Again, to a dying person, it can make a world of difference. This is not to,say that I have met some elders who were dying, were strongly involved in their faith and fought like crazy, and were terrified. But more often, it gave them solace and peace to go into deaths embrace more comfortably.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Losing my atheism (my new spiritual journey)
- Thread starter viole
- Start date
You didn't ask me but I have studied this extensively. Natural mysticism is somewhat what Thomas Merton found in his travels to Asia. It is very unlike the mysticism of st. Teresa of Avila which revolved entirely around God. Natural mysticism can be devoid of God as a deity concept and be about nature or any other concept that the person expeiences.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I think you'll find that we didn't create/invent maths .. we discovered it!
The universe is not entirely random .. it has order, elegance and beauty.
To suggest that there is none other than human beings discoveries and no superior 'mind' is quite arrogant, imo
I did not say that the interpretation of the data is absolute. I said that they can legitimately say that had an extraordinary experience. "Something" happened, and typically those who have such experiences will describe them as an experience of the Absolute, God, Infinity, and so forth. The point is they are describing something similar which is beyond ordinary experience, even if they describe it differently.
Yes indeed, which is why nothing can be said as absolute fact. All experience is interpreted through our frames of reference, and those are all relative. Even the experience of the Absolute, will be interpreted through these relative, limited filters. Even our investigation into nature using the tools of science, will be filtered though these filters. Nothing escapes this.
You just said you cannot trust your senses. Seeing is one of our many senses. So what does it matter if you can see it or not?
In reality there are a great many things, in fact the majority of things in our lives that we assume and take for granted are true without ever having your eyeballs perceive it. The list would be endless. We know quite a lot despite this reality.What you are saying is we need a better more rational way to speak about the experience of the ineffable. Well, logical descriptions would be limited to what the mind can comprehend. Are you saying there are no experiences in life that go beyond what can be defined in categories? This too is not reality. We can in fact know, and trust, we had an experience that went way beyond the ordinary, what can only be described as "Infinite" in nature. Ask anyone who has had such an experience. There is no doubt in their minds, regardless of how rational and well-educated they are. Ask me.
Again though, how someone interprets that, calling it God, or the Infinite, etc, is relative. Descriptions are different than logical ideas. They are words to describe something that itself on this level cannot be defined. Anything approaching the absolute breaks language into nothing but contradictions, paradoxes. But that doesn't mean they did not experience it.
Well, what I'm talking about doesn't have a lot to do with metaphysics. I will say this that such an experience does tend to make one see that there is more to reality than just rocks and atoms.
Last edited:
I think the term you should use is "Nature" mysticism, not "natural". That suggests something other that what it is. One can easily argue that Deity Mystism is natural as well, but it is different that nature mysticism which revolves around nature, the universe, the stars, the mountains and streams, the air, the movement of clouds, and so forth. You are right that it doesn't have to have a deity attached to it. What the OP described fits much more into Nature Mysticism.
But I'll add here that Deity Mysticism can in fact include Nature Mysticism. Most definitely. It's in the Bible in fact, a lot in the Psalms. But as far as Thomas Merton, he actually would have been a deity mystic.
I'm being childish? Respect is a two way road. I haven't labeled you as anything.
You assume I don't have the brain capacity to understand the "depth and complexity" of theistic perspectives?
Oh I under the complexity of theistic perspectives. It all starts on the foundation of faith because that is all theists have in order to continue their beliefs.
Like Luis Dantas points out, everything else is arbitrary.
That is actually how complex these views are. Faith is the rational process to bypass the ration mind.
Again, you make up your own rules, assume your own assumptions, you will win. You build your own personal reality that isn't shared by everyone, and I strictly mean everyone, then is it actually reality?
Yerda
Veteran Member
I never assumed anything about your brain capacity. As far as I can tell you're at least as smart as I am. I made an assumption about your exposure to theistic perspectives based on what you said.
I apologise for my presumptiousness and the suggestion you were being childish.
Maybe if I give my perspective on naturalism, it will help you see where I'm coming from:
I think the word "natural" is just another word for "that which exists". This doesn't necessarily mean that I reject everything that people call "supernatural", but just that any "supernatural" things that exist are actually natural. Maybe they behave in strange and unexpected ways, but they're still natural by definition.
So... when someone starts talking about "naturalistic atheists", I generally assume that they mean one of two things:
- "atheists who believe that only things that exist exist" (which would be a weird redundancy), or
- "atheists who are arbitrarily closed-minded about things *I* consider supernatural"
Good luck with the journey.
