Argument 22. The Argument from the Consensus of Mystics
The argument that is she makes against the truths she makes attacks the notion that mystics can gain contact with a god through visions. The idea I believe is made that is made that the state is limited to these mystics. She makes a point to compare the visions of the mystics to a state of being drunk that is dismissed when the drunkard makes cases of seeing things. She also makes a point to show that for the visions to happen that are limited in the bounds of a language that is tied with a religion.
Argument 23 The Argument from Holy Books
The argument starts with her stance for the Holy books to be truth, there must be an independent knowledge of the being in some cases "God" to have already existed. The second flaw that she points out is that the books all claim to be right, a certain aspect of texts to be truth while laying the claims of others to be wrong. The issue that she brings up with the holy texts is that each group claims that their point of view is the correct one and their texts are the back bone for the arguments.
I found Flaw #1, particularly the relationship to drunkenness, itself flawed here. I didn't like her critique of this argument on this one. Drunkenness is, even in the quote she uses, at best /one/ small part of the mystic experience. And even then I think it is clear that for most mystics (like the old Sufis) talking of intoxication during the mystic experience is at best a sort of inadequate metaphor. As far as the experience being confined to religious language, I also think most mystics will explicitly state that the experiential nature of transcendence is something that all language is inadequate to describe. By it's very nature we can not give each other experiences through language, shadows at best. Here again I think it's best said that the religious language is merely an attempt to explain the unexplainable, and most writing I've read on the subject would agree.
ReplyDelete"... most writing I've read on the subject would agree."
DeleteI have no reason to doubt this at all. Also, both you and William James admit that drunkenness is, at least, a small but minimal part of the mystic experience. I also have had what many would call a mystical experience: usually by listening to Motown tunes or drinking Corona--or both simultaneously. So, I'm not sure what you are arguing for. If it's unique experiences, I don't know if you would find many detractors. If you're arguing for the existence of a god, I think many would like to know how you logically get from "unique experience" to "god exists" without presupposing a god in the premise.
I am not arguing for the existence of a God in this case, just pointing out the critique represented was flawed and not particularly relevant to the question. On the whole, I don't buy this particular argument for God either, but on different grounds than were presented
DeleteGot it, Jamie, thanks. Good class discussion today!
DeleteFurther, if you are arguing for a god, please indicate which one and define the properties of this god as well. Otherwise, I don't think we will have anything to take into consideration.
ReplyDeleteDean, you just requested the equivalent of nailing jell-o to a tree. God is far too mysterious and slippery a concept to be precisely defined.
DeleteGods these days (thanks to empirical science, reason, and past histories) are running out of places to hide. Now, they mostly have been sequestered to "beyond space and time" or way down in QM somewhere. Maybe I am being a bit ambitious but I'm always open to "new" evidence.
Delete1. Consensus of mystics. That sentence is self-refuting.
ReplyDelete2. See number 1.