The Religious Experience: Its Production and Interpretation

Leary, Timothy

doi:10.1080/02791072.1970.10471364

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Psychedelic drugs are claimed to have the potential to induce profoundly spiritual or mystical experiences (e.g., Bakalar, 1985;Hasler et al, 2004;Hofmann, 1983;Horgan, 2003;Huxley, 1956;Maslow, 1964;Leary, 1965;Pahnke, 1966;Shanon, 2003;Strassman, 2001;Watts, 1965).…”

Section: Psychedelic Drug Usersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Values and Beliefs of Psychedelic Drug Users: A Cross-Cultural Study

Lerner

Lyvers

2006

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Psychedelic Drug Usersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Values and Beliefs of Psychedelic Drug Users: A Cross-Cultural Study

Lerner

Lyvers

2006

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Rather, a study by Timothy Leary (1964) indicated that the likelihood of a drug experience being described as a religious experience correlated with the religious context of drug use. Studies of drug use in this form eventually became illegal and were followed by a quite different approach to exploring altered states using sensory-deprivation tanks.…”

Section: Religion On the Brainmentioning

confidence: 96%

Mysterium Tremendum

Peterson

2002

Zygon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, interest in the scientific basis of religious experience has resurged. In particular, research and publications by V. S. Ramachandran and by Eugene d'Aquili and Andrew Newberg have sparked considerable curiosity and debate over the reality and basis of religious experience. This article puts such research into a broader context and examines the extent to which scientific research supports or undermines particular religious and theological claims. I argue that such experiments show that religious experience has some biological basis and is not simply a product of cultural suggestion. At the same time, such experiences are not completely self-interpreting, so that cultural context, including theological claims, are needed to make sense of such experiences. By itself, scientific research does not prove or disprove the reality of religious experiences generally, but it does shape how we think of the possibilities and interpretations of such experiences.In the fall of 1997, neuroscientist V. S. Ramachandran presented a research paper claiming that certain kinds of religious experience originated in the temporal lobe of the brain. While Ramachandran's observations were careful and tentative, the claim that there existed a "God-spot" in the brain was quickly picked up by the press and circulated nationally. The implications seemed profound, but they could be taken in two ways. For

show abstract

“…For example, one of Timothy Leary's most famous experiments involved giving LSD to people as part of their psychotherapy (Leary 1964). Seventy-four of the study participants received therapy in a completely secular context, while another ninety-six received therapy in setting that included religious imagery and other religious references.…”

Section: Sense Making and Mystical Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Religious Practice, Brain, and Belief

Livingston¹

2005

J Cogn Cult

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is a common assertion that there is a fundamental epistemological divide between religious and secular ways of knowing. The claim is that knowledge of the sacred rests on faith, while knowledge of the natural world rests on the evidence of our senses. A review of both the psychological and the neurophysiological literatures suggests, to the contrary, that for many people, religious experiences provide powerful reasons to believe in the supernatural. Examples are given from reports of mystical or transcendent experiences to show that those experiences are taken as evidence in support of religious belief, both by those who have the experiences, and by those who are connected in various ways to the believer. A large body of research shows that such experiences can be linked directly to particular neurophysiological events, but it is argued that this is not sufficient to support a simple reductionist analysis. Studies are described that make it clear that anomalous experiences do not become meaningful until interpreted through the lens of prior belief, and that existing religious doctrine is the most common source of that interpretive framework. It is argued that religious systems tend to promote practices that increase the likelihood of religious experiences that are easily interpreted as evidence in support of core beliefs of the tradition. There is thus an evolving synergy between the experienced and the doctrinal, but it is a synergy that is at bottom supported by ordinary processes of induction and deduction, operating on distinctive kinds of evidence. Faith is to believe what we do not see; and the reward of faith is to see what we believe.St. Augustine There is only one religion, though there are hundreds of versions of it.

show abstract

The Religious Experience: Its Production and Interpretation

Cited by 10 publications

References 3 publications

Values and Beliefs of Psychedelic Drug Users: A Cross-Cultural Study

Values and Beliefs of Psychedelic Drug Users: A Cross-Cultural Study

Mysterium Tremendum

Religious Practice, Brain, and Belief

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About