Strange Statement From A Christian On Atheism

[R. S. Martin]

This is from a convo with a Christian on a Christian forum. For background, the Christians are arguing that hell is merely a separation from God, which is the worst possible existence, and not a lake of fire. I argue that a nonburning hell that is mere separation from God isn't that big of a deal. In this post that I copy below, another topic is introduced that truly puzzles me and I thought maybe someone here can help me.

 

From Post 41 (at the link above):

 

Now look at it from an atheist perspective. There is zero evidence for the existence of a god to begin with. Thus, all of us already exist on this earth in "separation from God," and we experience life as being reasonably good, give or take a few life circumstances.

I've never understood how an atheist could hold this position. Personally, I even think there is evidence for some of the false religions in this world. If I ever become an atheist, I seriously doubt that I would take the position that there is no evidence for the existence of a god, unless I defined the word evidence so narrowly that almost nothing could count as evidence. In that case, the claim that there is no evidence would carry little significance at best. Moreover, at the same time there would be no evidence that atheism is true.

 

QUESTION: How can anyone visualize himself an atheist while still believing there is evidence for god?

 

I'm asking him this question but would also appreciate input from people here. I think we would need to look at what, exactly, constitutes atheism. Also what constitutes evidence.

[SleeplessGhost]

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods. Evidence is verifiable, empirical data that can be analyzed to reach a conclusion about an underlying hypothesis.

 

I often debate as an atheist when I debate religion at all, since it is the only approach that makes sense. I, of course, do not think there is any evidence for the existence of any god.

[litassio]

I'm not a christian, but I also can't understand why atheist can so easily believe there is no god.

Surely if there is a God, He has nothing to do with anything that can be objectified in this phenomenal world, so out the window goes your argument that God cannot be proven, because something beyond this phenomenal world can never be reached by logic and reasoning anyway.

 

If an atheist then states that he/she does not believe there is a reality beyond the phenomenal world then they are supporting a dogma, because they cannot know by logic and reasoning if there is a reality beyond time and space.

It seems clear that God doesn't like to interfere with the laws of physics, that everything in the phenomenal world seems to have to follow these laws. But this doesn't mean that there isn't a God mysteriously allowing it all behind the scenes.

 

That primitive humans had to make due with myths and faulty theories about the nature of god or gods is also no argument for why there couldn't be an Ultimate Reality beyond time and space that one may call God [the Generator, Operator and Destroyer of everything phenomenal in this universe].

[Vigile]

If I ever become an atheist

 

This is from Steve's quote you provided. He isn't an atheist as far as I can tell.

[Objet_trouve24]

I just want to say that at one time in my life, I have said that if I were a non-christian I wouldn't use certain arguments when debating with me. My usual reason for saying so was my responses seemed obvious to me in my more brainwashed state ("cause the bible says so WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT?"), but also likely to make the other person feel unsure of their arguments, like saying "I wouldn't do that if I were you" to make someone think I know something they don't. It doesn't work on everyone, but it works on a lot of people, and can wear away at the subconscious, make them feel weaker and weaker. What's it called, appeal to ridicule? Perhaps he's not doing this, but that's what I did (and I was super nuts) so I'm always looking for it.

[Guest Valk0010]

if your a atheist to religion, but still believe in god your at best a deist.

[Ouroboros]

QUESTION: How can anyone visualize himself an atheist while still believing there is evidence for god?

I've seen similar arguments from other Christians, even on this website. It's like, somehow, they think that atheists believe in God but are just rebellious and refuse to follow God. They don't understand the concept of not believing. It's outside their frame of reference. So they take the next best frame of thought, which is that a person still believes but is intentionally refusing to accept God. And that leads to weird statements from them like the one you encountered.

 

I'm asking him this question but would also appreciate input from people here. I think we would need to look at what, exactly, constitutes atheism. Also what constitutes evidence.

There's no evidence for or against a supernatural being that supposedly exists outside time, space, and any kind of tool of measure we can contrive.

