Are Agnostics Generally "Closer to God" than Either Atheists or Theists?

[Kapalika]

In your first post, your description of the theist getting closer to god with the "right beliefs" speaks more to orthodoxy than it does to truth. Orthodoxy doesn't necessarily lead to being closer to god,but being closer to truth does.

In that sense, it isn't agnosticism about the existence of god that brings people closer to god but agnosticism as in not just accepting something because that's what's typically taught. This is probably because an open mind like that it isn't going to be overly attached to beliefs and draw more so on spiritual experience (even across religious lines).

The mystical experience is here defined as the kind of experiencing that comes about when normal, everyday consciousness (i.e. subject/object perception) abruptly ends while some form of experiencing continues.

In this context, the notion of "becoming closer to god" refers to having that sort of mystical experience.

I would say that normal waking consciousness is more than just dualism. Most mystical experiences are dualistic to some degree, in that there is a perception of self and phenomena the self is having happen to it. Very few people actually have ever had a full 100% nondual experience. I believe to actually do that someone has to basically be very close to Moksha in the fullest sense.

To add to this:

That is assuming that all mystical experiences are essentially the same. The alternative is that beliefs will determine the form that the mystical experience will take.

I don't feel comfortable saying that dualists can't be close or "as close" to god. There are many ways to perceive the same truth even if the source itself is nondual. Add to that if all is divine, then dualism can be a valid way to experience god anyway.

I also think that @Tumah is generally right with that alternative. People's beliefs and emotional states shape how they experience mysticism and what symbols and things they see and experience. It would be very presumptuous of us to assume that only the people who had experiences like ours are having the "real" ones.

 

[Quintessence]

As usual, a Pagan perspective provides some much different and in some ways comical differences from the Abrahamic norms of Western culture.

To me, arguing about who is closer to the gods looks really silly when you don't put a wedge between gods and reality. In this situation, gods are present in our physical (and non-physical) dimensions at all times, always. It's impossible to avoid being close to the gods, no matter what your beliefs about them are. Arguing about who is closer to the gods with this sort of theology ends up looking like this:

"I'm closer to breathing air than you are!"
"Nuh, uh, I breathe air better!"
"Well, I breathe more air than either of you two!"
​

It's really quite silly. I imagine you'd get a similar result with any theology that doesn't put that wedge between gods and reality, whether it's Pagan in orientation or not.

 

[Audie]

My answer is no. Mere belief without effort is almost entirely useless. In my own case, I considered as totally irrelevant the question of God until I had a couple of experiences which were like a light going on in a dark room. The internet is full of web sites about atheists and mysticism. Here's one I like A Nonbeliever Tries To Make Sense Of The Visions She Had As A Teen

I wonder if it is possible to really believe in t he Christian God, and yet make no "effort".

I mean, really-really believe?

The bible is pretty specific about the kind of efforts
one should make, and how it turns out if you do not.

How could one not make those efforts, if they believe
down to their gizzard that the book is true?

 

[pearl]

What I am mainly talking about are firmly held beliefs such as "God is X".

I would think that the Agnostic holds that the entity we have named God cannot be defined, that this Mystery is incomprehensible. Or the unmoved Mover of philosophy.

 

[Kapalika]

[QUOTE="Quintessence, post: 5545238, member: 32163"To me, arguing about who is closer to the gods looks really silly when you don't put a wedge between gods and reality.

...

I imagine you'd get a similar result with any theology that doesn't put that wedge between gods and reality, whether it's Pagan in orientation or not. [/QUOTE]

You would and do. I basically agree with this hence my previous post.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would think that the Agnostic holds that the entity we have named God cannot be defined, that this Mystery is incomprehensible.

I think deities are definable.
They just aren't detectable.

 

[Windwalker]

What is at issue -- what I wish to discuss -- is whether or not beliefs are effective in bringing about the mystical experience -- which is so often identified as an experience of god.​

The mystical experience is here defined as the kind of experiencing that comes about when normal, everyday consciousness (i.e. subject/object perception) abruptly ends while some form of experiencing continues.

In this context, the notion of "becoming closer to god" refers to having that sort of mystical experience.

Not an easy nut to crack. Honestly, I think I'd have to say it really more a matter of how beliefs are held. What I mean is that a belief itself can be a vehicle for the exercise of faith, and it is through that which opens one to the experience of the Divine. The belief becomes an object of faith. For instance, one "believes" that God is there with them, and through that belief faith reaches out and lays hold on the Presence of the Divine. What is really happening is that the focus of faith allows them to let go of those things which are obstacles that they cling to mentally and emotionally which hold them back from God. The belief itself is not what is important, meaning the content of the belief doesn't have to be this or that idea, but I'd say rather a "type" of idea.

