[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[david buchanan]

Case said to dmb:
I previously responded with regards to the Oxford quote: "I think you are 
making much ado about nothing with this quote. To be suspected of heresy is 
not the same as being accused of heresy. While private mystical experience 
is not emphasized in many Christian traditions it has always had its place 
from the Apostle Paul to Thomas Merton. It can in fact be argued that 
Christianity is in large measure a synthesis of Judaism and Platonic 
mysticism. Ideas like the immortality of the soul and
the God-Man have no place in Judaism. The conception of the material world 
as evil and ugly compared to the eternal ideal is similarly Greek in 
origin." I guess my point is that Christians have been suspicious of their 
mystics for sure but they have tolerated them as well.

dmb says:
See, the Oxford quote was used to support my assertion that there is a 
distinction between theism and a certain kind of mysticism, one that doesn't 
do well within theistic religions. The quote supports this assertion insofar 
as it is included in an encyclodedic entry on the word "Mysticism". And your 
response here is basically to soften it as much as possible because, I 
suppose, you can see that an outright denial would simply be to 
unsupportable. Why say its much ado about nothing, that there's a difference 
between suspicion and accusation, that sometimes this sort of heresy is 
tolerated? You're just fudging here, man. Come clean, admit it. Certain 
kinds of mystic really piss off the church dudes, and everybody knows it. 
Why is this like trying to get an apology out of Archie Bunker? Yes, 
religious history is full of complex blends of various cultures and there 
are exceptions to every generalizaton and cases that don't fit into the 
standard taxonomy. That doesn't render the distinction useless. So, strickly 
speaking, I don't think you really responded to the quote. I was hoping 
you'd pay more attention to the specific differences described there rather 
than just look for a way to make it seem ambiguous as possible.

Case also said:
The only other specific quote you have offered but was from Pirsig about the 
MoQ is anti-theistic and my response is that if that is what he said, I 
respectfully disagree.

dmb says:
Your disagreement might be respectful, but it ain't too respectable. I mean, 
aren't you even going to try and say WHY you disagree, what part you 
disagree with or anything?  Are we expressing ideas and opinions here or are 
we just taking a vote? Okay, everybody who thinks we should take a vote 
please raise your hand.

Case said:
One way to look at the agreement you see in all of the religions of the 
world might be the soap bubble principle. If you blow a soap bubble there is 
only one shape it can take. The conditions that allow the bubble to exist 
dictate its shape and size. On a more complicated levels if humans are to 
live together and survive in the wild certain conditions must be met. One 
would expect to agreements as well as differences across culture. And you 
would expect agreement and similarities in those areas closest to survival. 
But you are right, however one accounts for this, the study is fascinating. 
But I thought the study of it would involve anthropology, or sociology, 
psychology well all of the social science... It seems too cross disciplinary 
to be confined to philosophy, mystical or otherwise.

dmb says:
I agree that the social sciences are extremely helpful. We can see Pirsig 
mixing some of that in. Doc McWatt's undergrad work was in the social 
sciences and figures into his thesis. And personally, I just started an 
interdisciplinary Master's program in the Humanities. I don't know if I 
think about the perennial philosophy in terms of the common need for 
survival, however. I think its just a simple matter of the fact that 
enlightenment has been experienced by all kinds of people in all kinds of 
cultures.

Case said:
...All I have said on this matter is that Theists too go through their 
rituals and rites of passage in training. They develop their own vocabulary, 
descriptions of experience and techniques. Theists, mystics and scientists 
are alike in this.

dmb says:
Theists have developed their own vocabulary and techniques? Don't you mean 
theistic theologians? The graduates of divinity schools and such rather than 
regular believers? And even with that correction, I'm extremely suspicious 
of any discipline with such dubious starting point. I mean, its seems there 
are good reasons for their relatively isolated position in the intellectual 
world. There's a difference between theology and, say, comparative religious 
studies so that the latter in included in the Humanities department and the 
former is off at its own school. It seems more an adjunct of the churches 
that a part of the Universities. I realize there are tons of (Notre Dame) 
exceptions, but the point remains. Faith based beliefs are not considered as 
valid in science or in scholarship. I think this is good and right. And I 
suppose you do too. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to convince me that 
theism is like science.

Thanks.
  dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Try the new Live Search today!  
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG