Spiritual or Corporeal . . . Reason or Faith?

Humanity has at last arrived at an interesting junction in our development and search for understanding. More and more people have come to distrust or altogether write off spirituality, especially archaic and irrelevant organized faiths. This shift has been the logical conclusion of thousands of years of scientific studies into the unknown; we’ve at last come to understand, more or less, how the universe operates, how it began, and the laws that govern and produce life itself. Myths, it seems, no longer have a practical purpose in a world of knowledge.

Interestingly, that shift has in many ways led to a movement toward different, alternative forms of spirituality. We somehow crave it, even if we find it illogical. The drive to discover a sense of meaning and purpose in life is integral to the human condition. As a result, a revival of pagan religions has been especially strong, as well as an interest in Eastern religions. This shift is natural, considering that these belief systems typically do not attempt to proscribe a “literal” answer for the more earthy questions (such as, How did the universe form? or How did humans come to be?). As a result, they are, in many ways, a perfect fit for humanity in its current state of having knowledge about the physical world we inhabit but very little concrete information (if such a thing is possible) about our spiritual existence.

In perfect concurrence has been an increased interest in psychoactive drugs. With organizations such as NORML (http://norml.org/) and the push toward medical marijuana laws working tirelessly to correct a century of lies and propaganda about cannabis, we can undoubtedly expect major reform by the end of the next decade . . . perhaps even sooner. Once people begin to view cannabis in a new, more level-headed light, it will be natural to begin accepting other psychoactive drugs as legitimate, too. Psilocybin would likely be the next drug considered, and eventually, I posit, DMT. I do not expect to see much conversation surrounding legalization and regulation of addictive or habit-forming drugs anytime soon (such as methamphetamines or opiates), because they do not offer the same types of experiences as the three mentioned above (and others) do, plus, they are potentially very dangerous to consume.

So, what is a psychoactive drug, exactly, and how does it work?

Unfortunately, that question is difficult to fully explain with our current scientific understanding. Yes, we understand that they are substances that cross the blood-brain barrier and thereby significantly alter how our brains receive and perceive information. But at the end of the day, that’s about all we have for scientific, factual knowledge—how they interact chemically, but not what’s going on “behind the scenes,” so to speak.

Some scientists have tried to study these substances, but their studies often get marginalized by the academic science community or shut down by the government. Timothy Leary’s studies into LSD are now famous, and Rick Strassman’s studies into the nature of DMT are well known to drug-enthusiasts. Many other scientists are looking, often secretly, into the effects of other psychoactive substances. And I think it goes without saying that plenty of would-be scientist college students have experimented with the mental effects of cannabis.

Recently, a respected neurosurgeon, Dr. Eben Alexander, wrote a piece for Newsweek Magazine titled “Heaven Is Real: A Doctor’s Experience with the Afterlife” (read it here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html). In it, he details his own shift from skeptic to believer while placed in a coma set on by an infection of E. coli bacteria in his brain. In the fascinating article, he details an out-of-body experience where he came into contact with what he’s interpreted to be angels and, apparently, a deity. Near-death experiences have been well-documented and discussed ad nauseam by the scientific community, debunked by skeptics, and turned to by believers as indisputable, if anecdotal, evidence.

Ever quick to join a reason/faith fray, PZ Myers posted a response a few days ago on his blog, Pharungula (read it here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/10/09/newsweek-panders-to-the-deluded-again/). In his typical and often justifiably-dismissive tone, he explains that, at best, Dr. Alexander is struggling with confabulation, a phenomenon wherein the human mind constructs artificial memories to fill in gaps, especially common in cases of trauma. At worst, he suggests that the doctor is simply brain-damaged.

But then, what of the near-death type experiences often described and sought by users of DMT? The most common response to this powerful psychoactive drug is a sense of having had an out-of-body, spiritual experience. Even taking for granted that the religious texts we hold today are bogus, or that an E. coli-induced coma could be a traumatic experience leading to confabulation, isn’t it possible that there’s something to these experiences brought on by experimentation with psychoactive drugs? Is it possible that there is “something” more, but we just haven’t been able to grasp it yet?

