Atheism & Nescience

***For your consideration***

William James in his book The Varieties of Religious Experience posits three conclusions concerning mystical states:

(1) Mystical states carry authority for him who has them;
(2) But for no one else;
(3) Nevertheless, they break down the exclusive authority of rationalistic states.

On this third point I will quote James at length:

"Yet, I repeat once more, the existence of mystical states absolutely overthrows the pretension of non-mystical states to be the sole and ultimate dictators of what we may believe. As a rule, mystical states merely add a supersensuous meaning to the ordinary outward data of consciousness. They are excitements like the emotions of love or ambition, gifts to our spirit by means of which facts already objectively before us fall into a new expressiveness and make a new connection with our active life. They do not contradict these facts as such or deny anything that our senses have immediately seized. It is the rationalistic critic rather who plays the part of denier in the controversy, and his denials have no strength, for there never can be a state of facts to which new meaning may not truthfully be added, provided the mind ascend to a more enveloping point of view. It must always remain an open question whether mystical states may not possibly be such superior points of view, windows through which the mind looks out upon a more extensive and inclusive world. The difference of the views seen from the different mystical windows need not prevent us from entertaining this supposition. The wider world would in that case prove to have a mixed constitution like that of this world, that is all. It would have its celestial and its infernal regions, its tempting and its saving moments, its valid experiences and its counterfeit ones, just as our world has them; but it would be a wider world all the same. We should have to use its experiences by selecting and subordinating and substituting just as is our custom in this ordinary naturalistic world; we should be liable to error just as we are now; yet the counting in of that wider world of meanings, and the serious dealing with it, might, in spite of all the perplexity, be indispensable stages in our approach to the final fullness of the truth.

"Mystical states indeed wield no authority due simply to their being mystical states. But the higher ones among them point in directions to which the religious sentiments even of non-mystical men incline. They tell of the supremacy of the ideal, of vastness, of union, of safety, and of rest. They offer us hypotheses, hypotheses which we may voluntarily ignore, but which as thinkers we cannot possibly upset. The supernaturalism and optimism to which they would persuade us may, interpreted in one way or another, be after all the truest of insights into the meaning of this life."

Originally posted by amannion
Hmmm.
Tricky.
I guess I would explain that by saying that this notion of the 'numinous' that you're talking about gives me a sense of my connection and disconnection with the universe at one and the same time.
I experience the meaningless of the universe and in doing so, I'm empowered to discover and create my own meaning for my existence.
This could a ...[text shortened]... perience at times is akin to a religious experience in others - I just label it differently.

I experience the meaningless of the universe and in doing so, I'm empowered to discover and create my own meaning for my existence.
This could also be one of the reasons I reject the supernatural, since I think that notion of creating meaning for yourself disappears.

But the existential mystery doesn't necessarily connote meaninglessness. Rather, it suggests possibility. Were it an established fact that the world is meaningless, creating one's own meaning would be our necessary and solemn task. As it stands, though, the meaninglessness of existence has not been made absolutely apparent. With this in mind, it is curious that you would reject the supernatural on the basis that it would deprive you of the need to create your own meaning. After all, if there is meaning to existence, wouldn't creating your own meaning then be considered self-deluding?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Why do we exist? No matter how hard I try, I cannot rationalize it from either a scientific or religious viewpoint. Perhaps in time science will be able to explain it, but I don't know. Religious scripture also does not satisfy me. Why would God create us? This is also a dead end.

I appreciate your honesty.

If science were to one day explain ...[text shortened]... on of the numinous nor the proceeding curiosity were present in them.[/b]

If science were to one day explain exactly where we came from and why we are here, how do you imagine that discovery being made?

I think I agree with you. If science finds the truth, it will be in cold mathematical formulas. The purpose of science is in understanding the relationships between phenomena. It is not concerned with giving objects emotional meaning. That is something that you alone must make.

You are right, I don't have any reason to believe this. Anybody can say that the purpose of our existence is [insert whatever you want]. It doesn't make it true.

