, without being true. In the same way one can study the stories and language and behavior of a pyramid scheme without giving credit to its claims. If you've been bashed over the head with apologetics or evangelism, it can be hard to tune into the use of the language in a more rigorous context, but it has meaning and is not unscientific. Though there is, of course, room for an argument over how much any social science or field of psychology is 'real' science. "Sacred knowledge" is neither meaningless, oxymoronic, nor mystical. Any more than a discussion of "Erotic knowledge" in the context of sex-research would be. I'm reading this book at the moment, and so far it seems very good. Even the bit quoted about Jung is handled with more reasonableness than the article suggests (though I'm not sure I agree, yet).
- mbrock 11y ago
  Well, I'm very interested in religion, religious experiences, anthropology, and all this stuff. That's different from a psychologist, in his role within the scientific medical community, talking about "sacred medicine" and "sacred knowledge." I might read the book... but I'm still wary of scientists starting to use religious/mystical/visionary language.

I don't want my scientists talking about "sacred knowledge." To me that points to a problem with psychedelics.

by mbrock 11y ago

I don't want my scientists talking about "sacred knowledge." To me that points to a problem with psychedelics.

enkephalin 11y ago

i see it as just being a catchy title for a book about "Psychedelics and Religious Experiences".

mbrock 11y ago
For a scientist, it's a very provocative title. Sacred knowledge is exactly what science isn't.

vtbg 11y ago

I understand your response, and think it is good (even scientific) to keep an open mind - fire was once seen as magic too.

mbrock 11y ago
Yeah... back before science... I don't have an open mind about sacredness or God being scientific concepts. That doesn't mean I'm closed-minded, as psychonauts like to imply. I'm just wary about scientists veering into this mystical, religious, shamanistic stance.
- pantalaimon 11y ago
  I think the misunderstanding is based on the use of words that are already 'loaded' with meaning, as sago pointed out quite well in another comment. The point is that those experiences are real and have always been a part of the human condition. There is nothing supernatural about this, nothing bending the realms of physics. It's all about psychology and how things 'feel', how consciousness works and how it goes beyond the single individual in a group setting. All that mystical language imho is due to a lack of better words.

sago 11y ago

Religious studies is a secular, academic discipline. Your concern over words like 'sacred' is a function of living in a cuture where apologists and evangelists dominate such language. It isn't a necessary indicator that there's a problem when such language is used. Entheogen might mean 'generating god within' from a rather naive and reductionist translation of the greek, but in the field it has a more specific meaning relating to the use of a substance in a ritual context. Entheogens, and using them in not-ritual contexts to try to replicate experiences reported by ritual participants, is interesting and broadly scientific. Religions are and have been wildly popular structures for guiding and interpreting subjective experiences, and in many cases the framework for pre-scientific medicine and mental health care. It is interesting to ask what kind of mental states they are better at generating and what effects those have. To study that is not to admit that the religion has the right story of why those experiences arise and what they mean. We can ask what the religious experience of 'transcendence' is and how it is induced and what is happening in the brain without buying into the idea that it is an experience of oneness with the infinity of the divine consciousness (or whatever story any particular user wants to tell). Such an explanation might be significant, without being true. In the same way one can study the stories and language and behavior of a pyramid scheme without giving credit to its claims. If you've been bashed over the head with apologetics or evangelism, it can be hard to tune into the use of the language in a more rigorous context, but it has meaning and is not unscientific. Though there is, of course, room for an argument over how much any social science or field of psychology is 'real' science. "Sacred knowledge" is neither meaningless, oxymoronic, nor mystical. Any more than a discussion of "Erotic knowledge" in the context of sex-research would be. I'm reading this book at the moment, and so far it seems very good. Even the bit quoted about Jung is handled with more reasonableness than the article suggests (though I'm not sure I agree, yet).

mbrock 11y ago
Well, I'm very interested in religion, religious experiences, anthropology, and all this stuff. That's different from a psychologist, in his role within the scientific medical community, talking about "sacred medicine" and "sacred knowledge." I might read the book... but I'm still wary of scientists starting to use religious/mystical/visionary language.