Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. The people who seem to toss reality out the window entirely like Ken Ham who believes that nothing could change the mind of a true Christian and that Tyrannosaurs were vegetarians.
2. The people who reason their way to their religious views but have some different reasoning method than atheists, or maybe they experienced some miracle or something that made them think a religion is more likely to be true than not.
3. The people who just assume their religious beliefs to be true. They see the unknown as a dark cave. They peek into the cave to see if the truths inside seem important to know about and if they're unpleasant. They'll enter the cave to discover the truths unless the truths seem both unpleasant and unimportant to know about.
That third group were what I was referring to as light believers. They hold a light/not heavy/casual belief.
I used to assume most theists had beliefs like group #3. I therefore assumed Few people believe in hell for nonbelief. That's unpleasant. Why would they believe in that? as well as Few people believe that the Bible is to be taken literally and is filled with actual events. That belief would be too damaging to themselves and the real world if they're wrong. Why would they assume the Bible is to be taken literally?
I'm not sure what percentages of society make up each group. I'd prefer it if most of society is within group #3 and #2 but have no idea. I'm guessing I was wrong about most of society belonging to group #3. though.
The problem with mystics trying to talk to atheists
Well as I see it . . . the main difference lies in the preferred perspective on life . . . pragmatic or idealistic. Mystics tend to be idealists (in a very casual meaning of the term . . . not necessarily a philosophically rigorous one). I used to think the difference was between concrete thinkers and abstract thinkers . . . but this forum has disabused me of that view. Gaylen has self-described himself as a mystical atheist and I find that close to what I would categorize him as. He very pragmatically seeks to tie what mystics see as the spiritual/subjective aspects of our experience of reality . . . to the materialism that underpins physics. I see it as a fool's errand (obviously) . . . but quixotic or not his efforts are sincere and he has the requisite knowledge to know when he has not yet found the answer. (I doubt he ever will.) .
Most people do NOT think very deeply about these issues . . . as Gaylen and I do. That produces a tendency toward short and sweet answers that are most unsatisfying to people like Gaylen and me. I do have the added benefit (others see it as a bias) of personal experiences that are more than sufficient for ME to erase all reasonable doubt about the wisdom of my approach.
And even when I spell out what I am saying, how I can to understand it and what I mean by these things, they go right back to whining about fundamentalist literalist Nicene Christianity, which I was never a part of. They hear a Mystic talk but their minds listen to what they grew up with.
It isn't just atheists/agnostics who have this problem. I avoid using the word "god" because it is such a freighted word and your hearers will most often hear what they mean by the word, and assume that is also what you mean.
To use a common example, surveys of professional scientists show that about 40% of them believe in god. I have actually had fundies wave this number in my face, obviously assuming that a person who believes in god believes in the literal truth of the christian bible.
When you get into a conversation about god with someone that you suspect doesn't understand/share your conception of god, it might help if you told them you prefer not to use the word "god" for this very reason, and ask them to use another name. In such situations, I've been known to suggest ernie or hepzibah. So far, no one has taken me up on this, but it usually does cause the other person to be more careful about their own assumptions, which is the point.
After all, if an omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, immortal god exists, it would be pretty hard to claim that he/she/it/they care deeply what word is used by us puny mortals.
I also avoid using terms like "God" because they're so weighted down with specific meanings for so many people. That said, changing the words you use to have conversations may or may not work, if people are still set on seeing things through a particular filter.
And it's not just atheists. I encounter rabid dogmatists on both ends. The atheists get on me for being spiritual, and the fundamentalists get on me for having what they see as a wishy-washy view of the spiritual world.
I also avoid using terms like "God" because they're so weighted down with specific meanings for so many people. That said, changing the words you use to have conversations may or may not work, if people are still set on seeing things through a particular filter.
And it's not just atheists. I encounter rabid dogmatists on both ends. The atheists get on me for being spiritual, and the fundamentalists get on me for having what they see as a wishy-washy view of the spiritual world.
Sometimes you just can't win.
I won't get on you for being spiritual.
My beef is mainly with the stereotypical Christian fundamentalist types.
Anyway, every time I talk about GOD, religion, Mythology etc I've noticed this: They hear "God" and their minds right away go to whatever fundamentalist religious upbringing they had, and NOT the conceptualizations of GOD, Mythology and religion I am talking about.
I say "pray" and I am thinking about and say communing with that which is above us, be it our super-ego, reality itself, a supernatural force or some combination of all those things...they ignore said definition and instead get flash backs of their parents jumping up and down in a Pentecostal church before yelling at them at home for reading ghost stories.
I say "God", and say and am thinking of the Pleroma/Brahman/Tao or whatever else you want to call that undefinable it that we cannot understand but can only experience...they hear the word "God" and immediately think of big mean Southern Baptist Jesus come to rapture the good people away and punish the sinners.
I say "religion" thinking or going to the woods and listening to all animals running around or lighting a candle at midnight alone in a quiet room...they hear "religion" and think of their parents or pastor flipping out at them for dancing with someone who wasn't their spouse.
I say "music that brings out my spiritual side" and they think...
Yea, ummm this is called a Straw Man. It works like this. Person A doesn't want to hear anything about religion. Not even alternative religion, because to their minds it's all the fundamentalist crap they've grown up with. So their brain goes into auto-defense mode, and rather than genuinely hearing what you have to say, they pick apart a generic religious teaching that is easy to defeat, by taking your words out of context. The best thing you can do is (1) not get riled up, (2) wait for them to run out of steam, ask if they're done, and then calmly state that this wasn't actually what you were talking about, then (3) re-explain what it was you were talking about.
Don't say God, pray, religion. Replace those words with what you are talking about. "You want to pray" or "You want to do tantric meditation in the woods", which is better received?
Quote:
For the record, not all atheists are former religious fundamentalists. Many are "lifers."
The most venomous ones tend to be personally wronged by religion, versus simply growing up without religion.
The primary problem which you would have when talking to this particular atheist is that I do not recognize a distinction between mysticism and any other form of emotional conclusions. From my point of view you are packaging how you feel about things into some attempt at a larger truth, which is not a valid approach to the cosmos.
I could not possibly care less about "the cosmos" as science bores the living daylights out of me. I am talking about existence, which is indeed dependent on the person experiencing it as everyone's existence is a little difference and everyone's world is a little different as the world we see is shaped by our perception of it.
Quote:
It may be a practical means for your getting through life, but I won't go along with elevating it beyond just that, one more scheme for getting through the days.
No, a scheme for getting through the days has another word for me: coffee. And sometimes an even better word: CANNABIS
Mysticism isn't really for the mundane day-to-day but rather for certain experiences.
Well that's just it. "God" can mean almost anything.
It has certain general characteristics, but it is a nebulous word, much like "love."
Quote:
For Mystics, God is (apparently) some kind of emotional experience. Maybe it's a kind of placebo effect, where mere belief actually causes real psychological and physical changes in the human body.
It is not "belief" but "understanding." A quiet sense of awe at the fact that we are all made of the same stuff as the stars (which is scientific fact, btw) could be called a kind of mysticism.
Quote:
Personally, I don't find mysticism to be entertaining. It's just incomprehensible mumbo jumbo to me. I also find it to be somewhat creepy.
I feel the same way about science.
Quote:
For the record, not all atheists are former religious fundamentalists. Many are "lifers."
True, but I've noticed the "lifers" who were raised atheist generally don't really care what others believe as long as they don't impose it on them. That is a far cry from the "foaming at the mouth" Dawkin's Witnesses.
But I do admit I should call them "anti-theists" as opposed to general, run of the mill atheists.
From the other side, I see the advantages of society understanding a god to have a clear and simple definition that is basically powerful ruling single intelligence beyond time and logic. After all, without some agreed upon definition of a god, of what use is discussing whether it exists or not?
The part about "intelligent" is what is really the question. If an actual GOD does exist, it could not, by definition, be "intelligent" in the human sense. It would be far, FAR beyond us and hence we would not be able to understand it as an intelligent being.
I mean, compare your white blood cells to yourself. Think of the gulf between the "intelligence" of a white blood cell and the "intelligence" of yourself. Now multiply that distance by an order of magnitudes by the thousandth power, and you have the difference between the "mind" of the universe and yourself.
If GOD is a supernatural entity it could not, by definition, be a personal being with bad hair days that cares what meat we eat* and who we sleep with.
A definition that would make sense would be the ultimate entity that is beyond human understanding but can, perhaps, be experienced by humans.
And yes, one can experience something that one cannot put into human language. Have you ever tasted truffle? Can you really describe that taste? No. Try, but you can't really put it in human language. It is much easier to spend the money and get some truffle oil for someone to try. Likewise GOD cannot be explained or described, but it can be experienced.
And that is a catch22: if GOD can be described, than it isn't really GOD because the best definition would be one that describes its nature as, ultimately, indescribable.
I could not possibly care less about "the cosmos" as science bores the living daylights out of me. I am talking about existence, which is indeed dependent on the person experiencing it as everyone's existence is a little difference and everyone's world is a little different as the world we see is shaped by our perception of it.
No, a scheme for getting through the days has another word for me: coffee. And sometimes an even better word: CANNABIS
Mysticism isn't really for the mundane day-to-day but rather for certain experiences.
All that you describe reinforces the aura of capriciousness, as in mysticism being whatever you want it to be whenever you want it to be, immune to criticism because there is no actual substance, thus no means for testing validity.
I regard it as harmless save for those times I have been a trapped listener when someone was talking about the ramifications of their being a "spiritual person." In those cases the damage was limited to the tedium inflicted.
So, you most likely would have trouble talking with me about these matters, not because I think you a fundamentalist, rather because of my deep disinterest in such conversations. At best I might pretend to listen but I'd really be thinking about something else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with mystics trying to talk to atheists
) .
