3 ms·

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 Je

by wahern 6y ago

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.

pmoriarty 6y ago
"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?
- wahern 6y ago
  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."
  - sebmellen 6y ago
    > 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.

by wahern 6y ago

pmoriarty 6y ago

"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?

wahern 6y ago
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."
- sebmellen 6y ago
  > 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.