Why The Mystic Thanks The Atheist
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 сер 2024
- #history #atheism #mystic #yoga
✦ How are atheistic critiques a great help to mystical understanding?
✦ And what subtler way of knowing goes beyond all concepts?
✱
In this video essay, I discuss Michael Buckley's excellent book "Denying and Disclosing God: The Ambiguous Progress of Modern Atheism."
In particular, I examine
★ how one common argument for atheism starting in the nineteenth century made inroads
★ how mysticism has taken this atheistic argument to heart
★ why another human faculty (seemingly yet not totally lost) is necessary in order to apprehend the Divine Source
I conclude with a thought experiment that intends to point to that which some sages call "God."
✱
▶ Website: andrewjtaggart...
▶ Newsletter: pathwaystotao....
Very interesting analysis and thank you for sharing so many interesting book titles in your videos! :D I was wondering, have you ever researched or read literature on eastern orthodox theology/mysticism ? in the east there generally seems to be more openness to the mystery and unknowableness of God (look up St Gregory Palamas; essence-energies distinction). Generally, i've noticed that western theology relies a lot more on trying to rationalize everything whereas in the eastern christian tradition you don't see that happening so much
You're quite welcome. And thank you for this thoughtful reply.
I'm not that familiar with Eastern Orthodox theology and practice. I did read Bernard Mcginn's introductory volume: "The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism." The philokalia, for instance, is mentioned therein and I found it wonderful.
Years ago, my wife and I returned to our Christian roots, and we practiced, for a good while, Centering Prayer (which was developed by Thomas Keating).
We found in Advaita Vedanta all that we were looking for: robust metaphysical doctrine, wonderful teachers like Gaudapada and Sri Atmananda, and clear practices. And so, that's where we landed.
If you're interested, you can find a little bit on the practice side in this short video: ua-cam.com/video/O20HTyZ-FNs/v-deo.htmlsi=592z67IuBbXOeumS.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._*
And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality.
1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god.
2. I personally have never observed a god.
3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god.
4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality.
6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true.
7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
Very neat, and sharp, reply. I really enjoyed yoour comment.
Long reply very short (as perhaps others will want to look at your 11 facts): I find that the matter turns on whether ratio (as explored, if only briefly, in the video) or intellectus is regarded as the primary faculty. In your reply, you imply--so far as I can tell--that reason is trump. In terms of the history of Western philosophy, this view starts to win out--sure, in fits and starts--in the aftermath of the Enlightenment period and with the success of modern science.
Your facts (or arguments) have to do with a demonstration in terms of ratio. Other traditions, like Advaita Vedanta, start with intellectus--a direct realization of the nondual truth--and then offer up accounts (as in The Upanishads) that are based on "nondual experience," that appeal to reason, but that go beyond reason.
Now you might say: "What do the last two paragraphs have to do with God?" The ultimate--call it what you will--is (you're quite right) indefinable because beyond ratio; and yet it is knowable by the direct, intuitive lights of intellectus.
What's the point of this sort of reply? It's basically an invitation to be *even more open.* Why not? Since you're clearly quite open already, you might want to see if there's anything beyond the observable (in terms of sense perception) and the cognizable (in terms of reason). It's possible, in any case. And if it turns out to be true, then the peace you sign off with might be peace realized, might be peace pervasive...
With kindness,
Andrew
@secondaxialage Thanks for your thoughtful, cordial, and heartfelt response. Peace.
@@TheoSkeptomai You're very welcome. A coda:
I don't think a rational demonstration that indubitably proves, *by inference*, that god or God or gods exist is possible. For a lengthy treatment of this thorny issue in early-modern France, see Alan Charles Kors, "Atheism in France, 1650-1729: Volume I--The Orthodox Sources of Disbelief."
However, there are other "means of knowledge" as Advaita Vedanta terms it. Reason, on this view, is more like a helpmate, but not the star of the show. This is why I point to another way of knowing, which (so far as I can tell) is variously termed apperception, gnosis, "opening the Zen eye," intellectus, nondual realization, etc.
@@secondaxialage Apologies for butting in here, but I'm a bit confused.
Yes, prior to reason, prior to concepts, we have the simple fact that something seems to be happening. Before we name anything, there is just sights, feelings, sensations, sounds, yadda yadda. Then, our minds have the capacity to reach into that experience and overlay concepts onto it. And it's useful to do so. It gives us the ability to create structured plans that we can communicate to others to aid in taking down a wooly mammoth, all the way up to the plans to create the computer on which you're reading this.
