Mysticism

[poopoooooo]

What are peoples thoughts on mysticism?

 

I vaguely recall Stefan stating that you cannot have a rational mystic, or at least they're not the norm.

 

If you had, for example, a mystical experience where you experienced an alternative reality would you write this off as a malfunction of the brain or evidence of things beyond our current scientific awareness?

 

What if it challenged everything in everyday existence?

[Jot]

"Mysticism is the scare tissue of childhood abuse" - Stef

[TheRobin]

Well by defintion you can't ever confirm or deny the truth value of a mystical experience, no matter how profound it may have been, which autmotatically makes it completeley irrelevant for any objective truth claims or models about reality.

 

I personally think the most productive way to approach such an experience is tying it to self-knowledge and your subconcious and see if it doesn't tie to something in your past that's still buried and wants to come out one way or another.

 

Mysticism as a whole is about disconnecting people from reality with emade up alternatives that can never be proofen anyway, so that pretty much screams "unresolved trauma" in my opinion.

 

Why do you as though? Did you have such an exprience?

[greekredemption]

If you had, for example, a mystical experience where you experienced an alternative reality would you write this off as a malfunction of the brain or evidence of things beyond our current scientific awareness?

I think Hume had a good answer to this question. He's talking about miracles, but it could equally apply here:

 

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

 

 

From http://www3.nd.edu/~brettler/Hume.pdf

[poopoooooo]

thanks for the response guys

 

I've since listened to Stefs podcasts on the topic of mysticism and also take on board what you both say. I was getting a little mixed up as to whether the experiences were relevant to the workings/science of this world. However as you say, they cannot be verified, and so I'll take them simply as an external manifestation of my internal state. 

 

With further reflection I see that what I experienced would certainly relate to the trauma of my childhood. Which, although, quite disturbing to know that is still deep inside is also a relief to know that the world hasn't turned upside down. I kind of like the laws of physics etc, they're pretty predictable and you know where you are.

[William Wyatt]

In my mind it all comes down to the western key and the eastern vibe. I have read a book called 'The Tao of Physics'. In which a physicist describes the movements of tribal dances being almost identical those of vibrating atoms and molecules. So it's not believing in things which violate the laws of science, psychologically tuning ones intuition to the natural patterns that occur in nature. We don't know what the future holds all we can do is keep ourselves open to the mystery.... This is my definition of mysticism.I feel if we presented this definition to stefan he would be open to these ideas. But he would probably prefer to use words like imagination, flow state, emotional expression. As opposed to a word that is commonly associated with dark magic, religion and spirituality.

[meta]

Mysticism has a very unstable definition.

 

If you had, for example, a mystical experience where you experienced an alternative reality would you write this off as a malfunction of the brain or evidence of things beyond our current scientific awareness?

This reminds me of a movie I watched on Ayahuasca and DMT. Fascinating stuff.I think it could all be described as interaction or malfunction within the brain, but there is definitely some stuff going on beyond scientific understanding.The immersion in an alternative reality could be dangerous. But like dreams, some surely can be constructive or positive. Maybe, i dont know. 

[poopoooooo]

Thanks for your posts everyone. I'm starting to realise that this is something I need to work through.

 

I've written and re-written this post many times so it's clearly an emotive and confusing topic for me...

 

I think I can break my difficulties into two areas:

 

1) There is so much in life that cannot be fully explained with current scientific knowledge, e.g. the fact that life exists at all or what is 'dark matter'. As new discoveries are made all the time, I feel uneasy with the concept of saying 'there are certain things we as a species don't understand, however we know X for a fact.' To me if you don't understand everything how can you understand anything? For example how can I say: there may be 'parallel universes but I don't think there is an afterlife'?, how can I say that 'virtual reality is now so good that you almost cant tell the difference with reality (see the more advanced variations on the oculus rift) however I don't think that I am in a virtual reality'?

 

2) Do I only have this viewpoint because of my childhood? Will the above area become clear to me as I work further through my childhood issues? If that is true and my interest dwindles I still don't think that would nullify the validity of the points I make.

[TheRobin]

for your point 1): What must be true, so that you can say you "understand" something? I think it's one of those words where people usually have a vague intuitive grasp, so usually clarity in these kinds of questions comes, when the definition becomes more clear and less vague.

[Pepin]

Unreal perceptions are quite common in everyday life. A basic example is looking for your keys, not being able to find them, only to find them right in plain sight. The average person does not assume the keys were not on the table when they could not find them. This assumption does not just come from knowledge of the laws of physics, but also built in neural circuitry which developed through billions of years of evolution, not only because object constancy aids in survival, but because object constancy accurately reflects the Newtonian world.

 

Phenomena such as seeing ghosts, drug induced hallucinations, spoons bend, astral projection, and so on are psychological phenomena that have no relation to reality. It is not that people do not really have these perceptions, but rather that these perceptions do not describe the physical world. The best method of testing perceptions against the physical world is that scientific method, which has failed on all accounts to verify any mystical claims.

 

This mystical pseudoscience which permeates a lot of self-help is absolute junk. People who intend to link Buddhism and quantum physics together are infuriating. Certainly I am not making an argument in this respect and am simply lining up a large number of negative adjectives in a row to shoot down an obvious marketing scheme that appeals to those who do not want wish for their irrationalism to conflict with their sanity, but I am uncertain of how to make the point without saying "pick up a physics textbook".

[poopoooooo]

Thank you for your question Robin. What is it to 'understand'? hmmm.... I think you might have hit the nail on the head. I think my issue lies in the the fact that I feel I don't understand enough about the world and how it works (this probably translates to not knowing enough about myself). As such I have a lot of trepidation about making my next move in life. So far everything I've done has ultimately ended in failure and I feel I need to know why before I start something new. I will look at this today, thank you

 

-----------------

 

Thank you Pepin, it was really helpful when you said that psychological phenomena has no relation to reality/the physical world. I agree with this and think it is only our perception of the physical world that is affected by them.

 

I understand what you say about mysticism being 'junk'. However, I do think that the these phenomena can be helpful as they have enabled me to transition from a dark place, to a wierd place, to a light place. I don't think I would have been receptive to philosophical thinking from my initial starting point. I think mysticism has its place, as a transitionary phase... almost like going through therapy. There are many people who want to stay in that world and to keep others there as well, the key is not to get stuck there. 

-----------------

 

I've decided to write the story of my childhood so that I can better understand things and then discuss it with my family.

 

Does anyone have any tips on this?

[cynicist]

Replace the word 'mysticism' with 'believing in fantasy' and you have your answer

 

1) There is so much in life that cannot be fully explained with current scientific knowledge, e.g. the fact that life exists at all or what is 'dark matter'. As new discoveries are made all the time, I feel uneasy with the concept of saying 'there are certain things we as a species don't understand, however we know X for a fact.' To me if you don't understand everything how can you understand anything? For example how can I say: there may be 'parallel universes but I don't think there is an afterlife'?, how can I say that 'virtual reality is now so good that you almost cant tell the difference with reality (see the more advanced variations on the oculus rift) however I don't think that I am in a virtual reality'?

 

2) Do I only have this viewpoint because of my childhood? Will the above area become clear to me as I work further through my childhood issues? If that is true and my interest dwindles I still don't think that would nullify the validity of the points I make.

 

Doubt is good. If you aren't certain of something then there is an opportunity to learn. It could be that you have this viewpoint due to your history, but having rational arguments that disprove the ideas can help you make that determination. (if you reject the arguments based on emotion instead of a flaw, then you will know ) Since most of your questions seem to be around the nature of knowledge (How do we know what we know, aka Epistemology), I have to recommend Stefan's excellent Introduction to Philosophy Series. It's quite long but worth the watch. I'd recommend at least the first 9 videos in your situation, but the morality and politics videos are useful too if you are uncertain about the arguments there.

[Pepin]

 I understand what you say about mysticism being 'junk'. However, I do think that the these phenomena can be helpful as they have enabled me to transition from a dark place, to a wierd place, to a light place. I don't think I would have been receptive to philosophical thinking from my initial starting point. I think mysticism has its place, as a transitionary phase... almost like going through therapy. There are many people who want to stay in that world and to keep others there as well, the key is not to get stuck there. 

Certainly, though I would not say that it its good overall. It is like how morphine when applied after a serious injury can provide a decent transition from broken physically, to repaired. It is fine to say the morphine was helpful and played a major part in your recovery, but it its vital to understand that you would have been far better off without the injury.

