Question for an Atheist

[DWill]

Ant's reply to geo makes me want to ask what's happened to him. Ant, you were thoughtful and engaging when you first appeared on this forum. You seem bitter about something, and kind of on autopilot in your responses at this point. You didn't recognize that geo's comment was actually quite generous toward religion and deserved more than sarcasm and a sneer.

[geo]

Ant's responses here seemed geared toward the hardline atheist which I feel is inappropriate to the atheists on this forum who are of a more moderate disposition.

I'm always interested in subjective-objective dichotomy (probably not a strict dichotomy). We all derive meaning from the world in a very subjective way. It can hardly be avoided. But a pure scientific pursuit is not interested in subjective values. Religion is a subjective experience and therefore falls outside of the science realm.

Science does not really address the existence of God because there's no data to study. So the debate over the existence of God is never really in the scientific arena. The debate can be pretty interesting, especially when we talk about morality.

Where atheists can and should challenge believers is when believers treat their subjective experiences as objective reality and make real world claims (that can be challenged). Also when believers try to impose their beliefs on society. An example, of course, is the Creationist agenda to teach creationism as a science in the classroom.

By the way, I always talk about subjective versus objective to my freshman English students. Because grading an English essay is very much a subjective exercise even when using rubrics. We're looking at quality of ideas which is rather an abstract concept. Grading a math paper, on the other hand, is very objective or should be because the answer is concrete.

[youkrst]

Religion is a subjective experience and therefore falls outside of the science realm.

great stuff as always geo, but it gets me thinking... (not ALL and ALWAYS outside) how about..

... comparative mythology, comparative religion, symbolism etc etc ala joe campbell and carl jung and stellar folk of that kind bring something very interesting and rare and valuable to the table.

say like huxley's book

The Perennial Philosophy (1945) is a comparative study of mysticism by British novelist Aldous Huxley. Its title derives from the theological tradition of the philosophia perennis.

finding an idea or concept expressed in various cultures through various metaphors across different ages and cultures is fascinating stuff.

i find it's not "one nor t'other" but both.

many will make the mistake of presenting their subjective as objective and we have all suffered greatly as a result i'm sure, historicised metaphors anyone? but as usual just because some fool cant see the metaphor doesn't mean it has no value.

objectively the saying "a stitch in time saves nine" is a little silly but their is none the less a "baby in the bathwater"

i rarely meet anyone who has read and understood jung and campbell but when i do it makes me happy.

to write off ALL religious experience as "subjective nonsense" is dangerous, though a forgivable error when their is sooo much bathwater and such a little baby (but babies grow), just as to write off ALL objectivism results in nasty confrontations with busses and power tools.

i've never met a person who gets the real meaning of the jesus metaphor that i didnt like, it's just that there are sooo few, and it's kinda lonely, like when you cant find someone else in the room that gets the joke about the mugger because they all get mugged too often.

ignorance is not always bliss, but then neither is knowledge.

[geo]

Good points, youkrst.

As I said, this is a fascinating topic. I would argue that pure science is necessarily limited to the objective realm, but science isn't everything. We explore the world in different ways. Religion may be a subjective experience, a personal way of looking at the world, but it can be studied in purely materialistic terms as Robert Wright does in The Evolution of God. Certainly Jung and Campbell et. al bring much to the table in terms of exploring human nature, our motivations and experiences. So it's true that a study of comparative mythology or comparative religion can be more or less a scientific enterprise, but it also delves into areas that maybe can't be studied in purely scientific terms.

I read Campbell's The Hero With a Thousand Faces not long ago and struggled with it somewhat. It's an amazing book, but certain aspects of the discussion were really hard to follow. I think it's possible that our language is too limited to discuss certain areas of human experience. Which is why I would never disparage someone's religous beliefs, but I will challenge beliefs that make specific claims about the real world.

By the way, which of Jung's books would you recommend?

[DWill]

I like a phrase Steven Pinker uses: "Nothing human to me is foreign" (which, looking it up, I found to be from Terence, the Roman). I think that as something eminently human, religion deserves attention and respectful study. The fault I would find with some atheists is that they act as though religion is foreign, or they try to make it so. They may write books about it without attempting to know much about it, as if they need to keep it at a distance. This applies to two writers whom I otherwise respect, Dawkins and Hitchens. I admired Stephen Prothero's book, God Is Not One, because it was a non-devotional and "objective" look at this fascinating subject. So, what would we say represents the best about human beings? Is it that we were capable of inventing science or that we had the capacity to conceive religion? I wouldn't want to have to choose between the two.

