Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:04 pm Seeds, it is impossible to discuss anyone's mystical experience.

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:22 am Nonsense!

Mystical experiences have been discussed in one form or another since humans arose on this planet.

I mean, what in the world do you think most religions are founded upon?

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:04 pm Most religions are founded upon the need for groups of people to cooperate. That's to say, there is an immediate and pressing need at all times for people in society to adhere in some manner to a moral consensus, what's right and what's wrong.

So then, what you are inadvertently suggesting, Belinda, is that when there is a great need for groups of people to cooperate on earth, the universe conspires to give certain individuals a mystical experience...

(e.g., a supernatural intervening in Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, or a burning bush for Moses, or enlightenment for Siddhartha Gautama under the Bodhi tree, or archangelic visions for Muhammad, etc., etc.)

...in order to create a “rallying point” (a new religion) wherein cooperation can then be achieved.

If true, then that would be a mystical and supernatural feature of the universe in and of itself, wouldn’t you agree?

Therefore, in conjunction with your very own line of reasoning, the question is, do you not see an even greater need for cooperation in today’s world? And if so, why wouldn’t the same process of mystical revelations be as possible today as they were in the past?
_______

Seeds wrote:

Therefore, in conjunction with your very own line of reasoning, the question is, do you not see an even greater need for cooperation in today’s world? And if so, why wouldn’t the same process of mystical revelations be as possible today as they were in the past?

I think it's accurate when I claim that the mystical branches of all religions are open, progressive, and free of political control. To be more precise mystics are open and progressive because by nature of mystical experience mystics are free of political control.

Other people's mystical experiences and any wisdom they get from those experiences should not be the only foundation for faith in goodness. Faith in goodness , truth, and justice should also be founded upon reason as reason is available to all and requires no special talent. Mysticism and reason are not mutually exclusive.

Mysticism is potentially troublesome when charlatans claim to be true mystics and seduce people into following them. Reason guards people against charlatanism.

I gather that you, Seeds, are a Biblical literalist. Biblical literalism e.g. accepting the story of the Sacrifice of Isaac as told and without applying knowledge of the socio -history behind the story including those ideas that are peculiar to the time and the place.

Seeds wrote:

in order to create a “rallying point” (a new religion) wherein cooperation can then be achieved.

If true, then that would be a mystical and supernatural feature of the universe in and of itself, wouldn’t you agree?

I don't agree that a supernatural being who knew what he was doing and fully intended to do it exists.You are arguing from a position which is yet to be substantiated. It is probable that God did not intervene to provide any focus for any religion to develop. The universe is not mystical; mystical experiences can be viewed as physical events of physical brains; the universe has no nervous system to have mystical experiences with. You have a category error there!

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:35 am I gather that you, Seeds, are a Biblical literalist. Biblical literalism e.g. accepting the story of the Sacrifice of Isaac as told and without applying knowledge of the socio -history behind the story including those ideas that are peculiar to the time and the place.

Good grief, Belinda, I also offered up examples of the (alleged) mystical experiences of Siddhartha Gautama and Muhammad. Does that make me a Buddhism and Islamic literalist as well?

In an alternate thread I posted a scathing refutation of Biblical literalism by suggesting that the Eden myth (the very foundation of Christianity’s insistence on the need for a “savior”) was utter nonsense.

And have you seen my illustration concerning the ridiculous notion of hell? Here - http://www.theultimateseeds.com/Images/ ... 20hell.jpg

My stance...

(aside from being a Berkeleyanish Panentheist – as if I haven’t bored everyone with that incessant claim)

...is more in line with Hermeticism, wherein it is implied that there is a degree of divine truth inherent in all of the world’s religions.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:35 am I don't agree that a supernatural being who knew what he was doing and fully intended to do it exists. You are arguing from a position which is yet to be substantiated.

How many times do I have to reiterate the fact that an irrefutable substantiation of the existence of God (and of our ultimate purpose and destiny) could be detrimental to humanity?

Now of course you don’t have to accept the theory, but I have been over this with you before in the Einstein thread, here - http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopi ... 15#p336360

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:35 am It is probable that God did not intervene to provide any focus for any religion to develop. The universe is not mystical; mystical experiences can be viewed as physical events of physical brains; the universe has no nervous system to have mystical experiences with. You have a category error there

No, Belinda, it’s not so much of me having a category error, but more of you having a closed mind when it comes to anything of a mystical or supernatural nature.

(But despite that common flaw , I still think of you as being a wonderfully measured, rational, and thoughtful person who holds nothing but the best of intentions.)
_______

Seeds wrote:

In an alternate thread I posted a scathing refutation of Biblical literalism by suggesting that the Eden myth (the very foundation of Christianity’s insistence on the need for a “savior”) was utter nonsense.

It is typical of a literalist to claim that the Eden myth is utter nonsense. A literalist will also claim that fairy tales are utter nonsense, and be unable to abstract the truth from a work of fiction.

Seeds wrote:

How many times do I have to reiterate the fact that an irrefutable substantiation of the existence of God (and of our ultimate purpose and destiny) could be detrimental to humanity?

That is true. However it will never happen . What is also and actively detrimental to humanity is that idea that there is a God who is the ultimate authority. The detriment resides in the fact that such an idea is idolatrous to the extent that any old despot can declare that he knows what God wants.

Thank you Seeds for the kind remark. I think that nearly everybody who comes here seeks the truth. Which is a mirage but the seeking matters, which matters even if the entire human species becomes extinct next week.

Seeds wrote:

No, Belinda, it’s not so much of me having a category error, but more of you having a closed mind when it comes to anything of a mystical or supernatural nature.

I never claimed to have that ability.