[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[Case]

Dan and dmb,

It is tempting to continue debating the degree of negativity we are slinging
at each other with words like hearsay and narcissism or the relative degree
of prejudice revealed in the use of second person pronouns or whether true
education is an active or passive process. But it seems to me that what we
are discussing is, if not important, then at least more interesting than
that. My summary of all of the above is that it has been my observation that
you guys have no problem disparaging the beliefs of others but get really
snippy when the tables are turned. Ok, I do that too...

What I thought we were talking about here is a central point. That is, the
conflict between science and religion or between theism and mysticism and on
what basis one would chose between competing claims. Somehow I have been
cast as a religious zealot because I think people should be educated about
religion. By that, I do mean all religions. I support the work of the Jesus
Seminar because that is their mission too. They are all academics not
zealots. Their efforts have been directed toward Christianity because that
is their field of academic study. But for what it is worth, they are
detested and feared by the religious right precisely for the reasons that
dmb isn't. What their works shows is that the religious right is wrong on
its own terms and in its own language. 

dmb has said that philosophical mysticism makes empirically verifiable
claims which theists are unable to do. I ask first, what is this
philosophical mysticism? Which version of this are you espousing? Second
what claims do these philosophical mystics make and how are they more
verifiable than the claims of theists. You seem to be saying that Christian
and Jews and Arabs can not be mystics. While this might offend Trappists,
Cabbalists and Sufis, I am merely curious as to why you would think this and
what weight you think your dismissal of them has? 

I thought you were basing this claim of empirical verifiability on Wilbur.
He says that mystics offer testable claims but in the sense that he says
that mystical claims are empirical so are the claims of Christians, Jews and
Muslims. If the point of dismissing theists or at least shutting up about
them is to let you finish whatever it is you have been trying to say, OK
here is your chance:

At one point a few months ago I thought Dan and I were pretty close to an
understanding. I thought we had agreed that the MoQ says that both
materialism and mysticism are pretty good ideas. Dan concluded by saying
that this was true but mysticism is better. Instead of taking this with a
nudge nudge wink wink I'm afraid I took this comment seriously, for that I
apologize.

Still I think that if all the MoQ has to offer is a description of the
conflict and concludes with both sides are right, it is pretty lame. If the
MoQ has nothing in it to settle the dispute we have been having or nothing
really to say about the kind of arguments Plat and Arlo have, it really
doesn't say much at all. 

I for one, support gav's vision of "...the evolution of the MOQ. the point
is the transformative integration of the MOQ into the western worldview."
But if the MoQ is just eastern mysticism wearing sunglasses that ain't gonna
happen. My own view is that Pirsig took an outstanding first crack at a
metaphysics of uncertainty. Clearly, few here agree with me on this but that
is where I think transformative power of the MoQ lies.

p.s. to dmb: Thanks for the warning without the safety glasses I coulda lost
an eye.

p.s. to Dan: Look I like Hemmingway and Bogart too for that matter. But
Faulkner bagged a Nobel for a little tale called the Sound and Fury. I think
it is an astounding piece writing. Frankly, I think Fitzgerald was robbed.