Truth Or Relevance?

[Vigile]

So many people on this site come out of a really negative "we are rags at the feet of Jesus incapable of any good, devoid of all worth" version of Christianity

 

This is pretty much the categorical imperative of the basic thread that ties the leviathan of xianity together. Just because a preacher/priest doesn't emphasize it and just because all human beings don't process this info in the same way, it's still there.

[Zaramon]

 

Yes, mainstream American, Evangelical Christianity does have basic tenets. I agree with that. I am saying two things:

 

(1) The American Evangelical tradition is not representative of Christianity as a whole--and even if it were, American Evangelism itself has so many different parts it's hard to say what is really essential. There are Open and Welcoming Baptists that are very gay-friendly, like this church: http://www.ocfairviewchurch.org/social-justice-church.html and then there are the God-Hates-Fags pyschos. With such divergence what is really holding these two groups together? They would not even be able to talk to each other.

 

(2) While there is a credal unity, it's basically irrelevant. "We believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen." Okay, all Christians believe that and no atheist believes that. Fine. But what is that? That's just an abstraction. Christians believe in God. But so what? The God-Hates-Fags fascists believe in one thing, the Open and Welcoming Christians believe in quite another. They don't worship the same God, except only in a nominal sense. So I don't think there are any tenets that make any difference that are universally believed by all Christians. You have to parse that last sentece very carefully, but I think it's true. Interpretation and how a religion is experienced and what belief committs you to is what makes the relgion, not the abstract adherence to a set of beliefs.

 

Here's part of the rub, people believe in different gods, obviously these gods are reflections of what worshippers want to believe themselves. They worship gods created in their own images. I do not believe that any non-anthropomorphic gods have been introduced into successful mainstream religious sects. From the stanpoint of atheism I see only the concept of Deity that Deists revere as truly anthropomorphic. Religious practitioners long to believe that their god has similar needs and desires as they do. They want to think that a god could be jealous, angry, desirous, vengeful, etc. The need to be worshipped as we wish to be worshipped and needed as people. People need these things to relate to and find comfort.

 

The reality is that a god by definition would not have any human traits. That is an omni-omni god. How could an omni-omni god find offence in any action by its creation? Why would it even have a concept of ownership of something created by its own power when ownership expresses the need of want. What would an omni-omni god want?

 

That's why the gods of humanity and the subsequent religious structures aren't worth supporting. One has to sacrifice far too many resources to be a good practitioner of such belief. One, they are irrational and, two, one must sacrifice a portion of one's reason to believe. How many people will honestly study every god and religion on the planet to make a rational decision on which one is the correct one? Not one person.

 

So it's pish-posh. People who want a god in their lives want to be able to look in the mirror and see it, then find others with the same point of view to support their delusion.

[Deva]

But these differences are not just superficial. They are deep. My mom grew up having never read the Bible. This is not uncommon at all, especially in the developing world. Even my roommate in law school had never--not even once--read the Bible on his own. He had heard parts of it read in church, but he was far more interested in praying the Rosary than anything else. Was he a Christian? Yes. Did he think that the Bible was the Word of God? Not in the way that you thought it was or that American Evangelicals think it is. Catholics just don't think of the Bible in that way. For them the Church, with it's oral traditions and episcopal traditions, is God's supreme vehicle. The Bible is secondary. I repeat, the Bible is secondary to the Church. If there is no agreement on this point, I don't see how there can be "broad consensus as to what Christianity is."

 

I will continue to disagree that they are so deep. The rosary - isn't that all about Christ's life and death? The mysteries of his birth and resurrection?

 

The Bible is secondary to the Church but it is IN the church in the sense that the church is the only valid interpreter. Catholics claim the authority of the Pope comes from the Bible. I have read the catechism.

[mwc]

Fair enough. I guess my contention is more with the PC take on it which ends up appealing to the lowest common denominator. All people should be allowed the same rights under the law, I have no issue with that, it's when we start creating special laws to make some people "more" equal that I get a bit twitchy.

Yeah, I had a feeling that's where your problem really was. It's a pretty sure bet the guys that wrote all this stuff up in the first place never had any of that in mind. They didn't want kings, governments and others messing with their lives any more than necessary.

 

mwc

[shantonu]

But these differences are not just superficial. They are deep. My mom grew up having never read the Bible. This is not uncommon at all, especially in the developing world. Even my roommate in law school had never--not even once--read the Bible on his own. He had heard parts of it read in church, but he was far more interested in praying the Rosary than anything else. Was he a Christian? Yes. Did he think that the Bible was the Word of God? Not in the way that you thought it was or that American Evangelicals think it is. Catholics just don't think of the Bible in that way. For them the Church, with it's oral traditions and episcopal traditions, is God's supreme vehicle. The Bible is secondary. I repeat, the Bible is secondary to the Church. If there is no agreement on this point, I don't see how there can be "broad consensus as to what Christianity is."

 

I will continue to disagree that they are so deep. The rosary - isn't that all about Christ's life and death? The mysteries of his birth and resurrection?

 

The Bible is secondary to the Church but it is IN the church in the sense that the church is the only valid interpreter. Catholics claim the authority of the Pope comes from the Bible. I have read the catechism.

 

I probably have to bow out of this conversation. I think I've made my point as well as I can make it. I respect the disagreements and recognize that some of the disagreements have to do with upbringing and experience that can't be articulated but have to be lived through.

 

I must say, with respect, that it seems folks really don't know what their former "co-religionists" actually believe. Maybe if you all really knew what Catholics believe you would see them as not really Christians at all. Most of the Rosary is devotion to Mary, not Jesus. "Hail Mary full of grace, the lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen"

 

That's the prayer as I learned it and repeated it countless times. Check it out here: http://www.rosary-center.org/howto.htm

 

Catholics worship Mary. I used to worship Mary. There are statutes of Mary both inside and outside my church--incidentally called Notre Dame. Check it out here: http://www.ndparish.org/Church_of_Notre_Dame/Welcome.html

 

I used to pray to Mary far, far more than I used pray to God. Marian devotion is huge part of Catholicism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_devotions

 

To evangelicals this would seem no more than idolatry. And it fact it is idolatry, but Catholics just don't give a shit. My mom explained this to me by analogizing it to kissing a picture. When you kiss a picture, you aren't kissing the picture, you're kissing the person. So praying to statues and images is no problem for Catholics.

