Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

[Common Soldier]

No, rather, to be poignant about your remarks: modern science constitutes in a myriad of fragmented specialized fields. They're all locked up, and there's no genuine hierarchy or transcendence in them. Insofar as they try to answer questions related to the meaning and structure of reality, instead of contenting themselves with just measuring said aspects of such reality that are accessible to their instruments, they fail miserably.

They cannot form a *genuine* synthesis, that is. They cannot go beyond themselves and their own narrow specializations. Also, we don't know, thru Modern Science, how life has emerged. We have only so far speculated about it, with unsatisfactory results.

Whereas "Science", for Aristotle, meant something different altogether. The hierarchy of what constituted scientific knowledge during Medieval and Ancient times ran as follows: 1. Being qua Being, or ontology, or "Wisdom" in the sense of the discernment of the nature of Reality, 2. Morality, Ethics, Virtue, Man as a Social Being, 3. Techne.

Whereas we have managed only to invert all genuine possibilities. We have ditched natural philosophy, we have ditched Being, and instead only talk about the control and manipulation of objects in space thru technique. This is, as per Heidegger, the great tragedy of fall of Western humanity and its cosmovision.

It's not that ontotheology, or ontology in the Scholastic mould, was perfect. Some would say that even the original Scholastic thinkers avoided ontotheology, and that the first ontotheologian of the Western tradition was Duns Scot. That's perhaps, debateable, but anyway, Scholastic ontology still tried to find answers for basic and fundamental questions that we don't even deem legitimate anymore, because we're too deeply mired into the power of machines, into quantitative measurement, and into technology.

What you say is true, but I don't think the old "science", natural philosophy, could have given us the material advances that we have experienced as a result of "modern science". Yes, it is incomplete, but I like the fact that infant mortality is largely a thing of the past when compared to most of human history. Infant mortality until the 19th century was pretty much at 25% for a human cultures throughout humN history. Modern science might not be able to help you answer the really big questions of life, that is true, but at least it ensures you can live to ask them. I can't call that a tragedy

[fkizz]

Gigantus, I think you'll like this site. It's a hardcore atheist debunking some popular myths about religion, such as the Dark Ages, conflict with science, destruction of libraries, and so on: https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/

What's the point of learning history from a source that is openly and proudly biased? You will get a lot of extra dead angles in your rear view mirror that way.

What you say is true, but I don't think the old "science", natural philosophy, could have given us the material advances that we have experienced as a result of "modern science". Yes, it is incomplete, but I like the fact that infant mortality is largely a thing of the past when compared to most of human history. Infant mortality until the 19th century was pretty much at 25% for a human cultures throughout humN history. Modern science might not be able to help you answer the really big questions of life, that is true, but at least it ensures you can live to ask them. I can't call that a tragedy

Seems to be a recurrent theme in Anglo Saxon world of making a Science vs Religion false dicothomy, which does not exist in Catholic World
Jesuits gave top education in objective sciences, catholic priest George Lemaicre invented Big Bang Theory before the Hubble, Mendel was another catholic fella, and even Occam's Razor so proudly used by the atheism "rational thinking".. was a principle invented/developed by a Catholic Monk.

Then there's the Vatican Observatory, and Pontifical Academy of Sciences, both institutions dedicated to Objective type of Science, and supported by Vatican money.

So this Science vs Religion thing is a non sequitor in catholicsphere, seems to be an Anglo Saxon thing.

[fkizz]

delete

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

See the matter in this way: From the times of Alexander to the Fall of the West, in Europe, nothing happened in terms of scientific and technological advancement. The only true scientific and technological advances happened during the 2000 years following the birth of the man of Nazareth and his lunatic views for which the men, every one and all the men, are equal before God.

