Skeptical and Mystical Absurdity

In a recent discussion with an online acquaintance about Skepticism and mysticism and whatnot, I found myself once again in the position of having to defend logic, reason, and rational thinking.  Much of the difficulty in maintaining focus in the conversation stemmed from the lack of common definition of critical terms.  For that reason I offer a definition of "mysticism" relevant to our discussion from Webster’s dictionary:

Mysticism: Any doctrine that asserts the possibility of attaining knowledge through intuition. 

Essentially mysticism is the acceptance of allegations as factual – a claim of some irrational means of knowledge such as intuition, revelation, or any other form of “just knowing”, also to my amusement, referred to as magical thinking.  I also draw on Webster’s definition of knowledge since that word seems to be wholly misunderstood by Skeptics and mystics. I use these published definitions because they represent a common ground for communication.  An attempt to use these words with some meaning other than their accepted published definitions removes the common ground element of communication.

My debate participant oscillated between supporting proponents of both Mysticism and Skepticism (which are logically in opposition) and being exposed to such "crazy making" anti-reasoning was challenging to say the least.  At one point he expressed having no certainty about "anything" (classic Skepticism); an unacceptable contention because I am not willing to doubt my mind's ability to form cogent interpretations of my perceptions - particularly when perceiving scientifically obtained results or any other self-evident truth. (To be certain, I am not referring to scientific skepticism which is simply the requirement of proof to substantiate knowledge.  I am specifically referring to the philosophy sector known as Skepticism - a doctrine that questions truth in knowledge, even doubting existence itself which of course is a logical absurdity).

Existence merits identification for the sake of our (humankind) understanding of the concept as such, and it is simply that existence exists.  Existence cannot be reduced to any other sub-part or component and therefore needs no other evaluation or verification.  An argument that would attempt to disprove existence would constitute an absurdity (i.e. proof by means of non-existence).

The laws of Nature are unequivocal, absolute universal corollaries of existence.  I do not mean to imply that all of Nature’s secrets are attainable.  Humankind obviously does not know or fully comprehend all of Nature’s secrets, and has miscalculated more than a few – but those discrepancies in the repository of human knowledge, in no way permit an existence that defies the natural laws.  Pardon the personification, but Nature doesn't care about the accuracy or inaccuracy of our theories concerning her order.  But the fact that Nature has secrets, and that we are as yet unable to decipher many of them, does not substantiate a general negation of knowledge and truths that have been observed and verified.  Factual, knowable information is not contingent on doubt.

The principles of an objective reality are self-evident and absolute.  (Note that I do not claim to offer proof of these principles.  An attempt to prove an irreducible self-evident principle would be equally as absurd as trying to disprove it.  To propose that these axioms are not self-evident truths would constitute a denial and evasion of reality.

By the same token, reality does not permit a claim of truth where there is no available evidence, such as the existence of god, or other such forms of mysticism or magical thinking.  The mystic’s claim of “knowledge” without any evidence to support the claim does not conform to the definition of knowledge and consequently represents nothing more than conjecture by speculation.

My debate contestant also asked what does logic have to do with the real world (implying that logic is only useful as a tool for proving Boolean expressions).  My answer was and is everything - provided that you intend on conducting your affairs and making decisions based on the precepts of reason and rational thought, but certainly logic has no bearing at all if you operate on a belief system rooted in mysticism. Thinking is an act of identifying and integrating information.  Logic is the application of non-contradictory identification.  Logic is the fundamental concept of method on which all other rational methods depend. The abandonment of logic is the first condition on which mysticism and Skepticism depend (which is likely the only commonality between those classically divergent camps).

I reject mysticism for accepting something as factual without proof, and I reject Skepticism for upholding that provable information cannot be conclusively substantiated or true.  Both of these contentions represent logical absurdities.  To assert that natural facts (i.e. existence) can not be proved is to create an unnatural dichotomy between logic and reality.  This kind of anti-reasoning is what Skepticism sustains.  Credulity in a system that permits this kind of abandonment of reason leaves its constituents within the confines of hopeless perpetual uncertainty.

The application of reason, which inherently sustains the integrity of knowledge and truth is freely available to anyone choosing to think rationally.  It is not a requirement that anyone subject themselves to the impairment of their cognitive faculties as demanded by the Skeptic and the Mystic.  Fortunately, reason and rational thinking are matters of volition.

~