 

Growing up in NYC and among so many different types of Christians really has influenced my views. Maybe you wouldn't believe how many different types of Christianities there are and how really different they are unless you can easily get to different churches and sit in on them. Trust me, from experience, I can tell you that from watching Marionite rites, to Catholic Rites, to Charismatic rites, there is very little any of them have in common. Yeah, if pressed, they may mouth similar platitudes about believing in the Bible and whatnot, but what they do is very different. And what you do is what counts.

 

Virgile has said basically something like "even in the non-virulent forms, the evil virus remains." I agree with that to a point. Except many left-wing Christian denominations simply have beaten the evil virus into submission, or at least they are attempting to. It's a noble effort and I support their intentions even though I can't join in.

[Ouroboros]

To evangelicals this would seem no more than idolatry. And it fact it is idolatry, but Catholics just don't give a shit. My mom explained this to me by analogizing it to kissing a picture. When you kiss a picture, you aren't kissing the picture, you're kissing the person. So praying to statues and images is no problem for Catholics.

The funny thing is that I've heard people from other religions (where they have idols, statues, etc) saying the same thing. The statue isn't the God they believe in, but is a representation only. So it's not to them that a piece of wood or rock suddenly is God, but the piece of wood or rock is pretty much the same as the Mary picture or the cross. So in my opinion, either both are idolaters, or neither of them. Pentecostals shouldn't have a cross in the church, because it's a image representing Jesus. Funny how people can accept their own religious culture, but always have arguments against other religious traditions. My kids and their brats-attitude. (And this is not in any way a critique of you Shantonu, it's just a reflection on how people in general behave.)

[Zaramon]

To evangelicals this would seem no more than idolatry. And it fact it is idolatry, but Catholics just don't give a shit. My mom explained this to me by analogizing it to kissing a picture. When you kiss a picture, you aren't kissing the picture, you're kissing the person. So praying to statues and images is no problem for Catholics.

The funny thing is that I've heard people from other religions (where they have idols, statues, etc) saying the same thing. The statue isn't the God they believe in, but is a representation only. So it's not to them that a piece of wood or rock suddenly is God, but the piece of wood or rock is pretty much the same as the Mary picture or the cross. So in my opinion, either both are idolaters, or neither of them. Pentecostals shouldn't have a cross in the church, because it's a image representing Jesus. Funny how people can accept their own religious culture, but always have arguments against other religious traditions. My kids and their brats-attitude. (And this is not in any way a critique of you Shantonu, it's just a reflection on how people in general behave.)

Or the representations of Jesus as a European male. Many of them have him represented as an Iceman with blue eyes and long flowing hair. A Will Ferrell "dear, sweet baby Jesus" kind of guy. And, AND, even if worshippers manage to pull off the total no image of heaven or earth thing in their minds, they are left with totally human characteristics in their heads.

 

Ray Bradbury comes to my mind as one who was able to bring the alien viewpoint into human perspective, i.e. "The Martian Chronicles". Hell, even Star Trek presented an episode of an impish god that so mirrors the Bible god represented in human form.

 

Zarathustra turned his back on people because he found that they were casting themselves in his image, they wanted to immulate him. But, I think in reality, he was their creation and he realized that, as a god, he must reject his manifestation of themselves in him. He was all too human, especially in the knowledge of discovery that he had become them.

 

Perhaps we are all, as Shirley McClaine declared, gods.

 

If I am one then I've gotta find out how to stop this receding hairline.

 

Kudos

[Ouroboros]

If I am one then I've gotta find out how to stop this receding hairline.

It's just your mind trying to reach for the sky.

 

Or like my dad used to say: "Look, I'm still growing. I even passed the hairline!"

[Zaramon]

If I am one then I've gotta find out how to stop this receding hairline.

It's just your mind trying to reach for the sky.

 

Or like my dad used to say: "Look, I'm still growing. I even passed the hairline!"

EGADS! My brains are killing my follicles. Or is it the other way around? Blessings on your dad and HAPPY ESTRA!

[Antlerman]

So I would say that myths do work for society, otherwise they wouldn\'t have ever been created in the first place.

 

I understand, but for every symbol that has been used for good there are more used for bad. It\'s not a healthy way to run a society. If people were taught to question and not make every important decision and distinction on an emotional basis then society would be less vulnerable to manipulation. I\'m not saying it would be perfect or easy but I\'m certainly not going to embrace the myth just because it has done some good. It has done a great more deal of harm.

 

The flag, for instance. How many send their sons and daughters off to fight immoral wars because the flag gives them a lump in their throat? How many evil things have been done based on a call to duty and honor?

I apologize for the long delay in getting back to this thread. I'm having a 3 day weekend, so feel a little more relaxed to try to dig in to some of this.

 

I'm not sure you can exactly quantify that statement that more has been used for bad. I don't think I could make an argument of percentages really, as I'm not sure on what to base that on. If we understand the contexts in which I'm speaking about mythologies, I'd say its so pervasive into how we think that you would really have then ask the question do societies do more harm than good? Myths are how we identify ourselves socially through association with symbols.

 

I just explained this in another thread last night that they, "reveal a "logic" of a society in symbolic form". They are a system of cultural symbols. They represent its values, its rules, its hopes, dreams, etc. I have a hard time imagining a society that uses no symbolic representation in its promotion of itself to its members. How does it self-identify? How would that function? How would they represent that, communicate that, if not through symbolism, or its companion mythology?

 

Are symbols abused? Certainly. But they also serve a vital function too. The problem with the abuse of language signs happening isn't with the fact people use symbols to communicate, but that people are exploited. That's a problem of education of the society. I don't believe getting rid of political signs will end exploitation, or even curtail it very much. It's like trying to fight nature as opposed to working with it to harness it productively. Myths are born for a social good, but then later become targeted for bad reasons.

