possibility of scientific proof of mystic states

It's clear the author has had no trans personal (mystical) experiences himself but his approach to mysticism is honest and the book lives up to it's name as "rational." He doesn't let skeptical ego-defenses impede his journalism too much. I read this 15 years ago though so it's been awhile. ( )

This is the book he actual wanted to write, picks up right where ' End of Science ' leaves off. Interesting if you've been following along with all this. ( )

My review of Rational Mysticism (including a rant on fundamentalism).

Just say "SO" (Little quote from Harry Shearer...):

So here’s the deal. I have been reading in comparative religions, mysticism, UFOs, Occult and paranormal phenomena since, basically, 1967. (Jeez. Almost 50 years).

John Horgan, in this book, presents the idea of enlightenment in this way: Basically, enlightenment can’t be understood (to which I say, “yep. Sho’ you right.”) But then he goes on to say that there are two possible ways to enlightenment, to wit: either you believe that it is realizing the ‘oneness’ of the self and the universe, or else it is being sceptical about the ‘oneness’ of the self and the universe.

It seems to me that Horgan (Mr.? Dr.?) has made the mistake of thinking that belief is required for enlightenment. To which I go, “Huh?” See, enlightenment has nothing at all to do with belief. Enlightenment is a state that it is possible for any human to reach, but the first step to getting there is to abandon belief. The universe does not conform itself to the belief systems of human beings. Enlightenment is a state of seeing (as Horgan seems to understand), and seeing what IS does not require belief.

What belief is for is modelling systems. This is the ladder. Set up a system and test it. If it rings true, there is most likely a problem. Find the problem and correct the belief system. Repeat. Belief is not a static principle. It is merely a way to keep track of where one is while advancing to the state of oneness with the universe.

I always operate from the principle that if an elderly scientist says something is possible, he is very probably right. If he says something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. (Arthur C. Clarke)

To any fundamentalists who might see this (Rant on fundamentalism starts here):

All I would like is freedom from fundamentalists (of whatever stripe). I think of fundamentalism as a religion separate from Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and all the others. Fundamentalists belong to the religion that is based exclusively on fear and lies. They lie about what religion they are, they lie about what the holy texts say and what they mean, they discriminate against anybody who doesn't believe their lies and they kill people because they see them as threats to their religion.

What sane religion is practiced in this fashion? Fundamentalism is a twisted, psychotic parody of religion that pulls people in by brainwashing them and convinces them through fear that any crime is justifiable if it furthers the belief system.

I say Fundamentalism is a separate religion from all the religions that seek truth, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I say all Fundamentalists belong to the same religion: the one that is like a wolf in sheep's clothing. The one that disguises itself as something other than it is. The one that is based on lies and fear and that kills people in the name of belief.

I say Fundamentalism is faith-based evil. It is part of the axis of terrorism. ( )

This is the book he actual wanted to write, picks up right where ' End of Science ' leaves off. Interesting if you've been following along with all this. ( )