The dichotomy, if there is one, as far as I can tell, is that prior to the conceptual overlay, reason is not a part of the picture. Reason enters the picture when we start discussing concepts and creating relationships between them. And given our goals, and what we've done with reason to achieve them, it obviously is the best game in town. That being said, we can set aside concepts all together and recognize the impermanent nature of experience prior to concepts right now, and there is absolutely value in doing this (for the experience itself, and from a conceptual level looking back, if you will). We can recognize the nature of awareness in the present moment, and we can conceptualize and reason why doing so is a good thing.
My point is, in either of these camps, where does God come into the picture? We look at concepts and our reasons for believing any particular concept and the reasons for believing the God concept, however ill-defined, we find that we do not have good reasons for accepting it. We look at the present moment, and again, where does God fit in here? We might want to later look back and say, God is the knowing. God is the thing prior to the overlay of concepts. But first, lets acknowledge that this is just a conceptual overlay on that experience as well. And second, is God such a good term to use to point to that experience? God comes with so much baggage. There's nothing in my present moment experience that looks like some sort of bearded man in the sky who started the universe. I understand this is a western caricature, but take that term and modify it to your heart's content to point at whatever you mean by God and wherever we end up, there's probably a better term than "God".
Knowing, awareness, is, seeming, consciousness, non-self, non-dual awareness. All of these pointers seem more apt than God and can prevent a load of confusion. God, almost by definition as it's been used for millennia at this point, exists as a concept separate from the knowing. The knowing just is and when we conceptualize about it, we should try to use minimalist terms instead of the term that wars and genocides have been committed for.
Is this the apophatic conceptualization, or am I missing something key?
I have a difficult time giving credence to apophatic concepts as they seem the opposite of concepts.
Interesting presentation, nonetheless.
Great question; really good. Here's an attempt at a short answer:
Yes, this is apophatic. BUT the apophatic and the cataphatic ultimately point to what's beyond conception but not beyond "knowing" or "direct experiencing." The first negates conception to point beyond while the second affirms--and must also point beyond verbal affirmation.
Why does this matter? Because it *experientially reveals* the self-evidence of the Source. This *experiential understanding* shows that atheism, ultimately, is not and cannot be true.
I think that neoplatanism has the vocabulary that atheists can understand. I especially like William Douglas Horden's material which blends animism, neoplatonism, Toltec and Daoist thinking to understand what he calls Rational Mysticism. If you are looking for a place to start, Way of the Diviner is good, or if you prefer one of his shorter books, The Five Emanations is great.
Very intriguing. I hadn't heard of them. Thanks for the references.
@@secondaxialage I discovered him quite accidentally about 8 years ago. I cannot tell you how many times I have reread his books since then. His writing is a mix of philosophy, religion, poetry and practice. You won't regret reading his books.
@@chdao It's lovely, isn't it?, to find someone who seems to be writing *to you*. You find a true friend. I get it, and it's such a beautiful thing.
Mono-and poly-theism, pantheism, and many other forms of approach to divinity share a problem with representation/ idolatry. To designate divinity as either one, two, or many risks conceptualising god(s) with an existing thing. The ''zero option' serves both devout theism and virulent atheism rather well. There is barely a sliver between Ekhart and Bataille, or between the Incogniti of renaissance Venice and Nick Land. in all of those cases God is nothing, but nothing is far more active and sacred than the mere absence or negation suggested by the boring ''empty-sky' atheists like Richard Dawkins :) The outside of the human world and possible contact with that outside is far too large a matter to be circumscribed by either atheism or theism. Many thanks for a thought provoking presentation!
Quite nice discussion. Thank you.
Your story is interesting.
I have had my own journey, which has resulted in full atheism. Your atheist concept missed out traditional atheism, which I feel is important to cover.
The atheist says, "I don't believe in a god or gods."
The atheist does not say, "I believe there is no god."
Only a hard atheist will say, "I believe there is no god."
I agree that the mind is finite.
I know first-hand how it feels to project outside the mind.
I also know that this can be a product of our own mental processes.
I also know that the activity of the brain has been mapped to show this is just a common function of the brain.
Because of this, my only honest position is also to be aspiritual.
I do not believe a spirit exists.
Usually, an atheist position is understood as the denial of the existence of God or gods. In the nineteenth century, there was a new coinage--"agnosticism"--to point to a position of skepticism. "Agnōstos" means "not knowable."
From what I can gather, you seem to think that such knowledge isn't available to us owing to the limits of the finite mind. So far as I can tell, you seem to fall into the agnostic camp. Correct me if I misunderstand.
The question, I suggest, is whether there's a broader account of "what it is to know" that goes beyond ratio (or what we commonly term reason) but that, of course, doesn't fall into woo.