 

Again, true but when people are left defenseless and without reason they are left vulnerable to those who control the message. Other societies in Europe are learning to question their values and the people are far less vulnerable to their leadership than they are in the US where the majority is still mystified by their symbols.

And I'm completely for educating people about the nature of their myths. Absolutely. It's through that that people can feel free to see themselves as they would choose to through their cultural myths, as opposed to them being used as absolutes. The problem really isn't myth, but the view that they aren't! It's the view that these are facts! That's what needs to be addressed. That's where education needs to be allowed to occur. Not destroying myths, but understanding them for the social product that they are.

 

To me the moves to "debunk" myths does serve some function. It shows that you really can't take these things literally. But then the next step, IMO, isn't "get rid of them, they're evil and bad", but to instead allow them to be what they really are in the first place, before they became twisted into devices of political control. This to me sounds a more realistic approach to deal with something that would seem vastly easier to work with, than against. The reason I say that, again is because it is so integral to how societies evolve. It's not some compromise solution, but rather freeing it to be what people need it to be in creating ideals of themselves. That's what they're originally about.

 

The power of the myth does change. As I pointed out, in France for example, people have shunned not only their religious mythology, but due to a better education and a culture that has developed around such, they do question their government and the church and are not breaking away from society.

 

Wouldn\'t you not agree that the less educated a person is the more he/she is vulnerable to emotional persuasion? We may not get rid of mythology in society and even ourselves, but in my mind it\'s a question of degree.

Yes I agree with this. We need to education. I also just mentioned above how that moves to "discredit" myth, seems really at its heart to be about challenging the control of it. Break the control, use iconoclasm, make the point, but then at the end of the day... a new myth will emerge! A new myth supporting the new social vision in its break from its past. It's like trying to stop evolution from happening. What's it that Malcolm said in Jurassic Park? "Nature always finds a way".

 

Questioning reality in essence is question the current myth structure.

 

I think it\'s juxtaposing the myth structure against fact. For instance, it\'s a myth that your grandmother\'s home remedy cures colds. A statistical study can prove the efficacy or lack thereof of home remedies. Those most prone to mythology over fact are likely to discount statistical analysis and rely on anecdotal evidence instead. Education cures this in most people.

This is where I think we run into disconnect sometimes in communication. You're describing superstition. Speculations of cause and effect, and then the colloquial use of the word myth to describe that. I don't consider this myth in the sense I'm using the word. I just call what you describe as superstition, or wives fables, or really the best word is just - ignorance. I'm using myth in the way ethnographers see it functioning within societies. A symbolic representation of a social logic, is how I mean it.

 

 

Likewise, when a symbol, like the president, says \"you are either for us or against us, support our troops, god bless America, etc...\" those with the most education are least prone to accepting this on an emotional level and instead examine the deeper implications of these ideas. They use facts in doing so, they aren\'t replacing one myth with another myth.

What is happening is people using facts gained through education to challenge the misuse of the symbols. It's saying, "You're saying being an American means fighting a war you created and are using the flag to manipulate us with. That's not valid!" But then you will inevitably hear something like this following that statement. "To me, being patriotic means questioning our leaders and standing up for democracy!" There is your symbol "American" being used for both good, and for bad. But being used nonetheless.

 

Choices of social value are all based on emotions.

Many moral values are grounded in pragmatism and harsh reality. Mythology builds on this sometimes but without the mythology harsh reality would still be there. I don\'t murder because I can empathize, because I would go to jail, because society can\'t function, not just because as some would say \"it\'s wrong.\"

OK, this is true. But along with that there is still the ideals of what people want to have. And its those ideals that people invest the resources of emotions and intellect in building for themselves. Mythology is an intellectual effort motivated by self-interest, which as you say has a pragmatic center to it, but one built upon by an idea or abstraction which addresses the emotional investments put into it.

[Vigile]

I'm not sure you can exactly quantify that statement that more has been used for bad.

 

I think you can unless you want to dilute the term myth and symbol to include everything in the human experience. IOW, symbolism and myth that is readily apparent includes things like patriotic and religious symbolism. How many dead people has patriotic symbolism produced? How much mental anguish and guilt has religious symbolism produced? Quite a lot.

 

I have a hard time imagining a society that uses no symbolic representation in its promotion of itself to its members. How does it self-identify?

 

Why is it so necessary to self identify? I consider myself a citizen of the world, not a member of a class and a culture. Identification by colors or common beliefs as often as not encourages prejudice and protectionism. It's beneficial to governments but harmful to society when it is overly emphasized.

 

This to me sounds a more realistic approach to deal with something that would seem vastly easier to work with, than against. The reason I say that, again is because it is so integral to how societies evolve.

 

Well, if people really question things like patriotic symbolism the symbolism is likely to have much less influence on them. For example, I don't tear up at the sight of the flag or get goosebumps when the national anthem is played anymore. I used to. I was indoctrinated to be patriotic just like every other citizen who grew up in the public school system. What's different about me and your average patriot is I've learned to question these things and see there is nothing to them that can't be explained by emotional transference.

 

I don't think it's healthy for society to tear up on the singing of "God Bless America" because with that emotion comes vulnerability to the whims of leadership.

 

What is happening is people using facts gained through education to challenge the misuse of the symbols. It's saying, "You're saying being an American means fighting a war you created and are using the flag to manipulate us with. That's not valid!" But then you will inevitably hear something like this following that statement. "To me, being patriotic means questioning our leaders and standing up for democracy!" There is your symbol "American" being used for both good, and for bad. But being used nonetheless.

 

I can see your point, but my point is that it is not in the interest of government leadership to instill the later type of self identification. They will go out of their way to quash it in fact. This is why people need to be made more aware of not just the meaning behind the symbolism, but how their own human psychology can be manipulated. I don't expect it to occur, but I think it would be far more healthy to teach kids critical thinking skills then they can adopt symbolism for self interested reasons or choose to view the facts as they are assessing them again on a self interested basis.

 

I personally believe that people are better off if they are aware and self interested than if they are unaware and made to be tools of someone else's self interest.