 

It's like my professor in Anthropology lab asked, how can we prove or disprove that there are evil mind-reading invisible trolls living on the Moon, and each time we put our telescopes there or land there with a spaceship, they hide so we can't see them.

 

Certain things and ideas are not scientifically provable. They can't be put into a scientific theory. Only hypotheses that can be dealt with through positive tests and falsifiable tests can really ever be set into a theory. The idea of God is one of those things you can't create proper tests or data collection for. So it falls outside of provable ideas.

 

But I'm talking about God in general, like a creator of the universe. When it comes the the healing and miracle creating God in the shape of Jesus, it's easier to test prayers, healings, and miracles. Do they occur or not? Just ask a miracle-believing Theist for a miracle and see how much they squirm to get away from it or give excuses when it doesn't happen.

[stryper]

Given the definition of evidence and atheist provided. then the question becomes what is provable.

 

Since christians claim that god exsists yet cannot provide verifiable, emperical data on the exsistence of god, they simply have belief. The best "eveidence" is anecdotal stories or "eye witness" testimony, which even lawyers cringe to use.

 

On the atheist side, they cannot prove god doesn't exsist, can't prove a negative. If every time someone said the gods don't exsist, they got struck with multiple lighting bolts and sign got planted that said "yes we do" then that would be evidence. But it doesn't happen. Therefore faced with a lack of evidence to the positive the negative must be assumed to be true until new evidence is presented.

 

The bible can only be assumed to be literature. There are coorellations to things in the bible because many stories are based on real places. Therefore some of the bible is a historical record. It also contains opinions, philosophy, blatant lies, mistranslations and many other things.

 

Therefore, because of the mix of things in the bible, it cannot be used as evidence because it is not interally consistant on what it is along with what is says.

 

Just my opinion.

[R. S. Martin]

Thanks, everyone, for your replies. Two Christians replied to my question. Their argument goes this way: There is so much evidence for God, but I might conceivably reach the conclusion that there is more evidence against than for the existence of God. That would make me an atheist.

 

I replied that I don't know of any such atheist and that this seems to me like a Christian misconception of atheism.

 

About evidence for God. Hans, as you say, I think one can measure the things he purportedly does. The thing I feel I have looked at enough to know there is no god or supernatural is the effect this supernatural supposedly has on humans, esp. the "religious experience" or "numinous feeling" some people get. Antlerman has also written about his personal experiences with visions, etc., on these forums and how he remains an atheist despite them. These "religious experiences" have natural explanations and are not evidence of the supernatural.

 

I came to that conclusion without Antlerman's experiences but they confirmed what I had already learned.

 

So here's the rest of what I wrote to the Christians:

 

...Okay, I've looked over your and Michael's posts some more. You mention "evidence for false religions." Since Christianity is just as false as any other religion, I know what you mean. All religions seem to be based on the "numinous feeling" or "religious experience." "Evidence" for "god" comes out of this experience.

 

Since the "numinous feeling" or "religious experience" has a perfectly natural explanation and is part of the human psyche, we know that what humans experience is not God but just a pleasant experience of the human psyche brought about by some special experience. Thus, it is not a case of over-abundant evidence for God, but an abundance of evidence wrongly interpreted.

 

When I finally found the reason for this feeling, I went back over a whole batch of papers I had written over the course of nearly a decade and reinterpreted the evidence. What had seemed to be evidence for the supernatural was actually evidence for a mysterious natural phenomenon I had not previously understood or known about.

 

-FROM

Post 48

Hans, you mentioned anthropology. Some of the most powerful "evidence" for me came from courses in cultural anthropology that also counted for religious studies. I studied the religious basis of Aboriginal Peoples in various parts of the world from the South Pacific Islands to the Canadian Arctic. Well, maybe some of these anthropology courses didn't count for religious studies but I have in mind all of them also looked at the religion of the peoples being studied.

 

I did an entire 10-page paper specifically on the "soul of the Native," which happened to be Ojibwa. Later in that same year I had opportunity to spend time on two Indian Reserves. In both, I learned some more about traditional religious beliefs in the supernatural. Thus, my "evidence" is based not only on the Christian religion as taught from one or two preachers and Sunday school teachers. Nor is it based only on a few anthropology courses as taught by this or that prof. It is based on life itself if I may put it that way.

