The following is an article of mine named "Mysticism". I've been requested to post my articles here in addition to linking to my site, for the benefit of those who, for some reason, cannot view it (crashing browsers, missing fonts etc). The original URL is:

http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/mysticism.html

Here is the text of the article in full. Praises and criticisms of this article fully welcome

Mysticism

Each time science finds an answer, it opens a path to new questions. Science has both
demystified and remystified our view of the Universe. We have set up a periodic table of
elements explaining the components of matter, but we are still mystified as to how a mere presence or absence of a single proton or electron makes each element so different, and we are ever in the process of finding new sub-levels to subatomic particles. We discover new truths all the time, but we cannot discover the truth, any more than we can reach the
number 1 by adding decremental fractions constantly (try this: start with 1/2, and add to it the fraction of the next power of two each time: 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 ad infinitum. You will reach closer to 1 every time, but to 1 itself you will never actually arrive). Mysterious is
Universe, and such will it always remain.


The word mystery comes from the Greek verb myein, meaning "to close (one's eyes or mouth)". It may perhaps stem from a ubiquitous belief that the truth can be grasped by shutting the eyes, by ignoring the illusion of the real, material world.
Many of the religions are world-denying, or at least point to the real world as a means
towards another world which is the end. In Judaism there is a mystic explanation for the
traditional covering of the eyes during the recitation of Sh'ma Yisra'el ("Hear O
Israel"): that the reciter should know that God is the only reality, and everything
else is illusion. It is not an early belief, but a relatively recent stage in the evolution of Jewish creeds. A similar drift towards such monism has occurred in Islam (the mystic movement of Tasawwuf). It appears to have come from India, though there are strains of monism in Greek and Chinese thought as well.


In our age, many people have tired of the exclusivism of traditional religions. They have tried to merge the common features of the religions into a aggregate of individualistic beliefs, collectively known as the New Age. The New Age spirituality is a response to both the narrow-minded theistic religions and the negativist, cold-rationalist secular atheism. The former are outdated, unfit for the Space Age, while the
latter is too bleak and meaningless, too much based on negating the former.


I adhere to the worldview of metaphysical naturalism, wherein nature is all there is, and I form opinions based on this worldview. I have sympathy towards the New Age movement, and I fully understand its appeal, but I am also critical of it. Since I view it cordially, I apologize for possible hurting of feelings; note that I do not apologize for criticizing the theistic religions, for they are not deserving of any respect - they are all evil.

I have both good things to say about the New Age movement and not good things. However,
on summary I say the good in them outweighs the bad, as opposed to the theistic religions, in which the bad outweighs the good.


New Age - Praise

First, the New Age beliefs are essentially positive beliefs. They emphasize
improvement of the self and of the cosmos at large, usually in an active way instead of
relying on a Superking to do it. They also stress the unity of all existence, and the unity of all humanity, instead of dividing them to warring parties of God against Satan (in Matthew 12:30, "he who is not with me is against me", attributed to the loving Jesus; and in Islam, the division into hizbu llaah, the party of Allah, and hizbu sh-shaytaan, the party of Satan, Qur'an 58:18-22), which has brought so much misery into the world.


New Agers are usually pantheistic (like me), viewing the whole cosmos as divine, and the
earth as sacred, and therefore duty-bound to conserve the environment as much as possible. Certainly it is a better notion than the careless neglect of the believers in the Superking, who procreate without regard to the available resources, in delusion that the Superking will provide all their needs. Although governments make steps for environmental conservation out of self-interest, there is no doubt of the help of New Agers in bringing the issues to awareness and speeding up action.


The New Age movement is largely secularist, for the New Age beliefs are individual, highly personal and freelancing, with no need for state meddling (although some of the self-appointed New Age gurus would love to tap into the coffers of the state). New Agers do not believe that those who are not with them will be punished - at the most, their enlightenment will be suspended for a life or two, but no torture. The goal of most New Age schools is enlightenment,
not redemption, for there is no kind, merciful God who will bake you in his ovens for all eternity if you fail to love him.


