Skeptic Or Mystic?

[Guest billmc]

The very 8 points defining TCPC and your very accepted presence here along with others of differing viewpoints should provide evidence as to the answer to that question.

 

Perhaps. But at the same time, you might consider me to be an "old creature" or carnal or unspiritual and, thus, needing conversion or "enlightenment."

 

So while I appreciate that I have some freedom here to express my opinion, I would hope that I am among peers, not among su-peer-iors.

[Mike]

The notion that one has to become “childlike”, while biblical, is, to me, unwarranted and even dangerous. Children are uncritical, self-centered, and often unable to discern the truth of things because they simply trust whatever an authority figure in their lives may tell them. So I find it troubling that at the center of mysticism is the notion that one must uncritically accept whatever someone experiences as the “truth” and that “new creations” must, essentially, stop thinking. No progress has ever been made in humanity when people have been told to just accept what happens to them and to stop thinking. To me, that sort of “progress” leads back to the Dark Ages, not to enlightenment. It seems to me that mature people question truth-claims and they don’t have to shut down their minds at the door of the church or in the presence of God.

 

Perhaps under a certain view of mysticism this danger is not present. It is not as if the mystic in this sense has some specific teaching he wants others to accept on his authority. There is no authority, there is no teaching. What is it therefore being imposed, or accepted uncritically and therefore leading astray? It’s not about holding onto concepts, any concepts (including the concept of yourself), in the first place.

 

I feel like this is talking past each other. Perhaps we should be clear that mysticism is a blanket term just about as broad as religion itself. There are definitely different kinds of mysticism. From what I study, valid mysticism will always bring all of your questions and existential problems right back to yourself for a resolution, because that’s where they arise. There is cheap mysticism, which may be grounded in a fickle experience, deluded divine revelation or manipulation by some religious authority figure, but that is not what I refer to by the term.

 

As for enlightenment, there is a saying Buddhism: the difference between someone who is enlightened and someone who isn’t: the unenlightened person thinks there is a difference. In my understanding, mysticism requires a constant questioning in order to shed wrong concepts and ultimately move past concepts altogether. The moment one thinks he “has” it, like I might “have” a car or a computer, he become stagnate: he loses it by objectifying, abstracting, and theorizing the immediacy of his experience.

[JosephM]

Bill,

Thanks for your detailed response. here are my comments on your points....

 

(snip)

You wrote:

"It seems to me that being a Skeptic can get past a lot of myth and erroneous conclusions inserted by men who form religions to further their own ends."

 

I think that, at its best, this is what skepticism does. But being a skeptic myself, what I can't distinguish between is what you call "myth" and what is called a mystical experience. Many people have had mystical experiences that they ultimately use to further their own ends. They believe that they have direct communed with God and that God has given them a message or a mission for the rest of us. When the mystic declares himself/herself to be the mediator, it is at that point that I think things are apt to go wrong.

 

Bill, It seems to me it is that very fear of what you say happening that keeps one a Skeptic. In my experience when one has a mystical experience there is no chance of a skeptic being present at that time nor is their doubt at that moment. Afterwards is another thing.

 

You wrote:

"However, (skepticism) being primarily 'reason based', its understanding can only go so far achieving a level of wisdom and meaning but never reaching beyond the limitations of the thinking mind to true revelation, transfiguration and illumination of consciousness."

 

I agree. We all know that intelligence and wisdom are not the same thing. Our culture has the intelligence to invent bombs that can kill each of us 20 times over. But we do not have the wisdom to get rid of these bombs. But being a skeptic, I am inclined to think that wisdom comes, not through supernatural revelation or sudden illumination, but from learning from the mistakes of the past and from questioning motives, personal and cultural. I don't think that having a mystical experience automatically makes one wise.

 

Perhaps mans wisdom of this world comes as you say, I am in agreement with your statement and though a mystical experience doesn't automatically make one wise, there is a wisdom that only comes from Spirit and is a different animal all together. In my view, one mystical experience only opens the door for more if one is consentable to continue.

 

You wrote:

"In my view, the Skeptic can only attain a high level of intelligence with what Christianity may speak of as the 'old creature'."

