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.
> go sit above a chasm in the earth in the temple, and then sort of go into a frenzy and start speaking gibberish. The priests then interpreted that gibberish as opaque prophecies.
Interesting, I didn't know that part of it! I'd always heard the vapor theory. This actually makes more sense to me. Gibberish is glossolalia, aka "speaking in tongues" (a misnomer because it's really gibberish, not some foreign language the speaker hasn't learned explicitly). This is an ecstatic trance experience seen not only in fundamentalist Christianity but in a wide variety of religious traditions (and cults). It's also great fun to play with, as a vocal warmup before singing or speaking, or just as a creativity exercise. I find it's similar to ecstatic dance. It's too weird for most people to experiment with but I find it very freeing especially since I used to have paralyzing social anxiety. I know one man specifically who overcame social anxiety through deliberate practice of glossolalia.
Then having someone interpret glossolalia as prophecy, that actually makes sense to me too, as a religious practice, similar to Tarot or Astrology. Not that there is factual validity to prophecy (or Tarot or Astrology for that matter), it's not a factual empirical kind of thing, but a metaphorical, emotional kind of thing. It's an artistic expression. Hence the cryptic nature of such prophecies.
In terms of positivism vs. anti-positivism, in the Philosophy of Science this debate is expressed in realism vs. anti-realism. Realism says science makes claims about reality itself, it gets at Truth. Anti-realism says that is super naive, science is a process humans do and is subject to all the cognitive biases and social forces (including politics and economics) that humans are driven by. Interestingly, most philosophers of science are anti-realists whereas most scientists are realists.
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.
Yea chemicals might be involved too sometimes. There has been some interesting theorizing around the history of human beings and psychedelic plants and mushrooms.
But we also have many examples of non-chemical inducement of such trance phenomena in the current age, so clearly they are not *necessary* to induce religious ecstasy.
Breathwork alone can be absurdly powerful, as I'm sure you know. Stanislov Grof for example invented his Holotropic Breathwork to replace LSD Psychotherapy when LSD became illegal.
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 (:
Great stuff, thanks for sharing your thoughts, Felipe! I haven't heard of Joscha Bach, I'll look him up on YouTube, thanks. Admittedly the last time I really studied Philosophy of Science was as an undergrad 22 years ago! So no doubt the debate has moved on from what I remember :) A fascinating topic though.
> go sit above a chasm in the earth in the temple, and then sort of go into a frenzy and start speaking gibberish. The priests then interpreted that gibberish as opaque prophecies.
Interesting, I didn't know that part of it! I'd always heard the vapor theory. This actually makes more sense to me. Gibberish is glossolalia, aka "speaking in tongues" (a misnomer because it's really gibberish, not some foreign language the speaker hasn't learned explicitly). This is an ecstatic trance experience seen not only in fundamentalist Christianity but in a wide variety of religious traditions (and cults). It's also great fun to play with, as a vocal warmup before singing or speaking, or just as a creativity exercise. I find it's similar to ecstatic dance. It's too weird for most people to experiment with but I find it very freeing especially since I used to have paralyzing social anxiety. I know one man specifically who overcame social anxiety through deliberate practice of glossolalia.
Then having someone interpret glossolalia as prophecy, that actually makes sense to me too, as a religious practice, similar to Tarot or Astrology. Not that there is factual validity to prophecy (or Tarot or Astrology for that matter), it's not a factual empirical kind of thing, but a metaphorical, emotional kind of thing. It's an artistic expression. Hence the cryptic nature of such prophecies.
In terms of positivism vs. anti-positivism, in the Philosophy of Science this debate is expressed in realism vs. anti-realism. Realism says science makes claims about reality itself, it gets at Truth. Anti-realism says that is super naive, science is a process humans do and is subject to all the cognitive biases and social forces (including politics and economics) that humans are driven by. Interestingly, most philosophers of science are anti-realists whereas most scientists are realists.
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.
Yea chemicals might be involved too sometimes. There has been some interesting theorizing around the history of human beings and psychedelic plants and mushrooms.
But we also have many examples of non-chemical inducement of such trance phenomena in the current age, so clearly they are not *necessary* to induce religious ecstasy.
Breathwork alone can be absurdly powerful, as I'm sure you know. Stanislov Grof for example invented his Holotropic Breathwork to replace LSD Psychotherapy when LSD became illegal.
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 (:
Great stuff, thanks for sharing your thoughts, Felipe! I haven't heard of Joscha Bach, I'll look him up on YouTube, thanks. Admittedly the last time I really studied Philosophy of Science was as an undergrad 22 years ago! So no doubt the debate has moved on from what I remember :) A fascinating topic though.