The New Age movement is a blessing in that it provides benign meaning in a Universe
which is inherently a smooth table with regard to meaning (so too do the three monotheistic religions, but they are malign, producing enmity between potential friends). If one finds meaning in life in the many manifestations of the New Age movement, and does so without harming others, then the world is better for it. One person finds meaning in tarot cards just as another finds meaning in computer programming, scientific research or painting pictures.
An it harm none, do what ye will, that is the basic principle of tolerance.


New Age - Criticism


However, I do not view myself as part of the New Age movement - not directly, anyway. The
reason for that is that I regard my worldview of metaphysical naturalism as absolute truth (not the truth, but a worldview of truth). I shall explain how I have come to such a worldview. There is a rule in geometry that in a triangle with a right angle (an angle of 90 degrees) the square of one side and the square of another side added up equals the square of the third side (a^2 + b^2 = c^2). Draw a
million right-angled triangles and you will still get this correlation. Can we be sure that the next right-angled triangle will not fail to adhere to the correlation? No, not 100% sure, but now there is a very strong case for formulating a law - the evidence is overwhelming. Similarly, scientific and historical research have found, time after time, a natural explanation which works much better than the former supernatural explanation, making a 99-point-many-nines percent case for the worldview that the natural, material realm is all there is. Therefore, when I am confronted with a seemingly supernatural phenomenon, I view it with suspicion and subject it to critical scrutiny. I need very sharp evidence in order
to ascribe foreign partners to nature. Evidence leads me to believe that all things
supernatural are human fantasy. With this worldview I approach all religious beliefs.


I reject the Indian doctrine of tat tvam asi ("that thou art"), formulated in the Upanishads, that the differences between all entities in the Universe are just an illusion, and that enlightenment is attained by ignoring all distinctions and recognizing the existence of a single self (Brahman) alone. I believe in reality, that which I can observe, and I believe the differences between entities are real, not an illusion at all. I do, however, believe
in a pantheistic unity of all entities. I believe in polymorphic unity - all entities are manifestations of one substance, matter, in different forms. I am one with a fellow human being, with an animal, with a tree and with a stone in that we are all of matter made, but we are all different, we are variations on the theme of matter. Matter is ever-flowing,
ever-changing, organizing itself in interactions, in a natural flow or way (Tao), as formulated first by Charles Darwin in 1859. And matter, however it may be hard to grasp, is also behind our consciousness, the<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/philomind.html" TARGET=_blank>interactions of the
brain</A>.


The term "New Age" is based on the coming of the age of Aquarius, an astrological concept.
I disbelieve in astrology. The view of the stars changes with the same chance factors as
do our fates, therefore there can be no connection. We all have different lives, and the many people born under the same sign of the Zodiac are no exception. What significance does the Zodiac have anyway? It is a geocentric concept; if humanity gets to colonize other planets, the view of constellations will change, rendering our earth-based Zodiac obsolete.


I do not believe in the power of any mantra or meditation as a cure-all for the problems of humanity. Meditation may bring calmness to the stressed mind of a person, but it will not calm down a hungry stomach. There is no panacea, but only specific cures for specific diseases. No more can Transcendental Meditation improve the world than the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour can make one a better, more moral person. Both beliefs are superstitions. Similarly, I accept occult practices, Ouija boards, crystal balls and
Wiccan witchcraft as harmless activities which may be beneficial to people searching for meaning and pastimes, but as for their actual influence on the fate of the world they are all a waste of time, just like praying to God. Say that it makes you feel better, I heartily agree, but they will not bring world peace and welfare. Ours is the responsibility, not of invisible, magical forces.


My strongest advice to New Agers is twofold: to ignore the mockery of the established
religions, and to watch carefully that no New Age belief should turn salvation exclusive (or even enlightenment-exclusive), like the theistic lunacies. The world is already suffering greatly under those who spread enmity in the name of their god; we certainly do not need more exclusivist religions than we have now. Beware of gurus who speak in words of "the only way". Jesus and Muhammad are said to have spoken of "the only way" (Christianity according to the former, Islam according to the latter), and now their adherents are splitting the world into Christ versus anti-Christ and into the Party of Allah versus the Party of Shaytaan. "Us" against "them" is a truly evil attitude, so take care.