[R. S. Martin]

if your a atheist to religion, but still believe in god your at best a deist.

 

Righto!

[R. S. Martin]

I just want to say that at one time in my life, I have said that if I were a non-christian I wouldn't use certain arguments when debating with me. My usual reason for saying so was my responses seemed obvious to me in my more brainwashed state ("cause the bible says so WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT?"), but also likely to make the other person feel unsure of their arguments, like saying "I wouldn't do that if I were you" to make someone think I know something they don't. It doesn't work on everyone, but it works on a lot of people, and can wear away at the subconscious, make them feel weaker and weaker. What's it called, appeal to ridicule? Perhaps he's not doing this, but that's what I did (and I was super nuts) so I'm always looking for it.

 

Thanks for explaining the psychology behind that because apparently I'm one of those people on whom it doesn't work but people have always used it on me all my life. Consequently, I used to think I was seriously stupid.

 

However, what it did to me was drive me to research my brainwaves in more depth to see what in hell could be so stupid about them, then get back to people about the matter only to find they had lost all interest in it. It was extremely confusing. Thus, I appreciate such explanations by people who actually used to use the method. It is possible that these Christians expected it to actually work on me.

 

No wonder they came up with such poor answers when it didn't work.

[Antlerman]

The thing I feel I have looked at enough to know there is no god or supernatural is the effect this supernatural supposedly has on humans, esp. the "religious experience" or "numinous feeling" some people get. Antlerman has also written about his personal experiences with visions, etc., on these forums and how he remains an atheist despite them.

Ooops! I no longer call myself an atheist. In fact, I can and do say I believe in God, and don't at the same time. The identification of myself as atheist was and is valid when speaking of the definable, anthropomorphic definitions of the Divine as some external, dualistic entity out there, described in particularly tribal ways in the Judeo-Christian views of a Paternal deity of a particular ethnic or religious group. That god as a way to understand Deity doesn't exist in my mind, or heart, or spirit - except only as a childlike conception, a certain face on the Infinite, which the literalists substitute actual connection with in some form of substitute god of their religion itself.

 

If you read Litassio's brief explanation, that reflects my views as well.

 

These "religious experiences" have natural explanations and are not evidence of the supernatural.

Oh, I reject reductionist views of the world, trying to reduces everything down to physiological and biological responses (which is what is really meant here by "natural explanations"). I believe spirituality is natural. It's just that is is not defined by nor reduced to the material. I reject a monological view of reality. Human life, all life, all being, is multifaceted and transcendent. We are internal and external, subjective, objective, intersubjective, fundamental and transcendent, in motion, all at one given instance of every aspect of our entire being. That total being is emergent and grounded in Being Itself.

 

"God" is face put on that Ultimate, the Infinite Ground and Goal. I can accept God as an expression of That, but it is a Face. For lack of any words that can express it, I'd offer that I believe in God's God. Undefinable, Infinite. Though the word "believe" is not correct. It is not a mental conception which embodies its Reality. Just to update you.

 

I came to that conclusion without Antlerman's experiences but they confirmed what I had already learned.

 

 

All religions seem to be based on the "numinous feeling" or "religious experience." "Evidence" for "god" comes out of this experience.

I don't think all religions are based on that. They are an amalgamation of many things designed to support a range of human needs. Spiritual expression, is frankly one of the very few things that very few actually get out of them. This can be a discussion in itself, but for quick reference look at my topic in the Colosseum I started called, What is Religion?

 

Since the "numinous feeling" or "religious experience" has a perfectly natural explanation and is part of the human psyche, we know that what humans experience is not God but just a pleasant experience of the human psyche brought about by some special experience.

We "know" this? What God are you talking about? Jehovah?

 

Thus, it is not a case of over-abundant evidence for God, but an abundance of evidence wrongly interpreted.

