Well, you do make a compelling argument but I would still contend that brain chemistry is a self-referencial system. Any one can be having visions when put in the right setting, and the context of the relationship of ML with his father was probably not an extraordinary one considering the times. I was merely expressing some concern about the truth of the initial premise from which you were building your argument.
I really don't doubt that the prevailing beliefs could exacerbate a mental instability. Many cultures (like southwestern American Indians) had rights of passage where EVERYONE was expected to go out and fight their demons and have visions. These quests were aided by the use of hallucinogens, poisons, sensory deprivation, hunger, thirst, exposure and other stressors.
You're probably right, it was easier to have visions when you are possibly suffering from clinical depression or schizophrenia. But there were numerous cases of various kinds of accidental and intentional poisonings from substances as varied as ergot, wormwood (absinthe is chemically very similar to PCP) and even to heavy metals used for the treatment of infection that could and would give rise to visions under the right circumstances. Poor sanitation of baked goods and an overreliance upon rye products by Germans put them at risk for ergot poisoning (a substance resembling LSD, ergotamine). None of these could really be called a mental illness per se.
Opiates have the effect of giving hyper-reality to dream states. Long, epic, internally consistent, yet metaphysically transcendental, lucid dreams are characteristic of the oral use opiates. Alchol-withdrawl especially mixed with opiates could produce very vivid dream meta-states that appeared as he described. So could fevers.
Monks had an allotment of 8-15 gallons of wine or beer PER WEEK, depending upon the order they belonged to. While they used this to trade for other goods and share with the flock on their rounds for social and religious purposes, I'm sure more than one was drinking a good part of his allotment.
It would probably more logically defensible to approach the lack of credibility of Martin Luther's testimony based upon these types of factors which are considerably less speculative than ones describing his brain chemistry in a 20th century context based upon subjective behaviors only. We know from analyses of preserved tissues that people suffered from all these things in historic times. The problem with psychiatric theories is the total lack of objective physical evidence. It suffers from the same problem the Gospels suffer from.
If someone had brain cancer, there could be a clear description of the physical properties of the brain by reporters of the time. But if someone was just having weird ideas and experiences (by our standards), that is a weak point from which to lay a diagnosis especially when there are myriad explanations that don't fit the very specific nature of schizophrenia. |