Divine is Universe
Sacred is Earth
Multiform is Matter
And Nature all there is
Meaning is ours
In Life to fill
An it harm none
Do what ye will

I appreciate what you have written. I believe that all the things religion and superstition deem as supernatural (ie: psychic experiences, etc.) are really quite natural and we simply have not devised a method by which we can measure those experiences. I don’t think we should chalk up the currently unexplainable to something beyond nature or beyond ones self. I think we are only at the doorstep of our human evolution and maybe centuries from now we will seem as primitive as to that generation as the men and women of the bible seem to us.

I also agree with your view on New Age versus “Old Age” religions, as well as your caveats! It is important that those of us who find ones-self attracted to this movement do not allow it to become what is abhorred in other religions. It is the unfortunate human tendency to do just that.

Thank you,
Brighid

I'm not 100% certain that nature is all there is, it's just that the evidence makes metaphysical naturalism a high probability. So far the naturalistic explanations have been much more successfull than the supernatural conjectures, so there's a case for future naturalism as well. And still, keep an open mind. I still visit the Access Research Network to read their theories of Intelligent Design, although I'm aware of their Xtian agenda. Like I say, if you're sceptic then be consistently sceptic of everything, including atheism.

Bare-bones atheism is, IMO, only a first stage of a process: negating superstition and theism, and establishing the truth of metaphysical naturalism. The next, logical stage is to make a spiritual system out of atheism and metaphysical naturalism. It's called Scientific Pantheism, and its main tenet is the divinity of the Universe. In my website, among other things, I seek to build a complete spiritual system for modern scientific Homo Sapiens. Then the complaint of the theists, that atheism is devoid of spirituality, will be mitigated.

Visit Paul Harrison's Sci-Pan website, it's marvellous:

http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/index.htm

Then the complaint of the theists, that atheism is devoid of spirituality, will be mitigated.

This of course begs the question of whether spirituality is even desirable.

What is meant by 'spirituality' in Scientific Pantheism?

Well, since "psychic experiences" and the like have this nasty habit of disappearing whenever they are tested under controlled conditions, I find it much more parsimonious to suspect they have more to do with wishful thinking and mistaken perceptions rather than some mysterious undetected force.

MadMorigan, that which the theists refer to as 'spirituality' is nothing of the sort. The theistic, Pascalian religions aren't anything about spirituality, they're about making an astute business decision: loving God the Superking so as to get into his Pleasure Mansion forever, and out of fear of getting instead into his Haunted House for eternity. I've got an article called Purpose In Life which elaborates on the subject.

I for one define spirituality as that which arouses a special, elevated feeling, a feeling of worthiness and of being worthwhile (a wholly subjective definition, based on my feelings, of course). In Sci-Pan it means feeling one with Nature, gazing at the starry sky, studying living creatures, caring for the environment and accepting death as simply being recycled by Nature (I'd rather not ponder on that, but it's the sanest attitude, instead of concocting fictional next worlds).

Read this article on the Library about spirituality - real spirituality - by Robert Ingersoll, it's great:

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...rituality.html

Thanks for the link devnet! What you and he describe is very close to how I feel about/view the world. The more I think about it, the more special the universe seems if it doesn't have an easy "Goddidit" to the big questions. But I could go on about this for ages and I really should get back to work . . . yeah right!

Flippant response...

You may now all continue the wonderful serious discussion...

I respond emotionally -- one might say spiritually -- to contemplation of the greatest human achievements, the noblest human potentials, and of happiness and fulfillment. I see spiritual feelings as an emotional response to supremely important values. They are a way of experiencing one's highest moral ideals.

My style of atheistic spirituality is humanistic rather than pantheistic. (No denigration of devnet's spirituality is intended.) I always respond more strongly to a photo of a Space Shuttle launch (as a grand human achievement) than to a photo of nebula or galaxies from the Hubble Telescope (the existence of nebula isn't anyone's accomplishment).

Well could you explain to me the difference between the indian version and the pantheistic/polymorhic version? My reading says both are the same, except that they are put in different words.

JP




[This message has been edited by phaedrus (edited May 04, 2001).]