-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Spirituality of the Nexus!
- Thread starter ACTG
- Start date
The reason why putting the experience of God into words is so ineffable is because God and the concepts that come with it are largely right brain phenomena where your brain processes the experience as wholes instead of analytically dissecting them into it's components. Whereas the left brain process 3 connected lines as 3 lines, the right brain runs different processing that shows them as a triangle. Being that adults tend to be left brain dominant where the left hemisphere develops faster than the right following the acquisition of language, it is very hard to break down the concepts into individual words. It is best processed as a whole experience which words would fall short on because it deals with an ontologically odd category for left hemispherical processing.
Citta said:
Pardon my intrusion into this intriguing conversation, but I feel that some experiences human beings have cannot be aptly put into the objective construct of the human language. After all, epiphanies are subjective, as is reality.
I honestly don't sense that joedirt is intentionally being diffusive or mysterious. On the contrary and IMO, by not speaking of this spiritual communion as if it were a logical ideology or scientific formula, I suspect he is expressing volumes about HOW one gains insight into such realms of Omniscient being (but I wouldn't dare feel I properly interpret his statements, as I respect him far too much).
And we can only access rationale enough to process through our usual mentality and cognitive functions, when our mind is back into it's routine conditioning and the realm of the known. Reason is a vital part of forming our world view and coalescing our ideas about the material multiverse... but one must use the appropriate region of specificity, within the brain, to perceive the Insubstantial Essence. Sound like a reasonable hypothesis?
Lao Tzu said:
We can describe our impressions of certain aspects of our spiritual insights and resulting cosmology, but when one goes into immersion with the Spirit... there is no conceptual formatting, no definitive quantification, no pragmatic analysis. The mind stops and awareness blossoms exponentially. Or as gibran2 so beautifully says, it "blooms".
I am personally, frequently caught in the age-old, catch 22 of attempting to REMEMBER just what such an expanded state of being is like, when I am once more compressed into my ordinary mode of thinking. Frankly, I don't currently feel compressed but from THAT state of mind expansion, I certainly am.
So, other than presenting conceptual shadows of this transcendental level of awareness, how does one encapsulate the infinite nature of the Divine into a rational philosophy? All attempts are mere echoes and reflections of the immediacy of the spiritual immersion.
We can witness it within ourselves, merge into it depth, become shattered by it's immeasurable power... but we cannot turn it into a logical equation, which can be understood by any other beings. Unless of course, they have likewise been in the fulcrum of such an eclipsing. Then it does becomes so obvious and self-evident in all we hold as most Sacred and intuitively FEEL all around us, in the natural balance of things. :idea:
Louis Armstrong on Jazz said:
I think trying to fit our beliefs and understandings... opinions on matters cosmic and whatnot, into a narrow label is rather impossible, and somewhat of a disservice.
I suppose, though, if I had to point to one of the major philosophical "isms" that deal with religious conception, I would probably be close to a panentheist. Simple pantheism or even pandeism don't quite dovetail with my experiences, though I went through some phases where I thought more along those lines.
At any rate, panentheism kind of captures the flavor of what entheogens seem to be showing me. I suppose it is not accidental that they both have the en - theo thing going. I suppose the pan part is not all that necessary, and it seems much more infinite and multidimensional to me than most people talk about when they discuss pantheism or panentheism. For me, as vast and incredible as our material universe appears to be... it is only a miniscule fraction of an infinitely vaster multiverse full of infinite parallel and alternate dimensions. All of this, with all the timelines, and all the space within which this all occurs, is not only conscious and self aware, but this consciousness is omnipresent. IMHO.
Calling it entheism alone, however, would seem to imply that it was a religious belief solely based on entheogenic use... which my philosophy and mystical experience is certainly not. Perhaps I should call my religious understanding omni-entheism.
Anyway, I clicked other.
I suppose, though, if I had to point to one of the major philosophical "isms" that deal with religious conception, I would probably be close to a panentheist. Simple pantheism or even pandeism don't quite dovetail with my experiences, though I went through some phases where I thought more along those lines.
