Why are Atheists So Angry (A Rabbi shares his take)

[Robert Tulip]

There is broad recognition that Biblical ideas such as the seven days of creation are metaphors, not literal claims. Similarly, the idea of God existing was originally a metaphor for the order of the universe, not a literal claim.

Rather than the metaphor of a person living without blood as like Christianity without God existing, doing away with the false claims about supernatural entities would be like removing a deadly tumour from the body of religion, to restore it to health.

Christianity can keep all of its texts and rituals, as long as it shifts to open a dialogue about how its ideas can be understood within a scientific world view. That would enhance the social and intellectual standing of faith no end.

Atheism presents a big existential challenge for cultural evolution, in terms of whether we can change to prevent planetary extinction or collapse. Do humans actually have the brains to understand reality, and can we change our social myths to reflect scientific knowledge rather than primitive politics? A planetary civilization of seven or ten billion people is not compatible with widespread adherence to false teachings.

The authors of the Bible were a lot smarter than atheists usually give them credit for. But their good ideas, often lightly concealed as metaphors, were overwhelmed by the vast tide of ignorant rabble who established the church.

[Dexter]

Similarly, the idea of God existing was originally a metaphor for the order of the universe, not a literal claim.

...The authors of the Bible were a lot smarter than atheists usually give them credit for. But their good ideas, often lightly concealed as metaphors, were overwhelmed by the vast tide of ignorant rabble who established the church.

I'm no expert on this, but that does not seem plausible to me.

What is the most significant source for this point of view?

[Interbane]

Rather than the metaphor of a person living without blood as like Christianity without God existing, doing away with the false claims about supernatural entities would be like removing a deadly tumour from the body of religion, to restore it to health.

That sounds like a central tenet for a single denomination within Christianity. There are tens of thousands of denominations. Cultural evolution favors sticky ideas over truthful ideas. The ease at which a supernatural intelligence can be sanctified makes me think that even at its most popular, your denomination would still be in the minority.

But their good ideas, often lightly concealed as metaphors, were overwhelmed by the vast tide of ignorant rabble who established the church.

Deepak Chopra is a highly intelligent person, but he believes all his metaphors to be real "connections". You let the biblical authors off the hook too easily. The passion it would have taken to write the gospels seems to imply a level of belief from the authors. Hindsight allows us to see their writings as metaphorical, but they may very well have thought they were tapping in to some divine truth, where their metaphors were more than metaphor, as in actual connections.

[youkrst]

What is the most significant source for this point of view?

heres some Joseph Campbell that seems pertinent

CAMPBELL: The reference of the metaphor in religious traditions is to something transcendent that is not literally any thing. If you think that the metaphor is itself the reference, it would be like going to a restaurant, asking for the menu, seeing beefsteak written there, and starting to eat the menu.

For example, Jesus ascended to heaven. The denotation would seem to be that somebody ascended to the sky. That’s literally what is being said. But if that were really the meaning of the message, then we have to throw it away, because there would have been no such place for Jesus literally to go. We know that Jesus could not have ascended to heaven because there is no physical heaven anywhere in the universe. Even ascending at the speed of light, Jesus would still be in the galaxy, Astronomy and physics have simply eliminated that as a literal, physical possibility, But if you read "Jesus ascended to heaven" in terms of its metaphoric connotation, you see that he has gone inward – not into outer space but into inward space, to the place from which all being comes, into the consciousness that is the source of all things, the kingdom of heaven within. The images are outward, but their reflection is inward. The point is that we should ascend with him by going inward. It is a metaphor of returning to the source, alpha and omega, of leaving the fixation on the body behind and going to the body’s dynamic source.

MOYERS: Aren’t you undermining one of the great traditional doctrines of the classic Christian faith – that the burial and the resurrection of Jesus prefigures our own?

CAMPBELL: That would be a mistake in the reading of the symbol. That is reading the words in terms of prose instead of in terms of poetry, reading the metaphor in terms of the denotation instead of the connotation.

MOYERS: And poetry gets to the unseen reality.

CAMPBELL: That which is beyond even the concept of reality, that which transcends all thought. The myth puts you there all the time, gives you a line to connect with that mystery which you are.

Shakespeare said that art is a mirror held up to nature. And that’s what it is. The nature is your nature, and all of these wonderful poetic images of mythology are referring to something in you. When your mind is simply trapped by the image out there so that you never make the reference to yourself, you have misread the image.

The inner world is the world of your requirements and your energies and your structure and your possibilities that meets the outer world. And the outer world is the field of your incarnation. That’s where you are. You’ve got to keep both going. As Novalis said, "The seat of the soul is there where the inner and outer worlds meet."