[poopoooooo]

Replace the word 'mysticism' with 'believing in fantasy' and you have your answer

 

 

Doubt is good. If you aren't certain of something then there is an opportunity to learn. It could be that you have this viewpoint due to your history, but having rational arguments that disprove the ideas can help you make that determination. (if you reject the arguments based on emotion instead of a flaw, then you will know ) Since most of your questions seem to be around the nature of knowledge (How do we know what we know, aka Epistemology), I have to recommend Stefan's excellent Introduction to Philosophy Series. It's quite long but worth the watch. I'd recommend at least the first 9 videos in your situation, but the morality and politics videos are useful too if you are uncertain about the arguments there.

 

Thank you Robert, I'm not sure if your reference to fantasy is due to a confusion of religion with fantasy. I had no problem letting go of the 'fantasy' of religion but I think mysticism is something else, which should ultimately be rooted in science.

 

I've just made a video which I think will explain my position more clearly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBTKmeLB1ME

 

I have watched those videos and will do so again in case I've missed the point

Pepin that is a good point

 

Again I'd invite you to the video I've just created and let me know if/where I'm going wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBTKmeLB1ME

[cynicist]

Thank you Robert, I'm not sure if your reference to fantasy is due to a confusion of religion with fantasy. I had no problem letting go of the 'fantasy' of religion but I think mysticism is something else, which should ultimately be rooted in science.

 

I've just made a video which I think will explain my position more clearly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBTKmeLB1ME

 

Thanks, that explained a lot. I want to compliment you on quality of the video. You are an excellent speaker. The core problem with saying that mysticism should be rooted in science is that they are fundamentally in opposition. Based on your description of mysticism, it is not verifiable in the external world through either logic or empiricism since it relies on subjective experiences. (In the video you said that a scientist would have to experience it in their own minds and then translate the experience into the material world) If you accept the scientific method as your primary tool to separate truth from falsehood then anything that comes from the mystical approach is invalid.

 

Stefan goes into much greater detail in the video series. What you describe is very similar to Plato's higher realm, the idea that there is some divine/spiritual source of knowledge that we access internally. I think you might appreciate the comparison.

[poopoooooo]

Thanks, that explained a lot. I want to compliment you on quality of the video. You are an excellent speaker. The core problem with saying that mysticism should be rooted in science is that they are fundamentally in opposition. Based on your description of mysticism, it is not verifiable in the external world through either logic or empiricism since it relies on subjective experiences. (In the video you said that a scientist would have to experience it in their own minds and then translate the experience into the material world) If you accept the scientific method as your primary tool to separate truth from falsehood then anything that comes from the mystical approach is invalid.

 

Stefan goes into much greater detail in the video series. What you describe is very similar to Plato's higher realm, the idea that there is some divine/spiritual source of knowledge that we access internally. I think you might appreciate the comparison.

 

Thank you for the compliment Robert, I've just started the videos so it's nice to hear.

 

Yes, that's kind of my point. It's not currently verifiable in the external world but neither is dark matter. However scientists are putting a lot of work into studying dark matter. Whereas very few scientists will study mysticism. You may say that dark matter has a visible effect on the universe and so warrants investigation. However I would also propose that mysticism has a visible effect on the universe, as it reveals information previously unknown to the individual and sometimes humanity.

 

I think mysticism is not studied within the scientific community, as doing so is socially stigmatized. For example, how much does it cost to investigate dark matter? Could I investigate it without a large scientific backing?

[J-William]

What are peoples thoughts on mysticism?

 

I vaguely recall Stefan stating that you cannot have a rational mystic, or at least they're not the norm.

 

If you had, for example, a mystical experience where you experienced an alternative reality would you write this off as a malfunction of the brain or evidence of things beyond our current scientific awareness?

 

What if it challenged everything in everyday existence?

I take it you are not trying to make a case for mysticism. If you want to know about the origin of mystical experiences then there is a good deal of scientific literature on the functioning of the brain. They have recently been able to discover regions of the brain that when stimulated produce feelings of being at one with the universe, or other common feeling associated with myetical experiences.

 

Beyond that I would suggest to you that you be more careful in your thinking. Because you use terms that do not have any meaning. Such as scientific awareness, or everyday existence. Those are vague and nebulous terms that could mean almost anything you wanted them to and are therefore meaningless.

 

When we talk about mysticism what were talking about is things that are contradictory. Such as the effects of matter without matter or consciousness without a brain for the consciousness to be in.

[poopoooooo]

 

I take it you are not trying to make a case for mysticism. If you want to know about the origin of mystical experiences then there is a good deal of scientific literature on the functioning of the brain. They have recently been able to discover regions of the brain that when stimulated produce feelings of being at one with the universe, or other common feeling associated with myetical experiences.