You look a lot like you read Julius Evola and take him seriously. No, LOL, JE might seem insane to the modern mind, but actually, once you have stepped a bit into the Zeitgeist of Platonism, JE's doctrines don't sound that insane at all. Lemme explain this, in one brief sentence:

1 - The fact that Christianity, in detriment to Mithraism, Neo-Platonism, Pythagoreanism, and other such views that were current in the Ancient World, prevailed over Julian the Apostate *IS* an endearing sign of spiritual decadence, because Christianity lacked the ascetic, clear sighted emphasis of other spiritualities. Christian spirituality is passive, and lacks the heroic element of overcoming.

Furthermore, in Christianity, there's no genuine Gnosis and thus there's no genuine "Wisdom" or access to realities that transcend the sensible and natural world. There's only the indirect speculation that is borrowed from the Greeks, particularly, Aristotle himself, which is abstract and meanwhile objectifies reality according to ontotheology.

There's no Science of the Law, the rules and inner nature of beings, what would be called in the East the Sharia, or the Dhamma, and thus Christianity had to borrow a lot from exterior and legalistic Roman Law in the first place. In sum, Western Christianity lacks most of the elements that in the East make up for genuine spirituality, including silsila - or iniatiatic chain - Sharia or Eternal Law and Nature of Created Beings, and also a less passive attitude towards spirituality, with more emphasis on synergeia and less on concepts like "Original Sin", and finally the fatalism of the protestants that prohibits any sort of effort or ascesis.

There's also no genuine science of nature, such as the nature philosophy of Islam and the Vedic-Puranic spirituality, thus everything had to be borrowed from the Greeks who derived their natural science from their own pagan mysteries.

[Gaidin]

Not sure why you’re depressed. Christianity has been ripping off and borrowing since it’s inception. This is what it is.

[Common Soldier]

You look a lot like you read Julius Evola and take him seriously. No, LOL, JE might seem insane to the modern mind, but actually, once you have stepped a bit into the Zeitgeist of Platonism, JE's doctrines don't sound that insane at all. Lemme explain this, in one brief sentence:

1 - The fact that Christianity, in detriment to Mithraism, Neo-Platonism, Pythagoreanism, and other such views that were current in the Ancient World, prevailed over Julian the Apostate *IS* an endearing sign of spiritual decadence, because Christianity lacked the ascetic, clear sighted emphasis of other spiritualities. Christian spirituality is passive, and lacks the heroic element of overcoming.

I totally disagree. The Christian story of overcoming the greatest enemy and obstacle of humanity by voluntarily sacrificing oneself demonstrates far greater heroism and demonstrates far more "heroic element of overcoming" than anything that Neo-Platonism and the others ever did.

Christian spirituality is anything but passive, but seeks to transform the world, the exact opposite of being passive. Neo-Platonist didn't build hospices for the sick, nor did they spear head movements to end slavery and other social ills, Christianity did. You are wrong in pretty much everything.

Furthermore, in Christianity, there's no genuine Gnosis and thus there's no genuine "Wisdom" or access to realities that transcend the sensible and natural world. There's only the indirect speculation that is borrowed from the Greeks, particularly, Aristotle himself, which is abstract and meanwhile objectifies reality according to ontotheology.

No, Christianity was more concerned with the real natural world we live, and thus able to transform the world in ways that the Neo-Platonist and pagans were not able to. Christianity add a critical element to science that the Greeks lacked, which was a humility, and primacy of revelation and observation that the Greeks lacked, and without which modern science could not have arisen. While logic was important, if revelation conflicted with logic and reason, then revelation triumphed and it was taken that somehow the logic and reasoning must be flawed. With the Greeks and others, it was the opposite, if observation of the natural world conflicted with their logic, observations were ignored. Aristotle could have performed the same experiments that Galileo did, and found out that his ideas on motion were wrong, just as Galileo did, but Aristotle didn't, and for 2000 years his incorrect ideas on motion prevailed. It was the Christians, not the Muslims, Hindus, or Chinese, who discovered the correct laws of motion.