Here's Martin Lings (starting at 19:00 for about a couple of minutes thereafter) speaking of the distinctions between intellectus, ratio, imaginato, and sensus and underscoring the seminal importance of intellectus:
ua-cam.com/video/ZiZZ9nr2i1Y/v-deo.html
@secondaxialage Cute. I guess you have not heard of Epicurus or Lucretius, then? These were early atheists who did not deny the potential for gods to exit.
Agnosticism as a word is a nice additional description but does not change the fact that my description is correct.
I nearly forgot: the word 'denial' can only really be applied in the case of an evident circumstance. A god or gods are inevident so can only be considered from a position of 'belief'. In the case of affirmative belief in a god, it is on a position of 'faith', which is a dishonest position in terms of gnosis.
@@secondaxialageAtheism and Agnosticism are two different but sometimes complimentary things. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know. I am an agnostic in the sense that I do not know if a god or gods exist. But I am an atheist in the sense that I do not believe there are gods. At least any god that a human has imagined.
Great video. I had a similar progression from growing up Christian then becoming an atheist in early adulthood after experiencing the existential angst associated with this stage in life. I still am, but I’m far from the stereotypical sterile view of the world most commonly associated with atheism.
Something really interesting to me is the idea of projection you were speaking of. I think that the mapping is what has changed since most people have (rightfully so) cleaved some distance between themselves and dogmatic religious institutions and people. So the “source” has not changed but rather we have changed what we call it.
There are associations deeply entrenched in our view of religion and religious people that has been essentially given the “source” a bad reputation. It doesn’t “sell” to the same extent anymore. By this I mean it’s not a signal of “I should trust this person” just because someone uses the symbol of God. Like we spoke of a few weeks ago, the symbol itself seems to have become diluted.
The fact that someone’s intellectuality is a predictor of belief in God is a testament to this sort of rebranding.
As an atheist I have an internal sense of disgust at using the word God strictly because of all the intellectual baggage that comes with it.
You could ask me these two questions and here is how I would answer:
Do you believe in God? No
Do you believe in an existential flame that drives you and every other person? Absolutely
Something even more interesting is how when there’s a discrepancy between an atheist and a believer, the believers almost always claim that atheists are nihilists who are depressed and live meaningless lives. I think that this is a projection on part of believers in particular. If you truly believe in the source, then it must be present in everyone whether they believe it or not.
I think a better way to describe God in modern day is the extent to which one concerns himself with what kindles his own flame and the flames of others. There is common ground between believers and atheists and I seek to help build that bridge, completely disregarding the authoritarian dogmas that have hijacked the symbol.
You seem to be on this path too. Keep up the good work!
A very thoughtful reply. Thank you.
1. You don't sound like an atheist by the end. That "existential flame" may turn out to be universal, unlimited, uncaused, unconditioned, and unlocalized. There may *not* turn out to be (e.g.) 8 billion individuated flames but instead "not even two" (advaita) flames.
2. In your two questions and answers, you seem to be assuming that God = a transcendent, providential being of a certain kind. Making no such assumption, Eastern teachings like Daoism, Zen Buddhism, and Advaita Vedanta happily speak of "Dao," of "sunyata," and of "Consciousness." There's no presupposition about creation ex nihilio or about providence (though I'd need to add something further about Isvara to qualify this statement).
3a. Deep practice helps us to look at "allergies" (Ken Wilber) and at attachments. Therefore, when you write, "As an atheist I have an internal sense of *disgust* at using the word God strictly because of all the intellectual baggage that comes with it" (my emphasis), I think, for instance, of my my friend Timothy Conway's discussion (plus meditation) on healing from God talk:
awakening-together.org/timothy-conway-healing-abusive-models-of-god/
3b. There's another approach to allergies like this one: We needn't assume a representational theory of language, according to which a word or name (like "God") maps onto or accurately refers to or represents an existing thing. Letting go of that theory, we can open to the possibility that all words are just arisings--much like all thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and sensations. For some, "God" is just *a pointer* to an indefinable reality, which--for all that--could turn out to be that flame you reference.
When I hear "God," I feel love (Deus caritas est). When I hear "Consciousness," I feel peace. When I hear "sunyata," I taste freedom.
@@secondaxialage
1. That’s because my religion is life itself.
2. I do assume these things because in American culture, especially where I live in the rural south, it is ALWAYS used in the Christian sense. I read that article and while I think it may be useful for some people, it’s not useful for me.
3. Rather than smoothing over the emotional response I have to the word, I see it as a very powerful indicator to be wary of. I have no interest in nullifying emotionally charged aspects of my thinking, because that treats volatility as bad and tranquility is good. Sensitivity when directed can create art and high culture. My grievances with modern culture are in part the source of my creativity (writing, software projects, etc) and not something to be treated like an allergy.