 

Beyond that I would suggest to you that you be more careful in your thinking. Because you use terms that do not have any meaning. Such as scientific awareness, or everyday existence. Those are vague and nebulous terms that could mean almost anything you wanted them to and are therefore meaningless.

 

When we talk about mysticism what were talking about is things that are contradictory. Such as the effects of matter without matter or consciousness without a brain for the consciousness to be in.

 

 

thanks for your response

 

It's getting quite a long thread to read I know, but yes I am trying to make a case for mysticism.

 

What you describe as feelings of euphoria etc I do not equate to mysticism. Mysticism is the acquisition of knowledge from an altered state that you would be unable to gain without that altered state. I even made a video of it this morning if you wanted to watch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBTKmeLB1ME&list=TLYRAe54__8-Nc3V9RT85hcoYUx4DweDcF

 

I will take on board your advice and be more specific with my language. I realise now that when trying to make an assertion you must be very very specific.

 

I am indeed asserting that there can be conciousness beyond brains, or at least brains in the traditional sense.

 

I think what I need to do here so that we're not going round in circles, is for me to create a hypothesis which science can agree is a valid hypothesis, and then try to prove it? Would that be the correct way to proceed?

[Ralph]

They have recently been able to discover regions of the brain that when stimulated produce feelings of being at one with the universe, or other common feeling associated with mystical experiences.

 

 

Do you have a link or source to share about this? I would be interested. Thanks.

 

[noxot]

What are peoples thoughts on mysticism?

 

I vaguely recall Stefan stating that you cannot have a rational mystic, or at least they're not the norm.

 

If you had, for example, a mystical experience where you experienced an alternative reality would you write this off as a malfunction of the brain or evidence of things beyond our current scientific awareness?

 

What if it challenged everything in everyday existence?

I can add my perspective so you can study me since I claim to be a mystic. 

 

i'm a mystic. mysticism can not be disqualified by the mere mechanics of this reality as it claims that it functions by it's own mechanics. it is like light shining through air. the air is still air and the light is still light. that spiritual reality surmounts this symbolic reality in a way that would allow for everything to function as it does in this reality while also serving a different purpose in that "reality of light". just because someone believes truth should be had in a certain way does not disqualify what I know but they have to come to conclusions based on their own standards of what they see as being the truth just like I do.  "spirit" is not a thing that can be tested. it has to be evidenced of itself. simply understanding the mechanics of this reality does not undermine the spiritual reality and it's ability to interact with this one. things that can be tested exist within the laws of our universe called physical reality. most people think they understand enough about physical reality to come to ultimate conclusions about all of reality.

 

there is no contradiction between rational thinking and mysticism because they depend on different forms of thinking, they are in different spheres of knowledge. to a mystic, logic can only get you so far. so we want to go past the light into the darkness. the people who love the light can't measure the darkness and so they don't believe it is a real thing. but the mystic knows that the darkness and light are the same thing. the darkness is bright blinding light. mystics attempt to get this brightness and then have their eyes adjust to it.

 

mystics want ultimate conclusions, not an infinity of progressing towards more and more light. they want to start from the highest height rather than from the bottom down. so a mystic is one who lust for truth so much that he is willing to go far beyond his own capacities of logic and reason in hopes of cheating the process of the steps of progress that human logic takes. mystics claim to see something that others don't see yet. those that don't see say we are irrational and making things up. it's a logical conclusion to come to for those who have not seen that unity of reality that we have seen.

 

but as far as I can see, me being a mystic should not get in the way of the agreement about what is proper morality and the beauty of the virtues seeing as how that very goodness is what the spirit is and it is what good people term "God". 

 

so yes. we like to speak "gibber jabber" even though we know what we say. most people consider it to be foolishness. to me... this world is pretty foolish compared to that other world I saw. in this reality I see the middle. in that reality I saw the beginning and the end. therefore I have compassion for people because I know who they are as opposed to what they are right now. so it does affect my view of morality to some degree.

 

physical reality compels you to believe certain things. the spiritual reality does not compel. it is more closely related to morality than this universe because the mind/humans are closer to spirit than physical reality is. spirit is more anarchic in nature than this objective reality is, even though this objective reality is a certain kind of manifestion of spirit. humans are spirits and that is why they have capacity to understand "God". a thing mystics like to do is take complete control of our souls and make them into something that we feel is beautiful. having virtues means likeness to God and so we want to be as good as we can be because what we want is God/truth/ true beauty, ectect

[poopoooooo]

most people think they understand enough about physical reality to come to ultimate conclusions about all of reality.

