I'm sorry, but there is no god.

[superluminal]

No, his point was that scientists and rationalists share the feelings of awe towards the universe that mystics report.

As do I.

Again, he doesn't seem to be saying that beliefs about the universe based on experience are wrong.

Not necessarily wrong. But many, many are. It's my direct experience and the direct concensus experience of all humans that all celestial bodies go around the earth. What could be more blatantly obvious? And more wrong?

He is really saying that science can replace religion with an even bigger, better thing, more subtle, more elegant than conventional religions "little god." Mysticism is the religion that stresses "the magnificence of the universe." Just do a tiny bit of reading into this subject and you will see this is the case. Dawkins specifically says his books aspire to "touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder." If "transcendent wonder" isn't religion I don't know what is. It's kind of funny but Dawkins isn't getting rid of religion - he is turning science into religion.

Then you don't know enough. "transcendent wonder" is a feeling we humans get when confronted with something far, far outside of our normal experience. Like the vastness of the universe.

Atheists (at least myself) can accept this feeling for what it is and revel in it without turning it into an automatic requirement for god(s). Religion is a complete body of mythology and behavior based on pure ignorance of what this feeling simply is. One of an evolved set of survival emotions.

"transcendent wonder" is a nice mix of fear and curiosity - two very powerful human drives - that feels really cool.

 

[grover]

As do I.


Not necessarily wrong. But many, many are. It's my direct experience and the direct concensus experience of all humans that all celestial bodies go around the earth. What could be more blatantly obvious? And more wrong?

Absolutely. But, all Buddhism is claiming is that if you observe the mind closely you will see that some things that seem "blatantly obvious" are actually worng. Buddhism/mysticism are as close as we are ever going to get to a science of mind.

Then you don't know enough. "transcendent wonder" is a feeling we humans get when confronted with something far, far outside of our normal experience. Like the vastness of the universe.

Right. All I said was that religions like Buddhism are about "transcendent wonder." Transcendence is a religous term. All Dawkins is really doing is just playing a semantic game. Ultimately, he is just turning science into religion.

Atheists (at least myself) can accept this feeling for what it is and revel in it without turning it into an automatic requirement for god(s).

It isn't an automatic requirement. Some people never get this feeling of "transcendent wonder" though, right? Dawkins to me just looks like a new kind of Fundamentalist that says his interpretation is the one true interpretation, and of looking at the similarites between what his view and those of mystical theology, he is magnifying the differences. This is what fundamentalists everywhere do. He could just as easily look at mystical religion and instead of saying "pantheism is sexed up atheism" say "interesting, there is nothing incompatible between what these guys are saying and what we're saying." Dawkins is a divider not a uniter.

Religion is a complete body of mythology and behavior based on pure ignorance of what this feeling simply is.

I disagree. If you look at Buddhism a quote from someone asked to describe buddha-nature was "vast emptiness, nothing holy in it." And there are exact parallels in Christian mytic despcriptions of God (but note, a Fundamentalist would have an extreme problem with this as a description of God).

One of an evolved set of survival emotions.

Yes, I agree that applies to mythology and fundamentalism. But when I look at mystical theology/buddhism it looks more like a description of a perception of the universe - or "transcendent wonder."

"transcendent wonder" is a nice mix of fear and curiosity - two very powerful human drives - that feels really cool.

I agree. I guess my question to you is - some people look at the universe (such as a depressed person) and see a threatening absurd machine that inspires dread, do you think this is a perfectly valid way of perceiving the universe or do you think they are mentally ill and missing something?

 

[KennyJC]

Grover: you say that what me and Dawkins have experienced is not a mystical experience, but then in the last paragraph, you allude that it is.

You seem stuck on a middle ground where you half want to dismiss these emotional states by skeptics simply because they don't call them 'mystical'. But then you draw support from these skeptics when they describe this emotional state that is by your definition 'mystical'. So what's it to be?

The only difference between a budding Buddhist and a scientist appears to be that one would call their experiences as being mystical, when the other wouldn't. Your logic appears to be that it is only a mystical experience if the person claims it was as such.

 

[superluminal]

Absolutely. But, all Buddhism is claiming is that if you observe the mind closely you will see that some things that seem "blatantly obvious" are actually worng.

Certainly. Deep introspection and clearing of the mind (as in zen meditation) can certainly open new ways or angles to mentally process (apparent) reality.

But let's just say that this practice yields some new insight (as it has for some scientists as you mentioned before). If this new insight says "Wait! Benzene is a molecular ring!" then you can test this against reality. but if it says "Wait! The universe has hidden mystical dimensions!" then you need to be able to test this also, otherwise, why would anyone give you a passing glance?

Buddhism/mysticism are as close as we are ever going to get to a science of mind.

While I find mush of buddhism admirable, I hope not. At its root it is still a mystical approach. I'd rather hope that neurophysiology and psychology migt someday progress far enough to provide truly useful insights into the mind.

