Meeting criteria necessary for rejection

Just as I recognize pseudo-science, I also recognize pseudo-spirituality. There is A LOT of pseudo-science out there and there is A LOT of pseudo-spirituality. If I had not studied and had experience with real science, I would not be able to discern between real science and pseudo-science. If I had not studied and experienced real spirituality, I would not be able to discern between real spirituality and pseudo-spirituality.

People who deny the legitimacy of spiritual experiences need to understand something. I only still believe in them for one reason: I have experienced them. If I had not experienced them, I would not believe in them. I would think they were the desperate delusional outbursts of frenzied and weak minds (which fits my description for psuedo-science and pseudo-spirituality).

If someone comes to me with claims that the serum from some plant in south america will cure cancer, I will tend to think it is delusion and pseudo science because it does not fulfill the criteria of a legitimate scientific study unless I can see peer reviewed, double blind studies that confirm it.

There is a similarity in my assessment of real spiritual experiences. You see, I do not have spiritual experiences unless I am reading my scriptures every day, praying every day, actively seeking God in my life, and doing basically everything I can to serve God. This takes up a lot of time and is a big commitment. If I do not fulfill these criteria, I simply do not have spiritual experiences. So when someone comes to me and tells me that they are having spiritual experiences but they are not fulfilling this criteria, I tend to discount their spiritual experiences as delusion and pseudo-spirituality. Just as I would discount supposed scientific claims if they did not meet certain criteria.

Similarly if someone says that some particular spiritual experiences are not real, but they have not met the criteria necessary to have spiritual experiences, then their claims do not hold any legitimacy to me, just as someone who comes to me and claims that some well established scientific theory is false, but they have not studied science and do not even understand how it works.

Unless someone has studied and has experience with real science, their statements regarding scientific things just don’t hold much water to me. Similarly, unless someone has met the criteria for real spiritual experiences, their statements regarding spirituality just don’t hold much to me. They have insufficient experience and their examination of it does not meet the necessary criteria to make a judgement call of whether it is pseudo-spirituality or real spirituality.

If someone comes to me and says that they are rejecting a scientific theory because they do not believe it is true anymore, the first thing I would assess is if their analysis and conclusion involves an understanding of the scientific method and good scientific practices. If it doesn’t I would say, “of course you are rejecting it, your knowledge of it is incomplete, such that you don’t even understand what you are rejecting. You cannot reject science unless you understand it, and you cannot understand it unless you have studied it and know whether or not it is a legitimate study based on the necessary criteria”.

So if someone comes to me and says that they are leaving the church or faith because they do not believe it is true, the first thing I would assess is if they are meeting criteria for spiritual experiences. If they are not, then I would say: “of course you are rejecting it, the criteria for having a spiritual experience is not sufficiently met and so you do not have any real comprehension of what you are rejecting. You cannot reject a real spiritual experience unless you have experienced one, and you cannot experience one until you have met the necessary criteria.”

Id also try to assess if they are rejecting religion and spirituality based on pervasive pseudo-spirituality components (common in all religions, especially among the elderly members), and therefore are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I find it more probable that the aspects of religions that most religions agree upon is more likely to be based on real spirituality, while the aspects of religions that are highly controversial not agreed upon are more likely to be pseudo-spirituality (obviously with exceptions).

The trouble is that every religion has controversial aspects to it, as well as non-controversial aspects. So rejecting a religion based on the fact that it likely has pseudo-spirituality in it, will likely lead you to reject all religions, which is not helpful for most people who wish to have spiritual experiences as it is difficult to cultivate faith and support necessary to meet the criteria for spiritual experiences unless you attend a church and have that support system in place.