There's no Science of the Law, the rules and inner nature of beings, what would be called in the East the Sharia, or the Dhamma, and thus Christianity had to borrow a lot from exterior and legalistic Roman Law in the first place. In sum, Western Christianity lacks most of the elements that in the East make up for genuine spirituality, including silsila - or iniatiatic chain - Sharia or Eternal Law and Nature of Created Beings, and also a less passive attitude towards spirituality, with more emphasis on synergeia and less on concepts like "Original Sin", and finally the fatalism of the protestants that prohibits any sort of effort or ascesis.

And a very good thing that is, the "Science of Law" and the Sharia of the East has trashed those societies, which is why refugees from the East where the Sharia prevail are flooding to the West and the Christian lands.

And history has show you claims about Original Sin and fatalism among Protestant is completely wrong. Fatalism arises from not being able to do anything about a situation, but Christians can do something about Original Sin, they can accept Jesus as their savior, and thus negate Original Sin. Protestants have been among the fore front to change society and combat social evils, the exact opposite of being fatalistic. Protestants were among the fore front of abolishing slavery, not just in their own lands, but around the world. It is in the East where the fatalism you talk about prevails, which is why those societies are still struggling with the same social evils, including slavery.

Roman law is the basis for the legal systems of most of the countries around the world, including some of the most advance one. It is the less advance countries and societies that cling to Sharia law that you seem to admire so much. The "Science of Law" is not a science in the sense of modern science, which is why it works so poorly, and no real advancement has been made in it for thousands of years.

There's also no genuine science of nature, such as the nature philosophy of Islam and the Vedic-Puranic spirituality, thus everything had to be borrowed from the Greeks who derived their natural science from their own pagan mysteries.

Again wrong. You and I define science very differently, and your definition does not match the modern definition of science. While Christianity did borrow from the Greeks, not everything was borrowed, and it was the addition made by Christianity that created modern science and made it so successful. Your use the word "science" for other things that are not modern sciences, since you want to borrow the prestige that modern science has created by its successful.

Modern science has earned its great prestige by the great success it has had, in helping to create all the wonders of the modern world that make our lives so much better, and by its uncannily accurate predictions, and you want to apply that same kind of prestige that modern science has earned and apply them to things like the "natural philosophy of Islam" and the "Vedic-Puranic spirituality", that have even a tiny whisper of improving our daily lives as modern science has.

As I said, the problem with the Greeks and their science was really their hubris, and lack of humility to acknowledge their own limitations. The Greeks could have conducted the same experiments as Galileo, but they didn't, The Greeks thought their logic was sound, so why by bother to try to do observations and experiments to verify their ideas? The Christians had a humility the Greeks lacked, knowing that while they had faith God was logical, their own limited intellect might mean that they would come across things they did not understand. If they did not understand it, the flaw was in their own limitations. Quantum Physics is strange and runs counter to our logic, yet it is the way the world works. When Einstein complained about quantum physics saying "God does not play dice with the universe", he was answered with the reply "it is not for us to tell God how he should organize the universe". The science and predictions are among the most accurate of all of science. Even if we cannot predict what a single atom or particle will do, we can predict with great accuracy what a group of them will do. The pagan Greeks in a million years would never have come up with quantum physics.

Also, the nature philosophy of Islam and the Vedic-Puranic spirituality lack an overall logical structure and are fundamentally a-rational. It is not that they oppose logic and rationality, it is that logic and rationality are fundamentally not important to them. Islam is about obedience and submission, and performing the right acts. It is what is called an orthopraxy religion - the five pillars of Islam are all outward acts, same for the Vedic-Puranic spirituality. Christianity is all about belief, it is into orthodoxy, about the right beliefs, which is an intellectual process, and logic will always some role in an intellectual process. . In Islam, the important thing is that you obey, like a good soldier that obey orders despite what he might personally believe. in Christianity, it is important that you believe, that you obey because you believe.
T

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I think you're just wrong wrong wrong, Common Soldier. I'm going to reply in detail, tomorrow. But of course if you ever experienced Vedic or Sufi life, you would know how Christianity - Catholic and Protestant - is incomplete, lacks depth, lacks effort, is passive, sentimental, does not offer any insight, etc...

