[MD] Religious experience & thinking in an MOQ context

[Scott Roberts]

DMB,

Scott said to DM:
...I think James was correct when he characterized religion as (I'm
paraphrasing) (a) the recognition that there is something fundamentally
wrong with us (e.g. Original Sin, Buddhist Ignorance, Hindu Maya), and (b)
that dealing with this wrongness, because it is fundamental, involves
something beyond "existence as we find it" (for Christians, God's Grace, for
Buddhists, mystical insight, etc.).

dmb says:
This sounds a lot like theism to me. I mean, if you're saying God's grace is
"something beyond existence as we find it" and that this something is
required as a corrective for some kind of Original Sin, then I'd say that
you hold a theistic position. But that label isn't required. I'd object to
the idea of God as "something beyond existence as we find it" even if you
named it Kate Beckinsale.

Scott:
Yes, someone who speaks of "God's grace" is a theist. But I don't. I was 
just giving examples of how Christianity and Eastern religions fit this 
characterization. But I have lots of use for the doctrine of Original Sin, 
though I characterize it differently: I call it Original Insanity, which is 
to say that I see it more as Buddhists do, namely that we (our relative, 
S/O-bound selves) are fundamentally out of touch with the Reality that is 
discussed by mystics.

DMB said:
Don't you mean to say, as Campbell does, that "the ultimate mystery
transcends the laws of dualistic logic, causality and space-time." Don't you
mean to concur with Paul Tillich, who said, "Things like miraculous
interventions of God, special inspirations and revelations are beneath the
level of real religious experience. Religion itself is IMMEDIACY." Don't you
mean to say that "God" is only beyond normal waking consciousness, but not
beyond our existence?

Or maybe you meant what you said and you are a theist. I don't know. Would
it be too much to ask for an explanation as to your meaning here?

Scott:
Yes, I mean to say what Campbell says. No, I would say that religion is not 
immediacy. Rather, I would say that immediacy is sought by the religious 
person, though different religious people will characterize such immediacy 
differently. If one has such immediacy, then one does not need to be 
religious -- one just Knows. And I stand by my phrase "something beyond 
existence as we find it", with emphasis on "as we find it". I do not find a 
transcendence of space-time and causality in my existence (intellectually I 
can infer it, but that is insufficient). I have faith that such 
transcendence is possible, however, and that faith comes from revelation, 
for example, the writings of people like Merrell-Wolff, Bernadette Roberts, 
and others who *have* transcended it.

DMB said:
 Would it
be too much to ask for one without all the straw men and such?

Scott:
As I recall, I refuted the straw man charge right after you first stated it. 
You accused me of restricting choices to two, when in fact it is you who is 
doing so. In particular, you are not allowing the possibility of 
non-literalist theist, since to you a theist is someone who believes in a 
Supreme Being who intervenes miraculously in natural affairs. I define a 
theist as someone who describes him- or herself as having "faith in God". 
Some hold with miracles, some don't. Since, for a thinking theist, God is 
not a being, your definition does not apply to all theists, since many 
(including most all theologians) consider God to be Being itself (as opposed 
to *a* being) or to be beyond being. Furthermore, since God is beyond human, 
conceptual understanding, there is, as I see it, no way to be literal in 
what one says about God. Even -- or perhaps particularly -- the phrase "God 
exists" cannot be taken literally, because the literal meaning of "X exists" 
can only be applied to a being, and one can't do that with God. 
Metaphorically, "God exists" might mean something like "God is my ultimate 
concern" or perhaps "life would be meaningless to me without God", all of 
which are, of course, more metaphors -- such sentences just don't have 
literal meanings. (Please note: the "me" and "my" in those sentences is 
referring to a theist. I don't use those sentences, and I do not describe 
myself as having faith in God.)

- Scott