 

Since posting this, over 4 months ago, I've come to a similar conclusion - too many atheists and scientists draw conclusions bigger than they are entitled to. Many philosophers believe that scientists over step the mark but that they themselves are not capable of overstepping the mark. If a mystic dares to step beyond the level of knowledge that they deem it possible to obtain, then they are annoyed because they lack the courage to go where only a few dare.

 

Too many people write off fields that they are not proficient in, whereas each one is equally valuable in it's own place.

[shirgall]

Too many people write off fields that they are not proficient in, whereas each one is equally valuable in it's own place.

 

At some point we have to stand on the shoulders of giants and there's not enough time to relive their lives to verify their experience. We cannot check *everything* so we must develop our critical reasoning skills to evaluate their claims and methodology.

 

Even so, mysticism and animism works for people because it *feels* right, not because it *is* right.

[poopoooooo]

^ this is the typical response I'm talking about.

 

 

 

Even so, mysticism and animism works for people because it *feels* right, not because it *is* right.

 

Many scientists say the same thing about philosophy, i.e. unless it can be physically measured it's irrelevant. You, I'm guessing would say they are wrong. You, I'm guessing would also say mystics are wrong... basically everyone but you (and people who think like you) is wrong and you have critical reasoning to back this up.

 

The problem with people is that they think they know far more than they do, they get caught in a specific identity, e.g. scientist, atheist, philosopher, and because they identify so strongly with it they will find the rational to deny anything outside of this.

 

Personally, I haven't got a fucking clue what's going on here...

[shirgall]

^ this is the typical response I'm talking about.

 

 

Many scientists say the same thing about philosophy, i.e. unless it can be physically measured it's irrelevant. You, I'm guessing would say they are wrong. You, I'm guessing would also say mystics are wrong... basically everyone but you (and people who think like you) is wrong and you have critical reasoning to back this up.

 

The problem with people is that they think they know far more than they do, they get caught in a specific identity, e.g. scientist, atheist, philosopher, and because they identify so strongly with it they will find the rational to deny anything outside of this.

 

Personally, I haven't got a fucking clue what's going on here...

 

I'm not sure what your criticism is. I said we have to evaluate the claims and methodology of others because we can't check everything. Mathematical and philosophical are actually pretty easy to evaluate, physical, biological, and chemical claims are a little harder but not impossible. Cosmological, meteorological, and evolutionary struggle to find predictions that can be tested, but they certainly try.

 

Mysticism and animism do not have testable claims that are comparable to even that category.

 

My identity is 'software product producer'. I don't know why this invalidates my ability to evaluate claims in other realms.

[poopoooooo]

 

 

I'm not sure what your criticism is.

 

I'm not sure this is my problem?

 

 

 

Mysticism and animism do not have testable claims that are comparable to even that category.

 

Ah, you didn't say you were a seasoned mystic, that you had heard every assertion that a mystic would make and had ruled them all un-testable. Your argument is victorious and I will immediately cast off mysticism.

[PGP]

I view mysticism, statism, communism, feminism, environmentalism......etc etc all as different approaches ti the unknown. They are stories that are told to warn and console and we all know where that leads to.

Philosophy and the sci method are also approaches to the unknown. The difference being that there is a recognition that we know relatively nothing and the more we find out, the more the unknown grows. Exponentially. 

Which method has proven more advantageous? The former of mysticism and all the rest or sci and phil?

The answer is important.

[poopoooooo]

 

 

Which method has proven more advantageous? The former of mysticism and all the rest or sci and phil?

 

Proven more advantageous to what?

[cynicist]

just because someone believes truth should be had in a certain way does not disqualify what I know but they have to come to conclusions based on their own standards of what they see as being the truth just like I do

 

In other words, truth is up to individual standards/interpretation and therefore inherently subjective. Once you say that there are different and equally valid standards of truth you are saying that truth is equivalent to opinion, or to simplify: that there is no such thing as truth. This trick is what enables you to believe things without that pesky problem of having them disproven.

[PGP]

Proven more advantageous to what?

To you.

[shirgall]

Ah, you didn't say you were a seasoned mystic, that you had heard every assertion that a mystic would make and had ruled them all un-testable. Your argument is victorious and I will immediately cast off mysticism.