I don't understand what you mean by Nescience. Could you explain that to me?

What prevents you from seeking such experiences?

Tell me the way to reach such an experience, and I will try. Let me just say this though. Even if I experience this feeling, I cannot make it more then what it is.

Human beings as a species have the a priori capacity of mind to perceive or experience the numinous. This is not to say that the ability to perceive the holy, let alone the perception itself is innate; it merely means that every individual has the potential to perceive or experience the numinous. The numinous state of mind or the feeling of the numinous must be evoked in us or brought into consciousness; it cannot be taught. (Rudolph Otto)

(1) Mystical states carry authority for him who has them;
(2) But for no one else;
(3) Nevertheless, they break down the exclusive authority of rationalistic states. (From William James)

I tend to agree with both these statements (without necessarily defining numinous in a strictly theistic sense; nor does it require a “supernatural category,” if by that one means something that exists beyond or separate from the natural order). My view, as you know, is monistic.

I’d like to add the following—

_______________________________________

The situation of existential absurdity (ala Camus) is two-fold:

(1) We wish for the world* to disclose to us meaning/understanding; and

(2) the world discloses no such meaning/understanding, but only facts, relationships and their patterns—or, perhaps, text, con-text, textuality.

The patterns that the world discloses—its coherence—can be called Tao or torah or logos; here I will call it grammar.

Our consciousness also has a tao, a torah, a logos, a grammar (or grammars). For example: (a) our conceptual grammarr—how we conceive, think and speak about ourselves and the world; and (b) a perceptual “sub-grammar,” that is simply how our brain translates sensory input into sensations, images, etc. (for example, how the visual cortex translates received sensory data into a picture, say, of a tree). And perhaps a “meta-grammar” that is the grammar that coordinates our various grammars…

The grammar of the world and the grammar of our consciousness have both universal and individual aspects. Think of the grain of wood: a skilled forester can look at the coherence of a particular grain-pattern, and tell what kind of tree it comes from. At the same time, the grain-pattern of two trees of the same species (e.g., a walnut or an oak) are never exactly the same. Likewise for the grammar of our consciousness: you and I will “grammatize” the world in similar fashion, but not identically.

I take the grammar of the world to be complex, dynamic, essentially non-linear (think “chaos theory” ).

Whatever our understanding(s) of the world, we arrive at such via the application of our grammar to the grammar of the world. We decide/determine understanding/meaning by using the grammar of our consciousness to interpret the grammar of the world. What we call “meaning” arises from that engagement. That is what I mean when I say that meaning is not strictly disclosed to us, but that we “make meaning.”

The search for meaning is always creative and interpretive. It is always hermeneutical.

Although we might find it useful to speak of the grammar of the world and the grammar of our consciousness as separable entities, they are not really so. We are not separable from our world. We are of the world, as well as in it; our grammar is part of the grammar of the world—each is context for the other in the textual totality.

I sometimes call this entanglement: we are intimately entangled with our world; the grammar of our consciousness is intimately entangled with that of the world.

Even the word “entanglement” can imply a degree of separability beyond what I envision, however. A thread in a tapestry may be entangled with others, and yet it might also be possible to pull it out of the rest of the weave. What I envision is more like a stream or current—or a whorl or swirl—in a body of water (an ocean, say); one neither denies that the stream is there, nor imagines that it can be “cut out” of the whole body of water.

This is the basis of my monistic—or perhaps more properly, non-dualistic—worldview (the so-called “perennial philosophy” ). Just as you cannot carve out my smile from my face, or separate the gulf-stream from the ocean, you cannot separate the manifold forms from the whole. To imagine that you can is illusion (maya).


* I use the word “world” simply to mean the universe, the cosmos, the totality—“The world is everything that is the case.” (Wittgenstein)

___________________________________________

There seems to me to be no reason to assume that we are a privileged species in the sense of the grammar (or even the sub-grammar) of our consciousness being exhaustive—that is, I see no reason to assume that the grammar of the world may not transcend (go beyond) our own. In fact, it seems to me that it does. And, philosophically, I make that assumption.* I call it the mystery.

