I am not just going to "go with it" because I call bs on the whole thing...

Even if I may call tripping on magic mushrooms 'divine', I do not actually believe that it is 'divine' in any traditional sense, but I'm simply using 'divine' as an adjective to describe something I consider 'rare and cool'. Deep down I know and acknowledge that it's just my mind going haywire and being incapable of organising sensory information. I'm not mystified by it, or moved to tears by it, as most people would suggest in their own definition of 'spiritual experience'. And there's definitely nothing - out of this physical world - about it, although it seems and looks like it. It can all be defined, measured and explained with science.

If that is the case then I don't see how you have a problem. Just dismiss it as an illusion that the human brain is capable of fooling itself into experiencing. Easy game.

I have had experiences of that class on mushrooms and would not agree with your interpretation of what is happening. The experience often has too much cohesion and stability to be dismissed as random noise. Also, I do not understand what bearing a scientific explanation of an experience has on whether you are awed or mystified or moved to tears by it.

I do not believe that spirituality has anything to do with metaphysics or any belief in spooky paranormal ****. Any experience that takes you out of the mundane and provokes the imagination (another word for "spirit") can be a spiritual experience. The opposite of spirituality is banality.

As someone who believes in God, I think this is a beautiful definition of "spiritual experience."

Of course it has cohesion and stability, your brain is trying very hard to make sense of the sensory information and structure together a stable reality, but it's incapable of doing so, because you've ingested a neuro-toxin, that alters the transmission of neurons in a way that the sensory information received is decoded in weird and wacky ways that are usually shaped by the mood that you are in or the emotions that you are experiencing.
This a fair point, and I wasn't arguing that it does have a bearing on how mystified you are by something, but I was simply justifying the experience in real terms and dismissing any 'metaphysical' implications that may be drawn/are usually drawn.
Well in that case, your own definition of spirituality seems rather detached from most who have posted here. Once again, begging the question - does this construct of 'spirituality' actually exist? or is it just a synonym we use for 'rare/weird/cool' experiences?

And when a non-religious person claims to be 'spiritual' are they really 'spiritual'? or are they just fans of 'rare/weird/cool' experiences?

VeeDDzz, it doesn't matter if it is real. All that matters is the experience and how one experiences it. I know you don't want to just go with it, but if you did you would be happier. I don't know what you are trying to accomplish in this thread but you are not going to find something that can be justified in a scientific sense. The spiritual realm is beyond that. You can choose to think that it is real, or you can choose to think that it is all just an illusion. There is no one argument that nails down either of those options.

How much does beauty weigh?

The name of a thing is not the thing.
The word water will never quench your thirst.

It's wiser to describe than define.

Spiritual pertains to spirit. God is spirit.
Religion attempts to codify spirituality, to reduce it to a systematically arranged collection of rules and principles.

It doesn't matter if I believe that I should sacrifice a new animal to the Gods every fortnight in a vicious bloody display, because it's 'spiritual' to do so? Where do you draw the line? Such delusions usually shape the very core of one's character and it's not healthy at all. How long do we have to go on perpetuating these ancient concepts and myths? before we take ourselves out of denial and finally acknowledge and cherish reality - as it is?
This is quite a generalization....how do you know what makes me happy?
Yes, the spiritual realm is indeed beyond that. It is beyond anything, for it has no place in any reality, except the delusions shaped by fables and legends told centuries ago.
Perhaps there isn't because we always have the uncertainty principle, but there are definitely arguments that make one more likely than the other..

Not true. Two very different things.

You've completely missed the point of measuring something. Beauty has no mass. It's a concept, and you're applying measurements of mass to concepts. Even concepts need to be measurable/identifiable in some reliable sense - otherwise they're utterly useless.

That is a pretty extreme example. What I am talking about are benign spiritual experiences. If the experience involves hurting others, then I think it does matter and is wrong. I don't think this is what 99% of what spiritual experiences are though.