At any rate, panentheism kind of captures the flavor of what entheogens seem to be showing me. I suppose it is not accidental that they both have the en - theo thing going. I suppose the pan part is not all that necessary, and it seems much more infinite and multidimensional to me than most people talk about when they discuss pantheism or panentheism. For me, as vast and incredible as our material universe appears to be... it is only a miniscule fraction of an infinitely vaster multiverse full of infinite parallel and alternate dimensions. All of this, with all the timelines, and all the space within which this all occurs, is not only conscious and self aware, but this consciousness is omnipresent. IMHO.
Calling it entheism alone, however, would seem to imply that it was a religious belief solely based on entheogenic use... which my philosophy and mystical experience is certainly not. Perhaps I should call my religious understanding omni-entheism.
Anyway, I clicked other.
DeMenTed said:
For many of us, the existence of the universe itself, is more than enough proof. Logically speaking, nothing so magnificent as life could feasibly be the product of some mysteriously created random chaos. Created from what? By whom was it willfully initiated? I propose that the concept of creation itself, may have some inherently tragic flaws. It's just such so linear and relative to human thought, as a hypothesis. Existence has likely always been, an eternity in the making. :idea:
I do agree that the old "God" of anthropomorphic deification, is a product of our human need for fabricating the self-projected concept of a Supreme Being, to mirror and reflect as a polarity to the individuated mind and self (doing the analysis). Paradoxically, God/Spirit/Tao is what everything manifest or unmanifest, is quintessentially composed of, an unbroken field of being. IMO, God is what we all are in essence, interconnected by the power which holds within it's Omniscience, all the interwoven layers of mind and thought.
Adding to that, heightened states of awareness facilitate the enhanced capacity to perceive the force of this Sacred presence, despite it's innate immateriality. It is a purely subjective region of perception, however, so the whole proof issue is inapplicable. Suffice it to say, that regardless of this fact, our species has touched the Divine within themselves, lo these many millenniums passing by. History is resplendent with affirmations of this nature.
Spirit is something quite immanent, if one attunes to it's presence. For those who have exercised their receptivity and trained their intent to pierce through the membrane of this material illusion, this dream within a dream, it is most "obvious" to see. It has to do with a profound shift in consciousness. :shock:
That's just my opinion and I respect yours. Arguably, when each of us passes into our final mortal demise, we shall each see for ourselves, eh? Then, the ego-death we face under the force of psychedelics, will pale in comparison. I un-waveringly believe that I will merge within the Light of the Divine, my source and core of being.
I guess I believe in God - that being me, you, next doors cat, Saturn, dark matter, grains of sand, pizzas, good, evil - EVERYTHING is part of God, even the stuff we cannot sense with our puny human senses...
But, I am open to my beliefs changing... belief is the death of reason after all...
But, I am open to my beliefs changing... belief is the death of reason after all...
DeMenTed said:
If God is only the invention and not the inventor, who then invented God?
Perhaps he is both inventor and invention? Or as the Kabbalah phrases it: Creator and creation?
As for proof...well I humble offer you, DeMenTed, as the only proof you need!
What are you? Try to answer that question with as much detail as possible.
Peace
how can you have an all pervasive god without that resulting in an animistic universe?
I have never understood the idea of pantheism, or monotheism without both of them implying the existance of the other one, as well as the reality of animism.
It is all about levels..if you can see that you realize that to say the universe in pantheistic, or monotheistic is to have a sort of tunnel vision. Animism is one level, pantheism in another level..if you look at the universe on another level where everything is interconnected than you can call that level monotheism.
I have never understood the idea of pantheism, or monotheism without both of them implying the existance of the other one, as well as the reality of animism.
It is all about levels..if you can see that you realize that to say the universe in pantheistic, or monotheistic is to have a sort of tunnel vision. Animism is one level, pantheism in another level..if you look at the universe on another level where everything is interconnected than you can call that level monotheism.
ewok said:
That question IMO is limited by logic. I dont believe in a fundamentally logical universe..I just dont. There is nothing at all logical about the idea of a logical universe..there is not even anything logical about anything existing in the first place. Logic and rationality seem to be things that come after the fact. They dont explain everything and probably never will.
Parshvik Chintan
Rising Star
be specific, support your answer.joedirt said:What are you? Try to answer that question with as much detail as possible.
uhh no. there is a big difference between what you said and what I said. It is WAY too easy to claim that man invented god..I mean come on. That is such a frakin cop out. Some aspects of what people call god people did seem to invent. The idea of a god head as the sum of everything in the universe is a concept of something larger and older than man..man just gave that concept the name "god"..it was not convieved consciously until we concieved of it(unless other intelligences have) and was not named..but I mean..do you want to also argue that man invented the earth too because we called it "earth" and labled it a celestial body called a "planet"?