Peak experiences, the numinous, if you like that word, are ever and always transcendent to the person's immediate level of average-mode awareness. They therefore always are interpreted by their immediate cultural symbolic systems to attempt to 'understand' or integrate it somehow with the mind's present framework of interpreting the world. To say they are "misinterpretations", is to claim you have an understanding of the actual content of what was exposed - essentially claiming to have knowledge of it directly, not interpretively.

 

To use tools of the empirical sciences to try to "explain" a person's subjective experience, is no interpretation whatsoever. It is an attempt to externally look and try to explain something it has no direct experience with, like reading my EEG and claim you understand the experience of me being me. In the case of a 'numinous' experience, or rather a transcendent experience, it can only be 'known' directly, or through direct Gnosis. Anything else that interprets, is limited to symbolic language, and at that point it is no longer That itself. You're statement it is "wrongly" interpreted, is itself a particular interpretation, with the presumption of access to Ultimate Truth through the system of Empiricism. (Yet another system, yet another age of man, yet another partial truth).

 

 

I find that reductionism is just as partial in its interpretations as the Christians with their system of mythology. Humans use systems of interpretation to understand their world as they adapt to and grow within their present state of mind within it. Just as the Age of Reason does this, so did the system of mythology, and magic before it. Each age thinks their understanding has the true understanding, yet each is only an intermediate stage that we build upon and move beyond to the next higher level of understanding. I'll offer a brief quote from someone I find inspiring and insightful that touches on this:

 

It is necessary, therefore, that advancing Knowledge should base herself on a clear, pure and disciplined intellect. It is necessary, too, that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world. The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness – to its heights we can always search– when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. “Earth is His footing,” says the Upanishad whenever it images the Self that manifests in the universe. And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya.

 

In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place. Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism had done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge. In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations; often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal. Well, if it could always be, as it has been in the great period we are leaving, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration.

 

Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pg 12,13

 

 

To be sure, the Christian has partial truth that doesn't allow for expansion into greater understanding. But that should stand as a word of caution that their tendency to lock understanding down to their system, is a tendency of everyone with their present system. Interpretations are fluid and informative, to something that cannot be defined. It can only be.

[bdp]

I'm not a christian, but I also can't understand why atheist can so easily believe there is no god.

Surely if there is a God, He has nothing to do with anything that can be objectified in this phenomenal world, so out the window goes your argument that God cannot be proven, because something beyond this phenomenal world can never be reached by logic and reasoning anyway.

 

If an atheist then states that he/she does not believe there is a reality beyond the phenomenal world then they are supporting a dogma, because they cannot know by logic and reasoning if there is a reality beyond time and space.

It seems clear that God doesn't like to interfere with the laws of physics, that everything in the phenomenal world seems to have to follow these laws. But this doesn't mean that there isn't a God mysteriously allowing it all behind the scenes.

 

That primitive humans had to make due with myths and faulty theories about the nature of god or gods is also no argument for why there couldn't be an Ultimate Reality beyond time and space that one may call God [the Generator, Operator and Destroyer of everything phenomenal in this universe].

 

None of this has anything to 'due' with the question asked.

[Antlerman]

if your a atheist to religion, but still believe in god your at best a deist.

 

Righto!

Not so.

[Guest Valk0010]

if your a atheist to religion, but still believe in god your at best a deist.

 

Righto!

Not so.

Not if you know a little about deism, and how it considers other religions. As well and the differing views of deists on things like prayer and the idea of the afterlife.

[Antlerman]

if your a atheist to religion, but still believe in god your at best a deist.

 

Righto!

Not so.

Not if you know a little about deism, and how it considers other religions. As well and the differing views of deists on things like prayer and the idea of the afterlife.

You said " if you're an atheist to religion, but still believe in god you're at best a deist". That would not be true. I'm not a deist.

[Guest Valk0010]

if your a atheist to religion, but still believe in god your at best a deist.

 

Righto!

Not so.

Not if you know a little about deism, and how it considers other religions. As well and the differing views of deists on things like prayer and the idea of the afterlife.

