Problems with mysticism?

[sandandfoam]

Arguably, but not necessarily. It depends largely on how one defines "God."

Thanks Storm.
This is the point where I don't get it. It seems to me that many people say God is ineffable and unknowable - undefinable is how I understand this God. Swap the word 'Reality' and to me the meaning remains the same.
So transcending oneself to become one with or aware of either Reality or God seems the same to me. To believe in the absolute that (I understand-am I mistaken?) the mystic seeks to experience seems contradictory?

 

[Storm]

Thanks Storm.
This is the point where I don't get it. It seems to me that many people say God is ineffable and unknowable - undefinable is how I understand this God. Swap the word 'Reality' and to me the meaning remains the same.
So transcending oneself to become one with or aware of either Reality or God seems the same to me. To believe in the absolute that (I understand-am I mistaken?) the mystic seeks to experience seems contradictory?

It's been my experience that atheists tend to be rather rigid in their understanding of the word "God," limiting it to theistic notions. Several times, after explaining my own concept, I've gotten the response "but that's not a God at all." A common response to pantheism is "what's the point of calling it God?" The ineffability you mention is frequently seen as a cop-out. My point being that, right or wrong, if a person so limits their definition of "God," they could easily be a practicing mystic while whole-heartedly rejecting the possibility that God is behind their experiences, without a shred of cognitive dissonanace. [DISCLAIMER: Before I get jumped for characterizing all atheists so, please note the qualifiers. This has been a common, not universal, experience of mine. I do not attribute this stance to all atheists, I've just encountered it too many times to omit.]

Alternatively, one might have a more flexible understanding while still lacking belief in any concepts. I can imagine an atheist mystic who believes that, God or no, there is value to be had in mystical practice, even if it's viewed as purely psychological, with no truth value. Maybe they just enjoy it.

 

[sandandfoam]

Thanks Storm, I get it now.

 

[Storm]

Glad to be of service! :curtsy:

 

[Apion]

I have started to wonder about something. Obviousely, atheists have a hard time seeing truth in organized religion, and any other sort of spirituality. However, how do atheists actually feel about something like mysticism? Is it all the same hogwash, or is there a difference between attending church and doing "your own thing" as it were?

It depends on the atheists' standards and philosophical outlook.

Theravada Buddhists are atheists yet with a mystical practice.

A western example of a skeptical atheist who practices mysticism and its implications is Susan Blackmore. Mysticism is the strive towards a realization of the illusion of a separate "self," orienting ordinary conscious experience toward this nondual awareness.

A few great authors on the topic: Ken Wilber, Douglas Harding, and Peter Kingsley.

 

[Buttons*]

It depends on the atheists' standards and philosophical outlook.

Theravada Buddhists are atheists yet with a mystical practice.

A western example of a skeptical atheist who practices mysticism and its implications is Susan Blackmore. Mysticism is the strive towards a realization of the illusion of a separate "self," orienting ordinary conscious experience toward this nondual awareness.

A few great authors on the topic: Ken Wilber, Douglas Harding, and Peter Kingsley.

Actually I've read Ken Wilber, and I can't stand the guy, frankly. Care to elaborate on Susan Blackmore?

 

[Barefoot Bree]

It's been my experience that atheists tend to be rather rigid in their understanding of the word "God," limiting it to theistic notions. Several times, after explaining my own concept, I've gotten the response "but that's not a God at all." A common response to pantheism is "what's the point of calling it God?" The ineffability you mention is frequently seen as a cop-out.

I understand exactly what you mean. All of us are, after all, the products of our history and society, and Christianity with its personalized godhood is nearly all-pervasive in American society these days. It's easily the idea of "god" that most Americans trip to, and tend to discount any other concept as ineligible for the label.

I'm a veteran of many years at other primarily nontheist forums, and the one argument I seem to never run out of is trying to get atheists to understand that not all Christians are YEC fundamentalists, and not all theists are Christians. It's an uphill battle at times.

My point being that, right or wrong, if a person so limits their definition of "God," they could easily be a practicing mystic while whole-heartedly rejecting the possibility that God is behind their experiences, without a shred of cognitive dissonanace. [DISCLAIMER: Before I get jumped for characterizing all atheists so, please note the qualifiers. This has been a common, not universal, experience of mine. I do not attribute this stance to all atheists, I've just encountered it too many times to omit.]

Alternatively, one might have a more flexible understanding while still lacking belief in any concepts. I can imagine an atheist mystic who believes that, God or no, there is value to be had in mystical practice, even if it's viewed as purely psychological, with no truth value. Maybe they just enjoy it.

I'm one with a more flexible understanding, but I'm not a mystic at all. I don't have a mystical bone in my body - or should I say a mystical neuron in my brain? I'm irrevocably rooted in the physical world.

However, I'm not going to sit here and tell anyone they should refrain from seeking whatever experiences they like and find value in (so long as they harm no one else in the process). Even if, at the back of my mind, I'm convinced it's "all in their heads", and the insights they gain are coming from inside themselves, who am I to say they have no value? And I'm willing to concede the possibility that I'm wrong, that those insights could be coming from somewhere else, in which case my grumpiness is sheer sour grapes at the wonderful experiences I cannot share because of my particular brain chemistry.

 

[Storm]

I understand exactly what you mean. All of us are, after all, the products of our history and society, and Christianity with its personalized godhood is nearly all-pervasive in American society these days. It's easily the idea of "god" that most Americans trip to, and tend to discount any other concept as ineligible for the label.

Yes, precisely.

I'm a veteran of many years at other primarily nontheist forums, and the one argument I seem to never run out of is trying to get atheists to understand that not all Christians are YEC fundamentalists, and not all theists are Christians. It's an uphill battle at times.

Thanks for trying!

I'm one with a more flexible understanding, but I'm not a mystic at all. I don't have a mystical bone in my body - or should I say a mystical neuron in my brain? I'm irrevocably rooted in the physical world.

I can't tell whether you're pleased by this, disappointed, or simply stating a fact.

However, I'm not going to sit here and tell anyone they should refrain from seeking whatever experiences they like and find value in (so long as they harm no one else in the process). Even if, at the back of my mind, I'm convinced it's "all in their heads", and the insights they gain are coming from inside themselves, who am I to say they have no value?

My thoughts on this are rather subtle. I do believe that the majority of insights come from ourselves, but the deeply buried part of ourselves that is not subject to the illusion of separateness.

And I'm willing to concede the possibility that I'm wrong, that those insights could be coming from somewhere else, in which case my grumpiness is sheer sour grapes at the wonderful experiences I cannot share because of my particular brain chemistry.

I'm no neurologist, but I doubt atheists are simply wired differently. Learning to self-induce trance states is ridiculously tricky. English, at least, is barely adequate for communicating instructions, and not every technique works for every person.

After I had my theophany, it took years for me to learn to self-induce similar states, and I knew what I was aiming for! I only succeeded when I gave up on copying other people and developed my own methods working primarily off of instinct.

So, if you've tried and failed, don't give up! Try other techiques and don't be afraid to toss the book(s) out the window and go it alone.