Talk:Religious experience
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles
User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.
Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!
- Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
This related category is also under target!
There doesn't seem to be a proper beginning to this article based on Wikipedia rules. There is no basic explanation of what a Religious Experienc is. Just an immediate plunge into the controversial issue of whether or not a religious experience is a psychosis. This isn't an article about whether or not Religious experiences are real or a result of psychosis and therefore I don't believe it should be the first thing someone reads when they reach this page. Discuss it further down by all means but it isn't a good way to start. I also find it a bit surprising that there is no mention aside from the "see also" section of the pioneering work of William James in this field. There is no real catagorising of types of religious experience or any links to historical characters who have been said to have had them, or any link to views of various religions on the subject. This article needs a lot of work. Ammi 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
But religion is a superstition. I don't understand the objection.--80.56.36.253 13:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scientific research of religious experiences
I want to add a section called this (or something like it) to the main page. From experience I've discovered it's best to suggest it here first. It will give research of the type currently debated in places like New Scientist so is well in the public view. Here are a couple of links of the type I would like to use. [1] is directly relevant and [2] has links to some interesting papers.
I hate edit wars so would appreciate those who object to identify themselves and explain their objections. SOPHIA 09:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Causes of religious experiences
Shouldn't this article mention the causes of religious experiences? For example frontal lobe epilepsy and all the others. --80.56.36.253 13:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thoughts
The lead is very unclear and poorly phrased. Also, a reference to William James' Varieties of Religious Experience would not be amiss. Polymathematics 03:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Direct/ indirect experience of reality
Just to explain a change I've made to the entry: I've removed the suggestion that philosophers today generally agree that it is impossible to have a direct experience of reality. True, there are transcendental realists and (very few) indirect realists, but many contemporary philosophers are "direct realists", i.e. they precisely believe that sensory experience gives us direct access to our physical environment. They may not be right, but at least it is a fact that there is no consensus in favour of the contrary claim, so that no such consensus can be used to support a thesis about the "mediacy" of religious experience.
Aleksandros 09:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The angel?
The first line of the article is confusing: "In religious experience, or sacred experience, the angel comes in contact with transcendental reality."
Shouldn't it say "a person" or "individual" instead of "the angel"? I'm new to this article so I didn't want to edit without discussion.--Pariah 05:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article's title scope be widened to "spiritual" or "esoteric" experience (just suggestions) since many thought currents nowadays separate religion from the others due to its political and/or ideological connotations and/or orthodoxy. I don't make any changes myself because I don't feel I have enough competence in the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.140.193 (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
