Graham Hancock publicly asks the ever-confident atheist Richard Dawkins to ingest a shamanically-used psychedelic.

What for?

What is the presumption here?

what is he trying to prove?

Why doesn't he just ask the pope to try it? Some people just don't want to personally know the full spectrum of what humans can experience.

Also, Richard Dawkins is an anthropologist, so I'd be surprised if he didn't already know about Ayahuasca. It's not like Graham is introducing him to some unheard of thing.

Interesting.

Richard Evans Schultes drank ayahuasca with tribes in the amazon many many times.


Wasn't RE Schultes an Athiest? I don't know but I do know that he used ayahuasca and other psychedelics repeatedly over his life and I never once read any claim of a spiritual experience or view from him.

Atheists can enjoy psychedelics without having their beliefs change... it is silly to think that a drug experience is tantamount to a spiritual experience. In my opinion if you depend upon a psychoactive for spirituality you are spiritually bankrupt. If you are already spiritual the psychoactive can help, but why base a testimony upon the experience of a mind tripping? That is like learning to drive by sitting on the toilet, in my opinion that is.

Then again if you take ayahuasca and don't have a spiritual experience then you are unworthy and just not good enough. Only the true of heart and the smart have spiritual experiences on psychedelics...

I am kidding of course, that is just how it comes across sometimes with all the spirit molecule talk.

I somewhat disagree because the definition of spiritual is up in the air ( ). Someone might say "I took LSD and it had a big impact on my life, but it wasn't a spiritual experience". In that case, I wonder if that person and I simply have different definitions of "spirituality". My opinion is that everyone is affected deeply by psychedelics, though some people don't like to admit it or just are not aware of it.

Dawkins says in that debate he would be happy to work with LSD or mescaline in a tightly controlled environment (possibly my worst nightmare setting!). I can see why some would be wary of aya due to the heavy physical effects and inherent in drinking it and its unpredictable chemical make up. I imagine if he knew of pharmauasca he'd probably be more inclined to do that in an environment he would find safe and comfortable.

I don't think the psychedelic experience, the want to experience a wide spectrum of consciousness and atheism/non-spirituality are mutually exclusive.

After 20 years of psychedelics I may have moved from hardcore atheist to agnostic but I still have no understanding of this spirituality thing many talk of. Everyone to their own. We can all feel/believe what we want. I don't know why anyone would want to to antagonise people into beliefs they don't believe. Nobody gains anything from where others sit on the spirituality scale (well actually that is untrue, many gain huge power, wealth and subservience of others but I guess this is a separate debate).

I will admit I am too lazy to come up with my own definitions of words and just use the prepacked ones in the dictionary. So for me the definition of spiritual isn't up in the air at all, it is definite and easy to look up.

My opinion is that nobody is affected deeply by psychedelics, though some people don't like to admit it or just are not aware of it.

Not really, that isn't my opinion at all. I just put it there for contrast to show that I think such general statements are arbitrary and ambiguous.

I have had several psychedelic experiences with spiritual impact, and several without it. For me DMT has never been spiritual at all, and yet mushrooms usually are and cactus is sometimes, but not often. LSD for me has been spiritual in an experiential way nearly all the times I have taken it, but there are several exceptions. That is just my experience. I am rather spiritual, I pray often for example. I was like this well before I ever took a psychedelic, but I can say that psychedelics (and LSD in particular) have made me question the existence of God more than anything else because of their effects upon perception. If anything they have inclined me more towards atheism, but for me my beliefs are results based and my results don't support a belief that there is no higher power.

All I really know is that i am truly ignorant.

I do however like to learn and this is a subject I enjoy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology
I have no formal opinion on it other than it is something to think about.

My opinion is that some people just like to argue.

I have no personal opinion on the man, as I have never met him...

My (limited) understanding of his work is that he has made a quest to debunk the 'supernatural'.

In a way, I don't have any problem with that either. The problem becomes when it is assumed that we have such a thorough understanding of the 'natural', that we automatically exclude phenomena that we cannot as of yet explain.

If you look through the history of human knowledge, the supernatural becomes the natural as our understanding increases. If we dogmatically shut the doors on things that we don't understand, we are doing science and humanity a disservice. Do you believe that in the year 2100 we will still consensus believe the same things we do today? How about 2500?

To me at least, the natural is the mystical. Even if you try or are able to explain away the material universe, don't you ever take a step back and say, holy hell look at this crazy thing. Its f'n amazing. How lucky I am the be a part. That is a spiritual experience.

^ THIS.

