To my mind, what is commonly known as mystic experience may well fall under the domain of neuroscience. Properly understood, the visions of cosmic rapture might be grounded in the neurological wiring of our contemplative states. Already, science can artifically manipulate the brain to induce kaleidoscopic bursts of colour and fragrance and beauty and sound.
The mystic calls his forays into the frontiers of conciousness "God", I call mine synaptic firing. Same experience, different name. By what name you choose to call your psychic adventures is wholly contingent on what assumptions you bring to the table cave. Even so, the cathartic agency of meditation is not lost on me.
I agree. I am a naturalist too. I have mentioned on this forum before that I do not believe in anything supernatural at all. If something can be proven, it would be
natural. If someone wants to believe in an unprovable thing, they are free to do so. But I would hate to see people in positions of power basing their political decisions on (supposedly) supernatural beliefs, e.g. a president saying that God told him/her to invade that country, or that liquor stores and nightclubs are banned (as
debunker believes) etc. That's why believing a mystic without requiring proof is a dangerous route to go down, and letting them enter positions of power is even worse.
And I believe, (as you have eloquently pointed out above), that it's all brain activity. But for the sake of open-mindedness (as all scientists should be), let's at least give people like z10 a fair hearing.
To where has Z10 gone?
Teapot?
Thinkfree?
Has an asteroid struck? If so, can I have the approval of your ghost to bed your girlfriends? Thanks habeebee.
Well, you can have my girlfriend if you want, coz you're gonna find that she's as non-existent as the truth of the mystic's claims.