 

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with your (and Paul's) take on the interpretation. Your statement comes from, in your view, a position of superiority i.e. that the mystics are spiritual and the skeptics are carnal and never the twain shall meet. You are insinuating that the skeptic is the "old creature" and that the mystic is the "new creature" and that there is no room for intelligence or using the mind/reasoning/discernment in the "new creature." Such a claim, pardon the expression, seeks to "disarm" the skeptic by insisting that the skeptic has no right to examine/judge/critique the truth claims made by the skeptic. So the mystic gets away with making any claim that they want because they are the "new creature" and don't have to submit their claims to the judgment of others whom they consider to be carnal. Situations like this, my friend, can lead to circumstances like what happened in Waco. David Koresh claim mystical direct revelations from God and felt that no one had any right to question his claims or his authority. Maybe God has given the church skeptics to help keep the mystics grounded.

 

It seems to me you assume that all who consider them self a Mystic come from a position of superiority. To me, that is an incorrect assumption. It is my perception that perhaps, you read too much into my words that I have not spoken. Perhaps this is normal for one who leans toward skepticism? It is true that I do not have to submit my claims ( though I have made none other than shared my personal view) but then again neither do you unless of course you choose to. I know nothing of David Koresh's claims and you may question any you think I have made. It seems to me that it is always a fear of the hypothetical that contribute to the obscuration of understanding.

 

 

You wrote:

"To discover the ultimate reality of God or direct communion, in my experience takes a leap into the mystical which in a sense is very difficult (but not impossible) for those who place great emphasis on intelligence or are deep into the cares of this world whether they be politics, philosophy, theology or whatever."

 

Again, while I agree that God is not known primarily through intelligence, the paradigm that you are portraying seems to say that the mystic cares nothing for politics, philosophy, or the cares of this world. I believe Jesus was a mystic and I simply don't see that, for him, being a mystic made him less caring about the affairs of this world. To the contrary, I think his mysticism drove him deeper into caring about people and the lives that they lead.

 

Again it seems to me you have taken an extreme from my words where there is none meant? I used the words "for those who place great emphasis on intelligence or are deep into the cares of this world etc. This does not portray or say I care nothing for those things. Perhaps even Jesus would have said the same thing in other words?

 

You wrote:

"In a sense one must become as 'a little child' in that one must at least temporarily shed ones past conditioning of the thinking mind to see that kingdom or in eastern religion some would say to enter the unconditioned. In my experience, the world or reality of the Mystic is not something that is realized by thinking, doubting or believing. You can't think about it, because the minute you do, it is not to be found."

 

I find this to be one of the most troubling statements, Joseph. The notion that one has to become "childlike", while biblical, is, to me, unwarranted and even dangerous. Children are uncritical, self-centered, and often unable to discern the truth of things because they simply trust whatever an authority figure in their lives may tell them. So I find it troubling that at the center of mysticism is the notion that one must uncritically accept whatever someone experiences as the "truth" and that "new creations" must, essentially, stop thinking. No progress has ever been made in humanity when people have been told to just accept what happens to them and to stop thinking. To me, that sort of "progress" leads back to the Dark Ages, not to enlightenment. It seems to me that mature people question truth-claims and they don't have to shut down their minds at the door of the church or in the presence of God.

 

Perhaps you are being a bit critical without reading all my words for a deeper understanding of what I am sharing? Notice I said "In a sense" and "as a little child in that". Of course all the attributes of a little child is not what I am referencing here but that which is in context only and I believe neither was Jesus in his statement to become "childlike".

 

 

It's is my deep hope that PC can find a way to bring skepticism and mysticism into balance, even into synergy. Yes, intelligence is limited. And perpetual doubting can lead to fatalism. Mysticism, being directly in touch with God or ultimate reality, is, hopefully, a way forward for humanity because it does seek to remove the "middle-man." But I also believe that mysticism needs the feedback of skepticism. If mysticism doesn't allow for that, then it becomes just another religion of who is in (spiritual) and who is out (carnal) and fosters more divisiveness. We have enough of that already, don't we?

So how can we appreciate and best utilize what both "sides" bring to the PC discussion? Or will PC become a "mystics only" club?

 

 

It seems to me that TCPC's function is not trying to bring skepticism and mysticism in balance as you may assume or not. TCPC has no such theology or doctrine. Part of its mission is simple to explain.

 

To reach out to those for whom organized religion has proved ineffectual, irrelevant, or repressive, as well as to those who have given up on or are unacquainted with it.

 

Much of this is done by creating open communications which you see here. It function is not to introduce or impose fixed doctrine or beliefs as a standard to form a religion. One can get all the feedback from others that they are looking for here without being told what they must believe. And the focus is not on what you believe or even the answers to questions but more on support of those on the search rather than certainty as you have read in the 8 points. You see, in my view, PC is not just another religion but rather a supporter of those who seek Christ/Love or use different words for the same One Spirit that exists in all.

 

Joseph

[JosephM]

Perhaps. But at the same time, you might consider me to be an "old creature" or carnal or unspiritual and, thus, needing conversion or "enlightenment."

 

So while I appreciate that I have some freedom here to express my opinion, I would hope that I am among peers, not among su-peer-iors.

 

Bill,

 

I like your humor. The truth is, I consider you perfect, just as you are. Neither superior or inferior because the only separation between us is in ones mind.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

[Mike]

Bill,

 

By the way, this really is a great discussion, thanks for starting it and sharing your thoughts, as they have given me something to think about and even help me to clarify just where I stand on the issue. I consider your concerns to be very valid. Skepticism has been a necessary and valuable tool for progress in my own life. And indeed, a lack of skeptical wherewithal can wind up being dangerous. The mysticism or religion that you have in mind and object to certainly can lead to negative circumstances.

 

But as such I really feel that the barrier drawn here between the mystic and the skeptic is ultimately artificial. To me there is no reason why one should have to choose exclusively one of the two, no reason why one should have to dwell in either extreme.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[Guest billmc]

But as such I really feel that the barrier drawn here between the mystic and the skeptic is ultimately artificial. To me there is no reason why one should have to choose exclusively one of the two, no reason why one should have to dwell in either extreme.

 

I feel the same way, Mike. I'm a moderate on both skepticism and mysticism. For instance, I'm enough of a moderate that I believe in the reality of GOD or that GOD is reality. I believe there is more to existence than just the material universe. That "more", I call GOD and feel in touch with that GOD. These beliefs or experiences have not necessarily come from my intellect or study, more from just a "knowing" or a sensing that I am part of something Bigger and Deeper. But I'm enough of a skeptic that I do tend to doubt the validity of some people's accounts of experiences with God, especially when, as I mentioned earlier, those experiences tend to make them think that they are superior or more spiritual than others.

 

So I agree that we don't have to choose. But I do think it is important to listen to both sides.

[JosephM]

I also appreciate this topic and the participation by all and thank Bill for bringing it up.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

[soma]

My skeptical mind says don't believe with insufficient evidence because it might be a superstition. It has served me well avoiding blind faith and keeping me alert so my mystical mind gives full rein to my skepticism because it is not afraid of falling into a poisonous pit. This is where the middle of the river is so important because I become alert to every possibility. One shore claims absolute knowledge and the other shore claims an absolute skepticism of the claim one can know anything absolutely with a rational mind. In the center of the river, I see with humble eyes the information given so I want to find out. This is when my mystical mind comes to the surface from the spiritual depths beyond thought to give my skeptical mind the conviction to doubt and find out if that spiritual experience will stand up to critical examination. Floating in the middle I see myself in the reflection on both shores bathing in shallow truths. It is not rational, but I am afraid of drowning in those shallow, half truths so I let the currents sweep me away. In the middle sometimes my mind stops quarreling with itself long enough to see both shores supporting the river of life leading to the ocean of pure consciousness.

 

I am getting dizzy going back and forth, I hope I an not schizophrenic.

[JosephM]

Hi Soma,

 

I look at it a bit differently but am happy with whatever seems to work for one. Personally I find it good to neither believe nor disbelieve until something is revealed in its time. This includes not forming an opinion before an experience. And when it is revealed, I realize that there is still a greater understanding to come in words so it can be better communicated. I am in the deep waters but not afraid of drowning because I know what sustains me and in that is my complete trust. I confess that Death has no power over me. Neither has the misaligned Mystic that some speak of nor the Skeptic who doubts all.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

[soma]

Joseph, I agree with what you say. It seems we are all right looking at these two aspects from different angles and it is fascinating. We are lucky we are having this discussion because we all have to deal with these two extremes. I am also grateful that this topic was brought up. I think the Tao discussion has influenced me on this one in a good way with the middle path. When I am in the middle, deep part of the river I see skepticism and mysticism as family members working together for a common purpose, but when I favor one over the other I think the things I can count really count and the things I can't count don't count, but most of the time the things I can count don't really count and the things I can count don't really count. Family members will have conflicts and quarrel from time to time, but it all makes the family stronger. I think being on the middle path keeps the family from divorce. Your brother in Christ Soma

[JosephM]

Since most here either follow, believe in many of the teachings or found an approach to God through the teachings of Jesus, An interesting question to ponder as relates to this subject would be ...