Man invented the teacup, even if in the end you want to claim that the tea cup was manifested by "god" through the hand of man..you can still trace history back to the moment when mans hand shaped the teacup.
You cannot trace history back to the time when the essence of the thing people try to explain by calling "god" came into being, if it exists at all. That is the difference.
Man invented the teacup, even if in the end you want to claim that the tea cup was manifested by "god" through the hand of man..you can still trace history back to the moment when mans hand shaped the teacup.
You cannot trace history back to the time when the essence of the thing people try to explain by calling "god" came into being, if it exists at all. That is the difference.
Citta, if you really want to make the point that somehow the universe is fundamentally logical, can you prove it?
Can you exlplain to me in what way the very phenomenon of a thing just simply existing is logical? What is logical about a multiverse just being there? How is that logical?
As far as I can tell, logic is something that humans invented as a tool to navigate rationality..which seems to be a function of the cosmos that appears within it's confines..but there is nothing that points to the idea of a cosmos just being there in the first place as a rational or logical thing to have happened. All we know is that it is there..are you saying that it just goes on and on and on and so the rationality of the things goes on as well? That would imply some sort of infinity loop, which again is not a rational or logical idea.
Can you exlplain to me in what way the very phenomenon of a thing just simply existing is logical? What is logical about a multiverse just being there? How is that logical?
As far as I can tell, logic is something that humans invented as a tool to navigate rationality..which seems to be a function of the cosmos that appears within it's confines..but there is nothing that points to the idea of a cosmos just being there in the first place as a rational or logical thing to have happened. All we know is that it is there..are you saying that it just goes on and on and on and so the rationality of the things goes on as well? That would imply some sort of infinity loop, which again is not a rational or logical idea.
Citta said:
Citta, Citta, Citta... whose logic is flawed here? I humbly submit that jamie is being unabashedly honest in his insightful assessments. I find his statement meaningful and very, very intelligent. Firstly, there is no consensus that humankind invented the Great Spirit. Such thinking is the knee-jerk reaction Atheists project upon those who believe in a "spiritual" level of consciousness, which is perceived directly by some, blindly believed-in by others and clinically denied by still others. Frankly, sometimes I wonder of the universal mind would even understand an iota of what we humans occupy our consciousness with. Must we always be caught in a game of circular logic?
Secondly and most assuredly, we humanoids invented the concept of a Divine supraconsciousness but that is not the same thing as what you challenged, and you must know this is as factual. That being said, we human life forms conceptualize about everything and for that matter, nothingness, as well.
While I hesitate to put words into joedirt's or jamie's mouths, for such would be rude and potentially erroneous to proceed with. So, I do have need to pause and center my thoughts; empty myself of preconceptions, for the greater good of free and open discussion (and hopefully, impartiality). I am nearly certain, however, that they are emphatically articulating the idea that where one to view the universe/multiverse, which we have come to believe we do understand, through the lens of reason and reason alone... we err in judgement.
Why so? Because, as has been so eloquently spoken by these wonderful folks, so much of this phenomenon, EXISTENCE, does not comply to rational deduction, nor the safety-zone of logical thought process. Would that it were so easily grasped!
For example, going back to Philosophy 101, we might examine the greatest riddles which so perpetually evade our reasoning mind. Why does anything exist? Why does self awareness or if you will, CONSCIOUSNESS itself, even exist? What can be realistically be understood of such an enormous and simultaneously, microscopic structure of being, existing in parallel universes of their own? Reason cannot explain what is beyond the boundary of it's specialization. Why should it? Must everything, nothing and the balance between these polarities be perceivable through the lens we have a predisposition towards? we need to open all of our eyes and tap into all of our resources in awareness.
And IMO and it is but an opinion, after all... is that the reality of the Divine is not nearly so simple to force into conceptual formatting, as fabricating a teacup from clay, applying glaze and firing the cup in a kiln. Far greater minds than ours have been inspired, confounded, frustrated and just plain in awe of the immensity of what has been attributed to being the "causative force" which initiated quantum fluctuation.
