Ugh.
I hate this topic. Seems as if the human ability to expand what could be summised in a single line never ceases to amaze me.

Anyway.
The textbook says this, which I don't totally understand:

"What about Induced Experiences?
Obviously, some of the experiences we have considered so far could be confused with the effects of consuming alcohol and/or drugs. James [William] recognised this fact:

(Original post by William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience)
The drunken consciousness is one bit of the mystic consciousness, and our total opinion of it must find its place in our opinion of that larger whole.
In conclusion, it seems apparent that mystical experiences are states of consciousness, which are either spontaneous or induced. Whilst 'under the influence', mystics feel a greater depth of understanding... [rest is irrelevant]"

So.
How does he answer the question, "What about induced experiences?"?
All he seems to say is "Yes, drugs do the same thing. Let's pretend they don't.".
How does James refute the claim that religious experience and drugs seem the same, and so neither is divine?

Thanks. :suith: