Psychedelics, Christianity and Universal Religion
I get this question a lot. Here's my answer.
Jordan B Peterson’s recent conversations have been anti-decadent. This latest on psychedelics (which is a topic I find a bit annoying) was interesting because of the demeanor of his guest, which JBP notes right off the bat.
Before my foray into JBP land I had never had any serious conversations about psychedelics and Christianity. They were out there but not in my religious neighborhood. Today they are more common.
There are usually 3 issues that regularly arise in this conversation:
Universal religion
Psychedelics and the rise of Christianity/Universal religion
the efficacy of psychedelics for Christianity/Universal religion.
Question 1: The Christianity vs. Universal religion issue is always intertwined with this conversation so I'll try to address it (briefly) now. I'm calling "Universal religion" the quest to address the problem of religious pluralism by stating "all religions are the same". Because all religions are obviously NOT the same (hence pluralism) the sneaky assertion is a two-level-theory of sorts that says "if all the religious people REALLY knew their religion they would believe/do/experience THESE things..." What I call "Universal Religion".
It's not hard to see that they have simply tried to fight the flood of religious diversity with more water. They try to get around this by looking in history, at least common denominator beliefs and phenomena, and more recently through science. This makes sense because it combines the ancient solution to religious pluralism (polytheism) and combines it with the modern European attempt to resolve the formerly bitter and bloody Protestant-Roman Catholic feud (science).
So the modern study of psychedelics within the religious conversation really makes perfect sense but you have to understand it in the light of the quest for "Universal Religion" and all those old issues re-emerge with it.
Question 2. Psychedelics and the history of Religion/Universal Religion/Christianity. There is no question that psychedelics have been a part of some ancient religious traditions. How many? That's up for debate.
People regularly bring to me the argument that psychedelics were integral to the founding of Christianity. They cite the potential for active chemical agents in wine, bread and the visions testified to and written about in the New Testament. What makes Dr. Roland Griffiths helpful in this conversation is that he repeated brings up the point that almost every trip you can take via these drugs are available through non-chemical means. These, like all psycho-active drugs, just blunt-force brain systems. Religions have ALWAYS used narrative, poetry, ritual, dance, music, breathing, etc. to induce peculiar mental states that participate in visions, insight, dream, etc. The religious traditions associated with these chemical agents are known because they use them.
Asserting the use of these chemical agents in religious traditions that haven't explicitly recorded their use is sort of a gnostic-y move by promotors of Universal Religion. "YOU say they weren't used but we (secret knowledge) KNOW differently..." OK... (In more than two letters, I don’t find this argument convincing because I’m not a gnostic. Gnosticism and “Universal Religion” have always worked together.)
Question 3: Efficacy. The JBP/Griffiths conversation on this revolves around the values of the modern therapeutic medical industry. Can these chemical agents be used to pursue goals of this community such as relieving anxiety and reducing addiction?
The point of these modern medical studies is that there seems to be potential in these areas. People seem less fearful of death (goal of reducing felt-anxiety) and can maybe address substance abuse. Both good goals. It's important to note (as both do in this interview) that these are not NEW goals and both goals have been efficaciously achieved without these chemicals with religion. (Hence 12 step programs and hospital chaplains) The "better" pursued by the studies is really quicker and broader. Can we blunt force our way to the payout with a chemical means rather than requiring time plus religious discipline and community involvement? In other words, it's a drug.
We regularly use chemicals in this way, including some of the addictive chemicals we're trying to displace. Nicotine and pot for anxiety, alcohol for everything, etc. Religion vs drugs is an old rivalry.
This triggers the general pill debate. Is it better to use diet and exercise to lose weight or to take a pill? Define “better”. That sets up the conclusion.
What the chemical conversation always sort of hints at, which gets addressed here multiple times because @jordanbpeterson is JBP, is to what degree these drugs contribute to the natural law debates. By what path does a specific vision and version of God become all in all. THAT is always the competition. This is itself the Achilles heal of "Universal Religion" because to the degree it has to remain gnostic it fails.
Someone might argue that Christianity has the same weakness and they have a point. It's just that Christianity in its narrative acknowledges the point "ONE DAY every knee will bow..." It knows its time has not fully come.
So when you want to know my response to psychedelics, here is my answer.
Thoughtful answer, Paul. I've never considered this topic much, but recent discussions have made it more relevant. Thanks for giving me some tools for my toolbelt.