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

Re: To flip it around...

[thatwesguy.livejournal.com]

A preamble:

To expand on this a little... perhaps one of the important things I ought to say out loud is that what's important to me in discussions between the faithful and the faithless and all their various permutations is to find some way for them to live and work together productively in peace and fellowship.

Finding ways to convince one group or the other that they are wrong is interesting insofar as it might achieve that goal, but frankly I find it an unpromising direction.

This too, is my underlying bent. Onward:

Yeah, it's true that there's some slipperiness there. I think CSL's point was that almost all religions agree that there's something more than just what we see and touch, and that moral truths are in some sense transcendant and independant of us--and that materialism necessarily denies this.

I disbelieve the assertion attributed here to CSL, and would like to try to convince you that it has clear potential both to be incorrect, and also to be harmful to the goal of "all of us just getting along."

My understanding is that materialism "holds that the only thing that can truly be said to exist is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions." (wikipedia) I will adopt this position for this post (and in fact it is consonant with my actual beliefs).

I believe that thought exists. However, I also hold that only that only matter exists. I do not believe that thought is composed of matter. Is my belief system self-contradictory?

Well, let's say that I believe that humans are made exclusively of matter. Let's say that I believe that physical neurons embody an abstractable system. Already I skirt with trouble: abstractable implies that something immaterial can exist. Okay, then let's back out a level:

Can a materialist accept that the number "2" exists?

I certainly hope that the answer is yes, but the definitions we've accepted so far say otherwise.

Oh dear. I'm in trouble before I've even finished warming up.

Let's assume for the moment that someone rescues me and allows me to accept the existence of "2" without giving up my "materialist" membership card.

...Perhaps I don't even need to finish this argument to give you the flavor of my belief that complexity and abstraction alone are sufficient to give the materialist access both to belief in "more than we can see and touch" and to belief in "moral truths (that are) independent of us."

But I'm happy to if you think it necessary.