I rather began it with a heavy heart, and that isn’t the sort of academics in which I wish to participate. It was perhaps wrong of me to begin an attack in the way in which I did, or rather to do so at all. Anyways,

As I had explicated -> Marx and method derived from Marx.

It stands to reason that my argumentation has fallacy contained therein for I wrote it swiftly. I may have represented some positions, both mine, and others weakly. If you have a specific argument or line of argumentation with which you wish to vie, then by all means.

As for Ad Hominem attacks -> fine, but I doubt you’ll get far with them.

You obviously have a shallow knowledge of mysticism. You may want to read Wikipedia’s concise, albeit complex, article or my easier, although longer, e-book at http://www.suprarational.org

Consider Wittgenstein’s “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus section 7 I think.) The process philosophers and many of the continental philosophers have already understood and explicated to a degree the issues which give rise to mysticism and religion -> mystery. [This is a bold claim but I wish to support it by saying that one misconception of the world by philosophers and by people in general is that there is permanence and stability in the world; Or as analytic philosophers/substance ontologists say, numerical identity or some such thing.]

Whilst I do not agree with militant atheism nor do I agree with positions claiming positive certainty of a proposition I do however vehemently oppose speculation, where it is not needed. Simply because something is not understood does not mean that there is something mystical or religious about it. It is simply a mystery. Supposing immediately upon speculation, skepticism, and not knowing that one’s religious position is firmly grounded is fallacious. [There is no God/Materialism dichotomy. We have No proof for God, but have extensive “constant conjunction” and other inductive observations for materialism. Religion is a further leap than materialism, is a more dangerous position. It requires more propositions. (Immateriality fits my definition of something that doesn’t exist.) Further, there is the problem of, as David touched on, the connexions between the immaterial and material. How is the higher realm supposed to get in touch with the lower if they are ontologically in contradiction? Binaries have been destroyed, exploded.]

If we take the genealogy of morality as explicated by Nietzsche, and use the derivatives of Marxist criticism and analysis we can see quite clearly that there are much simpler explanations for religion. Let us even look at someone like F. A. Hayek of the Austrian school of economics.[Mysticism, perhaps, leaves open possibilities whereas there was none before, but this end does not justify it, nor does it give it reign over any landscape.] The thing which many fail to realise is that objects don’t exist for us, but symbols and systems of value: models do. That is there is never the facts of the matter, firstly there is interpretation. [Foucault holds the position that there are no facts of history but only interpretations of history.] Martin Heidegger and Gadamer have shown that there are horizons of culture, parochial, pigeon-holed positions of interpretation and intelligibility. &c.

And all of this under-girding, pointing to many physicists and mathematicians as deliverers of mysticism is fallacious as well. Firstly because it is not an argument but a deferring to authority. Secondly because if it is true that only interpretations exist then physicists and mathematicians are not in a position to adequately weigh mysticism over something like materialism. Don’t get me wrong I love science and mathematics but as the pragmatics have shown these things are simply tools, not truth-makers.
Another issue exists. Mysticism and religion are not of life but of death. They are Platonic, Socratic, and therefore seek to shirk the body, to render the physical less important and so are allied with death. [All for something which can’t be “measured.”] Even suppose there were a heaven, due to the need for connexion there would be no ontological difference, no basis for valuing one above the other. The binary has been broken.

In 1959, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Nobel astrophysicist at the University of Chicago’s Yerkes Observatory, introduced me to mysticism and the universality of the Universe. While many scientists believe that science and religion can co-exist harmoniously, few would grant the same to mysticism.

In “Quantum Questions / Mystical Writings of the World’s Greatest Physicists” (Shambala Publications 2001), Ken Wilber includes lengthy essays by Heisenberg, Schroedinger, de Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli, and Eddington.

Albert Einstein, who never claimed to be a mystic, did write:
“The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms – this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/12/tim-keller-on-creation-and-evo.html