 

Self interested people will find through pragmatic means that it is in their interest to avoid harming others. But, when they are manipulated by someone else's self interest they can be used as tools to harm others and themselves. Questioning leadership is in my personal self interest. Ceding to leadership out of a sense of duty is not. I don't believe that a society that is self interested would be chaotic or anarchic. Law and order fits well within the scope of individual self interest and the lack of it does not.

[Vigile]

It's like trying to fight nature as opposed to working with it to harness it productively.

 

This may be true. Perhaps most humans aren't ready to evolve as a society. It certainly seems that way.

 

It's massively problematic though even if there isn't a ready solution. We have seen this time and again in recent history. Not just with the CCCP and the Nazis, but with the US.

[Vigile]

Thinking about this a bit more what I want most to clarify here is this because I feel this debate can get lost in the details.

 

Setting aside for a moment the argument that society functions, identifies, etc based on symbolism. I want to dig in and get at the problematic symbolism and people's vulnerability to it.

 

Last week I visited the Russian military museum as they had a Stalin exhibit set up for the week. One room was entirely devoted to Stalinist propaganda. Large posters showed shiny happy people holding hands behind papa Joe. Joe was offered up as a symbol to society for happiness, brotherhood, moral behavior, peace and prosperity.

 

Iraq did this with Hussein. The Nazis did this with the Hitler youth and the flag. The US does this with its flag and patriotic songs.

 

These things are bad for the world and for society. If people are sent out into the world as babes in the woods without any understanding of their vulnerability to these types of things, or worse, indoctrinated with them, then very bad things will continue to occur in the world.

 

Leaders are never going to cede their symbolism to more positive forms of symbolism.

 

This is my argument in a nutshell.

[Antlerman]

I have a hard time imagining a society that uses no symbolic representation in its promotion of itself to its members. How does it self-identify?

 

Why is it so necessary to self identify? I consider myself a citizen of the world, not a member of a class and a culture. Identification by colors or common beliefs as often as not encourages prejudice and protectionism. It's beneficial to governments but harmful to society when it is overly emphasized.

I was struck by this when I read it last Monday until now when I’m getting the time to reply. You ask why is it necessary to self-identify, then do just that in defining yourself as “a citizen of the world, not a member of a class or a culture.” You have just identified yourself as a citizen of the world, a cosmopolitan. This distinguishes you from those who claim identity to a particular culture.

 

Now image you encounter other cosmopolitans, or citizens of the world, which is what that word means. You share this sense of self-identity with one another, a common set of opinions about the world in this regard. You socialize with each other. You participate in a forum of like mindedness. You create certain community of cosmopolitans. You form certain rules. You establish codes of acceptable conduct as part of that community. You enforce these norms. You promote these ideals. You then create a symbol to identify your group; one that expresses the groups ideals and self-identity of embracing the values of living in a borderless, Utopian, global society. Perhaps something that looks like this:

 

 

Now my point is that you yourself just self-identified. Why symbols get created are very much for the reasons I stated in that scenario. Now to continue this further… with time this groups gains momentum, attracts the masses, attracts the attention of the political power seekers, who take your symbol of nobility and take its power of communication and turns it into something about their vision, masked underneath the rhetoric of love and humanity.

 

Is the symbol evil? Or is the problem people? Is a stone inherently evil because a man uses it to kill someone with? What of the man who uses it to built a house? Isn’t that a case of misplaced anger?

 

Well, if people really question things like patriotic symbolism the symbolism is likely to have much less influence on them. For example, I don't tear up at the sight of the flag or get goosebumps when the national anthem is played anymore. I used to. I was indoctrinated to be patriotic just like every other citizen who grew up in the public school system. What's different about me and your average patriot is I've learned to question these things and see there is nothing to them that can't be explained by emotional transference.

 

I don't think it's healthy for society to tear up on the singing of "God Bless America" because with that emotion comes vulnerability to the whims of leadership.

This has really got me thinking. I know the point you’re making, but is there a down side to this? Being “less vulnerable” to these sorts of emotional inspirations through the power of symbols, also means you may not experience those otherwise uplifting senses of the human heart and imagination. To become a cynic (in the modern sense of the word), does shield one from vulnerability, but possibly at the expense of vision and dreams?

 

I think this may well key in on my own struggle throughout my whole ex-Christian road. Sure, I got manipulated. Turn on the logic and reason and one can question and challenge these things which can then be our defense against those who would take something from us – our sense of worth and value, independence, dignity, uniqueness. But there remains this fact. At one point we responded to it, for a reason. That reason, I believe is a valid one that is about us as individuals.

 

But why were we vulnerable? Because we responded to these noble ideals embodied within our symbols, or because we were not raised to let our emotions be guided by our good sense of reason? You see this here really summarizes my own journey of trying to find that sense of inspiration that was real enough within me to attract me in the first place, with how it placed me in a vulnerable state where I became injured. It wasn’t about the symbols or even the people themselves really, but about me and my inability to be responsible, lacking the skills that embraced inspiration and reason as partners. I see the failure being more related to the society which doesn’t teach its people this.

 

So in a sense you’re right about education, but more in how to live and act responsibly within a society full of powerful and inspiring symbols, while not falling prey to manipulators and exploiters. That’s what I lacked, and what I believe can be realized. Something valuable can be lost in eschewing the world of rich symbols.

 

Thinking about this a bit more what I want most to clarify here is this because I feel this debate can get lost in the details.

 

Setting aside for a moment the argument that society functions, identifies, etc based on symbolism. I want to dig in and get at the problematic symbolism and people's vulnerability to it.

 

Last week I visited the Russian military museum as they had a Stalin exhibit set up for the week. One room was entirely devoted to Stalinist propaganda. Large posters showed shiny happy people holding hands behind papa Joe. Joe was offered up as a symbol to society for happiness, brotherhood, moral behavior, peace and prosperity.

 

Iraq did this with Hussein. The Nazis did this with the Hitler youth and the flag. The US does this with its flag and patriotic songs.

 

These things are bad for the world and for society. If people are sent out into the world as babes in the woods without any understanding of their vulnerability to these types of things, or worse, indoctrinated with them, then very bad things will continue to occur in the world.

