Strange Statement From A Christian On Atheism

[litassio]

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.

 

I would call that spirituality.

Religion without the dogmas, the empty ritualism, the superstition, sectarian attitudes and xenophobia is in my eyes no longer religion but the more universal mysticism or an intuitional science.

Sufi mysticism is attacked by fundamentalist islamists just like gnostic or new age christianity is attacked by fundamentalist christians.

It's a war between narrow minded people and broad minded people which is often mirrored in politics.

 

 

 

[R. S. Martin]

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.

 

I would call that spirituality.

Religion without the dogmas, the empty ritualism, the superstition, sectarian attitudes and xenophobia is in my eyes no longer religion but the more universal mysticism or an intuitional science.

Sufi mysticism is attacked by fundamentalist islamists just like gnostic or new age christianity is attacked by fundamentalist christians.

It's a war between narrow minded people and broad minded people which is often mirrored in politics.

 

Yes, you and many others call it spirituality. But AM is seeking a larger mode of description for it because he sees that it is necessary. "Spirituality" is a word that is not accommodated by all belief systems, but the feelings or experiences to which he refers transcend all belief systems. For this reason it is necessary to find words or ways of discussing the experience to transcend the limitations of belief systems.

 

I personally think it is a psychological function but I don't know an appropriate term for it. I am reading Sam Harris's "End of Faith" and I see he talks about it quite a bit. I look forward to seeing his complete argument because I think he understands the phenomenon a lot better than many atheists do. As I think AM is saying, this needs to be studied and better language found with which to discuss it. Let's not throw out either the bathwater OR the baby, but nourish both sides of ourselves.

[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.

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.

 

Wow! There's actually words to explain this? Amazing. I think you're right but I wouldn't count on him understanding.

 

I responded to part of this post in response to Litassio. Antlerman, thanks for understanding where I'm coming from, and for a really great post.

 

I posted a link for Steve from the other forum to this one, in case he wants to read your posts. He disagrees with me, as do you, about my post on deism. So basically I admitted that yeah, I was wrong it's not deism, but it's not atheism either. However, we've got this guy over at ExC who believes in some kind of a God that is not deism but I don't understand it well enough to describe his beliefs so if you want to see what it is you will have to come over and read his posts. And posted a link.

 

I hope that's okay because I don't want to start cut and pasting your posts in order to describe how one can not believe in any of the organized religions but still believe in a non-deism God. If that even makes sense. That's why I suggest he read your posts and get it straight.. It makes sense when I read your posts but regurgitating it for someone else might not be very clear. I don't know if he is interested.

 

I personally still think it originates in the psyche. I think many atheists find this "balance" or "nurture" for the inner self in things like love, nature, music, art, or literature.

 

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.

 

I read somewhere, don't remember where, that in the mystical there is less difference of expression across religious lines than in any other area of religious expression. I think the reason for this statement was to emphasize the similarity of the mystical experience across time, culture, and geography. This may be why the Christian mystics got away with borrowing from otherwise "heretical" or "false" religions.

 

When I learned about the Gnostics, I was astonished to find that I was familiar with some of their ideas. Another student told me that there are Gnostic ideas in the NT but she did not tell me what or where. I think the Gospel of John is full of them. The mystic is also to be found throughout the OT. At least, the mystic in me found appealing literature...so long as I was able to blot out the prayers for help to kill off the neighbours.

[litassio]

I personally think it is a psychological function but I don't know an appropriate term for it. I am reading Sam Harris's "End of Faith" and I see he talks about it quite a bit. I look forward to seeing his complete argument because I think he understands the phenomenon a lot better than many atheists do. As I think AM is saying, this needs to be studied and better language found with which to discuss it.

I read that book of Sam Harris and agree with most of his viewpoints.

 

 

 

 

[Kuroikaze]

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].

 

I can answer this as an atheist. Sure, their might be such a god, but why should I believe that there is when there is no evidence for it? Why should I even believe it is likely?

 

Let me put it this way, if something exists but is so far removed from the reality we live in as to be undetectable then how do I distinguish it from something that does not exist? The answer is that I can't, so why should I treat the concept of such any differently from something that is non-existent?

 

I guess when it comes down to it, I just have a more pragmatic take on reasoning than this, I have no time to waste on things which are beyond investigation when there are so many things right in front of me that I can study. I personally don't think the question "does god exist" is even an interesting question, nor do I think the answer is important, particularly if the god that exists is of the type you are describing.