I do honestly agree with many of my close Atheist friends, for us to project the anthropomorphic parameters of an Almighty and distant God, as our source and eventual eternal abode, is equally born of our predilection for humanly understood conceptualization.
At the risk of appearing offensive, I sincerely believe that to gain any ground in this region of thought, we must set aside unresponsive tools for such deep and mysterious inquiries. By "unresponsive tools" I strongly imply that there are useful tools within the human mind, which can and do explain (or at least touch, feel and instinctually sense many of these primary existential issues). To see is to know and one cannot see if one's thinking mind is not stilled and tamed into reposed submission. Said "tools" are born of a lifetime of self inquiry, contemplation, discipline and deep meditation. :idea:
My advice, although I suspect you are not eagerly receptive to such advice... keep your rational nature in check, when directing your mind towards the absolute. Reserve it for scientific and unarguably materialistic thought, where it makes much more sense. Deal with spiritual questions with your intuition and by so doing, access another level of understanding, altogether. How does a monkey, no matter how clever it fancies itself, compress the endless expanse of Infinity into our primitive brain wave pattern?
It's grossly presumptuous for our sentient, earthly logicians, a ridiculously small fraction of the life forms of this immeasurable cosmos, to project their tiny rationale upon what is light years beyond the limits of organically born individual mind. :?
Paradoxically, we can under unique experiences break through the membrane of mortal thought and taste the eternal. NDE, OBE, psychedelic experiences and that miraculous and oh so spontaneous dawning, our intentionally programmed re-birthing... thus facilitating enough of a glimpse into "enlightenment", that we are never the same again. These experiences, which so shatters the accumulation of our conditioning, that we are emptied by the power of the process.
Many souls consciously merge into immersion within this current of living Omniscience. If we bring our incessant thinking about this and that reason for things... to a state of sublime repose, we are capable of perceiving an exponentially expanded perception of our existential paradigm.
By opening up our perception and emptying ourselves of all of these rigid and frankly, demanding ideas, we become privy to some of the interconnection which unites all of this stuff into an Omniscience. When we each take a good long look at this miracle of life... and perhaps, take an even longer look into yourself. There is more to all of these miraculous planes of experience than ideological quantification and the tired-old compunction for reasonable measurements, which we insist must be applied to the nature of God/Spirit/Tao.
It is my hope that when our greater collective sees that we can never prove the reality of a spiritual current, running throughout all that exists and having it's own existential life, in the insubstantiality of the Void. We might see this life as Sacred and truly, a gift from this Universal Field of Energy/Being/Consciousness.
Peace, Love & Light
To answer some of the things said above. I think what it is about god is that us as a human race still seem to think that the universe revolves around us. We place way too much importance on our own existance. Life is probably teaming in the universe and we are just a small part of that.
To say that the universe is proof of a creator is nonsense. We can say we are all part of a supernatural spiritual consciousness but that again is just trying to make us more important than we probably really are. We are simple evolved monkeys with one hell of an imagination ;0 peace.
To say that the universe is proof of a creator is nonsense. We can say we are all part of a supernatural spiritual consciousness but that again is just trying to make us more important than we probably really are. We are simple evolved monkeys with one hell of an imagination ;0 peace.
Although to clear things up a bit, i do think when we die we will join some sort of spiritual superhighway, whatever that is lol.
I do believe that we as a consciousness i.e our souls are immortal, we have always been and always will be but the idea of a an omnipotent superbeing creating life itself just doesn't do it for me. Life always has been and always will be, whether its in spiritual form or nuts and bolts form
I do believe that we as a consciousness i.e our souls are immortal, we have always been and always will be but the idea of a an omnipotent superbeing creating life itself just doesn't do it for me. Life always has been and always will be, whether its in spiritual form or nuts and bolts form
joedirt said:
Rising Spirit said:
jamie said:
DeMenTed said:
Well said, guys. Perhaps you monkey beings do have some inkling of things?
Citta
Skepdick
Rising Spirit & jamie:
Woah, I triggered some responses with that post it would seem. I am not going to use the quote button to chop up your posts, I hope that is okay (it's so much work and I have to get to my studies asap).