In short, I don’t have an answer. As an atheist with a profound interest in consciousness and a curiosity into whether humans do have a spiritual side that we’ve simply misinterpreted for so many millennia, it occurs to me that maybe we need to start opening our minds a bit more to alternative forms of consciousness and scientific research simultaneously in order to start answering some of the big questions humanity is left with. Then we can finally shake off our undying need for systems of faith to provide us with meaning and purpose. Because I don’t think the answers are going to come from reviving old religions, but I also don’t think they’ll come from closed-mindedness, either. They’ll come from humanity finally venturing into that next frontier of understanding our brains, our consciousness, and—perhaps most exciting of all—our humanity itself.

A Rallying Cry to Ban Technology!

    America is facing a new dependency epidemic. Across the country, in countless dark basements, private rooms, and secluded offices, average American citizens are plugging into technology and wasting away their lives. It is time that we band together as a democracy and do the right thing: It’s time for an age-limit on technology. Frankly, it must be made a controlled substance.
    Some reports show that as many as 8 out of 10 Americans currently use technology on a daily basis. That number may actually be higher for individuals under the age of 18! They use computers, iPods, tablets, cell phones, and a host of other devices. I’ve even heard of some individuals starting to use these items as early as the age of two. Certainly across college campuses, technology use is ubiquitous—even encouraged by those left-leaning, elitist professors—much to the damage of the development of America’s youth.
    Technology addiction leads to anti-social behavior; regular consumption of pornography; piracy of art and media; obesity; and, in extreme cases, freedom of speech. It is our responsibility as good American citizens to set a better example for our children and for the free world by placing age restrictions on the use of technology. Personally, I think we should follow the example set by the drinking age—nobody under 21 should be allowed to use technology, and well-informed adults who do use technology should do so out of sight of minors. In addition, any adults providing minors with access to technology (either directly or indirectly) should be forced to pay a hefty fine, as well as having their right to technology revoked. After all, a similar system has worked exceedingly well for alcohol, as everyone knows, and tobacco products. Gone are the days of underage drinking, of high-school students smoking cigarettes, of teenagers having destructive weekend parties while their parents are away, thanks to our efforts to clean up our country. We need to follow suit, consistently, with technology.
    Maybe with time, we can even take a stance similar to our highly-successful drug war. As everyone knows, illegal drugs are almost impossible to get a hold of, because they are illegal. The country is undoubtedly safer as a result. In fact, I hope that in 10-15 years’ time, we can have an outright constitutional ban on technology. Although this will certainly, at first, lead to a black market and the appearance of technology cartels, we can use our vast resources as the world’s most powerful nation to shut them down, just as we did during alcohol prohibition and today in our ongoing (but winning) drug war. The tax burden of a few more corrupt citizens being put into prisons for ignoring the laws would be minor, and most good citizens would do the right thing and give up technology completely if the government said so. After all, they’ve been taught since birth to believe everything they are told, to tremendous effect.
    Economically, much good would come of a technological ban. Foremost, we could increase the police force across the country significantly at first, thereby putting more Americans to work. And by replacing modern technology with more wholesome books, landline phones, cable television, and records, we’d reestablish dying industries and revitalize our economy fully. I wouldn’t be surprised if other countries followed suit, seeing how successful our efforts become, and start importing our goods again.
    Imagine a world without technology, where nobody is ever exposed to the temptation to connect, share ideas, exchange information, and learn about anything and everything all at the same time. It’s not difficult to look at the older generations, in their infinite wisdom and enlightenment, as a model for the future. I’m proud of the government’s efforts so far with such attempts as SOPA and PIPA to begin to cut down on this ugly modern tendency, and I truly hope the Obama administration will not back down on its efforts to cut Americans off from their technology addiction.
    In closing, I hope you’ll all join me in writing your Congressmen to tell them that you want to see a serious discussion about the merits of a technological ban in the forthcoming sessions. They’ve proven so adept in the past at obeying our wishes, as they’ve been elected to do, that I see no reason to suspect they won’t do so again, should enough of us raise our voices.