But if you could just see the beauty, these things I could never describe...

Stephen Law writes:

I don’t wish to deny there is value in engaging in meditation, yoga, and so on. It may well be that those who engage in such practices gain some valuable insights into themselves and the human condition as a result. Certainly, there may be some positive psychological effects, such as a lasting sense of peace and contentment, from determinedly engaging in such activities over a long period of time, effects that will undoubtedly by magnified by the accompanying thought that what they are becoming attuned to is ‘God’.

But the claim that they have thereby become attuned to some sort of ‘sacred reality’ is dubious to say the least. Surely, given our understanding of human psychology, by far the best explanation of what people experience after having engaged in religious practice with dedication over long periods of time is not that they have become attuned to some sort of ineffable transcendence, but that they have succeeded in altering their own psychology by fairly well-understood mechanisms common to both the religious and nonreligious spheres, and that they have then mistakenly interpreted this alteration as their becoming attuned to such a reality.

What would be the right interpretation then? They have altered their psychology in such a way that...what? They are inclined to say that they have become attuned to some sort of ineffable transcendence? Law seems (and I should emphasize the seems, because I am kind of putting words in his mouth here) to think that people who have religious experiences are either attuned to a higher reality or else deluded. He doesn't raise the question (here--the article is based on part of a book, which I haven't read) of what "ineffable transcendence" might mean. But if we don't know what it means--and surely the way Law talks about it suggests that he doesn't pretend to know--then how can we be sure that it is or is not real? I don't mean, "Maybe it's real." I mean that it seems like a mistake to deny the reality of a something-I-know-not-what.

As I have mentioned before, I have had these experiences, and it didn't take meditation, yoga, or fasting. I believe they are common. But they are hard to describe. Something like a feeling of peace, oneness, etc. A sense that everything is good, the world is beautiful, and there is really nothing to worry about. I used to smoke, and more than once I have had this kind of feeling when I went outside for a smoke at night, looking at the moon (and I was smoking cigarettes, not something that would make me stoned). It's pretty common, I'm sure, but it's also profound. I remember those moments years later, and at the time I might have said that I felt the presence of God. I wouldn't put it that way now, but it also makes no sense to me to suggest that the feeling was an illusion of some kind. An illusion of what? I didn't really feel that all was one? I didn't really feel safe? Yes I did. Was the oneness or safety perhaps illusory? Well of course it wasn't literal. That's why people talk about spiritual or mystical or religious experiences, not remarkable physical discoveries. But why not talk about becoming attuned to a reality or to God? Why can't having such an experience be what people mean by "becoming attuned to God"?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that talk of becoming attuned to some sort of sacred reality is nonsense, but if it is close enough that Law calls it "dubious to say the least" then he surely ought to consider the possibility that he doesn't understand such talk. His strategy appears to be to assume he knows what it means and then to reject it in the grounds that what it claims is so obviously false. Of course people do make false claims. Even obviously false ones. But it's not very charitable to assume that this is what they are doing when they say things that you find odd.