Also let me say this. Most, if not all, post-Cartesian philosophy is pure bs, and this includes Berkeleyan idealism which is solipsistic to the extreme. You would know if you took a dive at Derrida and Heidegger's critique, including Heidegger's attempt at overcoming Descartes thru the Dasein and existentialism. It's mental circling, and it's stuck to a primary level of objects and objectification.

This includes the strands of German idealism that tried, desperately, to overcome the problems with Descartes by trying to build on a mistaken, ultra-rationalistic and idealistic metaphysics in order to build the things that the Cartesian-Newtonian frame threw away, like an integral nature philosophy, nature science, ontology, etc... Melendo, Heidegger, Guenon, and in a last stance Derrida, all thrash the fundamental assumptions that ground the post-Cartesian modern scientistic mentality.

[Common Soldier]

I think you're just wrong wrong wrong, Common Soldier. I'm going to reply in detail, tomorrow. But of course if you ever experienced Vedic or Sufi life, you would know how Christianity - Catholic and Protestant - is incomplete, lacks depth, lacks effort, is passive, sentimental, does not offer any insight, etc...

And think you are very wrong wrong wrong wrong and frankly full of nonesense. While I have given concrete examples to support my criticism, so far you only have made claims with zero facts supporting the. I expect to see tomorrow some actual examples to support your claims, with specific examples of from bot Christianity and Islam, showing how Islam is more complete and Christianity is less complete. So far, you have not done that.

I think the facts of history speak for itself - it was in Christian lands that the massive reduction in child mortality, universal literacy, women given the right to vote , and large Democratic states where both men and women have the right to vote were first achieved. It was Christian world that modern physics, modern chemistry, modern biology first arose, that led to cell phones, eradication of small pox sir plNez, and near instantaneous communications. Exactly what had the spirituality younlaud given us?

Also let me say this. Most, if not all, post-Cartesian philosophy is pure bs, and this includes Berkeleyan idealism which is solipsistic to the extreme. You would know if you took a dive at Derrida and Heidegger's critique, including Heidegger's attempt at overcoming Descartes thru the Dasein and existentialism. It's mental circling, and it's stuck to a primary level of objects and objectification.

A Christianity gave us the works of Thomas Aquinas too, and he was pre Cartesian. The Eastern religions are even worse , with little practical application, and has little as far as I can to better mankind. Much of the post Cartesian philosophy does have practical application. John Locke idea lead to the development of the US Constitution, and a government that almost the oldest in the world, a government that is more than century older than any of the governments of the East. But all this is talk of philosophy, not religion, which is a slightly different topic. But it is total BS to assert the philosophy of Islam is more complete than Christianity, the Islamix world largely rejected philosophy and real science which is why it lags scientifically, technologically, and socially today

This includes the strands of German idealism that tried, desperately, to overcome the problems with Descartes by trying to build on a mistaken, ultra-rationalistic and idealistic metaphysics in order to build the things that the Cartesian-Newtonian frame threw away, like an integral nature philosophy, nature science, ontology, etc... Melendo, Heidegger, Guenon, and in a last stance Derrida, all thrash the fundamental assumptions that ground the post-Cartesian modern scientistic mentality.

And the Newtonian science and Cartesian ideas have allowed us to land on the moon, and send probes to Mars and Pluto. What has the Islamic philosophy done, and how is it better? You have diverted this thread into nothing more than an attack on Christianity and little to do with the topic of thread.

[chriscase]

I totally disagree. The Christian story of overcoming the greatest enemy and obstacle of humanity by voluntarily sacrificing oneself demonstrates far greater heroism and demonstrates far more "heroic element of overcoming" than anything that Neo-Platonism and the others ever did.

