Spiritual and/or Mystical Nontheism

River

Active member
As a spiritual and mystical nontheist, I share a good deal in common with my atheist brothers and sisters. But the one thing I and my atheisit brothers and sisters hold most strongly in common with one another is an aversion for religious authority (and orthodoxy, dogma) and its typically accompanied enclosures of inquiry. That is, we are committed to what I call Open Inquiry.

To understand what I mean by Open Inquiry, we should begin by naming three basic kinds of Open Inquiry.:

  • Scientific
  • Philosophical
  • Spiritual

As a spiritual and mystical nontheist, I don't think any of these facets of Inquiry are complete in and of themselves, but that each needs the others to be whole and wholesome. I also think the boundaries between these three aspects of Inquiry are necessarily quite vague and ambiguous. One cannot draw a clear, firm line enclosing one of these three apart from the others without doing damage to Inquiry itself. Inquiry should always be open and free. It should never be rigidly bound by systems of institutionalized authority and control.

Inquiry is inclined always toward truth, and being so requires that inquiry be also free.

Open inquiry is suspicous of all forms of narrow-mindedness and control of open discourse and discovery, including those of contemporary and modern science (e.g., scientism).

And I could go on, but this is not an essay, it's a conversation. Jump in wherever you like. :p


Spirituality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality
 
Last edited:
A very fine example of Open Inquiry which combines the three facets of science, philosophy and spirituality is the field of transpersonal psychology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonal_psychology

You will notice that the field of transpersonal psychology amounts largley to an open conversation with many and various perspectives and opinions -- just as we find in any Open Inquiry in philosophy, the sciences, art, etc....
 
I am discouraged when something looks suspicious, yet I can't question it without sparking hostility. Makes it impossible to seek the truth in that conversation.

For inquiry to be open, I think it has to be free; that is, no forbidden areas that are not to be questioned. Open inquiry means that the line of questioning is free to overturn a faulty notion if it can.

Religious authority/orthodoxy/dogma is thus unfriendly towards open inquiry. At least that's how I see it.
 
Religious authority/orthodoxy/dogma is thus unfriendly towards open inquiry. At least that's how I see it.

I agree completely, which is why I am not a belonger to any religion.

I do draw a great deal of inspiration from Buddhism, which is often called a religion, and which I suppose often functions as one. I also draw inspiration from Taoism, though I'm less famiilar with it. Both Taoism and Buddhism are considered to be non-theistic traditions.

As far as Buddhism goes, I'm in basic agreement with Stephen Batchelor‎, author of a number of books which question--and doubt--some basic Buddhist doctrines, such as the notion of "rebirth" and of 'karma' seen refracted through this notion of rebirth. -- e.g., http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/90557.Buddhism_without_Beliefs

Many see Buddhism not as a religion, but as a sort of philosophy. Or a way of life.

More and more, lately, I see most of Buddhism as a necessary or valuable part of a whole, but it it not itself whole in most of its expresions, as it makes far too little space for passion. It celebrates dispassion. And that's a good thing! But lately I'm realizing that we humans need to celebrate both passion AND dispassion -- which may seem paradoxical or impossible, but I know in my bones it it is true. For our well-being, we need both. And we also need to have both in our own unique, personal way. No one else can tell us how to find that harmony. (It's not balance, really.)
 
kdt26417 said:
Religious authority/orthodoxy/dogma is thus unfriendly towards open inquiry.

Depends on the religion. Quite a few do. Some don't.

Ex: The 4th Unitarian Universalist principle is "A free and responsible search for truth and meaning." We are supposed to question. Revelation is not sealed shut. Because new data could come along and change stuff around later.

River said:
I see most of Buddhism as a necessary or valuable part of a whole, but it it not itself whole in most of its expresions, as it makes far too little space for passion. It celebrates dispassion.

My understanding of that teaching is to be more "in the moment." And that includes passionate moments. Enjoy the passion! By all means!

Just try not to be attached to "freezing" the moment, like it should go on and on forever. Time will pass, and something else will come along. Might be a fun thing or not fun thing. If you try to freeze it, you create your own suffering. Because that's just not how time works.

Or not to be attached to a certain outcome -- like you want something to feel passionate. Be it creating a painting or lovemaking or whatever. It's ok to hope for it to go there, even encourage it to go there. But it is not ok to keep fussing at it trying to force it to be so. Best to be ok letting it be what it wants to be. If you try to force it, you create your own suffering by frustrating and agitating yourself.

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
I'm glad there's such a thing as Unitarian Universalists. If I was going to join any church it would probably be them.
 
Religious authority/orthodoxy/dogma is thus unfriendly towards open inquiry.

Depends on the religion. Quite a few do. Some don't.
Ex: The 4th Unitarian Universalist principle is "A free and responsible search for truth and meaning."

Add Judaism to that (short) list. Jewish history and the torah are filled with stories about people arguing with God and each other. It's a foundational value of all types of Judaism that the laws and traditions are constantly open to interpretation. Some movements are more socially stringent than others, but all deeply value debate and passionate discussion over the laws, traditions and the Bible itself.
 
That's encouraging.

I get depressed when someone says (for example), "The Bible is the absolute and only word of God. If you disagree, even if your logic is sound, you are the embodiment of Satan. The only logic that counts is in the Bible." I don't like it when the dialog is shut down like that. Did God give us brains only to tempt us?

[/rant]
 
I think that's the smart thing to do. :)
 
Yes we have a covenant and no hell, but depends on which group, they say for every two Jews you have three opinions
 
A cleansing/punishment to get you back on track to heaven. Most of my time was Reform, as the S adduces thought death ended it all, The Pharisees looked for a resurrection
 
I an go with this, even though I am Reform, I like the Chabad for learning.
"he Jewish mystics described a spiritual place called “Gehinnom.” This is usually translated as “Hell,” but a better translation would be “the Supernal Washing Machine.” Because that’s exactly how it works. The way our soul is cleansed in Gehinnom is similar to the way our clothes are cleansed in a washing machine."
From Rabbi Moss, http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1594422/jewish/Do-Jews-Believe-in-Hell.htm
 
I resonate with this idea of 'Open Inquiry', being someone who describes themselves as "spiritual but not religious" and also likes to question everything.

Having said that, it is helpful when researching or philosophizing to set up a framework of assumptions, boundaries, taxonomy and hypotheses, in order to follow a line of inquiry deeper - "so say it's like this, then what?". If you leave too much up in the air, it's hard to form any useful conclusions. I think it's necessary often, especially as the fields become more and more developed, to base an investigation in a context defined by a set of well-understood limitations.

The difficulty comes when people take findings from a bounded study out of context, and try to apply them to situations where the assumptions are no longer valid and/or applicable.

For example, in the case of religious dogma, I feel that's what happens in cases when a religion has strong definitions surrounding a theistic definition of 'God', and non-consensually applies the conclusions of the philosophical model to non-followers of that religion regardless. The non-followers may be investigating lines of inquiry within a framework very different from the boundaries of the religion, and the religion, instead of acknowledging it doesn't apply to its model, continues to apply out of context conclusions, conclusions which themselves allow an attempt to shut down the questions.
 
Spiritual and/or Mystical Nont

I have felt it too... people doing stuff they swore they would never do... it makes me have so much hope for our planet and the inhabitants of it... I just wish more people would get on board with making this world a whole world of huge consciousness. Not in terms of religion, but of being aware of everything on a worldly level.
 
Back
Top