At the end of the day, all of those perspectives are either justified or not.
And that "depth and complexity" can often just create new problems. Take deism: yes, it addresses the problem of lack of evidence for God, but it does so in a way that belief in a deistic God can never be justified. At best, a deist can only hope to be coincidentally right in an "a stopped clock is right twice a day" kind of way.
A lot of these discussions between theists and atheists boils down to agree to disagree. No worries here...
Yerda
Veteran Member
Deism has nothing of interest to say of God as far as I can tell.
I am saying that mythical beings (like Santa) only coincide conceptually with a God that is anthropomorphic or at least some personal agent (like the biblical Guy who Threatens and makes Demands and Loves Us). Whether they are justified or not there are many perspectives that are so far from fitting this target that we can safely assume the argument that we can reject such Gods on those grounds is not justified. I would go as far as to say that they are categorically meaningless in the context of "the ground of all being" for example.
Yerda
Veteran Member
In so far as atheism is applicable, I'm an atheist. I haven't found a God I believe in that I would truly call a God.
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
I follow you. I didn't have in mind so much the idea of naturalism in opposition to "supernaturalism" as a matter of metaphysics, but methodological naturalism especially meaning certain epistemological assumptions about what can justify knowledge, what counts as evidence, and etc. Things get a bit tricky with all the connotations of terms. I think the ontological dualism implied by the word "supernatural" is probably untenable, and in a certain sense I would call myself a "naturalist" for that reason, even as a theist. If, as you say, the word "nature" just refers to everything that "is", in whatever way, i.e nature as a synonym for "reality". I don't really believe there are two separate and disjoint realities, the natural and supernatural. But the question is about how we participate in and understand "reality".
In any case, the point wasn't to attack "naturalism" as such, or to assert any particular metaphysics. I think science and methodological naturalism are very valuable, even if I think, as a worldview, "naturalism" in its most common expression dismisses an experience of reality that I think is very important. I don't have a question about the value of naturalism so much as a question about whether it describes the whole of reality without exception. For reasons that I think are easily understandable, naturalism is often contrasted with the most anti-science, anti-intellectual, fundamentalist, ill-considered "supernaturalist" views, and if sometimes people adopt a stance that is both hostile and immediately dismissive towards experiences and epistemological considerations that are outside of the usual range of "naturalism", they perhaps do so because they tend to think that is the only alternative to fundamentalism. And that's what I was suggesting is a mistake in my opinion.
But I'm not suggesting that the middle ground is any sort of theism or supernaturalism. As Windwalker posted about, there are non-theistic ideas about mysticism. As I said, the word "God" isn't strictly necessary, or "divine", or whatever synonym. They are useful words insofar as they refer to a very broad range of experiences and beliefs about those experiences, and that's all.That's why I said your reaction might be prejudicial. Most of what you are inferring has very little to do with what I was attempting to say. That's not entirely your fault, but at the same time I think my usage of the phrase "atheistic naturalism" is a fairly reasonable and neutral description, even if it might require a bit of elaboration.
OK...let me offer a rebuttal by saying that this particular argument used in favour of Atheism is its undoing:
1) You say that you do not believe that God exist. That is because you make the assumption that God is a concrete being, correct? May I say, this is the same mistake many theists make in positing that God exists. Rather, consider the possibility that God is an idea either affirmed or denied in some form, a concept upon which different images are projected.
2) Coming from the first objection, one would be forced into the affirmation of a specific conception of the idea of God in order to affirm or deny its existence.
3) Santa Claus, as with God, is a symbol onto which a specific image (a fat man with a red suit and a white beard) is projected. So of course, he doesn't exist as a concrete man, as he is symbolic of kindness towards others, selflessness, and goodwill (granted, at a specific time of year).
In ending my response, what does make God different from, let's say, Santa Claus, in which I very much so believe?
Last edited:
Not exactly following you. You're saying God does not exist in physical form but is an idea. Then I lost you at 2 and 3.
If Santa Clause does not exist but is an idea then what is the difference between God and Santa Claus in your example?
Thana
Lady
Are you really trying to say that there is no wonder and awe in Theism?
Sure, some of us are happy with "God did it", But most of us are curious about how 'He did it' which is really no different to your 'how it happened'.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Except that you already have prior assumptions that some sort of intelligence, and therefore intent, are behind it, and are therefore less likely to accept explanations that do not require one.