You said " if you're an atheist to religion, but still believe in god you're at best a deist". That would not be true. I'm not a deist.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Critical_and_constructive_deism the views I hear from you fall under the constructive section, with different additions.

 

But I don't want to sound like I am labeling you, I am not, I am just defending my statement.

 

maybe I don't understand your views, but I would think another thread would be needed for that.

[Antlerman]

if your a atheist to religion, but still believe in god your at best a deist.

 

Righto!

Not so.

Not if you know a little about deism, and how it considers other religions. As well and the differing views of deists on things like prayer and the idea of the afterlife.

You said " if you're an atheist to religion, but still believe in god you're at best a deist". That would not be true. I'm not a deist.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Critical_and_constructive_deism the views I hear from you fall under the constructive section, with different additions.

 

But I don't want to sound like I am labeling you, I am not, I am just defending my statement.

That would be mistaken. I'm not a deist, constructive or otherwise.

 

What would be closer if you want to categorize it would be the perennial philosophy, or wisdom better stated. I would say I'm much closer to Plotinus' God in the West, or Nagarjuna in the East. The ground and goal, the source and summit, the One to the many and the many to the One. That is not Deism.

[Guest Valk0010]

if your a atheist to religion, but still believe in god your at best a deist.

 

Righto!

Not so.

Not if you know a little about deism, and how it considers other religions. As well and the differing views of deists on things like prayer and the idea of the afterlife.

You said " if you're an atheist to religion, but still believe in god you're at best a deist". That would not be true. I'm not a deist.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Critical_and_constructive_deism the views I hear from you fall under the constructive section, with different additions.

 

But I don't want to sound like I am labeling you, I am not, I am just defending my statement.

That would be mistaken. I'm not a deist, constructive or otherwise.

 

What would be closer if you want to categorize it would be the perennial philosophy, or wisdom better stated. I would say I'm much closer to Plotinus' God in the West, or Nagarjuna in the East. The ground and goal, the source and summit, the One to the many and the many to the One. That is not Deism.

Thank you, I stand corrected.

[Deva]

What would be closer if you want to categorize it would be the perennial philosophy, or wisdom better stated. I would say I'm much closer to Plotinus' God in the West, or Nagarjuna in the East. The ground and goal, the source and summit, the One to the many and the many to the One. That is not Deism.

 

With this one statement I now know where you are at AM. Don't know much about Plotinus, but Nagarjuna! - Yes!

 

I am with that also - the Perennial Philosophy. Loved that book.

[Antlerman]

What would be closer if you want to categorize it would be the perennial philosophy, or wisdom better stated. I would say I'm much closer to Plotinus' God in the West, or Nagarjuna in the East. The ground and goal, the source and summit, the One to the many and the many to the One. That is not Deism.

 

With this one statement I now know where you are at AM. Don't know much about Plotinus, but Nagarjuna! - Yes!

 

I am with that also - the Perennial Philosophy. Loved that book.

[R. S. Martin]

Antlerman, thanks for the update. Back when you and I had the Arena debate perhaps two or three years ago I think you identified as an atheist.

 

I would suggest the "fount of knowledge" you quoted and described in your post above sounds a great deal like what I would expect to come forth if people would give expression to their "Holy Spirit" feelings.

 

If one wishes to revel in those feelings as the essence of life itself, fine. But for those of us who wish to know whence they come, I think it is just as realistic to observe a natural source in the brain for their enjoyment as it is to observe an organ in the mouth via which to enjoy the intake of food. Massive tomes can--and probably have--also be/en written about the almost mystical joys of the intake of food via taste buds. I don't find this observation to reduce in the least the enjoyment of food or the numinous. It allows me to understand it and give credit where credit is due.

 

I would say I'm much closer to Plotinus' God in the West, or Nagarjuna in the East. The ground and goal, the source and summit, the One to the many and the many to the One. That is not Deism.

 

God as the Ground of Being is also seen in Christian literature. Christian theologian Paul Tillich used it a lot. He also talked about God's God--I don't remember his exact term but it was very similar to those words. I think I have also come across it (God as the Ground of Being) in an earlier Christian theologian but I don't remember in whose writing it was.