I'm curious about this part. Are you saying you think Jesus Christ getting crucified was an act of heroism? Why?

I guess it doesn't make sense to me either way:

Suppose Jesus Christ was just this guy who had some unusual ideas, preached about them, got busted by the Romans, and got executed. Where's the heroism in that? I mean there might have been some but it hardly seems to rise above the general level of heroism of the historically oppressed. There seems to have been plenty of that to go around in antiquity, so it doesn't seem monumentally heroic.

On the other hand, suppose Jesus Christ was the son of God, a divine being of pure goodness, who used a supernatural capacity to overcome the evil of the entire world. How is being crucified heroic in this case either? I mean he's, like, super-powerful. Where's the risk?

Would he have actually had any choice but to be crucified? I guess there's that whole temptation bit but how could he really succumb and still be the paragon of pure goodness he's supposed to be? So where's the heroism? No risk, no choice - no heroism.

[basics]

The biggest problem that I see in all these debates is that of original sin and how so many don't want to know anything about it. When man was created in Adam and Eve out of him both lived in a world where everything was perfect and communication with God a daily occurrence. Everything but one thing was do and enjoy so what could go wrong? The one thing however was a warning that death was but one step away should they indulge of a certain fruit which the woman did followed by the man. As this brought sin into their lives and them being the first it follows that their sin is original. God's punishment was that death became the norm and sin became the nature of all things not just for man but all creation. A fallen world and a fallen population of every kind became the norm and man has had to struggle with that eversince.

Out of that God knowing what would happen made provision by a " seed " of the woman, Eve, to come in time to contend for the souls of fallen man. The first to receive and accept that was Abel making him the very first Saint or Christian in the world so the versions from other so-called religions were quite a bit away from that meaning that they all are very poor substitutes for the original. In fact their versions only came about after the great flood the first being the deification of Nimrod that included its version of the Trinity, that being the mother, child and dove representing the Holy Spirit. So we know that religion in all its potential stemmed from what Noah carried over from the old world but without one vital factor. None of them had the " seed " in His true nature nor had experience of the regenerating effect that comes by Him. Therefore original sin rules everything and just two words describe it, disbelief and disobedience and so who can argue that that is not exactly where the world stands today?

[Common Soldier]

I'm curious about this part. Are you saying you think Jesus Christ getting crucified was an act of heroism? Why?

Because Jesus voluntarily allowed himself to be crucifird, he could have chosen not to be. Just before he was arrested, he cursed a fig tree and it died. He could have struck down the soldiers sent thresd him and escaped, but chose not to. He did as a sacrifice for all.mankind, kind of like in he Tale of two cities when the main character subsitutes himself for another guy, and goes to his dad h so the other guy could live. That is the he definition of heroic to me.

I guess it doesn't make sense to me either way:

Suppose Jesus Christ was just this guy who had some unusual ideas, preached about them, got busted by the Romans, and got executed. Where's the heroism in that?

Because he could have escaped, but chose not to. Everyone agreed Jesus could perform miracles, it is just that his enemies said he did it using the help.of demons or magic.

I mean there might have been some but it hardly seems to rise above the general level of heroism of the historically oppressed. [/Quote]

Yes it does, for reasons I have explained a couple.times now. You really should not write on a.subject ehen you are totally ignorant on it, as you seem to be, or you wouldn't ask those questions. The story as told and believed by Christians is a heroic one. Fsr.more than the neo-Platonism, or that of Muhammad.

I

There seems to have been plenty of that to go around in antiquity, so it doesn't seem monumentally heroic.

. You said the say thing several times now.

On the other hand, suppose Jesus Christ was the son of God, a divine being of pure goodness, who used a supernatural capacity to overcome the evil of the entire world. How is being crucified heroic in this case either? I mean he's, like, super-powerful. Where's the risk? @

Because Jesus was fully human, and so he felt the pain just like the rest of us. The agony he felt was real, both the physical pain and the agony of being separated from God. It would still be a hero act to allow yourself to be burned alive, even if you knew you could be resurrected, since you still have all your painful memoriesmofnyour agonizing death.