For instance, if someone believed God was a fearful beast who if they have a bad thought in their minds will smite them and dangle them over the flames of hell, that belief would not be conducive to letting go through faith. That belief would make one recoil in fear, and the result would be the opposite of a mystical experience. But if the belief was positive, that for instance God is Unconditional Love and is accepting of them, then that would evoke trust, and through faith letting go into God where one experiences freedom from fear.

Then when experience comes, it transcends the belief as an object of faith, and faith is replaced by experience. It moves from a longing and desire for God, into the Realization of God, and beliefs become of considerable less import. So one can map this out that beliefs are a support to faith, and faith is a support to experience. Then add one more, experience is a support to transformation. At which point, experience itself is incidental.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Two Rabbis argued late into the night about the existence of God, and, using strong arguments from the scriptures, ended up indisputably disproving His existence. The next day, one Rabbi was surprised to see the other walking into the shul for morning services.

"I thought we had agreed there was no God," he said.

"Yes, what does that have to do with it?" replied the other.
​

Is there a sense or way in which agnostics are generally or usually "closer to god" than either atheists or theists? If so, what is that sense or way?

It is an assumption -- especially in the West, I think -- that having the right, proper, or true beliefs about god brings you in some sense or way "closer to god".

So, for instance, some theists dedicate years to studying and cultivating what they consider right, proper, or true beliefs about god in the anticipation that doing so will deepen and enrich their religiosity or spirituality, and thus bring them closer to god. But even many theists who do not put tremendous effort into cultivating true beliefs, tend to assume that true beliefs will bring them closer to god than false beliefs.

But is that assumption warranted? Is it really the case that true beliefs are generally or usually effective or even efficacious in bringing us closer to god?

I would submit that the assumption can be legitimately doubted. Moreover, I think it is even -- not merely possible -- but actually probable that both false and true beliefs can usually -- but perhaps not always -- hinder or prevent one from becoming closer to god in a certain, specific way.

Of course, the key here is to recognize that the issue crucially depends on what one means by "closer to god".

If one means "closer to god" in an everyday, normal, non-mystical sense, then perhaps one does become closer to god via belief -- and closer via true beliefs than via false beliefs. Moreover, there may be more than one way in which one can potentially become closer to go in a normal, non-mystical sense.

For instance, one might be convince that ones belief in god as X is true. The firmness of ones conviction could then translate directly into an emotional feeling of closeness, and in that sense, ones belief might bring one closer to god.

Or, it could be that adopting certain moral beliefs and acting on them might in some sense bring you closer to god. We might call this "righteousness" in the sense of "being in the right relationship to deity".

But however ones beliefs might bring you closer to god in normal, everyday ways is not at issue here.

What is at issue -- what I wish to discuss -- is whether or not beliefs are effective in bringing about the mystical experience -- which is so often identified as an experience of god.

The mystical experience is here defined as the kind of experiencing that comes about when normal, everyday consciousness (i.e. subject/object perception) abruptly ends while some form of experiencing continues.

In this context, the notion of "becoming closer to god" refers to having that sort of mystical experience.

I have hinted at my position on this, but I will reserve a fuller disclosure of it for later on in this thread.

Comments? Observations? Rants? Irrelevant Digressions? Angst Induced Confessions of Spiritual Yearning?

Fortunately or unfortunately, it's not "the right doctrine" but the right God. Since Jesus is God, we need Him to be "close".

 

[Skwim]

Interesting, but how is that relevant to the question of whether or not beliefs are effective in bringing about mystical experiences?

I had your title question in mind, "Are Agnostics Generally "Closer to God" than Either Atheists or Theists?" And was making the point that because agnostics don't recognize the existence of god, your question wasn't applicable.

.

 

[suncowiam]

I think what you say is a good and true point. As you say, whether or not god exists is trivial, for how could that affect my belief that I am in relationship to one?

On the other hand, a separate question is whether or not beliefs are effective in bringing about a mystical experience of oneness with god?

An experience is really how one interprets reality. The interpretation is filtered and manipulated by beliefs, expectations and emotions to name a few... It's a complex system within the brain.

So I would say beliefs are very effective in bringing out mystical experiences. If one truly wants to believe, then their perception of reality will allow it to happen.

It also helps to be high.

 

[Sunstone]

I had your title question in mind, "Are Agnostics Generally "Closer to God" than Either Atheists or Theists?" And was making the point that because agnostics don't recognize the existence of god, your question wasn't applicable.