 

Possibly it is in Courage to Be that Tillich writes most extensively about this; I don't remember. He also wrote a three-volume Systematic Theology. I read a considerable portion of the latter, as well as all of the first. I don't remember exactly what he wrote where. What I know is that in Tillich I found a theologian that almost gave me a way to remain a Christian--until he brought in his God's God...now it's coming back. The "God above God" is the term he used, I think.

 

Just to be fair, a lot of Christians don't consider Tillich a Christian; I guess they see his beliefs as too heretical or something. So it may be that when you were a Christian studying for the ministry you weren't allowed to read him, or didn't even hear about him. I wouldn't know about this. Where I studied, I was told they used him until newer books came out.

[R. S. Martin]

What would be closer if you want to categorize it would be the perennial philosophy, or wisdom better stated. I would say I'm much closer to Plotinus' God in the West, or Nagarjuna in the East. The ground and goal, the source and summit, the One to the many and the many to the One. That is not Deism.

 

With this one statement I now know where you are at AM. Don't know much about Plotinus, but Nagarjuna! - Yes!

 

I am with that also - the Perennial Philosophy. Loved that book.

 

I forgot to mention in my other post. But I think what AM is proving is that having belief in "evidence of God" definitely makes for something other than atheism. Thanks for the input, Deva and AM.

[R. S. Martin]

Sorry, AM, this is another part I forgot to respond to.

 

Since the "numinous feeling" or "religious experience" has a perfectly natural explanation and is part of the human psyche, we know that what humans experience is not God but just a pleasant experience of the human psyche brought about by some special experience.

We "know" this? What God are you talking about? Jehovah?

 

You may wish to reread the last two paragraphs of my Post 9, in which I say in part:

 

I studied the religious basis of Aboriginal Peoples in various parts of the world from the South Pacific Islands to the Canadian Arctic.

 

I seem to remember an almighty Pig as being someone's god.

 

Long answer short: No, I am not talking about any specific god/God[dess], but the supernatural in general.

 

Other important sources for me were Rudolf Otto's book Idea of the Holy, an article God and the Brain: Is Belief a Psychological Condition. A Collection of Great Articles on the Subject on Atheist Empire, and a convo about the work of behavioural scientist Michael Persinger. One of the articles on Atheist Empire is about Persinger's work. However, all of this only underscored and explained my own personal experience and conviction.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, thanks for the update. Back when you and I had the Arena debate perhaps two or three years ago I think you identified as an atheist.

This is very true. For where I've gone to in my perceptions and ways of relating myself to the world it no longer fit where I am currently. I see it as appropriate for where I was in my personal process of differentiating from typical theistic beliefs. Those in fact I didn't and don't think of in those ways.

 

I would suggest the "fount of knowledge" you quoted and described in your post above sounds a great deal like what I would expect to come forth if people would give expression to their "Holy Spirit" feelings.

That may be true, but rather I would suggest that their expression of Holy Spirit, depending on who is saying that and in what context, is one of many ways to talk about something beyond that term. I have no problem with someone who is a Christian who expresses mystical experience in their own ways, just as a Sufi mystic might within Islamic language, or the Hindu, or the Buddhist, etc. I don't take these expressions as literal supports for overall theologies! That a Christian can experience "God", does not mean the doctrine of substitute sacrifice is the only way to God is therefore validated and confirmed as ultimate truth. Not at all.

 

You're typical apologist is about defending the religion itself, and falsely uses these sorts of experiences as 'proofs' of their beliefs. That to me is an offense to the nature of what they are, what they expose within us, that which is larger than the beliefs. In your discussions you started this topic with, I get exactly that sense from the person you were talking with. He spoke of "false religions", having "evidence". That's what he is doing. Exploiting human connections to what I call the Divine, to validate his religion's supremacy in it's doctrines and methods. In so doing, he denies the experience, or rather limits it to his group's ideas. At this point, he is no longer looking to That, but to his religion as That.