 

Leaders are never going to cede their symbolism to more positive forms of symbolism.

 

This is my argument in a nutshell.

People’s vulnerability to those who manipulate them using symbols is the problem. Using stones to kill is bad, but using them to build houses is good. Stones aren’t inherently bad. Symbols are simply a type of communication. That’s all. What people do with that is the issue. Our vulnerability to them isn’t about the symbols. It’s about us. That’s my point in a nutshell.

[Neon Genesis]

This has really got me thinking. I know the point you’re making, but is there a down side to this? Being “less vulnerable” to these sorts of emotional inspirations through the power of symbols, also means you may not experience those otherwise uplifting senses of the human heart and imagination. To become a cynic (in the modern sense of the word), does shield one from vulnerability, but possibly at the expense of vision and dreams?

I agree that these uplifting senses are important to have but isn't possible to have those same feelings without religion and using less destructive symbols? Like can't you get these same feelings of heart and imagination from things like art, literature, music, etc? For example, Hans earlier in the thread mentioned he got the same feeling of connectedness with the universe he felt in his religious experiences from listening to a good song. If we can get these senses from less destructive sources, do we really need religion to create these senses? Being an atheist didn't stop Phillip Pullman from writing an incredible and moving children's literature series and to be frank, I think His Dark Materials pwns The Chronicles Of Narnia any day and I personally think John Lennon was as good of a musician as Bach, though in different ways. There are nations like Japan where only 1% of the nation is Christian but their nation is just as diverse and culturally rich as the U.S. As Christopher Hitchens would ask, is there anything a Christian can do that we can't do without religion? I can see why some people who have never known other ways of thinking might depend on religion to produce these senses, but if we have other ways of creating them, can't we at least try to wean people off their dependency on these symbols and show them we can create better symbols without religion?

[The-Captain]

Gotta work with the culture you're given. Can't expect things to just change overnight. IMO Christianity as a religion was better than what had come before in the Western world, and for a time served a good purpose. The effect it has had on the societies most of us live in is likely beyond measure and the symbols and ideas it communicates still resonate and are powerful rallying forces. Various parts can be used as much for bigotry and persecution as for compassion and charity. Just look at how much the faith and the language/symbology used to communicate have changed in the past 1000 years (hell try the last 500, or 501!). Eventually I think it will wane due to loss of resonance with shifting cultural values, as there is only so much room for re-interpretation within the canon they have tied around there necks.

[Vigile]

This has really got me thinking. I know the point you’re making, but is there a down side to this? Being “less vulnerable” to these sorts of emotional inspirations through the power of symbols, also means you may not experience those otherwise uplifting senses of the human heart and imagination. To become a cynic (in the modern sense of the word), does shield one from vulnerability, but possibly at the expense of vision and dreams?

 

Without a doubt. Ignorance is indeed blissful. Here I'm reminded of the book Johnny Got His Gun. When laying in bed for years on end unable to communicate with the world since his arms, legs, face, ears have been blown off, the protagonist wonders about his simple upbringing and his carefree days as a child in Colorado. He wonders why he just marched so obediently when he was called up to go to fight a war in a land he had hardly thought about over causes that he had nothing to do with. He realizes that he was raised to not think about such things and he is stirred by the huge sacrifice forced on him for not thinking. He craved to go back and warn that young boy he was when he was still blissful.

 

Moreover, many of us here were happy in our ignorance when we were still xian. I know I was. Now, however, I wouldn't trade my disillusionment, I wouldn't take the red pill, for $1M. I've been on both sides and this side is fantastically better even if I am much more cynical and less prone to bliss. Why? Because with that bliss came a price.

 

But why were we vulnerable? Because we responded to these noble ideals embodied within our symbols, or because we were not raised to let our emotions be guided by our good sense of reason?

 

This type of symbolism works on peoples emotions due to very real and very well understood psychological principles. Emotional transference mentioned earlier, etc...

 

What I hear you saying here is that it does no good to educate people about very real and very personal psychological phenomena that affects their lives in just about every detail because people need inspiration and if they understood the mechanics behind their inspiration they might lose some/all of it.

 

When this inspiration is built on a foundation of logical errors IMO educators are shirking their duties to not address this and to send people out into the world without teaching them what psychologists already know. As I said, this is something that affects peoples lives in great detail, it's not like I'm talking about educating people about some obscure phenomenon.

 

Our vulnerability to them isn’t about the symbols. It’s about us. That’s my point in a nutshell.

 

And my point is, people are naturally vulnerable due to their natural psychological makeup that can be and often is exploited. Since they are vulnerable to exploitation they should be made aware of this fact and be shown how it works.

[Antlerman]

This has really got me thinking. I know the point you’re making, but is there a down side to this? Being “less vulnerable” to these sorts of emotional inspirations through the power of symbols, also means you may not experience those otherwise uplifting senses of the human heart and imagination. To become a cynic (in the modern sense of the word), does shield one from vulnerability, but possibly at the expense of vision and dreams?

 

Without a doubt. Ignorance is indeed blissful. Here I'm reminded of the book Johnny Got His Gun. When laying in bed for years on end unable to communicate with the world since his arms, legs, face, ears have been blown off, the protagonist wonders about his simple upbringing and his carefree days as a child in Colorado. He wonders why he just marched so obediently when he was called up to go to fight a war in a land he had hardly thought about over causes that he had nothing to do with. He realizes that he was raised to not think about such things and he is stirred by the huge sacrifice forced on him for not thinking. He craved to go back and warn that young boy he was when he was still blissful.

 

Moreover, many of us here were happy in our ignorance when we were still xian. I know I was. Now, however, I wouldn't trade my disillusionment, I wouldn't take the red pill, for $1M. I've been on both sides and this side is fantastically better even if I am much more cynical and less prone to bliss. Why? Because with that bliss came a price.