First of all, every experience is a drug experience, and since experiences are the sole source of beliefs, it is reasonable to conclude that psychedelics can lead to changes in beliefs and behavior.

Evidence also suggests this – there are numerous academic studies, most often using psilocybin, that demonstrate the capacity of psychedelics to mediate long lasting change in beliefs, attitudes, and individuals relationships with others and the world around them.

One can certainly practice spirituality and have spiritual experiences without psychedelics (the vast majority of spiritual people do), but you’re creating a straw man when you suggest that there are people who depend on psychedelics for spirituality. I don’t think there are any such people.

Finally, everybody is different. Some people can consume large quantities of psychedelics and only see pretty colors and patterns. Others can have a single moderate-dose of a psychedelic and be changed for life.

It's not about hearing about ayahuasca, it's about experiencing it.

In regards to the whole spiritual nature of ayahuasca [and DMT], sometimes it can induce spiritual experiences, and a lot of times it won't. So if we start saying that it's either spiritual or that it's not spiritual, we've already overstepped our bounds. It isn't nor does it have to be one or the other, a binary choice. This is where psychological projection starts to get in the way big time. For those who have never had spiritual experiences from them, they will often end up concluding that they (DMT and ayahuasca) are not spiritual experiences which looks like clear blasphemy to those who have had spiritual experiences with DMT and ayahuasca. The reality seems to be that they have the potential to induce spiritual experiences. So if Richard Dawkins were to consume ayahuasca, there's no guarantee in the slightest that anything extraordinary would happen on a spiritual level or otherwise (partially as a result of the trickiness of effectively consuming DMT/ayahuasca) but it's easy to see why a former atheist such as Graham Hancock who has had his life so positively changed by ayahuasca, that he would like to share the love and spiritual revelations that he's experienced with his naysaying colleague and it's clear that no rational arguments rooted in language will facilitate that for Dawkins, so if nothing else then ayahuasca might do the trick. Ultimately if Dawkins is so convinced that he is right, then he should have little to lose.

Something tells me a guy like dawkins has done psychedelics. He seemed to know a fair bit about shamanism off-hand. Probably didn't want to have it effect his career though.

I highly doubt it InMo...he's an Oxford boy and fairly well brainwashed by that particular society, one sniff by the faculty and you were out...a bit of weed floating around campus..no doubt..but psys..I dunno bout dat.
I couldn't imagine them even reaching that town in the 60's let alone inside the Uni... (I could be wrong though)

As was mentioned, he was an anthropologist, so he should probably be expected to have some knowledge regarding shamanism. He's no idiot either. Also, taking a tab of acid recreationally doesn't really equate with having a breakthrough/powerful DMT/ayahuasca experience.

It's impossibly hard to define a thing like spirituality. I started out as a cold hard atheist, and after hundreds of trips I don't know that I still wouldn't call myself that, although this is as much about rejecting religious definitions as anything.

The experience of feeling and acknowledging the oneness of everything that exists... I guess that, to me, is at least one kind of spiritual experience. But a person doesn't have to accept this oneness as a reason to take on so-called "spiritual" views. It can be couched in scientific terms as well. I've called myself a "spiritual rationalist" more than a few times, partly to address this apparent contradiction.

JoeDirt, great to see you again. I too resonate with Amygdala's comments, for sure.

A note of clarification;
Atheists are not necessarily non-spiritual. Even people who claim to be 'non-spiritual' are in fact spiritual. They oppose the usage of the terms spiritual or mystical to describe the experiences, but that doesn't by any stretch mean they do not have them. If you've ever read Dawkins, his work is full of marvel and awe at the universe, that yugen which while he doesn't ascribe spirituality too, is an experience of a spiritual nature.

If this is already clear, I apologise for redundancy.

People claiming to be atheist is to me like people claiming to be catholic..doesnt mean much other than that you have decided to believe in one of the two polarities. Beyond that many of the atheists I have heard/read come off as super arrogant and assume they know more than I think they could possibly know. It is a collapse into a belief system without verification and in many ways I think it is just a response to stronghold on the world that abrahamic religions had for so long and still do have to some degree.

Conflating atheism with strong atheism. Atheism simply means you haven't chosen to believe in a theism.

Knowing a lot about the other big university city and the history of both the town and gown side of things I would say that if it's anything like that and shares anything like its history then the opposite is probably true.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14052153

Universities are well known for creating radical thinkers of every persuasion and also for extreme substance use. On top of this the environment of the old universities and their dislike for the outside world (they even have their own policing system) means a lot is got away with there that never gets known to the outside world.