This is why I don’t like Buddhism. It has a time and place in my life but I don’t wish to pursue peace, love and tranquility as an end because I see the opposites (war, hatred, turmoil) as just as important when it comes to the reality of how healthy cultures and psychological states are formed.
This leads me to the point that cultural and personal vitality are what people actually should be referring to when they speak of God, but they do not.
@@jamm_affinity Thank you for this considered and considerate reply. I really appreciate it.
In the end, he's doing a great job with explaining how we're able to achieve a meditative state. But then again, that state may also be godless in the sense that daoism and buddhism doesn't believe in God. Once again it shows me that in order to believe in theism, you need to conceptualize your thoughts-and that's simply not happening when your "concept making" part of your brain is turned off. You've gotta come back from this state, rediscover your former ego, and to become a theist again. Because religions are just like any other social activity amongst humans. It's just a thing we do. God has always been this cosmic Super-ego. A sort of reflection of our own humanity. For the same reason we need fiction to understand facts sometimes. It's just this thing we do, like any other institution.
Take money for an example. It basically works like an economic institution, whereas, money really has no value in itself. The system only works once everyone believes in it.
The same goes for God as a religous institution. It really makes no difference unless you believe in it. Therefore it's an interpersonal system that only works inside a group that believes in it.
It's not bad. It just happens to be true.
Here are some discussion questions. What do you think?
Q1: Is atheism right in its denial of the existence of God? Or do atheists fail to appreciate that it's only deconstructing *human* concepts?
Q2: Do modern proponents of the religious and spiritual life need to take seriously atheistic critiques in order to develop more robust accounts of the religious or spiritual form of life today?
Q3: Do those like the late Louis Dupre have a point when they insist that, in this increasingly secular age, the religious life will need to draw heavily from mysticism--that is, from experiential accounts of 'the inner landscape'?
Q4: And (see the thought experiment at the very end): Are those who think that consciousness is only phenomenal (it's only *about* objects like sights, sounds, thoughts, feelings, etc.) wrong when they don't see that consciousness is not only phenomenal (it's *about* objects) but also non-phenomenal (that is, consciousness is essentially and undeniably aware of itself by virtue of being itself)?
open mind and open heart? what's with the open heart? Its either a sound reasoned conclusion or a feeling.
Those aren't the only two logical options with respect to the heart. You're assuming that the latter is identical with a feeling.
By "heart" or "open heart," I'm referring to the Sanskrit term (hridayam), which is nicely discussed by the twentieth century sage Sri Ramana Maharshi: sriramanamaharishi.com/faith-heart-grace-reality/what-is-heart-it-is-the-reality/
@@secondaxialage then why use a term like open mind and open heart which is well known to be used as feelings and then put your own definition to it without explaining it better. It's like an Engineering Tech explaining things to a Customer and using tech words that they only understand. Sort of misleading.
@@forbolden Replies:
Pt. 1: It's simply not possible to define all of one's terms, especially in a 16 min. or 24 min. video presentation. We'd be in an indefinite regress...
Pt. 2: That's just not how many of us speak, especially in the digital age. In spoken discourse (e.g., a Socratic dialogue), there's room for clarification in real time yet only as needed.
Pt. 3: This definitional matter, the one broached in the query above, is incidental to the main line of inquiry followed in the video. The main terms in play, like ratio and intellectus, are defined in Part 3 of the video essay.
@@secondaxialage its still comes across as a feeling, or an psychological explanation which is lead someone else telling you where the self is where the heart is and you "feel" that this much be correct. Without someone pointing you to this conclusion I wonder how many would say that. That whole article is very much feeling based. With that said. If I'm missing something, could you point to it. Let's assume I'm struggling to comprehend what's being attempted to be conveyed.
@@RationalRevelationsPodCast It's really lovely that you're open to dialogue. I quite appreciate that.
Let me just concede all your points about feeling. And then we can set the matter off to the side for now.
You state: "With that said. If I'm missing something, could you point to it. Let's assume I'm struggling to comprehend what's being attempted to be conveyed." Wow, beautiful.
"The Upanishads" and "The Tao Te Ching" are alluding to THAT to which all experiences are appearing but which itself is *not an object or experience*. If interested, you might want to check either of these out.
An experiment--a fun, albeit subtle one--might be intriguing too. You need to be "like a blockhead" or a child, as my Zen teacher used to say. Perhaps try the one-way point and/or the two-way pointing experiments: headless.org/experiments/pointing.htm.