 

Would Jesus be considered a Mystic or Skeptic or something in between?

 

Happy Pondering.....

Joseph

[soma]

Great question Joseph.

 

I see Jesus as a mystic because he guides my meditation. I use the vision of Jesus while meditating to get beyond the material pull of my mind to a more subtle state. The image I have of Jesus helps me to un-construct from my thoughts and release a spiritual experience that I can only say is beyond the mind. My only description is pure consciousness.

 

When I finish my meditation, I have to take out the trash. I can take it out the front door, the back door, or the side door. It is the skeptical mind that guides us through life with so many decisions. This is where I see the example of Jesus as a skeptic because he was skeptical of the religious teachings that manipulated and used people. Some prey on others using fear and superstition for their own reward. The example of the skeptical Jesus guides me through the religiosity to think that some teaching could be wrong, misleading or just undeveloped. The thought of Jesus acting and being in the present helping others helps me through all the thoughts, concepts, dogmas, beliefs, imaginings that bombard my mental plate. My skeptical mind following Jesus thought came to the conclusion that existence has a Divine formless force underlying everything. My skeptical mind following the recorded thoughts of Jesus has brought me to the concept of a true inner self, soul or spirit surrounded by mind, ego or will clouding my soul's pure perception and ability to know my inner self and the Divine. My skeptical mind following what I perceive as Jesus' skeptical mind has brought me to a deep contemplation where I use meditation, but others might use something else to allow connection or alignment with the soul, inner self, and with the Divine.

[Neon Genesis]

I'm a skeptic of the supernatural and pseudoscience and I don't believe in any supernatural gods. At the same time, I do sometimes entertain thoughts of naturalistic pantheism and I do sometimes "pray" but I do it more as a form of meditation than traditional intercessory prayer. Although I don't self-identify as a Christian, I still try to follow the teachings of Jesus and I read the bible more now as an atheist than I did as a Christian. I'm not sure if this makes me "mystic" as I don't feel comfortable with the label, but I guess you could call me a spiritual atheist. As for whether Jesus was a mystic or a skeptic, I think Jesus was definitely a mystic. He had experiences with God like at the point of his baptism and he believed he had a connection with God, so I think that would make him a mystic and Marcus Borg believes Jesus was a Jewish mystic in his book Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary. As for whether or not Jesus was a skeptic, I think that's a difficult question to answer. He did question the religious authorities of his day and the gospels record him doubting the existence of God on the cross, but I don't know if we can call him a skeptic by our modern understanding of the word. The problem with trying to determine if Jesus was a skeptic was that people had a different understanding of nature than we do today and they didn't have the scientific method then to analyze and experiment with extraordinary claims. Just about everyone back then believed in gods but they didn't see the natural and supernatural as separate magesteriums but believed that the gods were apart of reality. If we define a skeptic as someone who questions a religion and the existence of God, then I think Jesus may have had moments of skepticism in his life, but if we're defining it by our modern understanding of science and examining supernatural claims with the scientific method, I think this is a question that has no definite answer.

[Mike]

I'm a skeptic of the supernatural and pseudoscience and I don't believe in any supernatural gods. At the same time, I do sometimes entertain thoughts of naturalistic pantheism and I do sometimes "pray" but I do it more as a form of meditation than traditional intercessory prayer. Although I don't self-identify as a Christian, I still try to follow the teachings of Jesus and I read the bible more now as an atheist than I did as a Christian. I'm not sure if this makes me "mystic" as I don't feel comfortable with the label, but I guess you could call me a spiritual atheist. As for whether Jesus was a mystic or a skeptic, I think Jesus was definitely a mystic. He had experiences with God like at the point of his baptism and he believed he had a connection with God, so I think that would make him a mystic and Marcus Borg believes Jesus was a Jewish mystic in his book Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary. As for whether or not Jesus was a skeptic, I think that's a difficult question to answer. He did question the religious authorities of his day and the gospels record him doubting the existence of God on the cross, but I don't know if we can call him a skeptic by our modern understanding of the word. The problem with trying to determine if Jesus was a skeptic was that people had a different understanding of nature than we do today and they didn't have the scientific method then to analyze and experiment with extraordinary claims. Just about everyone back then believed in gods but they didn't see the natural and supernatural as separate magesteriums but believed that the gods were apart of reality. If we define a skeptic as someone who questions a religion and the existence of God, then I think Jesus may have had moments of skepticism in his life, but if we're defining it by our modern understanding of science and examining supernatural claims with the scientific method, I think this is a question that has no definite answer.