Yup, I was being unreasonable when I compared God with a teacup, I can see that and I apologize for coming out like that. I guess I was making a point about the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic God and the attributes he is generally assigned. I get caught up in that sometimes, but my point still stands when addressed to this type of God (and you said yourself jamie that some aspects of God is clearly invented, and this is it). However, I understand that this is not really what we're talking about, so my teacup comparison is flawed. Let's leave that on the shelf, and jamie, I hope you accept my apologies for being an arse just for the sake of argument. What my post did do, though, was to motivate a few good and interesting posts, so it wasn't so bad after all seen from that perspective.
Clearly there is a sacred dimension to our existence, and there is no doubt that most of us have emotional and spiritual needs that are now addressed terribly for many people through mainstream religion. I understand that these are needs that a mere understanding of our world, scientific or otherwise, can't necessarily and adequately fullfill. These needs do not, however, require faith in untestable propositions - or that is at least my opinion on the matter. I realize again that this is mostly relevant to traditional concepts of God and faith in him therein, but it applies also to spirituality and mysticism.
To address our spiritual needs, to even have profound spiritual experiences, one need not believe in anything on insufficient evidence, only perhaps that a specific technique of meditation, or the ingestion of hallucinogenic drugs, are able to open one up to them. My general concern is that terms like "spiritual" and "mystical" are not only used to make claims about the quality of certain experiences, but also to make unfounded claims about the nature of the cosmos. For example, the fact that one can lose ones self and have it dissolve into an ocean of experience and tranquility - something I have experienced before and keep trying to experience - does not, by default, mean or even lend any credence to the fact that consciousness must be immaterial or that it presided over the birth of the universe. Yet many people with these experiences start believing that this must be so, and yet worse claim that it is so, and that is not unproblematic. Indeed, even "wise mystics" have realized that these experiences does not confer existential status to its contents, but have simply learned to enjoy the value and joy inherent in the experiences themselves without having to construct metaphysical belief-systems. This is what I do, and it makes my life more fullfilled and enjoyable, and I can appreciate the profound mystery of existence just as much as any other mystic or spiritual person without believing anything unfounded.
It is simply an ontological fallacy to believe that ones own experience in mystical states have anything to say about objective reality, or shall I say the nature of the cosmos. That they can inform us about the nature of our minds, however, I do not doubt. Furthermore, while I do not want to say that what one experiences need be false, as it certainly can be possible that it is true outside ones own subjective experiences, it is problematic to leave reason and rational inquiry behind because people make all sorts of different claims about the nature of the cosmos on the basis of their experiences. We have no way to control or to address which one of these propositions are correct without unbiased and controlled scientific inquiry, and even then it can be difficult depending on what the propositions are. Therefore, I simply can't be sure that what I experience is absolutely real outside the confines of my own subjective experiences - I can't make claims on the basis of these experiences in intellectual honesty, and I can't reject the possibility that what I experience could be a false representation of reality.
Neuroscience also seems to have something to inform us about these experiences and why they feel as if they are actually uncovering genuine facts about the nature of the cosmos. Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquili, in their well-known book "Why God will Not Go Away", offer such a clue. They believe that the ontological fallacy stems from the process of reification -- "the ability of the brain to convert a concept into a concrete thing, or more succinctly, to bestow upon something the quality of being real or true. Reification refers to the power of the mind to grant meaning and substance to its own perceptions. On this account, meditative practices slow down the transmission of neural information to the posterior superior parietal lobes of the brain, which controls spatial orientation, resulting in the sensation of pure awareness which is incapable of drawing boundaries between the limited personal self and the external material world. This sensation gets reified into the image of "reality of as a formless unified whole, with no limits, no substance, no beginning and no end." - (Why God won't go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief, pp 149-152)
So while the neurological processes underlying these experiences are definitely real, the experiences themselves prove nothing about the ultimate nature of reality or God. Now, before someone shoots me with metaphysical arguments about how this proves nothing, I will say right away that this fact of course doesn't prove, by default, that these experiences are a false representation of reality either. But we simply can't know (not yet anyway), and I don't claim to know as many other mystics, spiritual people and even folks here on the nexus do. Claiming something about the ultimate nature of reality or God on the basis of these experiences are unfounded, pure and simple.