The extreme example here is used as a call, or a serves as its own "symbol" as to why we would should reject all beliefs in ideals and their associated symbols. That to allow yourself to "believe" means one thing - vulnerability, violation and gruesome disfigurement. Therefore we should smash all the icons of culture because of those victims who fell prey to their abuse? What is the new model of society you suggest? One where all icons are removed? How do you communicate that vision? What symbol do you use to represent it? And then, who and how will keep those from being exploited so little Johnny can keep his legs?

 

What of my suggestion to educate our children to have wisdom? Isn't teaching critical thought the key to discernment, and the means to gain wisdom, and wisdom is the power little Johnny learns in order to keep safe from being exploited? By all means educate, but educate to discern the proper and improper uses of the power of signs in society. "Believe with wisdom", seems a better motto than trying to convince someone the use of symbols is evil. We may as well say no more communication of beliefs and ideals because the use of symbols is an inescable componenet of that. The only alternative would be to leave society; that its not possible for societies to be healthy no matter what.

 

What this seems like is more along the lines of the original Cynic philosophers (not the modern sense of the term). They were critical of society, challenging its assumptions, it's adopted rules, provoking people to think about the things they simply adopt, how they seem ludicrous, how they don't think for themselves and are played by the world rather than being independent - like them, of course. Now the irony of the cynics however is that while they eschewed society and symbolically displayed this by traveling about with only a staff and purse for the days needs, they were dependent on society! It was a symbiotic relationship. They criticized society, yet needed its flawed ways in order for themselves to survive.

 

In much the same way we can be critical of the ways societies work and point out its flaws, try to find our place in sub-cultures even which more reflect our more independent nature of thought, yet we are dependent on these "idiots" who follow huddle in masses around the symbols of their society. The best that can be hoped for is that the masses gain discernment enough to question their leaders and be the power of the society that their leaders support, rather than control. Always a difficult challenge.

 

One brief footnote along this line of thought. I believe this is exactly what Christianity was in how it began. A sub-culture challenging the conventions of life in the Greco-Roman world. A Cynic-like philosophy that unlike the cynics, became a community of alternative life-style in some ideal "citizens of the world", group living for the "kingdom of God", which was less to do with religious doctrines than with a social program, an "ideal citizenship" if you will. It developed various symbols to represent itself in the various areas where this counter-culture movement spread, and eventually garnered the attention of the masses, at which point it changed to mainstream and its symbols co-opted and altered to serve the Bishops and powers who controlled them.

 

In other words, its an inescapable cycle of society. This is why I say its better to work with the symbols, since it's utterly impossible to stop their use. It's what people do in social formation. The only end to them, is to end society altogether and live as foraging individuals with no supporting infrastructure.

 

But why were we vulnerable? Because we responded to these noble ideals embodied within our symbols, or because we were not raised to let our emotions be guided by our good sense of reason?

 

This type of symbolism works on peoples emotions due to very real and very well understood psychological principles. Emotional transference mentioned earlier, etc...

 

What I hear you saying here is that it does no good to educate people about very real and very personal psychological phenomena that affects their lives in just about every detail because people need inspiration and if they understood the mechanics behind their inspiration they might lose some/all of it.

Well I'm not sure how your hearing me say it does no good to educate people about this. I think I've said going on about 20 some times now in this discussion that we in fact do need to educate people. What I said here is that I don't think its necessary or even beneficial to tell them that these are just "tricks of the mind" and should be rejected. I'm trying to say we should temper their use with understanding. By all means, absolutely, inform and educate. Yet at the same time, this does not mean pull the rug out from under them without offering something which can address those needs. Not everyone is born to be a pure rationalist materialist, and even they themselves don't operate that way. I think a real education is one which doesn't just speak of the rational explanation of how things happen, leaving their assumptions in tatters, but one which addresses both the rational and emotional parts of our humanity.

 

When this inspiration is built on a foundation of logical errors IMO educators are shirking their duties to not address this and to send people out into the world without teaching them what psychologists already know. As I said, this is something that affects peoples lives in great detail, it's not like I'm talking about educating people about some obscure phenomenon.

The logic errors are actually not the myths themselves, but the error of misunderstanding the nature of myth as hard facts. I'm all for educating them as to how myths functions, how people respond emotionally through our psychological makeups, but this does not mean we should do away with the experience of them, or that understanding them means we can't any longer find value or meaning in them. I think to promote that they are tricks of the mind, manipulative tools that are bad, is to do a great disservice to people. It fails to account for their positive function in how it aids us. It takes the findings of one branch of science and unjustifiably extends it on top of others, driving it seems more from a philosophical point of view than a scientific one.

 

Our vulnerability to them isn’t about the symbols. It’s about us. That’s my point in a nutshell.

 

And my point is, people are naturally vulnerable due to their natural psychological makeup that can be and often is exploited. Since they are vulnerable to exploitation they should be made aware of this fact and be shown how it works.

Agreed, but not to suggest these are bad things to have or use. Just powerful things they need to be aware of and own. I say this because I think it forces an unrealistic tactic to solve a problem that dooms us to repeat fanaticism. Literally true, literally false, literally true. If people never understand what they are and learn how to use them responsibility we are doomed to repeat this cycle.

[Neon Genesis]

The extreme example here is used as a call, or a serves as its own "symbol" as to why we would should reject all beliefs in ideals and their associated symbols. That to allow yourself to "believe" means one thing - vulnerability, violation and gruesome disfigurement. Therefore we should smash all the icons of culture because of those victims who fell prey to their abuse? What is the new model of society you suggest? One where all icons are removed? How do you communicate that vision? What symbol do you use to represent it? And then, who and how will keep those from being exploited so little Johnny can keep his legs?

I don't know if we necessarily need to remove all symbols, but I don't see why we need religion to have symbolism. The analogy of flag symbolism from earlier in the thread I think is a good example of how we don't need religion to have symbols. But even if society needs symbols to function, does society need the same symbols at all times? Going with the flag analogy again, just think of the symbolism of the Confederate flag. Most people see the Confederate flag as being a symbol of racial hatred and slavery although some people might see it as a symbol of their heritage or whatever if they have Confederate ancestors. Certainly it's not the Confederate flag that makes people racist, but the symbol of the Confederate flag has become so tarnished due to its association with slavery and racism, that even though some people could see it as a symbol of heritage, most people don't see it that way and so most people don't hang up Confederate flags on their porches.

