Calling all mystics

[drwex]

http://harpers.org/ThroughAGlassDarkly-12838838.html

Harper's has a long and thoughtful essay on the (re)rise of American Fundamentalism - what I've called our home-grown Taliban.

[The new Christ's] followers are not anxiously awaiting his return at the Rapture; he's here right now. They're not envious of the middle class; they are the middle class. They're not looking for a hero to lead them; they're building biblical households, every man endowed with 'headship' over his own family. They don't silence sex; they promise sacred sex to those who couple properly - orgasms more intense for young Christians who wait than those experienced by secular lovers.

I invite readers' comments. Personally I find this sort of things a natural outgrowth of mysticism in general. From where I sit it's a matter of degree, not kind, linking everyone from the newageist Pagans to... well, those guys.

I'm currently failing to find the link so I can properly acknowledge it, but last year someone pointed me to an essay by a person who, when asked why he didn't believe in God said, essentially:

"I don't not-believe in God - I just believe in one fewer gods than you do. If you can explain to me why you don't believe in any of those other gods I probably explain why I don't believe in yours."

Comments

[drwex]

Respectfully disagree:

"I don't believe in the so-called "God" of (faiths X, Y, Z) because their existence is incompatible with the existence of God, which is known to me through faith. Now: why don't you believe in God?" The consistent skeptic really can't make an analogous argument, lacking a competing faith.

But the lack of a competing faith is itself the counter-argument. Remember the premise is not that I will convince a faithful that my belief is correct; only that if they can articulate their reasons then then can understand mine. Given the articulation above I respond that I lack faith. Since you've articulated faith as the basis of your belief you should be able to understand how I, lacking faith, don't believe in their god.

I agree that they ought to be able to put themselves in the shoes of adherents of other mysticisms, but rarely can.

[dpolicar]

Given the articulation above I respond that I lack faith. Since you've articulated faith as the basis of your belief you should be able to understand how I, lacking faith, don't believe in their god.

Mm... fair enough. Sure, any reasonable person ought to appreciate "I don't believe because I don't have faith" as a legitimate, albeit tautological, argument.

Though I suppose I can imagine being unable to understand what it's like to not have faith at all, in much the same way that I might be unable to understand what it's like to be blind.

All of that said, the reason I'm fond of the original line is because it invites an opportunity to find common ground between the faithful and the faithless... it suggests, at least to me, a somewhat open-handed posture of "Come, let us at least reason together with regards to our common lack of belief in most Gods, even if we can't agree on yours." So I tend to think of the argument as presented here as a failure, since it fails to find such common ground. But that may just be a peculiarity of mine.

[drwex]

any reasonable person ought to appreciate "I don't believe because I don't have faith" as a legitimate, albeit tautological, argument.

Not always. Pascal certainly believed he could reason his way to belief, absent faith. I'm also willing to accept that some people have had direct experience of their god. I may think they're mistaken about what they experienced but I have to admit their experience as a valid reason for belief. Reading the writeup of Leary's Good Friday experiments was interesting in this light (http://www.csp.org/practices/entheogens/docs/young-good_friday.html).

[dpolicar]

(nods) I don't think we disagree here, though I'm apparently not expressing myself very precisely.

That said:
1) it's not clear to me that Pascal believed he could reason his way to belief, merely to worship. Then again I'm hardly an expert on Pascal.

2) people who have (something they interpret as) direct experience of God seem tangential to the issue at hand, no? When the skeptic says, in response to the believer's attribution of belief to faith, that he lacks belief because he lacks faith, it's not clear to me that the existence of other (non-faith-based) causes of belief is relevant to their exchange. The believer isn't (necessarily) denying that other people can have direct experience. (Indeed, he isn't necessarily denying that other people can be brainwashed or deluded into believing what he does, without having true faith.)

[drwex]

I agree that we're in basic agreement. We're also off on a wild tangent, so dropping it here.