Atheist’s emotional bias against religion is a subjective experience. Yet, mysticism is also a subjective experience that leads to a different theistic conclusion.

I’m curious about why you would give more weight to one subjective experience over another.

And if ego death is objectively desirable, giving rise as it does to compassion and other universally supported qualities, why argue with the success arising out of a religious context?

As an atheist, I can say that there are probably two main reasons. You’ve already stated the first one, because we (atheists in general) have an emotional bias against religion. Although it would be better if we didn’t, it’s undeniable that this is true.

The second reason is essentially a slippery slope. As an atheist, I’m fine with people being religious, however I’d rather not support anything that relies on mysticism. Mysticism tends to lead towards more mysticism, which is exactly what I don’t want for humanity. I’d rather have a purely scientific method of meditation than something watered down with religion.

The Science of the Near-Death Experience offers considerable evidence that consciousness is non-local and that is has no biological makeup

I’ve done some research on this book, and it is simply not good science. The things that you see in people with near death experience can be nearly exactly mirrored with the exact same chemicals released during sleep.

So if asceticism is not necessarily the same as detachment, what does detachment actually mean?

I have always thought that asceticism implied things like ego death…

,

to which Nitaisundara replied,

Detachment, on the other hand, is a lack of exploitation. One can be disciplined in the context of self-surrender or they can exploit discipline and renunciation for name and fame. But both could look the same on the outside, therefore the need for introspection in oneself and generosity with others.

And I think this brings us to an essential point. What, indeed, does detachment actually mean? In the context of Gaudiya vedanta, it ultimately means attachment–to Krishna, to his service, and to the company of those dedicated to that service. Sadhana is meant to bring us ultimately to bhava, in which state our hearts become soft. (Bhava, in turn, is meant to bring us to prema, in which state our hearts melt.) We would do well to cultivate introspection, appreciation for the experience of others, and the generous spirit which is characteristic of bhakti. We can’t do so artificially, of course; these come when we open our hearts to the influence of Krishna’s svarupa shakti. I think that such an approach may be difficult to find in other pursuits, including other religions, although not impossible, as we see in the character of St. Francis and St. Teresa.

The fact is that when one enters into the mystic dimension of consciousness, the experience is that the waking state derives from it and is but a shadow of itself. From that perspective it appears that neuroscience and physicalism are but logical extensions of Edwin Abbot’s Flatland thinking. The bottom line is that we know that higher dimensions of consciousness exist and can be accessed. They also offer great value to human society, giving rise to compassion, self-satisfaction, etc. The only thing that is not agreed upon is what these higher dimensions portend. Given their demonstrated value, it’s quite reasonable to pursue them wholeheartedly, without concern for what they “mean”—whether they constitute the transcendence of biological death or the plasticity of awareness located in the brain. At the same time, it is quite reasonable to maintain that those who have experienced these mystic dimensions of consciousness are in a better position to talk about their actual meaning, especially when we can observe that they have achieved a sense of satisfaction and meaning that everyone is arguably looking for. Indeed, what is holding one back from pursuing this other than the quest for satisfaction and meaning through experiences that we know objectively, upon having, will not bring the same sense of self-contentedness?

As the famous Bhagavatam verse says:

ye ‘nye ‘ravindaksha vimukta-maninas
tvayy asta-bhavad avisuddha-buddhayah
aruhya kricchrena param padam tatah
patanty adho ‘nadrita-yushmad-anghrayah

O lotus-eyed Lord, although nondevotees who accept severe austerities and penances to achieve the highest position may think themselves liberated, their intelligence is impure. They fall down from their position of imagined superiority because they have no regard for your lotus feet. (10.2.32)

Detachment, on the other hand, is a lack of exploitation. One can be disciplined in the context of self-surrender or they can exploit discipline and renunciation for name and fame. But both could look the same on the outside, therefore the need for introspection in oneself and generosity with others.