.

Yeah, I don't always know what's going on either for the same reason as you: I don't always read the OP either.

 

[Skwim]

Yeah, I don't always know what's going on either for the same reason as you: I don't always read the OP either.

Not that I didn't read it . . . to be honest, I just skimmed it . . . and in my opinion saw that it was too off track to take seriously, so I sought to address what I thought is at the core of this error.

.

 

[Sunstone]

Not that I didn't read it . . . to be honest, I just skimmed it . . . and in my opinion saw that it was too off track to take seriously, so I sought to address what I thought is at the core of this error.

.

Well, you missed the mark on that one, Skwim. But I doubt you're going to ever going to acknowledge it.

 

[Shad]

What is at issue -- what I wish to discuss -- is whether or not beliefs are effective in bringing about the mystical experience -- which is so often identified as an experience of god.

I think belief is required for an experience to be interpreted as a mystical one, a presupposition. I hold no pro-mystical views nor any belief which creates a mystical interpretation of an experience. Hence I have zero mystical experiences. Belief is the only effective means of producing such an interpretation.

 

[sun rise]

I wonder if it is possible to really believe in t he Christian God, and yet make no "effort".

I mean, really-really believe?

The bible is pretty specific about the kind of efforts
one should make, and how it turns out if you do not.

Yes:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

 

[Politesse]

Two Rabbis argued late into the night about the existence of God, and, using strong arguments from the scriptures, ended up indisputably disproving His existence. The next day, one Rabbi was surprised to see the other walking into the shul for morning services.

"I thought we had agreed there was no God," he said.

"Yes, what does that have to do with it?" replied the other.
​

Is there a sense or way in which agnostics are generally or usually "closer to god" than either atheists or theists? If so, what is that sense or way?

It is an assumption -- especially in the West, I think -- that having the right, proper, or true beliefs about god brings you in some sense or way "closer to god".

So, for instance, some theists dedicate years to studying and cultivating what they consider right, proper, or true beliefs about god in the anticipation that doing so will deepen and enrich their religiosity or spirituality, and thus bring them closer to god. But even many theists who do not put tremendous effort into cultivating true beliefs, tend to assume that true beliefs will bring them closer to god than false beliefs.

But is that assumption warranted? Is it really the case that true beliefs are generally or usually effective or even efficacious in bringing us closer to god?

I would submit that the assumption can be legitimately doubted. Moreover, I think it is even -- not merely possible -- but actually probable that both false and true beliefs can usually -- but perhaps not always -- hinder or prevent one from becoming closer to god in a certain, specific way.

Of course, the key here is to recognize that the issue crucially depends on what one means by "closer to god".

If one means "closer to god" in an everyday, normal, non-mystical sense, then perhaps one does become closer to god via belief -- and closer via true beliefs than via false beliefs. Moreover, there may be more than one way in which one can potentially become closer to go in a normal, non-mystical sense.

For instance, one might be convince that ones belief in god as X is true. The firmness of ones conviction could then translate directly into an emotional feeling of closeness, and in that sense, ones belief might bring one closer to god.

Or, it could be that adopting certain moral beliefs and acting on them might in some sense bring you closer to god. We might call this "righteousness" in the sense of "being in the right relationship to deity".

But however ones beliefs might bring you closer to god in normal, everyday ways is not at issue here.

What is at issue -- what I wish to discuss -- is whether or not beliefs are effective in bringing about the mystical experience -- which is so often identified as an experience of god.

The mystical experience is here defined as the kind of experiencing that comes about when normal, everyday consciousness (i.e. subject/object perception) abruptly ends while some form of experiencing continues.

In this context, the notion of "becoming closer to god" refers to having that sort of mystical experience.

I have hinted at my position on this, but I will reserve a fuller disclosure of it for later on in this thread.

Comments? Observations? Rants? Irrelevant Digressions? Angst Induced Confessions of Spiritual Yearning?

I certainly hope so!

I don't think belief separates oneself from God, if by belief you mean trust. Trust is won through experience, not philosophy or social control. The mystics speak confidently and lovingly of trust and belief in this sense. The proper opposite of agnosticism is gnosticism. Not the modern re-invention, the original kind that considered itself a rival orthodoxy, with a very strict hierarchy of who was allowed to "know" what about the One truth. The belief that you know everything about God and that others must be wrong if they disagree with you, is what builds distance. If your strategy is to trap yourself in one way of thinking, or in one community's way of knowing, how can you hope to meet God, who is found everywhere and in everyone? Without contradiction, can you know the father and reject the children?