Would he have actually had any choice but to be crucified?

. Yes. He could have chosen not to allow himself to be crucifed, he could have disobeyed God, just as Adam did. But unlike Adam.he he chose to be obedient.

I guess there's that whole temptation bit but how could he really succumb and still be the paragon of pure goodness he's supposed to be? So where's the heroism? No risk, no choice - no heroism.

He could have chosen to give into temptation. He was the paragon of goodness precisely because he did not give into temptation. He could have chosen to give in, but didn't . A rock is neither. Good or Evil, it just is, and a rock can't go against its nature. An animal.is neither good nor evil, it just is, and it can't go it's nature. It takes a person to be able to chose to go against their own nature, to, not to do something or to chose to do something. Since Jesus was fully human, he had the ability to chose, that is an intrinsic part of being human. Only the insane or children can fully chose to do right or wrong, which is why don'thold them to the same standards as a sane adult.


PS - we e should define what"heroism" is. Heroism is doing what you know to be right despite knowing there could be adverse consequences to your self, and when you could of chosen not to perform the act you thought was right and spared yourself trouble. Heroic deeds don't have to always be life and death issues.
I

[chriscase]

OK so Jesus was just a regular guy then. He was in rebellion against the Romans, and they caught and executed him.

Where's the heroism?

[basics]

OK so Jesus was just a regular guy then. He was in rebellion against the Romans, and they caught and executed him.

Where's the heroism?

chriscase,

You're a wily fighter but those last words that He, Jesus, was in rebellion against Rome is not true and they didn't catch Him because He was delivered to them by His Jewish captors. He knew exactly what was to be done with Himself even before He Himself created all things because being God the Son from everlasting to everlasting His answer to sin and the curse could only come from Himself being the payment for it. Only He could fulfill the demands of His own Law. So, as a man and God He was 100% both. As to the hero part that comes down to the individual on making such an assumption as all those who have been saved in His name would agree because what He did was personal to them. To others it may all sound foolish but then even that has been written in Scripture because His story is foolishness to them and that hasn't changed in two thousand odd years.

We know from history that His disciples put themselves into danger by just telling of His wonderful work at the cross and many today are still paying the same price for doing so. The onslaught against Christianity has never been at its highest as it is today and it comes not just in killing Christians but persecuting them in other ways and strange as it may seem even here in the UK as well as America the drive to stamp it out is growing intensely. The world is heading where Scripture has predicted the good part though being that when that reaches its apex, Jesus is coming back to judge all things.

[chriscase]

OK, so Jesus was magic.

You see, this is the part I am repeatedly amazed by. Otherwise reasonable people seem to be willing to just throw reason and expectations of consistency overboard when it comes to religion, when in just about every other situation these kinds of contradictions simply wouldn't be tolerated. That's what I'm really getting at here.

[Vladyvid]

Well, Im not gonna get popular by saying this, but i feel like i need to tell it to throw in a different perspective.

I believe that all major world religions were created/manipulated by the extraterrestrial creators of our species, as an instrument of control. All of the so called miracles and supernatural events are nothing more than highly advanced technology taken for "magic". I have seen ufo in my life more than once, and that is the reality that most people prefer to ridicule or dismiss. As a result, we live in a world that is blind to almost all truths. People still believe in these religions, for nothing.

[Common Soldier]

Well, Im not gonna get popular by saying this, but i feel like i need to tell it to throw in a different perspective.

I believe that all major world religions were created/manipulated by the extraterrestrial creators of our species, as an instrument of control. All of the so called miracles and supernatural events are nothing more than highly advanced technology taken for "magic". I have seen ufo in my life more than once, and that is the reality that most people prefer to ridicule or dismiss. As a result, we live in a world that is blind to almost all truths. People still believe in these religions, for nothing.