Right. All I said was that religions like Buddhism are about "transcendent wonder." Transcendence is a religous term. All Dawkins is really doing is just playing a semantic game. Ultimately, he is just turning science into religion.

Well, I find many non-religious definitions of "transcendence". The common thread is one of surpassing the normal limits or bounds of performance or perception. I think that fits well with the idea of "transcendent wonder." Wonder that goes beyond the normal "Hey! Thats really cool!" level.

It isn't an automatic requirement. Some people never get this feeling of "transcendent wonder" though, right? Dawkins to me just looks like a new kind of Fundamentalist that says his interpretation is the one true interpretation, and of looking at the similarites between what his view and those of mystical theology, he is magnifying the differences. This is what fundamentalists everywhere do. He could just as easily look at mystical religion and instead of saying "pantheism is sexed up atheism" say "interesting, there is nothing incompatible between what these guys are saying and what we're saying." Dawkins is a divider not a uniter.

Ok. On this one point - "there is nothing incompatible between what these guys are saying and what we're saying" - let me rephrase it:

"there is nothing incompatible between what these guys are feeling and what we're feeling"

The BIG difference is exactly in what were saying. A theist/mystic is saying that this feeling is somehow connected to, or due to, a higher being/essence. What a non-believer/atheist is saying is that it's a simple recognition of the hugely outside-of-common-experience vastness and beauty of the universe. See? Big difference.

I disagree. If you look at Buddhism a quote from someone asked to describe buddha-nature was "vast emptiness, nothing holy in it." And there are exact parallels in Christian mytic despcriptions of God (but note, a Fundamentalist would have an extreme problem with this as a description of God).

Well, nevertheless, religion has a certain range of definitions and characteristics. I get the feeling that annoyed theists/mystics tend to say that everything is "some kind of religion" if it embodies strong feelings or strong stances. Atheism is not a religion. Feelings of transcendency do not necessecarily make you religious.

But when I look at mystical theology/buddhism it looks more like a description of a perception of the universe - or "transcendent wonder."

Fine. So be it. It certainly is a perception of some kind.

I agree. I guess my question to you is - some people look at the universe (such as a depressed person) and see a threatening absurd machine that inspires dread, do you think this is a perfectly valid way of perceiving the universe or do you think they are mentally ill and missing something?

I think that describing "perception" as valid or invalid implies exactly what perception is - subjective. Therefore the depressed guys perception is as valid to him as mine or yours is to us. The whole problem that I see in a nutshell is giving perceptions the weight of authority that we do, without resort to any form of reality testing.

Scientists have hunches, perceptions, guesses, etc. all the time. The main difference between a scientist (or any rationalist) and a mystic is that the rationalist knows he can be totally fooled by his own perceptions and desires. And so the rationalist wants to test his ideas against reality. The mystic, on the other hand, appears to be happy to take these "perceptions" or feelings of transcendence and fit them to their own inner needs and desires.

Yes?

 

[grover]

Scientists have hunches, perceptions, guesses, etc. all the time. The main difference between a scientist (or any rationalist) and a mystic is that the rationalist knows he can be totally fooled by his own perceptions and desires. And so the rationalist wants to test his ideas against reality. The mystic, on the other hand, appears to be happy to take these "perceptions" or feelings of transcendence and fit them to their own inner needs and desires.
Yes?

I see what you're saying but I couldn't disagree more. What the mystics is saying is that we can't trust our perceptions at all. To know ourselves and reality our mind and perceptions have to be looked at as in depth and objectively as possible (that's reallly all meditation is about - a ltechnique of observing mind as objectively as possible. It's just like anything else, what appears to be so is not necessarily so. That's exactly what science is about - our common sense notions are so often wrong that things must be closely and objectively examined. As far as I can tell mankind's common sense notions about the way things are have almost turned out to be wrong. So, if people spend years doing nothing but closely observing the mind and say our common sense notions are wrong here too, it seems to me like we shouldn't immediately dismiss their claims.

Re: mind and brain. There is nothing from objectively observing a physical brain that would lead one to believe that it produces thoughts. No matter how much you know about brain waves, or neurotransmitters, you would have no idea that it produces thought or any subjective experience whatsoever just by observing its physical characteristics. This is only known because we all experience this directly. I don't see how science is ever going to get around this either, do you have any ideas?
If it is the case that thought and subjective experience are only observable directly by the subject producing them do you propose that they should be ignored simply because they can't be objectively studied by science as we understand it today. If that is the proposistion it seems like; 1) Subjective experience is dismissed as unimporant simply because it can't be objectively studied. Which seems to me like a strange position to take since subjective experience is one of the most important aspects of life to humans (I would say the most important aspect). 2) No scientific model of the universe can ever be complete without accounting for consciousness/subjective experience.

I personally think that meditation is as close as we are ever going to get when it comes to a science of mind.