So jamie, while I do not dogmatically believe that reason, rationality and logic can tell us everything, I believe them to be the most honest and reliable tools we have to investigate this profound mystery that we are a part. It can even be quite spiritual, as I do feel in my daily work with physics and mathematics. And the fact that I do not dogmatically believe that these traits of the human mind can answer everything, doesn't lead me to even slightly suggest what these limits are. I do not claim to know what science can or cannot say about the nature of the cosmos, because I couldn't possibly know. To illustrate; before we thought that disease was because of supernatural forces, demons and such entering and possessing us for example. However, we now know that a large number of diseases are a result of concrete, little physical things called bacteria and viruses, and based on our knowledge of these entitites we can treat many diseases. So what seems untouched by reason and science today, need not be untouched tomorrow.
As a last note, the fact that there are many questions currently unaddressed by science doesn't immediately lend any credence to other knowledge systems. For example, just because there are gaps in astronomy doesn't mean that we abondon it for astrology. The argument that "science can't answer this or that" is also quite a fallacy, because science never claimed to have all the answers in the first place. So it's a kind of straw-man argument to "attack" science and reason for not having all the answers, because it only claims to have a reliable method for possibly revealing them. And although science is indeed limited, it doesn't automatically follow that these limitations have any implications at all to specific propositions. Concrete example is "science can't (yet) explain consciousness, therefore consciousness must be immaterial" or something to that effect, but the b) consciousness must be immaterial does not follow from a) science can't yet explain it. You may switch out consciousness with anything else, and still b) need not follow from a).
So, this is all my general thoughts about this as an atheist and a scientific skeptic. I do not bath in the comfort-zone of knowing or putting everything into a scientific box as many may think, because I am totally comfortable with not knowing and admit that I do not know. Not knowing and being in an enthusiastically open, non-dogmatic and honest commitment to knowledge is what science, skepticism and reason is all about. On the other hand, many dedicated mystics and spiritual people actually claim to know things about the ultimate reality of the cosmos. Many here on the nexus make existential claims about God and about the ultimate reality of the cosmos based on their subjective experiences. So who, exactly, is really bathing in the comfort zone of knowing and have a need to claim and know things?
Woah, I triggered some responses with that post it would seem. I am not going to use the quote button to chop up your posts, I hope that is okay (it's so much work and I have to get to my studies asap).
Yup, I was being unreasonable when I compared God with a teacup, I can see that and I apologize for coming out like that. I guess I was making a point about the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic God and the attributes he is generally assigned. I get caught up in that sometimes, but my point still stands when addressed to this type of God (and you said yourself jamie that some aspects of God is clearly invented, and this is it). However, I understand that this is not really what we're talking about, so my teacup comparison is flawed. Let's leave that on the shelf, and jamie, I hope you accept my apologies for being an arse just for the sake of argument. What my post did do, though, was to motivate a few good and interesting posts, so it wasn't so bad after all seen from that perspective.
Clearly there is a sacred dimension to our existence, and there is no doubt that most of us have emotional and spiritual needs that are now addressed terribly for many people through mainstream religion. I understand that these are needs that a mere understanding of our world, scientific or otherwise, can't necessarily and adequately fullfill. These needs do not, however, require faith in untestable propositions - or that is at least my opinion on the matter. I realize again that this is mostly relevant to traditional concepts of God and faith in him therein, but it applies also to spirituality and mysticism.
To address our spiritual needs, to even have profound spiritual experiences, one need not believe in anything on insufficient evidence, only perhaps that a specific technique of meditation, or the ingestion of hallucinogenic drugs, are able to open one up to them. My general concern is that terms like "spiritual" and "mystical" are not only used to make claims about the quality of certain experiences, but also to make unfounded claims about the nature of the cosmos. For example, the fact that one can lose ones self and have it dissolve into an ocean of experience and tranquility - something I have experienced before and keep trying to experience - does not, by default, mean or even lend any credence to the fact that consciousness must be immaterial or that it presided over the birth of the universe. Yet many people with these experiences start believing that this must be so, and yet worse claim that it is so, and that is not unproblematic. Indeed, even "wise mystics" have realized that these experiences does not confer existential status to its contents, but have simply learned to enjoy the value and joy inherent in the experiences themselves without having to construct metaphysical belief-systems. This is what I do, and it makes my life more fullfilled and enjoyable, and I can appreciate the profound mystery of existence just as much as any other mystic or spiritual person without believing anything unfounded.