Recognition of the mystery underlies all religious “faith,” and—as I use the term—“spirituality.” The origin of each religion is generally the experience by someone of the mystery (Moses, say, or the Lao Tzu), who then attempts to point the way. Most supernatural theists, I would think, view the mystery as being ontological—that God’s very being-ness is sufficiently different from our own as render that God ultimately mysterious. A non-supernaturalist monist might view the mystery as being fundamentally epistemological—or, perhaps more broadly, existential.

I am skeptical that the grammar of our consciousness can ever get behind phenomena to the so-called thing-in-itself. At least, I am skeptical that we could ever know it if we did—unless we also knew that our grammar was in that sense exhaustive.

What in the literature is called a “mystical” experience (not necessarily a religious or supernatural experience!) is an intimate, conceptually unmediated, experiential, realization of the mystery—of the fact that the grammar of the totality transcends our own, while our existence arises from and is intimately entangled with the totality—like wave, or a stream or a current, in the ocean. That is the only sense in which I use the word mystical. It is in the sense of, say, the Zen satori experience.

* Again, I have no argument with the discoveries or pursuits of science here; a scientist qua scientist cannot a priori assume a limit on the ability of the grammar of our consciousness to decipher the grammar of the world—including that very grammar of consciousness (e.g., in brain/mind studies).

Aside on mystical content—

Whether or not a mystical experience is triggered intentionally (e.g., by meditation practices), the conceptual processes of our minds seem to want to assert their “grammar,” trying to make conceptual sense of the experience—to give it conceptual content. Such content may take the form of visions, auditions, etc. A memory of some religious image may be triggered—a mental image of Krishna, say—and associated with whatever conceptual content arises. (This religious image need not come from one’s own original religion.)

Thus, one may have a “religious experience” in which Krishna seems to appear, surrounded by the fragrance of incense, and to speak. And, just like the ordinary visual images produced in the visual cortex, the vision of Krishna seems to be external to ourselves—as does the speech, the scent, etc. To one who objects that her experience was just too powerful to be just a “vision in the mind,” I would say: “Do not form too paltry an opinion of the power of the mind.”

I call this process “immediate translation”—i.e., of an otherwise unintelligible experience into an intelligible one, as the brain attempts to assert its habitual grammar to form recognizable and sensible patterns. Zen masters urge us to ignore such makkyo (bedeviling illusions). I’d say however, that one might value them aesthetically, or perhaps even therapeutically—and that is where the “personal authority” comes in: in perhaps helping to inform the aesthetic richness and general well-being of our lives. The point is that the mystical experience does not itself validate the conceptual content of its grammatized form.

________________________________

Yes, I have had such experiences. No, I do not have any basic objection to expressing them in terms of religious symbolism. But we need to remember that the experience of anything that transcends our conceptual abilities is ultimately ineffable. Nevertheless, because of our intimate entanglement with the whole, and our consciousness is coherent with the whole from which it arises, the experience is itself coherent—and the feeling is generally one of harmony.

The “wave”, upon realizing it is merely a “wave” in and of the larger ocean, may experience feelings of smallness and trembling awe (even fear—the Hebrew word yirah can be translated both ways; not sure about the Greek phobos). But one cannot properly remain afraid of that of which/whom one is.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]I experience the meaningless of the universe and in doing so, I'm empowered to discover and create my own meaning for my existence.
This could also be one of the reasons I reject the supernatural, since I think that notion of creating meaning for yourself disappears.

But the existential mystery doesn't necessarily connote meaninglessness. Rat ...[text shortened]... s meaning to existence, wouldn't creating your own meaning then be considered self-deluding?[/b]

Perhaps you are right.
That is not how I view my own take on the world around me though - I don't feel deluded. But how would I know for sure either way?
I must assume that I'm not and proceed as seems appropriate.

Originally posted by Zander 88
[b]If science were to one day explain exactly where we came from and why we are here, how do you imagine that discovery being made?

