In ancient Greece, the Oracle of Delphi operated out of the Temple of Apollo. This temple was destroyed in AD 390 by the Roman emperor Theodosius I in the name of Christianity. Still, it’s a real place and the ruins still exist today. You can go see them.
I agree with you re: glossolalia and its creative interpretation.
I think people who rely on those sorts of chemical explanations for ancient religious phenomena often significantly underestimate the human ability to generate intense spiritual experiences without drugs through ritual practices like breathwork, physical ordeals, meditation, and practicing glossolalia (which is a skill I've personally never tried to cultivate, though I can speak from experience that the other examples are useful tools for producing intense spiritual experiences). Whether those spiritual experiences are generated by the human mind or indicative of the existence something more-than-human is, perhaps, a positivist vs antipositivist question.
Oh for sure! I don't mean to imply that psychoactives haven't been a huge part of the history of religion and spirituality, merely that they aren't strictly necessary.
With regards to the realism vs anti-realism perspective, I feel both sides have a point.
Anti-realists are correct in their assertion that we don't perceive reality directly, but trough models we build which have inherent epistemological limitations. However, realists also have are correct in stating that we can build "maps" which aproach reality on the limit, to the extent we can, say, land a man on the moon or create antibiotics. I believe this level of fine-grained control is what convinces many scientists of their objectivity.
I really enjoy Joscha Bach's take, which brings forward computer science terminology to deal with questions of phillosophy of mind that pervade much of the anti-realists talking points. In order to advance this conversation, we must understand more rigorously how we understand reality, and I'd wager using formal languages to create generalizable and testable theories has a much better shot at progress on this issue than the natural language though experiments of many phillosophers of science.
Joscha's got some pretty great lectures on youtube, I always recommend them when I get a chance (:
I agree with you re: glossolalia and its creative interpretation.
I think people who rely on those sorts of chemical explanations for ancient religious phenomena often significantly underestimate the human ability to generate intense spiritual experiences without drugs through ritual practices like breathwork, physical ordeals, meditation, and practicing glossolalia (which is a skill I've personally never tried to cultivate, though I can speak from experience that the other examples are useful tools for producing intense spiritual experiences). Whether those spiritual experiences are generated by the human mind or indicative of the existence something more-than-human is, perhaps, a positivist vs antipositivist question.
Oh for sure! I don't mean to imply that psychoactives haven't been a huge part of the history of religion and spirituality, merely that they aren't strictly necessary.
With regards to the realism vs anti-realism perspective, I feel both sides have a point.
Anti-realists are correct in their assertion that we don't perceive reality directly, but trough models we build which have inherent epistemological limitations. However, realists also have are correct in stating that we can build "maps" which aproach reality on the limit, to the extent we can, say, land a man on the moon or create antibiotics. I believe this level of fine-grained control is what convinces many scientists of their objectivity.
I really enjoy Joscha Bach's take, which brings forward computer science terminology to deal with questions of phillosophy of mind that pervade much of the anti-realists talking points. In order to advance this conversation, we must understand more rigorously how we understand reality, and I'd wager using formal languages to create generalizable and testable theories has a much better shot at progress on this issue than the natural language though experiments of many phillosophers of science.
Joscha's got some pretty great lectures on youtube, I always recommend them when I get a chance (: