• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can an Atheist be a Mystic?

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
For the purpose of this thread, we will use the following dictionary definition for 'mystic'...

"a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect."

https://www.google.com/search?q=mys...0l3j69i59l2.1043j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

There is at least one form of atheism that rejects the existence of Gods in favor of a higher absolute...

"Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a "higher absolute", such as humanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx and Freud used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

With the given that the term "or" in the above definition of mystic can mean a link to alternatives, we can remove 'Deity' from the definition.

So stipulated, can an atheist such as an axiological atheist or existential atheist be a mystic?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I guess so, although it wouldn't make sense for this particular atheist, nor many others I suspect.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
For the purpose of this thread, we will use the following dictionary definition for 'mystic'...

"a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect."

https://www.google.com/search?q=mys...0l3j69i59l2.1043j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

There is at least one form of atheism that rejects the existence of Gods in favor of a higher absolute...

"Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a "higher absolute", such as humanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx and Freud used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

With the given that the term "or" in the above definition of mystic can mean a link to alternatives, we can remove 'Deity' from the definition.

So stipulated, can an atheist such as an axiological atheist or existential atheist be a mystic?

I assume the first is humanism and the other: Having to do with existence. More specifically, one way it is used is to mean having to do with state of being as opposed to truth or knowledge.

I havent heard of the terms axiological and existential.

Id assume atheists cant be mystic and humanist only because humanism sees truth from humans while mystics from an unseen "idea" or heightened experience they feel are beyond human thought.

Non-humanist atheist cant be mystics because (going by above defs) they dont seek a higher truth; also, they arent excluded from mystical experiences without labeling them as "something more"

Atheist cant be mystics if they believe the mystic experiences are not seperate from humans as source (non axio* former) and its not greater than human source (non exer* latter)

Edited.

Aka: If atheist sees his experiences seperate from human thought and labels them as from a outer universal truth, he is not a mystic.
 
Last edited:

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Sam Harris is an atheist and the author of Waking Up, which is a guide for atheists to mystical experiences.

In addition, the neuroscientist Andrew Newberg and his research team compiled a database of over 2,000 people who report having had mystical experiences, 20% of whom were atheists and agnostics.

Mystical experiences are normally interpreted as experiences of god, but it is not necessary to do so. There are philosophical reasons why one might not.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
So stipulated, can an atheist such as an axiological atheist or existential atheist be a mystic?
I’m curious why you think it matters? What’s the point in asking whether two fuzzy and variably applied terms are mutually exclusive or not?

Generally there seems to be far too much labelling out there as it is. If you encountered an actual person who might meet the criteria you’re describing, wouldn’t it make more sense to seek to understand them as an individual rather than simply trying to wedge them in to pigeon holes?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
For the purpose of this thread, we will use the following dictionary definition for 'mystic'...

"a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect."

https://www.google.com/search?q=mys...0l3j69i59l2.1043j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

There is at least one form of atheism that rejects the existence of Gods in favor of a higher absolute...

"Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a "higher absolute", such as humanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx and Freud used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

With the given that the term "or" in the above definition of mystic can mean a link to alternatives, we can remove 'Deity' from the definition.

So stipulated, can an atheist such as an axiological atheist or existential atheist be a mystic?

I believe that pretty much all atheists believe in a higher absolute, but this higher absolute is most likely physical laws and an eternal physical existence, which ultimately is, of course, unknown, Believing in an abstract form of mysticism to the ultimate unknowns would not be unusual. I believe that most Western and Chinese atheists are practical logical material atheists.

Zen Buddhism is likely a form of mystical atheism or strong agnosticism.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Mystic, spiritual. Spiritual (taken in the broad sense) surely, but not mystic, IMHO. An atheist should be analytical.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Mystic, spiritual. Spiritual (taken in the broad sense) surely, but not mystic, IMHO. An atheist should be analytical.

This is likely true of many if not most Western atheists, but this is an unrealistic generalization, because many if not most Zen Buddhists are atheists, and would not be considered analytical or materialist atheists.
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
I’m curious why you think it matters? What’s the point in asking whether two fuzzy and variably applied terms are mutually exclusive or not?

The subject was broached in another thread, and I am curious to what others, particularly those who self-identify as atheist that might not have seen the other thread, think.

Generally there seems to be far too much labelling out there as it is. If you encountered an actual person who might meet the criteria you’re describing, wouldn’t it make more sense to seek to understand them as an individual rather than simply trying to wedge them in to pigeon holes?

I fail to understand what point your are attempting to make here. People already self-identify with these terms. I don't see how you came to the conclusion that I was attempting to label anyone.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Mystic, spiritual. Spiritual (taken in the broad sense) surely, but not mystic, IMHO. An atheist should be analytical.

Why do you feel being analytical and seeking by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the absolute, or believing in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect are mutually exclusive?
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
I fail to understand what point your are attempting to make here. People already self-identify with these terms. I don't see how you came to the conclusion that I was attempting to label anyone.
I don’t think it makes a huge difference whether someone in labelling themselves or someone else. I just find they tend to be divisive and unconstructive, sometimes intentionally, so I’m not sure it’s healthy to have too much focus on. Please don't take this as a personal attack against you, it’s a whole cultural issue that we're all subject to.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
I don’t think it makes a huge difference whether someone in labelling themselves or someone else. I just find they tend to be divisive and unconstructive, sometimes intentionally, so I’m not sure it’s healthy to have too much focus on. Please don't take this as a personal attack against you, it’s a whole cultural issue that we're all subject to.

While I do feel that the application of labels can be limiting to one's potential, I think they can be useful in communicating with one another.
 
For the purpose of this thread, we will use the following dictionary definition for 'mystic'...

"a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect."

Of course.

For example, the 19th C the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer advocate an atheistic form of mysticism (that borrowed from both Christian mysticism and Buddhism).


We are now in a position to begin our journey through Schopenhauer’s philosophy. This will involve an examination of his conceptions of aesthetic contemplation, moral sainthood, asceticism, and finally the utter will-lessness of salvation.

For Schopenhauer, the subject is freed from the strivings of the will in the act of aesthetic contemplation. In contemplation of the object, the subject loses itself and frees itself from the subject of our willing.26 Lost in the object, the subject merges with the object, for it “no longer consider the where, the when, the why, and the whither of things, but simply and solely the what.”27 In fact, in the moment of contemplation, the person ceases to be an individual; the subject becomes the ‘clear mirror’ of the object and is freed from all willing associated with the individual. He is, in Schopenhauer’s words, “the pure will-less, painless, timeless, subject of knowledge”.28 Yet it would be mistaken to regard this as absolute will-lessness. Rather, it is merely the temporary ceasing of all willing associated with the individual. Accor ingly, while an individual’s willing ought not to be thought of as a discrete entity that can be cleaved from the will, it is possible, insofar as the willing associated with an individual is recognised not to compromise the “oneness” of will, to regard this as a mode of will. Thus understood, it is appropriate to speak of the cessation of all willing associated with the individual. Philosophy and salvation: the apophatic in the thought of Arthur Schopenhauer - Andrew King


It was a form of apophatic mysticism where humans could experience things which were beyond our ability to communicate to others in a meaningful manner. "Accordingly, when Schopenhauer subsequently speaks of ‘absolute nothingness’ in connection with salvation, he requires a further leap which is characterised by mysticism and not philosophy because it transcends our “immanent” semantic structures." As such, like the apophatic God, they could only be described via negatives of what they are not. This was tied to his philosophy that reason may be insufficient to explain the world and thus human knowledge will always be lacking.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
It's dependent on the two definitions, (atheist and mystic) and both seem to be rather different for different people. By reading through several recent threads, it seems apparent to me that there are several views of each being used.

By personal view of each word, I would say the for sure an atheist can be a mystic.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
For the purpose of this thread, we will use the following dictionary definition for 'mystic'...

"a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect."

https://www.google.com/search?q=mys...0l3j69i59l2.1043j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

There is at least one form of atheism that rejects the existence of Gods in favor of a higher absolute...

"Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a "higher absolute", such as humanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx and Freud used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

With the given that the term "or" in the above definition of mystic can mean a link to alternatives, we can remove 'Deity' from the definition.

Yes, but not remove but the definition includes both.

So stipulated, can an atheist such as an axiological atheist or existential atheist be a mystic?

Yes.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
It is often under-appreciated how much having an firm notion of god can hinder or prevent a mystical experience that is not a mere self-fulfilling prophecy.
You can say that again.

"God" is a weird little idea. It is incredibly ill defined, and yet somehow suits itself very often to inconvenient crystalization of other ideas that would benefit from being kept flexible.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
For the purpose of this thread, we will use the following dictionary definition for 'mystic'...
"a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity .....apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect."

I do not think that the self proclaimed atheists have any inclination for the bolded items. It is one matter, to not commit with 'yes' or 'no', as in case of the Buddha. It is another matter when a person asserts absence of anything that is higher than the ego.
 
Top