I think I agree with you. If science finds the truth, it will be in cold mathematical formulas. The purpose of science is in understanding the relationships between phenomena. It is not concerned with giving objects emo st say this though. Even if I experience this feeling, I cannot make it more then what it is.[/b]

I don't understand what you mean by Nescience.

Nescience refers to the fundamental limitation of rational scientific inquiry; the impossibility of science ever broaching the existential mystery. Science may one day accurately explain how the universe works, yet even then it will never tell us what the universe is. Many people are confused on this point because, after becoming acquainted with a lifetime of everyday phenomena, we take things for granted; through familiarity, sidestepping the problem of existential mystery. Trees, for example: we know what constitutes a tree and how it grows, what it looks like, how it feels, etc., yet if we ask ourselves what it is, we merely rehash what know about it without ever answering the fundamental question, what is it. As Carlyle points out, all one needs is to think in order to become receptive to nescient awe and wonder:

"It is not by our superior insight that we escape the difficulty, it is by our superior levity, our inattention, our want of insight. It is by not thinking that we cease to wonder at it . . . We call the fire of the black thundercloud 'electricity,' and lecture learnedly about it, and grind the like of it out of glass and silk: but what is it? Whence comes it? Whither goes it? Science has done much for us; but it is a poor science that would hide from us the great deep sacred infinitude of Nescience, whither we can never penetrate, on which all science swims as a mere superficial film. This world, after all our science and sciences, is still a miracle; wonderful, inscrutable, magical and more, to whosoever will think of it."

Tell me the way to reach such an experience, and I will try.

I don't know. In my case, multi-colored flame engulfed the point of attention at the center of my field of vision, vanished, and left me for a short time perfectly fearless and buoyant with awe and wonder. I had been star-gazing alone in the wilderness. It is still one of the most memorable and important moments in the private life of my soul. I did not seek it directly, but I did eventually arrive at it through a period of intense contemplation of the nescient aspect of the universe, which was my muse back then.

I guess I don't recommend pursuing experiences for their own sake, because that never arrives at anything. But, in the off chance that the world is a whole lot more than it appears to be, I would say it is in one's best interest to seek truth as heroically as one is able.

Let me just say this though. Even if I experience this feeling, I cannot make it more then what it is.

Is the perceived image of a tiger more than just an electro-biochemical change in the brain? Or does the tiger have a reality all its own? Likewise, is the perception of the numinous just an electro-biochemical event (a feeling)? Or is it evidence of a reality? Read the earlier post containing William James' quote concerning mystical experiences and their significance and limitations.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
My questions are: Have you ever experienced this 'Numinous'? If you are an atheist, what led you to rule out the possibility of a God altogether? Do you forsee an absolute limit to what we can know about existence? Do you accept Nescience? What is the significance of beauty in your particular world-view? Or holiness? Most importantly, does the mystery of existence disturb the surety of your atheism? EDIT: should it?

I didn't read that whole post, but it seems that you're talking about the sense of mystical awe that humans sometimes get. Sure, I've had that feeling, but a feeling is just that; a feeling. It doesn't mean anything more than that.

I am an atheist, but I think you and I use the term differently. I am not a strong atheist, which you seem to mean when you write 'atheist'. I'm a weak atheist. Some call my position agnostic, and it is; agnostic atheism. In short, I don't rule out the possibility of a God altogether, and I doubt you'll find many atheists who do.

Do you forsee an absolute limit to what we can know about existence?

No, but I don't rule out such a limit either. I don't know what "Nescience" is. I don't feel the term is really defined in the quoted except.

What is the significance of beauty in your particular world-view?

It brings pleasure to humans and possibly other life. That's about it.

I don't know what "holiness" means.

Most importantly, does the mystery of existence disturb the surety of your atheism?

Huh?

Originally posted by amannion
Perhaps you are right.
That is not how I view my own take on the world around me though - I don't feel deluded. But how would I know for sure either way?
I must assume that I'm not and proceed as seems appropriate.

