A psychology professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem hypothesizes that Moses was probably stoned on Mt. Sinai and tripping when that burning bush spoke to him.I had read once that the entire concept of religion or god was first started by a drug induced high. Dr. Shanon’s peer reviewed paper starts: “In his book Poisons sacr?s, ivresses divines (which, to my knowledge, has not been translated into English), Philippe de F?lice (1970 [1936]) reviews various cultures throughout the world and notes the use of psychotropic substances in them. The use of such substances, most of which fall in our contemporary Western culture under the label ?drug,? has in many traditions been considered sacred. Indeed, de F?lice points out that in many religions, both in the old world and in the new, the use of such substances was (and often still is)central. The substances, or the plants from which they were produced, were deemed holy and at times even divine. De F?lice puts forward the hypothesis that the use of psychotropic substances is deeply embedded in human culture and intrinsically intertwined with what he characterizes as the most basic human instinct?the search for transcendence. Thus, he proposes, the use of psychotropic substances is at the root of perhaps all religions.” From Biblical Entheogens: a speculative hypothesis; Dr. Benny Shanon; Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology Consciousness and Culture; Vol.1, Issue 1, March 2008, pp. 51-74Seems like a reasonable assumption to me.Peter Nuhn
Almost anyone reading any religious text with an objective mind would probably conclude that some chemical refreshment of one form or another was involved.
IMHO a lot of the wrath and ultra-violence sounds like it was written under the influence of alcohol, rather than weed. YMMV…
More logical is Michael Shermer’s explaination embedded in the article, Faith Healing.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-03-27.html
Consider his “anecdotal thinking” concept.
I sent that news item to an evangelical friend, I thought it was kind of funny, but he responded quite indignantly and said ‘everyone was always trying to bring down the bible and disprove the things in there, and now they were calling moses a druggie’. I pointed out I thought it was just a funny hypotheses and could well contain a grain of truth, and why should he get so defensive? I mentioned how it was quite common for Native Americans and other cultures to go on ‘vision quests’ (with or without ‘drugs’), and was it so hard to consider that just perhaps Moses had gone up the mountain and might have had a bit of ‘herb’ to help him with his vision?
He said he supposed that was a possibility, but it didn’t change the fact that gawd spoke to Moses and all, and the burning bush really happened, blablabla.
What are ya gonna do? Hahaha! Roll another one!
Seeker
I agree that quackery and scam artists are definitely part of the religious story. Upton Sinclair made that point for us perfectly well.
Peter,
My frustration is that atheists are equally guilty of absurbities.
Attributing religious notions to a drug-induced origin is as fanciful as any religious concept.
Religion seems to be the bi-product human mind described by Shermer as “anecdotal thinking.”
Long ago I read “The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross” by James Allegro.
For a rundown on hallucinogens in religion, this site has numerous links.
http://www.egodeath.com/amanita.htm
I was going to say something really important. But I forgot what I was going to say, and there’s a funny smell in my room, and I think my knees are breathing.
“Seeker”
Um, no, it isn’t. Not by a long shot. But you are free to believe whatever delusion you choose.
Seeker,
Why? Do you have a better theory that removes the possibility completely?
Nobody is saying all religious people are high. Why do you dismiss the idea that some of them might have been so quickly?
Furthermore, nobody was attributing religion to drug use. Philippe de F?lice was merely suggesting the possibility.
Please don’t fall into the trap of being afraid of proposed theories.
Wow, of course Moses was on magic mushrooms. It all makes so much sense now. Perhaps the Egyptian slaves were on drugs when they were, er, “wandering through the desert on a horse with no name”. Or it could be that he was just really really old and had a neurological disease so as to produce hallucinations.
Attributing religious notions to a drug-induced origin is as fanciful as any religious concept.
Well – it isn’t much in the way of a testable hypothesis. Closer to being one than any religious insanity I can think of off hand – so IMHO not quite as fanciful as religious concepts.
[smarta$$]But I would say, rather, that we are hypothesizing attributing religious origins to drug-induced notions, instead of the other way around.[/smarta$$]
Drugs aren’t essential, though the alternative is much more time consuming and not without danger, either.
Lots of cultures have used vision quests where dehydration, starvation, sleep deprivation and isolation combined will induce hallucinations.
Of course, who’s to say if the reported vision got edited for maximum value if the actual experience wasn’t going to impress anyone? As in no-one ever reported that, “Our new totem animal is a banana slug. Really, the one I saw was 10 feet tall and very powerful.”
Seeker is an appropriate term for someone looking for a vision to give meaning to life. Be careful not to trip over any facts while you look to the skies for a revelation.
Dave, unless time is moving really slow, you’ll be ok:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKVAQLnm_5Y
Dave’s not here, man
Seeker
That is a ridiculous statement.
We can give an operational definition of “drugs” and “exist” that are consistent. Whats more we can observe that the so-defined drugs. Our observations indicate that drugs have many and varied effects on the central nervous system. So the hypothesis of a drug induced origin of religion is plausible and, if refined, may be testable.
On the other hand theists can not even give an operational definition of “gawds” and “exist” that is consistent. This makes any hope of creating an internally consistent hypothesis impossible. If there is no hypothesis there is nothing to test.
What:
OK, so Moses got blowed out of his mind & convinced himself of a false positive. That doesn’t explain how the rest of the kooks got hooked, where Shermer’s hypothesis of anecdotal thinking seems more plausible.
mxracer
I was not responding to the validity of either hypothesis per se. I was responding to Seekers assertion that atheists make claims that are as fanciful as xians in regards to religion. I could have used either hypothesis.
Doh! I’m guessing my mistake was because Peter’s post was so such more subdued than his usual “bte” posts. Hmm, wonder why?
Angel_of_Light,
It was a reference to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7gWB7IzxtU
LOL.
I also see that I forgot that I was responding to one of Dave’s post in the thread. Shit, this stuff IS bad for you. Good thing I’ll forget that in a few minutes.