It is a famous saying that "any technology sufficiently advance is indistinguishable from magic".

I think you're just wrong wrong wrong, Common Soldier. I'm going to reply in detail, tomorrow.

Tomorrow has come and gone, and you still have not delivered the detailex explanation you have promised. I think you are every bit as wrong as you think I am, but I am curious what reasons and grounds you have based your conclusions on. I suspect you haven't answered because you can't.

But of course if you ever experienced Vedic or Sufi life, you would know how Christianity - Catholic and Protestant - is incomplete, lacks depth, lacks effort, is passive, sentimental, does not offer any insight, etc...

Your bias and antiChristian sentiment is showing. If you had experience the Shaker life, or anyone of the monastic life of nuns and monks, or were at Pencostal service, you would see an spirituality as a deep as any Vedic or Sufi.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Your bias and antiChristian sentiment is showing. If you had experience the Shaker life, or anyone of the monastic life of nuns and monks, or were at Pencostal service, you would see an spirituality as a deep as any Vedic or Sufi.

Vedic and Sufi ascesis is primarily a factor of Orthopraxis. Because correct practice gives the desired, objective effects on the practicioner. Kinda like the ascesis of the ancient Alchemists, which was split into four fundamental major phases.

Christian ascesis, on the other hand, is primarily sentimental. Though I would open an exception for the hesychasts of Mt. Athos, that's a real initiatic path and not just mysticism.

So your comparison is fallacious, in the first place. Christianity has effectively shut down a lot of the things that were taken for granted in the transcendence of some ancient faiths of the Classical world, like Platonism and Pythagoreanism. Or even Ancient Egyptian hermeticism.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Your bias and antiChristian sentiment is showing. If you had experience the Shaker life, or anyone of the monastic life of nuns and monks, or were at Pencostal service, you would see an spirituality as a deep as any Vedic or Sufi.

Vedic and Sufi ascesis is primarily a factor of Orthopraxis. Because correct practice gives the desired, objective effects on the practicioner. Kinda like the ascesis of the ancient Alchemists, which was split into four fundamental major phases.

Christian ascesis, on the other hand, is primarily sentimental. Though I would open an exception for the hesychasts of Mt. Athos, that's a real initiatic path and not just mysticism.

So your comparison is fallacious, in the first place. Christianity has effectively shut down a lot of the things that were taken for granted in the transcendence of some ancient faiths of the Classical world, like Platonism and Pythagoreanism. Or even Ancient Egyptian hermeticism.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

And let me say this: it is perfectly possible for you to experience what we would call "supernatural" or "immaterial" realities when you're following a path of initiation - these are actually just different levels of manifestation that our conscious normal dualistic perception won't be able to tackle. It is even possible if you worn yourself down with an exaggerate psychism, which breaches your inner defenses against the sort of thing.

And no, don't tell me, but it's not a hallucination. Even banal things like astral projection can throw your psychic aggregates temporarily off your body. Some things, like left hand Tantra, are very very dangerous and the sort of OBE I and my close circle of practicioner friends had during left hand Tantra initiation we keep secret, but it literally changed our whole lives permanently and it took a lot of unconventional effort to undo.

Some other things are more trivial. After you complete the first stage of the alchemical process, i.e. the equivalent to stream entrant or sotapanna, you'll feel lighter, your mind will be much cleaner like crystal, you'll be more dettached from materiality. Normal.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

.. And let me add, Hesychasm is a very restricted process. Only the most seasoned monks who manage to enter Mt. Athos will ever get to practice it.

As for Western Christianity, it has *never* ever had an objective dimension of ascesis within itself. It has no real initiation. It is impossible to obtain any genuine non-dual, transcendental insight in Western Christianity. Even the monastic aspect in this regard is just a residue, being purely sentimental. So the Christian world in the West, esp., became fairly closed to any genuine understanding of what insight wisdom and gnosis constitute.