Utilitarian considerations are undoubtedly preeminent in our lives as creatures. The existential mystery is hardly a problem one tackles while struggling for survival (hunting, gathering... paying bills).

Originally posted by vistesd
Human beings as a species have the a priori capacity of mind to perceive or experience the numinous. This is not to say that the ability to perceive the holy, let alone the perception itself is innate; it merely means that every individual has the potential to perceive or experience the numinous. The numinous state of mind or the feeling of the numinous m t the Greek phobos). But one cannot properly remain afraid of that of which/whom one is.

The situation of existential absurdity (ala Camus) is two-fold:

(1) We wish for the world* to disclose to us meaning/understanding; and

(2) the world discloses no such meaning/understanding, but only facts, relationships and their patterns—or, perhaps, text, con-text, textuality.

I would say Camus' view of the existential problem is the strictly rationalist position. And that existence is only absurd taken from that perspective. As James points out, mystical states break down the exclusive authority of rationalistic states: "the existence of mystical states absolutely overthrows the pretension of non-mystical states to be the sole and ultimate dictators of what we may believe," because, "the supernaturalism and optimism to which they would persuade us may, interpreted in one way or another, be after all the truest of insights into the meaning of this life." Nescience remains the dictator of any discussion concerning ultimate meaning, existentially.

There are two unfounded assumptions being made by Camus:

(1) There is no meaning to life;
(2) the world discloses no meaning.

From these two premises his arguments follow.

Originally posted by rwingett
Have you ever experienced this 'Numinous'?

No.

What led you to rule out the possibility of a God altogether?

I haven't. I have ruled god out for all practical purposes, but cannot rule him out altogether.

Do you forsee an absolute limit to what we can know about existence?

I don't know. There's no telling how much we ma ...[text shortened]... nswer certain questions quite independently from science's alleged inability to do so.

My question to you is that if there are areas into which science allegedly cannot reach, then what makes you think anyone else can reach them any better?

I'm saying, simply, that science is useless as tool for answering the fundamental question, 'what is the universe[/i]' -- a knowledge barrier referred to here as nescience. I'm also suggesting that the only way the universe can have intrinsic meaning is if the Divine exists, and since the nescient aspect of existence cannot be plundered, only supernatural means can reveal the hidden meaning thereof (if, in fact, the Divine exists, which cannot be rationalistically determined one way or the other). Furthermore, rationality does not have the exclusive authority to dictate what we can believe, and that such mystical experiences as 'numinous dread' may reveal clues to ultimate reality.

You seem to have this conception that whatever does not belong to the realm of science by default belongs to the realm of religion. This is not so.

If by 'whatever does not belong to the realm of science' you are referring to the meaning of existence, then, yes, my conception is religious in its scope.

Religion would have to demonstrate its ability to answer certain questions quite independently from science's alleged inability to do so.

The Bible, for example, does demonstrate the ability to answer certain questions quite independently from science (e.g. the problem of suffering). What basis does science have to disprove those claims? None.

Originally posted by vistesd
Human beings as a species have the a priori capacity of mind to perceive or experience the numinous. This is not to say that the ability to perceive the holy, let alone the perception itself is innate; it merely means that every individual has the potential to perceive or experience the numinous. The numinous state of mind or the feeling of the numinous m t the Greek phobos). But one cannot properly remain afraid of that of which/whom one is.

I tend to agree with both these statements (without necessarily defining numinous in a strictly theistic sense; nor does it require a “supernatural category,” if by that one means something that exists beyond or separate from the natural order). My view, as you know, is monistic.

Just out of curiosity, vistesd, does your monist conception of God, what you call the 'ground of all being', have intelligence? Is it lifeless? Does it act? Was it created or is it uncreated? Is it conscious? Is meaning something humans must ascribe to it, or is its meaning inherent?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]My question to you is that if there are areas into which science allegedly cannot reach, then what makes you think anyone else can reach them any better?

