On the mystical experience:

I think there are multiple ways of explaining this experience. Two personal experiences stand out most in my mind. But how to explain them? If you are using the language of science (think of it as a game with rules peculiar to those that play the game) then an objective explanation would have to describe the biochemical processes that take place in our minds while we are having such an experience. As I have read it described, current thinking associates the experience with a surge of dopamine (stimulated by participation in a community event, say a religious service. The amount of dopamine can be so great that a person can faint. It will also induce a feeling of wellness -- since that is what a feeling of wellness is.

But it is peculiarly unrewarding to think of such a wonderful experience as merely a biochemical reaction even though science seems correct as far as this explanation goes.

Sociobiology suggests that we reward ourselves with such a feeling of wellness for successful communal participation because communal participation generally leads to survival, and so encourages people that secrete dopamine when they are excited by community events. I suppose it is also what keeps geese in line.

But science, even sociobiology, explains people as though they were things. Since we also think of ourselves in other terms, and need to in order to speak of our experiences, there are other language games with different rules for this.

Typically, religion, sports, or philosophy offer various other vocabularies that accomplish useful things from a subjective perspective.  It puts the "I" back in the sentence. In these languages we examine which best enables us to have the experience. Most significant here seems to be the need for us to "believe" in the metanarrative that logically gives us the vocabulary along with the answers to the questions: Who am I? What is my place in the Universe? How do I maintain that place? Sociology refers to this as the world maintenance function of religion. But it does not help to tell someone that if they join the crowd at the "Revival Meeting" and "believe" they will be "saved" or "healed." It really works, but you really have to believe. This is where Kierkegaard is interesting as he decries all choices as absurd, yet acknowledges that you must believe something! So take a leap of faith!

But we must be convinced that the metanarrative is true for us to believe! That is what belief is. Yet Americans are typically faced with the Heretical Imperative (Peter Berger). You must choose your own religious preference. Having your own preference is what a heresy is.

William James in his Varieties of the Religious Experience attempts to show there are key ingredients in the religious experience that are the same in all religions. I think that this is the way to reach belief for Americans and fits with the imperative to make your own choice. You can search for the "right religion." That is, which religion offers you the best way to reach those peak communal (or private!) experiences? It would seem that each person would need something individual to meet his or her own personal biographical experiences to be satisfying. Hence, religion in America is "privatized." But I think the reply to his book by his best friend Josiah Royce "The Sources of Religious Insight" describes the nature of what we mean by being saved best. I suspect much of the communal needs are met through the religion of democracy, our manifest destiny and the attempt by many to turn science into the new religion. See Martin Marty’s The Public Church.

For the most part, it seems the more you study science but are unwilling to immerse yourself in a metanarrative that enables subjective belief in something that will draw you away from selfishness, the more depressed you become! Well, duh!