[youkrst]

even at its most popular, your denomination would still be in the minority.

a denomination of one would be fine with me

or, one denomination, human

many members, helping each other any way they can, and getting better with practice. progressing faster as fear and control lose their grip.

seems to imply a level of belief from the authors.

i would say the authors were definitely not literalists, too much obvious symbolism and allegory metaphor etc, modern dumb religion is largely historicised metaphor, all denotation and no connotation makes jack a dull boy.

of course there are many layers and aspects but i'm just thinking of the obvious mythological metaphor that is rampant throughout the bible. Christ, Satan, the 12, the cross, etc etc all seem obvious as symbol and metaphor to me.

where their metaphors were more than metaphor, as in actual connections.

the metaphors are largely a map to what lies within the psyche, an inner map so you can find your way out of the labyrinth, but taken literally a disaster, like a scalpel in the hand of an unskilled or even a malicious surgeon, or perhaps more like a club to bludgeon the plebs into submission, keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shite, more profits from the manipulable masses.

religion as the car that could have got us down to the markets but instead was used in a ram raid to rob the local bank.

or , religion as forged signature used to steal your birthright.

[Robert Tulip]

Similarly, the idea of God existing was originally a metaphor for the order of the universe, not a literal claim.

...The authors of the Bible were a lot smarter than atheists usually give them credit for. But their good ideas, often lightly concealed as metaphors, were overwhelmed by the vast tide of ignorant rabble who established the church.

I'm no expert on this, but that does not seem plausible to me.

What is the most significant source for this point of view?

Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, wrote a superb book called The Gnostic Gospels. A theme through her writing, from her early work on Paul, is that the Gospels were written at two levels, a simplified popular version for the general public and a set of secret teachings for those within the school. The orthodox priesthood were able to ally with the ignorant masses, using the formula of salvation by belief, to overwhelm and destroy the Gnostic originators who held that salvation requires knowledge.

Another excellent source is The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy. Here is my review of it.

And from that review:

The question here turns on the most plausible explanation for the rise of Christian faith. Freke and Gandy argue there was originally an inner church that only revealed part of its secret teachings to the public outer church. The ignorant masses called for signs and wonders before they would take any interest in new ideas. The early church serviced this mass demand for a new wondrous religion with the allegorical story of a historical messiah. The aim was to attract members to the cult, so secret mysteries could then be revealed to initiates. The Gospels as we have them were written for the outer church, as a simplified and `dumbed-down' historicized account of the inner spiritual myth.

As Christianity spread, Freke and Gandy argue the outer church took on a life of its own, gradually losing contact with the secret mysteries. The `orthodox' soon found a source of temporal power in denial of the inner church teaching that the story of Christ was a cosmic myth. By allying with the ignorant, the Church Fathers isolated and suppressed the cosmic mysticism of the old inner church, which they branded as Gnostic heresy. In an ironic parallel with the purging of the Old Bolsheviks by Stalin, control of institutional power became a more decisive criterion for influence than spiritual purity. As Orwell said in 1984, ignorance is strength.

The mystics had taught that salvation comes from within the heart, but the Literal church needed a belief system that placed no burdens on a mass audience. They insisted that salvation is objective, resulting from belief in the once-for-all atoning blood of the suffering messiah.

[geo]

. . . Freke and Gandy argue there was originally an inner church that only revealed part of its secret teachings to the public outer church. The ignorant masses called for signs and wonders before they would take any interest in new ideas. The early church serviced this mass demand for a new wondrous religion with the allegorical story of a historical messiah.

I see a correlation here to Plato's The Republic. Plato imagined a perfect society in which the people would be categorized into Rulers, Auxiliaries, Farmers, etc. The common person especially needed to accept his place in order to maintain social stability. So in Plato’s mind, the Noble Lie is rationalized as a way to keep people under control and happy with their lot in life. There's certainly a very Machiavellian or Marxist ("opiate of the masses") aspect to this doctrine.

This "noble lie" is called the myth of the metals:

"Citizens, you are brothers, yet God has framed you differently. Some of you have the power of command; and these he has made of gold, wherefore they have the greatest honor; others of silver, to be auxiliaries; others again, who are to be husbandmen and craftsmen, he has made of brass and iron; and the species will generally be preserved in the children. But as you are of the same original family, a golden parent will sometimes have a silver son, or a silver parent a golden son. And God proclaims... that if the son of a golden or a silver parent has an admixture of brass or iron, then nature requires a transposition of ranks; and the eye of the ruler must not be pitiful towards his child because he has to descend in the scale to become a husbandman or an artisan, just as there may be others sprung from the artisan class who are raised to honor, and become guardians and auxiliaries. For an oracle says that when a man of brass or iron guards the state, it will be destroyed" (415).

[youkrst]

Some of you have the power of command; and these he has made of gold, wherefore they have the greatest honor

i have seen commanders whose gold has become quite brown

might do a quick parody

Some of you commanders are lazy rich pricks who treat your fellow man shamefully; and these He has made of sticky brown stuff, wherefore they are thought of as shite.
then nature requires a transposition of ranks; and the eye of the people must not be pitiful towards the rulers because they have to be reminded they are indeed full of shite.
For an oracle says that when the shite hits the fan, we will all be covered in it.

or perhaps put more delicately

it's hard for the plants of humanity to grow when they are continuously choked by weeds.

[LanDroid]

Mr. Tulip said Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, wrote a superb book called The Gnostic Gospels.

I agree and second that as a non-fiction book for discussion...

[geo]

Mr. Tulip said Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, wrote a superb book called The Gnostic Gospels.

I agree and second that as a non-fiction book for discussion...

I third it . . .

http://www.amazon.com/The-Gnostic-Gospe ... 0679724532