I'm saying, simply, that science is useless as tool for answering the fundamental question, 'what is the universe[/i]' -- a knowledge barrier referred to here as nescience. I'm also su ...[text shortened]... e problem of suffering). What basis does science have to disprove those claims? None.[/b]

You may be correct that only the divine can provide an intrinsic meaning to the universe, but that does not mean that the universe HAS an intrinsic meaning, nor that one is even desirable. Our own subjective meaning is likely all there is, and all that is really needed. You try to convince us that we need an intrinsic meaning so you can manufacture a perceived need for your religion. Once we realize that a lack of any intrinsic meaning is not a problem, then we have absolutely no need for your religious snake oil.

The bible offers up various answers to many problems, but it does not mean that it has satisfactorily answered any of them. It has not. It's answer to "the problem of suffering" is not much of an answer at all.

Originally posted by rwingett
You may be correct that only the divine can provide an intrinsic meaning to the universe, but that does not mean that the universe HAS an intrinsic meaning, nor that one is even desirable. Our own subjective meaning is likely all there is, and all that is really needed. You try to convince us that we need an intrinsic meaning so you can manufacture a percei ...[text shortened]... them. It has not. It's answer to "the problem of suffering" is not much of an answer at all.

You try to convince us that we need an intrinsic meaning so you can manufacture a perceived need for your religion.

I've already admitted I can't convince you of anything. Faith is not produced in someone by convincing them; faith is a work of the Holy Spirit completely independent of mental assent. I have no illusions of convincing anybody here to believe in Jesus Christ. Period. How about instead of accusing me of disingenuousness, you confront the issues I've raised for what they're worth.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]You try to convince us that we need an intrinsic meaning so you can manufacture a perceived need for your religion.

I've already admitted I can't convince you of anything. Faith is not produced in someone by convincing them; faith is a work of the Holy Spirit completely independent of mental assent. I have no illusions of convincing an ...[text shortened]... accusing me of disingenuousness, you confront the issues I've raised for what they're worth.[/b]

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

--Mark Twain


I have confronted all your issues. They weren't worth much.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]I tend to agree with both these statements (without necessarily defining numinous in a strictly theistic sense; nor does it require a “supernatural category,” if by that one means something that exists beyond or separate from the natural order). My view, as you know, is monistic.

Just out of curiosity, vistesd, does your monist conception of Is it conscious? Is meaning something humans must ascribe to it, or is its meaning inherent?[/b]

There are two unfounded assumptions being made by Camus:

(1) There is no meaning to life;
(2) the world discloses no meaning.

I’m not sure whether or not these assumptions are “unfounded.” I am also not convinced that the first follows from the second. The fact that “meaning” arises out of our hermeneutical and creative engagement with the world is only problematical for those who want to be given meaning.

Just out of curiosity, vistesd, does your monist conception of God, what you call the 'ground of all being', have intelligence? Is it lifeless? Does it act? Was it created or is it uncreated? Is it conscious?

These are all good questions for which I have no ready answers. In that ground of being (and power of being, and being-manifest) there is obviously intelligence; there is obviously life; there is obviously consciousness—at least in the manifest forms (such as you and I); so all of those are at least en potentia. I think there is obviously “action” in the very sense of manifesting the forms. (Not all monists would agree; there are those who take the phenomenal world as being delusion: I only take it that illusion rests in a refusal to recognize the ground as well as the forms, or vice versa.)

Created or uncreated? I’d have to go with uncreated, because otherwise, the question arises as to the “creator.” Since the ground of being is the source of all existent beings, there is no need to posit a “creator” of it. The "totality" the "all in all," the "all without another," is not itself a thing (a being) in need of a cause.

Is meaning something humans must ascribe to it, or is its meaning inherent?

What we call meaning (understanding) arises from our engagement with ______________. There is no meaning given. We ascribe meaning. But, it seems clear that the grammar of our consciousness is coherent with the syntax of being generally (it would seem at least odd if it were not so). As far as that goes. We impose (as bbarr put it) our narrative structure on reality, but that structure is part of it, since we are of that reality as well.