 

Most people don't see a need to reimagine the symbolism of the Confederate flag in light of our modern values, we simply create new flags to symbolize our new values that have replaced them. Yet for some reason when it comes to religion, people still see the need to reimagine the symbolism of religion instead of creating new symbols to replace it. I don't know what symbolism we would replace it with, but if society can change their symbols and let go of ones that don't work anymore when it comes to other things like the Confederate flag, I don't see why people can't do it with religious symbols. I just don't see why religion is absolutely necessary for symbolism if society has some need for symbols. And I know earlier that I said I was bowing out of the thread, but the thread seems to have cooled down some, so maybe I'll still stick around if it doesn't get heated again and see how it goes.

[Vigile]

The extreme example here is used as a call, or a serves as its own "symbol" as to why we would should reject all beliefs in ideals and their associated symbols.

 

That may be true, but as I said a couple of posts ago, what I'm trying to get at here is the fact that symbols are being used widely for bad purposes. The country I grew up in is definitely not ok. Some forms of symbols may be impossible to avoid and even necessary, but it is certain symbols that are causing real problems. This is what I'm trying to address in this discussion.

 

What is the new model of society you suggest?

 

I don't. I don't believe in utopia and I'm certainly smart enough to know that I'm not smart enough to come up with a perfect society or perfect solution.

 

I am concerned primarily with a few issues. I'm concerned with patriotism accompanied without thought and I'm concerned with religious influence that affects not only believers but the rest of us in important ways.

 

If you want my suggestions in a nut shell, they would be teach a Neil Browne style critical thinking course to all HS students. That's it. I'm not a revolutionary. I don't believe in silver bullets. But I do believe this would be a major improvement on society as a whole. It wouldn't create a utopia and it wouldn't rid the world of reliance on symbols but it would, I think, go a long way toward stamping out serious dangers and vulnerabilities.

 

That's it. That's all I'm suggesting here.

 

What of my suggestion to educate our children to have wisdom? Isn't teaching critical thought the key to discernment, and the means to gain wisdom, and wisdom is the power little Johnny learns in order to keep safe from being exploited?

 

I must have somehow missed this. Perhaps we are already on the same page and just using different language in describing our positions.

[florduh]

Most people don't see a need to reimagine the symbolism of the Confederate flag in light of our modern values, we simply create new flags to symbolize our new values that have replaced them. Yet for some reason when it comes to religion, people still see the need to reimagine the symbolism of religion instead of creating new symbols to replace it.

 

Balls-on accurate analogy for me, NG.

[Antlerman]

The extreme example here is used as a call, or a serves as its own "symbol" as to why we would should reject all beliefs in ideals and their associated symbols.

 

That may be true, but as I said a couple of posts ago, what I'm trying to get at here is the fact that symbols are being used widely for bad purposes. The country I grew up in is definitely not ok. Some forms of symbols may be impossible to avoid and even necessary, but it is certain symbols that are causing real problems. This is what I'm trying to address in this discussion.

I do agree we may be both saying the same things in many regards, but I'm emphasizing some points of difference because I think the language we use to speak about them is critically important. You state that you see that “certain symbols are causing real problems”, but I hoping to stress that it’s the use of the symbols that is the issue. This places the emphasis of the responsibility on the people themselves, both those who abuse it, or those who are allowing themselves to be duped, rather than blaming the symbol as the cause as your words seem to emphasize.

 

However, I understand your underlying meaning as I think I see it though, that some symbols are so charged with meaning and power they need to be done away with. Sometimes a word, or phrase, or icon, or myth, is so entrenched into the vocabulary of a culture that to try to shift its meaning is a seemingly impossible task. Often a changing and frustrated culture responds in reactionary acts of iconoclasm, smashing the symbols, ironically using this as its own symbolism to focus attention on the need to change the system.

 

The problem with the Christian system itself is because it’s not merely a symbol, but an entire mythology entwined into our very Western ways of thinking. The suggestion to replace the symbols with new ones, like dumping the confederate flag, is unlikely to happen as they represent entire mythologies. I don’t see how it’s possible to simply remove the symbols and thereby change the system that created them. At best it’s a symbolic gesture, but one that gets people to look at the issues challenging that society that led up to it.

 

So ironically, the extreme negative symbols when attacked are yet again being used as powerful symbols, except for an opposite message. The image of a burning flag stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from blind patriotism, promoting challenging the abuse of power and the exploitation of the masses by the government. Both sides are using the flag for their message, each to represent their social ideals.

 

This is why I say that the flag, or the cross, or the church, or Jesus, or the Bible, or God are not the causes of our ills. We are. And we are all using symbols to talk to each other through, rather than getting to the heart of the problem. To get caught up in attacking the symbol draws attention away from the true causes. That’s why I keep coming back to this. It is just as you say transference. Just from the opposite side.

 

I am concerned primarily with a few issues. I'm concerned with patriotism accompanied without thought and I'm concerned with religious influence that affects not only believers but the rest of us in important ways.

We are in agreement. Where we may differ is in how to deal with the presence of myth. I say the best approach is to educate as to its nature, and how to be responsible with it, as opposed to “debunking” in some desire to do away with it, as opposed to shedding light on its symbolic and non-literal nature. I see getting rid of it as impossible and doomed to failure. It will result in a never-ending cycle of swinging from one extreme to another without understand exactly what it is and how it functions, and how and why it is, has to be, and will always be a part of society.

 

We have the same interests in mind, just a difference in how we approach dealing with it.

 

If you want my suggestions in a nut shell, they would be teach a Neil Browne style critical thinking course to all HS students. That's it. I'm not a revolutionary. I don't believe in silver bullets. But I do believe this would be a major improvement on society as a whole. It wouldn't create a utopia and it wouldn't rid the world of reliance on symbols but it would, I think, go a long way toward stamping out serious dangers and vulnerabilities.

