Do you believe in the mystical?

[Gambit]

Call it its meta-subject then. What does "the mystical" mean?

I defined the term in the OP. But if you want me to provide more clarification, then I will slightly qualify one of my definitions. The "mystical" is something that is "mysterious and defies any attempt at a complete naturalistic explanation."

 

[Gambit]

Merriam-Webster's definition strikes me as rather limited in scope.

Merriam-Webster defines the term (as most terms) as having various meanings dependent on context. I am employing a couple of those meanings for the context of this thread.

 

[Quintessence]

Merriam-Webster defines the term (as most terms) as having various meanings dependent on context. I am employing a couple of those meanings for the context of this thread.

The operational definition you're using hinges upon the word "spiritual." What operational definition are you using for that? I kind of erased that word from the sentence as I was reading the definition.

 

[Gambit]

Curiously, one could regard all of reality as defying complete explanation given humans are non-omniscient and non-omnipresent.

If that is your view, then you have a mystical view based on the definition of the term I furnished in the OP of this thread.

 

[Gambit]

The operational definition you're using hinges upon the word "spiritual."

I also defined it as "mysterioius," as defying any attempt at complete explanation.

What operational definition are you using for that? I kind of erased that word from the sentence as I was reading the definition.

Merriam-Webster defines the "spiritual" as "of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit"

 

[George-ananda]

Question:

Do you believe in the mystical? That is, do you believe there is something that has spiritual meaning that is difficult to see or understand? That there is something that is mysterious and defies any attempt at a complete explanation?[/QUOTE]
I am a little unsure of what this question is asking. But I voted 'Yes' as I believe there are realms beyond the physical that we can not fully comprehend.

 

[Gambit]

I am a little unsure of what this question is asking. But I voted 'Yes' as I believe there are realms beyond the physical that we can not fully comprehend.

That's basically what I am asking. Is there something that defies any attempt at a completely (natralistic) explanation.

 

[godnotgod]

And who'd believe their own experiences, right?

The mystical experience is not that of the personal finite self; it's not my experience as only 'I' see it; it is impersonal, and being impersonal, it is the experience of the universal. As the Hindus say: 'the saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere'.

Just as there is no such 'it' that rains, there is no experiencer of the experience; there is only the experience itself.

 

[godnotgod]

The mystical isn't something you believe, it's something you experience. In the Abrahamic religions, it is direct, unmrdiated experience of God. In Hinduism it is direct experience of the true self, the Atman which is also the Brahman. Both are considered divine. To an atheist, it means connecting to your own deep consciousness.

And now some scientists are telling us that what they are calling The Unified Field is none other than Pure Consciousness; Brahman; 'Sat Chit-Ananda', etc, and can be accessed directly via the meditative process:

 

[godnotgod]

To an atheist, it means connecting to your own deep consciousness.

From a certain Hindu POV, an atheist is the divine nature pretending it doesn't exist, as a consequence of playing the cosmic game of Hide and Seek.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I also defined it as "mysterioius," as defying any attempt at complete explanation.



Merriam-Webster defines the "spiritual" as "of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit"

I enjoy a nice glass of whisky and can't completely explain why; does that count?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's basically what I am asking. Is there something that defies any attempt at a completely (natralistic) explanation.

Everything we don't yet know has so far "defied any attempt at a completely (naturalistic) explanation." I don't think this makes unknown things "mystical". For "mystical", I think there are two possible approaches:

- a thing doesn't have a naturalistic explanation, but does have a supernatural explanation (i.e. the term implicitly asserts that the supernatural exists)
- a thing will never and can never have a naturalistic explanation (i.e. the term implicitly asserts omniscience on the part of the speaker)

 

[sun rise]

To me, a great way of expressing the concept is from the movie "They Might Be Giants": "The human heart can see what's hidden to the eyes, and the heart knows things that the mind does not begin to understand."

 

[godnotgod]

Can you keep the unquiet physical-soul from straying,
Hold fast to the Unity, and never quit it?
Can you, when concentrating your breath,
Make it soft like that of a little child?
Can you wipe and cleanse your vision of the Mystery till all is without blur?

Tao Te Ching: Chapter 10
translated by Arthur Waley (1934)

 

[Gambit]

I enjoy a nice glass of whisky and can't completely explain why; does that count?

Do you believe your "enjoyment" defies all attempts at a naturalistic explanation?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you believe your "enjoyment" defies all attempts at a naturalistic explanation?

It has so far. As for what the future will hold... I'm not omniscient or clairvoyant.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's basically what I am asking. Is there something that defies any attempt at a completely (natralistic) explanation.

Inherently so, as opposed as simply because we do not currently have the means?

No, I don't think there is.

 

[LuisDantas]

From a certain Hindu POV, an atheist is the divine nature pretending it doesn't exist, as a consequence of playing the cosmic game of Hide and Seek.

Or perhaps of realizing that there is such a thing as believing in too much for one's own good?

 

[Bunyip]

It's interesting to note that many etymologies (here, here, and here for starters) indicate that the English "mystic" is derived from Greek "mystos" which is defined as "to keep silent" or "to close the eye" (from the Greek "myein").

In light of that, it seems to me that "mystic" comes out of the box freighted with conflict for most thinking beings (and especially atheists).

I read that as being a reference to the unknown, the things we can not see. Hence the other derivative of the term; Mystery. I do not see it as in conflict with atheism.

 

[Gambit]

Inherently so, as opposed as simply because we do not currently have the means?

No, I don't think there is.

Okay. So, you don't believe in the mystical. But your nonbelief is based on faith.