 

All snark aside, what mystical claims are testable? A $1M reward awaits you from the Amazing Randy.

 

I didn't say I was any kind of mystic. I did point out a number of sciences which make claims based on observations and have methodologies that seem reasonable to test them. I've heard of people testing all sorts of claims and I have done experiments and followed reasoning in a number of sciences.

 

This doesn't make me a mystic. Did I claim to know something I don't know?

[TheRobin]

All snark aside, ...

 I wouldn't put the snark aside. Actually, I think it's probably the most important part of the post to listen to

[VParkh]

I think that mysticism comes when we make up some not proven explanation for what's going on.

For example we know how we can use electricity and we use it but we can be unaware of how it works. So we have 3 options: we can forget about this question and just use the results of electricity, or we can use scientific method to examine the origins of electricity and how it works, or we can make up some explanation, like some mistical deity forcing energy through cables.

 

The same goes for many spiritual things: people can just get results from their actions and if possible try to find explanations scientifically, or they can make up some imaginary realm which give them that result. When they make up such explanations, that would be mysticism.

So when we get some interesting or even controvertial facts we can resort either to mysticism or to scientific method. Or just say "I don't know" and forget about it.

 

People often just don't have honesty and integrity to say "I don't know" and resort to mystical explanations.

[poopoooooo]

To you.

 

Most advantageous to me? 

 

Wow - do you mean I actually get to decide this? Once I decide that mysticism is more advantageous to me you're probably going to disagree though right? You're going to give me criteria and examples to show that actually, the things you think are more advantageous are actually what I should decide.

 

 

All snark aside, what mystical claims are testable? A $1M reward awaits you from the Amazing Randy.

 

First you STARTED with the CONCLUSION that NOTHING in mysticism was testable, so the snark was perfectly warranted. Here's a testable claim: seasoned mystics go to their grave pissing their pants less than most other human beings. You are probably about to say, 'so what?' so, I'll tell you so what... most of the planets population live under a spell of fear and this is reflected in our actions.

 

 

 I wouldn't put the snark aside. Actually, I think it's probably the most important part of the post to listen to

 

Yes it's fairly important, it represents the boredom I face of having the same conversation over and over with 'rational' thinkers who toe the party (scientific) line. I'm not one for holding erroneous beliefs based on emotional disturbances nor am I one to shy away from disecting the building blocks of my own thought process. Inside of the box you're probably all wonderful people but for those of us with the courage to step outside you drift into insignificance.

 

 

TO SUMMARISE:

Many scientists are beginning to see a deeper truth to this universe - men with minds much greater than myself or any of you.

 

Tom Campbell is an interesting case right now and many people are coming over to his way of thinking that this is a virtual reality - something I, and many others, have known for a while now. He's a physicist (has consulted for NASA) with proven scientific evidence to back this up.

 

Go look this guy up and put some effort into disproving your own theories rather than perpetually looking for evidence to back them up.

 

I've had this conversation with scientists and atheists and rational thinkers too many times to continue it, so I won't be responding unless someone has something to say which I haven't heard a hundred times already.

 

Good luck to you all and go ahead and assign me to the archives of crazy people.

[PGP]

Most advantageous to me? 

 

Wow - do you mean I actually get to decide this? Once I decide that mysticism is more advantageous to me you're probably going to disagree though right? You're going to give me criteria and examples to show that actually, the things you think are more advantageous are actually what I should decide.

 

 

I wasn't actually. What I am curious about is "the why". ie . why is mysticism OR sci method more advantageous to you? What you beleive or don't believe is relatively unimportant to me in this conversation. Your reasons/experience/imperative for believing interest me more atm.

[shirgall]

First you STARTED with the CONCLUSION that NOTHING in mysticism was testable, so the snark was perfectly warranted. Here's a testable claim: seasoned mystics go to their grave pissing their pants less than most other human beings. You are probably about to say, 'so what?' so, I'll tell you so what... most of the planets population live under a spell of fear and this is reflected in our actions.

 

I didn't make any extraordinary claims. I started with the methodology that claims should be testable. You have now devalued the (family of) systems of belief you are calling "mysticism" by bringing forward your strongest claim to be something about lifespan and urination. If I understand correctly, you are calling my approach dogmatic instead of simple a system for evaluation. The "so what" strawman does not advance your argument.

 

Perhaps I was snarky when I said you should talk to the Amazing Randy, but it's a real test.