 

I've been becoming more tolerant of the idea of the 'supernatural' (despite it being a rather problematic or philosophically unsound term) as I realize just how little I know about reality. I find that I can appreciate the subject of mythology more, of God, or gods and goddesses and beings of other orders. But I must say I find myself more or less in agreement with your perspective. I'm sure there are many Christians who would not consider me a Christian or even a theist at all. I'm not too concerned with labels. I identify with Christianity because I still find it meaningful - as you apparently do too, and also because I belong to a Christian community. But I have, at times, considered myself an 'atheist' as I have problems accepting the idea of a personal, transcendent God. But the label did not set well with me because it felt kind of constraining -- and misleading, since it is commonly associated with staunch secularism and anti-religion and such.

[Neon Genesis]

But I have, at times, considered myself an 'atheist' as I have problems accepting the idea of a personal, transcendent God. But the label did not set well with me because it felt kind of constraining -- and misleading, since it is commonly associated with staunch secularism and anti-religion and such.

For me, I'm sort of the opposite in that while I find Christianity meaningful in many ways, I don't feel comfortable using the label Christian to describe myself as for many reasons. One of them is because my previous experience with Christianity was mostly negative and I don't feel like I've gotten over that. Also, in current popular culture, the label Christian is associated with a certain set of beliefs that you're expected to have. While I do still follow the teachings of Jesus, I don't share those metaphysical beliefs people commonly associate with Christianity, so I feel like I might confuse people or be misleading to use the label. I also like how Karen Armstrong points out in her new book The Case For God that religious people are nowadays are commonly referred to as "believers" as if believing is the most important part of it all. As long as this connotation exists, I just don't feel comfortable with it. I just feel more comfortable with labels like naturalist pantheist or atheist as I usually describe myself as. Also, I feel like I would be presuming too much to call myself a Christian when I don't know if Jesus would have approved of me as a follower or not.

[soma]

neon genesis, Look forward to your post. I think you can contribute in a meaningful way about Christ.

[Mike]

For me, I'm sort of the opposite in that while I find Christianity meaningful in many ways, I don't feel comfortable using the label Christian to describe myself as for many reasons. One of them is because my previous experience with Christianity was mostly negative and I don't feel like I've gotten over that. Also, in current popular culture, the label Christian is associated with a certain set of beliefs that you're expected to have. While I do still follow the teachings of Jesus, I don't share those metaphysical beliefs people commonly associate with Christianity, so I feel like I might confuse people or be misleading to use the label. I also like how Karen Armstrong points out in her new book The Case For God that religious people are nowadays are commonly referred to as "believers" as if believing is the most important part of it all. As long as this connotation exists, I just don't feel comfortable with it. I just feel more comfortable with labels like naturalist pantheist or atheist as I usually describe myself as. Also, I feel like I would be presuming too much to call myself a Christian when I don't know if Jesus would have approved of me as a follower or not.

 

If you don't feel comfortable with it then that is perfectly alright too. I can certainly understand your position in the matter as it is something I too have wrestled with. But for me Christianity is very much part of who I am - the narrative, the images, the prayers, the practice - all inspire my imagination and move me. As long as I deny that this tradition is part of me, I feel like I'm denying an important part of myself. Not that I feel trapped by it - Christianity does not for me dictate my beliefs or choices as much as coincide with them and inform them. Really I'm attracted to the mystical and participatory approach to the Christian faith. Christianity for me is not as much about factual propositions as it is about personal communion with 'God.' I said I 'more or less' agreed with your perspective, but to be more clear, I more or less share your skepticism, but to me there is a way in which 'skepticism' and 'mysticism' do not oppose one another but serve in their own respective ways. Now by your interest in Christianity and by your identifying as a 'spiritual atheist' or 'naturalist pantheist' you show me that you have room for the spiritual and that we're not really opposed anywhere in our approaches, we may simply have found different emphases or priorities along our respective journeys. I would only say not to be too concerned with labels; we are each human beings trying to discover truth and meaning.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[Neon Genesis]

If I could be out to my family and was financially stable enough to live on my own, I would probably join a Unitarian Universalist church since they welcome people of all faiths and no faiths to be members and you can be part of the rituals and images without having to adopt a label you don't feel comfortable with. I've also heared a lot of positive things about them from both Christians and atheists and I know several atheists who are UUs too.