It is simply an ontological fallacy to believe that ones own experience in mystical states have anything to say about objective reality, or shall I say the nature of the cosmos. That they can inform us about the nature of our minds, however, I do not doubt. Furthermore, while I do not want to say that what one experiences need be false, as it certainly can be possible that it is true outside ones own subjective experiences, it is problematic to leave reason and rational inquiry behind because people make all sorts of different claims about the nature of the cosmos on the basis of their experiences. We have no way to control or to address which one of these propositions are correct without unbiased and controlled scientific inquiry, and even then it can be difficult depending on what the propositions are. Therefore, I simply can't be sure that what I experience is absolutely real outside the confines of my own subjective experiences - I can't make claims on the basis of these experiences in intellectual honesty, and I can't reject the possibility that what I experience could be a false representation of reality.
Neuroscience also seems to have something to inform us about these experiences and why they feel as if they are actually uncovering genuine facts about the nature of the cosmos. Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquili, in their well-known book "Why God will Not Go Away", offer such a clue. They believe that the ontological fallacy stems from the process of reification -- "the ability of the brain to convert a concept into a concrete thing, or more succinctly, to bestow upon something the quality of being real or true. Reification refers to the power of the mind to grant meaning and substance to its own perceptions. On this account, meditative practices slow down the transmission of neural information to the posterior superior parietal lobes of the brain, which controls spatial orientation, resulting in the sensation of pure awareness which is incapable of drawing boundaries between the limited personal self and the external material world. This sensation gets reified into the image of "reality of as a formless unified whole, with no limits, no substance, no beginning and no end." - (Why God won't go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief, pp 149-152)
So while the neurological processes underlying these experiences are definitely real, the experiences themselves prove nothing about the ultimate nature of reality or God. Now, before someone shoots me with metaphysical arguments about how this proves nothing, I will say right away that this fact of course doesn't prove, by default, that these experiences are a false representation of reality either. But we simply can't know (not yet anyway), and I don't claim to know as many other mystics, spiritual people and even folks here on the nexus do. Claiming something about the ultimate nature of reality or God on the basis of these experiences are unfounded, pure and simple.
So jamie, while I do not dogmatically believe that reason, rationality and logic can tell us everything, I believe them to be the most honest and reliable tools we have to investigate this profound mystery that we are a part. It can even be quite spiritual, as I do feel in my daily work with physics and mathematics. And the fact that I do not dogmatically believe that these traits of the human mind can answer everything, doesn't lead me to even slightly suggest what these limits are. I do not claim to know what science can or cannot say about the nature of the cosmos, because I couldn't possibly know. To illustrate; before we thought that disease was because of supernatural forces, demons and such entering and possessing us for example. However, we now know that a large number of diseases are a result of concrete, little physical things called bacteria and viruses, and based on our knowledge of these entitites we can treat many diseases. So what seems untouched by reason and science today, need not be untouched tomorrow.
As a last note, the fact that there are many questions currently unaddressed by science doesn't immediately lend any credence to other knowledge systems. For example, just because there are gaps in astronomy doesn't mean that we abondon it for astrology. The argument that "science can't answer this or that" is also quite a fallacy, because science never claimed to have all the answers in the first place. So it's a kind of straw-man argument to "attack" science and reason for not having all the answers, because it only claims to have a reliable method for possibly revealing them. And although science is indeed limited, it doesn't automatically follow that these limitations have any implications at all to specific propositions. Concrete example is "science can't (yet) explain consciousness, therefore consciousness must be immaterial" or something to that effect, but the b) consciousness must be immaterial does not follow from a) science can't yet explain it. You may switch out consciousness with anything else, and still b) need not follow from a).
So, this is all my general thoughts about this as an atheist and a scientific skeptic. I do not bath in the comfort-zone of knowing or putting everything into a scientific box as many may think, because I am totally comfortable with not knowing and admit that I do not know. Not knowing and being in an enthusiastically open, non-dogmatic and honest commitment to knowledge is what science, skepticism and reason is all about. On the other hand, many dedicated mystics and spiritual people actually claim to know things about the ultimate reality of the cosmos. Many here on the nexus make existential claims about God and about the ultimate reality of the cosmos based on their subjective experiences. So who, exactly, is really bathing in the comfort zone of knowing and have a need to claim and know things?