As part applying critical thinking, I think it’s absolutely necessary to allow an understanding of the role and use of mythology from the science of ethnography and anthropology to be a major component of our critical evaluations of it. Critical thought without broad-based information, can in fact become a tool of religious or ideological dogma, thereby become little more than a buzz-word than anything meaningful.

 

What of my suggestion to educate our children to have wisdom? Isn't teaching critical thought the key to discernment, and the means to gain wisdom, and wisdom is the power little Johnny learns in order to keep safe from being exploited?

 

I must have somehow missed this. Perhaps we are already on the same page and just using different language in describing our positions.

Yes, I think so too, taking into account the directions I see things needing to go to best deal with it.

 

I’m appreciating this discussion. I’ll try to address some other responders as well now, since a lot of it may be covered in this already.

[Vigile]

This places the emphasis of the responsibility on the people themselves, both those who abuse it, or those who are allowing themselves to be duped, rather than blaming the symbol as the cause as your words seem to emphasize.

 

I thought that went without saying. A flag is just a piece of cloth.

 

However, if we are talking religion, it can be cherry picked to mean any old thing but like NG points out when a religion has so many negative connotations attached attempting to rebrand it is like trying to rebrand the Confederate flag. For some it's ok and for others it's highly offensive. Beyond that though, just how much of a religion's writings and past teachings need to be apologized for before one decides it's just not worth the effort?

 

Sometimes a word, or phrase, or icon, or myth, is so entrenched into the vocabulary of a culture that to try to shift its meaning is a seemingly impossible task. Often a changing and frustrated culture responds in reactionary acts of iconoclasm, smashing the symbols, ironically using this as its own symbolism to focus attention on the need to change the system.

 

Yeah, exactly.

 

We are in agreement. Where we may differ is in how to deal with the presence of myth. I say the best approach is to educate as to its nature, and how to be responsible with it, as opposed to “debunking” in some desire to do away with it, as oppose to shedding light on its symbolic and not literal nature.

 

I'm also not suggesting debunking. I'm suggesting giving people the tools to understand their own vulnerabilities and to think critically so that they don't wander out into the world as rubes amongst wolves.

 

Critical thought without broad-based information, can in fact become a tool of religious or ideological dogma, thereby become little more than a buzz-word than anything meaningful.

 

This requires twisted critical thinking that relies on carefully devised logical errors. No one is going to use the methods in that book I posted to support their religion. If they do so, they do so by bastardizing it to a great degree.

[Antlerman]

Gotta work with the culture you're given. Can't expect things to just change overnight. IMO Christianity as a religion was better than what had come before in the Western world, and for a time served a good purpose. The effect it has had on the societies most of us live in is likely beyond measure and the symbols and ideas it communicates still resonate and are powerful rallying forces. Various parts can be used as much for bigotry and persecution as for compassion and charity. Just look at how much the faith and the language/symbology used to communicate have changed in the past 1000 years (hell try the last 500, or 501!). Eventually I think it will wane due to loss of resonance with shifting cultural values, as there is only so much room for re-interpretation within the canon they have tied around there necks.

This really sums up a lot of what I'm saying. The question at the outset of this discussion was about the myth's ability to be adequate to serve the needs of this society. Symbols which once stood for breaking past religious boundaries to open the doors to include the whole world, eventually took on a new significance of exclusion. I believe Paul converted to Christianity because he saw it opened the doors for the Gentiles, and thus best fulfilling God's purpose for Israel as he saw it in his zeal. It wasn't as much a political maneuver as an ideological one. But eventually this more inclusive philosophy came to be at such odds with Judaism as to force it to withdraw from the Jewish religion and retreat into itself as a separate entity. Thus the symbols took on a different layer of significance, to be now exclusive. To be saved, meant to become Christian. So it clearly is capable of being redefined.

 

What you say about the canon being tied around their necks making that difficult can be a factor to some degree, however it still evolves despite the various declarations of acceptable beliefs being made. As a point of argument, since there really is no society which doesn't make use of mythology to support itself, and since this is the mythology of our culture, it stands to reason that out of sheer necessity Christianity must somehow give way to society as a language to support itself as there really is no other to replace it. There are some competing mythologies, such as the American Dream, the religion of consumerism, but they are far from encompassing enough for society as a whole.

 

One analogy I picked up last night visiting with some friends who think as I do about these changes of the religious landscape of our society was that of it being like the movements of a great tide. Right now, Christianity has been in retreat mode pulling back into the sea. And what you see with all the fundamentalist activities of the last 20 years is really all the little small fishes left on the shoreline, flipping and flopping about on the sand underneath the beating hot sun. They have no bearing, nor depths in which to swim, and all the sea gulls flock around the various piles of them feasting on them in congregations - symbolized of course by the sign of the fish. But they are starting to die out now, having no support from the sea anymore. They are falling off the radar of interest of the culture. So what's next? They cycle. The slow ebbing tide of society with its supporting myths moving back over the sand covering the rotting husks of those tiny dead fish left behind in its slow retreat which are now just bits and remains stinking up the sands of the world.

 

So is the myth capable of change? History shows it has. But is this society too difficult for it's basic components to function?

[Antlerman]

Critical thought without broad-based information, can in fact become a tool of religious or ideological dogma, thereby become little more than a buzz-word than anything meaningful.

 

This requires twisted critical thinking that relies on carefully devised logical errors. No one is going to use the methods in that book I posted to support their religion. If they do so, they do so by bastardizing it to a great degree.

No, I wasn't suggesting that. I'm sure the book is quite valid in its instruction. What I was referring to is where I have seen the term "critical thinking" misapplied when it is used to bolster a criticism of a belief citing reason and logic as its ally. Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" leaps to mind, which sloppily concludes that religious belief is a form of delusion, upholding the virtues of "critical thinking" as the superior way that leads one to this conclusion. My critical thinking says that is a politicized use of the term in nothing higher than ideological rhetoric, a religious argument. The same things hold true with the use of the term "Free Thought", as to mean secular-only philosophies, as opposed to actually free thought.

 

If we are to embrace the value of critical thinking and free thought, than we should do everything necessary to keep those words true to their intent, rather than become a new symbol of some new social program. I'm 100% in favor of that.