 

If I were debating him, that's where I would take him, but obviously I'm coming from a different point of view. He accepts their experiences as "evidence", then promptly invalidates them because their theologies aren't his. I would call him on that.

 

Massive tomes can--and probably have--also be/en written about the almost mystical joys of the intake of food via taste buds. I don't find this observation to reduce in the least the enjoyment of food or the numinous. It allows me to understand it and give credit where credit is due.

And that's fine as well. I think the difficulty is where some people who view it in "naturalistic" ways (I use that term very loosely), is that they then use that as a dismissal of 'spiritual' experience, and the result is to reject it having value. Whereas when I hear the backlash of those in religion, is that they see that to pursue that spiritual aspect of our nature is beneficial, so they see it as a choice for spirit or science, and so the divide is made and each side rejecting the value of the other because their supporting premises don't fit within their present system of understanding. The hard-core rationalist reductionist will look at the physiological "causes" and conclude, "it's not real". The result then is to ignore or reject it. There is no supporting infrastructure in which to develop that "inner" self, as it's all reduced in their minds to the mechanics of the machine is is a sort of 'anomaly". Whereas others see great value, and truth to be gained by going into that inner place, but they have no supporting infrastructure themselves since their systems of myth deny discoveries of science. And so the split.

 

Now this is speaking in generalities, but I see it holds generally true to define the divide. Attempts are made to bridge that, to bring those two half together so to speak, but I see the effort is indicative of that greater human need I expressed before. Those who find ways to nourish both aspects of themselves to me are not living in a dissociated state, and it really doesn't matter what belief structure they use, so long as the whole person is nourished. Throwing out the Baby with the bathwater, "There is no Baby!", is a reactionary approach. The opposite holds true with your apologist friends, "There is not Bathwater!", is equally reactionary.

 

I'm happy you find balance for yourself. This is good.

 

I would say I'm much closer to Plotinus' God in the West, or Nagarjuna in the East. The ground and goal, the source and summit, the One to the many and the many to the One. That is not Deism.

 

God as the Ground of Being is also seen in Christian literature. Christian theologian Paul Tillich used it a lot. He also talked about God's God--I don't remember his exact term but it was very similar to those words. I think I have also come across it (God as the Ground of Being) in an earlier Christian theologian but I don't remember in whose writing it was.

 

Possibly it is in Courage to Be that Tillich writes most extensively about this; I don't remember. He also wrote a three-volume Systematic Theology. I read a considerable portion of the latter, as well as all of the first. I don't remember exactly what he wrote where. What I know is that in Tillich I found a theologian that almost gave me a way to remain a Christian--until he brought in his God's God...now it's coming back. The "God above God" is the term he used, I think.

 

Just to be fair, a lot of Christians don't consider Tillich a Christian; I guess they see his beliefs as too heretical or something. So it may be that when you were a Christian studying for the ministry you weren't allowed to read him, or didn't even hear about him. I wouldn't know about this. Where I studied, I was told they used him until newer books came out.

Yes, I'm familiar with Tillich. I think there are those who have a certain insight that they use various modes of expression to talk about that. Some I find more useful than others. But in all of them for me, they talk about the nature of something beyond definition, which is why it is considered "transcendent". Its the content of the experience that is looked at, explored, and moved into experientially that gives rise to expressions like this. It's that nature of Being Itself from within. To analyze it from without, is to not understanding its nature from within. Any language used to express it, gives it a form, an external face.

 

It's interesting how those like Tillich, or Meister Eckhart ride the edge of 'acceptable religion', because they in fact move way outside these tighter, orthodox definitions the church sees as acceptable for general control of beliefs. That says something. I find the Gnostics whom Orthodoxy considers Heretics, to be vastly more insightful than Christianity. They were very mystical in their thoughts, and those who are transcend their religions and share common experience with other mystics. For them, its not about the symbols used to express the experience, but the experience itself, the nature, the depth, the illumination to mind and heart and spirit. That to me is "true religion", not who has the best "explanation". Who has the Heart? That's the issue.