I guess I don't. Experiencing the divine has made me happier though. It's pretty ****ing cool when you believe it. I just wanted you to be able to experience what I have. I was wrong to generalize though. I really don't know what would make you happy.

I'm glad someone agrees!

I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion on psychedelics, but there are many problems with what you're saying. The first and most obvious is that what you ingest is not a "neuro-toxin" but a neurotransmitter analogue. You are not poisoning the brain; you are changing the way it works. The second is that the brain doesn't merely attempt to make sense of sensory input, but also of its own content. What is most interesting to me about psychedelics is not how they distort sensory perception (although this is already conceding too much) but how they affect cognitive processes. It does not surprise me that people can obtain valid insights into their life and the world around them when their thought process is taken off its habitual rails. Obviously they can also become deluded, but such risk is the price of admission. You have to use discretion.

Anyway, the bottom line is that it is begging the question to claim that a brain full of serotonin represents reality correctly and a brain full of psilocin represents it incorrectly.

It's a certain attitude to life and loving the weird can be part of it, but it's not all of it. I think it is something like the desire to extend the depth of one's experiences, both emotional and intellectual. The definitional quibble is really over whether you use the word "spirit" metaphysically or metaphorically (as in "spirited").

Are you saying that for somebody who considers it a spiritual experience to sacrifice animals on a fortnightly basis - is wrong? that their spiritual experience is wrong or incorrect? how can you judge whether their spiritual experience is wrong, and yours is not? what criteria do you have to judge that, when you don't even have a reliable measurement of 'spirituality'?

Ohh wait... you're not judging their experience based on any measure of spirituality, you're judging it based on a measure of morality.....that's interesting...

Do I need more evidence that this construct called 'spirituality' does not exist?

I'll defer to Blake as is my custom.

That's not spirituality. It's an actual scientific construct that has reliable measurements and it is called - Self-Actualization.

New words for old things. Anyway, I say spirituality is that and I'm sure I don't speak only for myself.

I will admit that I use it metaphysically but I don't think it matters which way one uses it. It's an experience and shouldn't be pinned down to any one definition.

I know that it probably appears that I'm not really saying anything but I think there really is an important distinction here. No one can claim precisely what spirituality means. To try to put it into a container is simply wrong and misguided IMO.

It's not that simple though. I am claiming that this thing we call 'spirituality', as a construct, does not exist, for it has no reliable measurements whatsoever. Just because your definition of spirituality matches the psychological definition of self-actualization does not mean that 'spirituality' itself exists...especially considering the variety of different meanings people take 'spirituality' to mean - as evidenced in this very thread.

You didn't answer my question. On which criteria did you judge a person who sacrifices animals, that their spiritual experience is incorrect?

On a criteria/measurement based on 'spirituality'? or on a criteria/measurement based on 'morality'?

The one with experience is never at the mercy of one with an argument.

It will never ever be defined to the satisfaction of the egoic mind.

This is not what I would consider a spiritual experience. I don't, however, believe that I can define what a spiritual experience is to someone else. I have a definition for what it is to me, and I can reject someone else's definition, but I can't make a definitive definition for everyone. I might want to but I have no delusions that I can actually do it accurately. I admit that I don't understand what spirituality is. I feel like I have a vague hint of what it is but I don't really know.

All I'm hearing is...blah blah blah, it can't be explained with words, blah, blah, blah, I'm not even going to try to explain it, blah, blah, blah...... for that which there is a gap in science and understanding, we fill it with 'spirituality' until that gap is no more, and then we fill a new gap with 'spirituality'....

Same old argument, recycled time and time again.

This is progress. You don't really know, not because you're inexperienced or incapable of knowing, but because that which you're looking for is not actually there.

Ok, so that is what it is. Just dismiss it as an illusion that some people are fooled into experiencing and be done with it. What are you trying to accomplish here?

Trying to understand why non-religious people still can't seem to shed that last bit of theist clinging on to their mind.....