[youkrst]

I read Campbell's The Hero With a Thousand Faces not long ago and struggled with it somewhat. It's an amazing book, but certain aspects of the discussion were really hard to follow.

i have read some campbell, but i have spent a lot more time listening to gigs and gigs of audio and watching terrabytes of video of the guy and very soon i realised "what he IS speaks so loudly, i CAN'T ignore what he is saying.

i initially came to campbell after i somewhat cracked the jesus metaphor and linked it up with krishna, buddha, quetzo metaphors etc etc and so comparative religion was where it was at for me, and campbell was the man, but i soon realised that it was the calibre of the man that wrought the calibre of the teaching and understanding. i've got a teaching session of his on tape somewhere here that just knocks my dick in the dirt it's so good.

i have an audio here of him teaching james joyce and thomas mann that is so bright it's staggering, it's like intellectual bruce lee but with great jokes as well.

same with jung i have watched and listened to so much material and am constantly surprised by the sheer breadth of his activity and skill. (art and construction and stone masonry) who would have thought it, quite aside from his brilliant insight i want to have a beer with him.

jung and campbell both struck me as real men, men of awesome breadth, depth and insight but clearly evidenced in much of their incredible scope of talent, so as i said "what they were spoke so loudly i had to listen to what they said"

as per good starting place reading jung i suppose one could do worse than the first part of "man and his symbols"

the first part i mean, that jung wrote himself, not so much the later parts, but all the youtube stuff etc for example

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... criEWMhygU

there is a torrent somewhere of a fantastic audiobook of that.

i've got terrabytes of it PM me an email addy and i'll send some over (megabyte samples i mean )

I think it's possible that our language is too limited to discuss certain areas of human experience.

yes this is key, thats why metaphor is so important, how else can you discuss the undiscussable. lol but people are SO literal minded it's not always easy, but huxley, watts, campbell, jung etc set up through comparative mythology etc etc a way to at least get the ball rolling.

“Via Joseph Campbell: My friend Heinrich Zimmer of years ago used to say, "The best things can't be told," because they transcend thought. "The second best are misunderstood," because those are the thoughts that are supposed to refer to that which can't be thought about, and one gets stuck in the thoughts."The third best are what we talk about.”

Zimmer is killer too

and there are others

So, what would we say represents the best about human beings? Is it that we were capable of inventing science or that we had the capacity to conceive religion? I wouldn't want to have to choose between the two.

and thankfully we dont have to choose, we are free to take the best of both and reject the worst of both.

it strikes me how words can be so handy and yet at the same time so dangerous. religion for example can be sublime, but certainly i have seen only too much of it's dark side and experienced it first hand.

likewise science, sublime, and yet at it's worst eurggggh, i shudder.

words get so loaded over time in the minds of the hearer, to some people the word religion alone is enough to start a fist fight, to others science means "mind of satan"

i LOVE science AND religion (at their best) and i HATE science AND religion (at their worst) , it's the undeveloped psyche of man that really scares me though. jung had that right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wop91_Gvwos

[geo]

DWill, as you probably know, I agree with what you say about Dawkins and Hitchens. Yes, religious extremism is dangerous to be sure, but it seems to me that some folks are wired to be extremists. Is there any evidence to suggest that religion itself is to blame for extremism? Likewise, an empirical worldview is no inoculation against irrational behavior. There are plenty of people out there who are dangerously ignorant regardless of religious affiliation.

I totally relate to Dawkins' love for science, but I also understand that a pure scientific worldview doesn't cut it for some people. We explore the world in different ways. Some folks gravitate towards religion/spirituality, others towards empiricism, and many are somewhere in between. The psychology that determines where we fall on that spectrum seems a fascinating area for study, doesn't it? I'm surprised that Dawkins doesn't see it that way.

[geo]

Thanks youkrst.

I recently picked up Joseph Campbell's "The Inner Reaches of Outer Space: Metaphor as Myth." Looks like a good read.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Inner-Reaches ... 1608681106

Also thanks for recommending that Jung book because that's the one I already have!

[youkrst]

i spent a fair bit of time recently listening to lots of Dawkins and Hitchens and took away heaps and heaps of good stuff. I thought that they were only really harsh on the literalist orthodox stupidity not so much on the "i have a personal belief system that i enjoy"

But i always get a bit frustrated because i worry that literal minded listeners will continue to miss the metaphorical reading. to me thats what defuses the bomb.

but it seems to me that some folks are wired to be extremists.

yeah, so true, the psyche again.

Is there any evidence to suggest that religion itself is to blame for extremism?

i find extremism everywhere but literalist dogma seems to be a nasty mix for it, kinda like extremism + darts = good dart player BUT extremism + literalist dogma = psycho beast from hell, sorta reminds me of mentos and diet coke,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vk4_2xboOE

dangerous combination, and of course all external info is usually rejected within the "group" so catastrophic really.

thats why i think comparative mythology and comparative religion and symbolism and metaphor should be taught to kids to protect them from being vulnerable to being duped by religious whackjobs from an early age. later when they are psychologically vulnerable it will be terrible for them if they cant understand through a lack of knowlege.

i tend to be a bit of an extremist myself, it's a good thing when i want to pick up something quickly or do a thorough job, but it's a bad thing when i dont balance it out with other factors. so a blessing AND a curse and again it's the psyche that often makes the difference.

The psychology that determines where we fall on that spectrum seems a fascinating area for study, doesn't it?

darn tootin' !

[youkrst]

I recently picked up Joseph Campbell's "The Inner Reaches of Outer Space: Metaphor as Myth." Looks like a good read.

lordy! i haven't got it, gonna get it... extremist style

the reviews are fascinating

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3551 ... uter_Space

downloading now! gotta love the information age. (sometimes)

Upon the rainbow he
moves from mountain to mountain, for it is thus that the gods travel,
standing upon the rainbow. The rainbow is swift as lightning. 65
Swift and far I journey,
Swift upon the rainbow.
Swift and far I journey,
Lo, yonder, the Holy Place!
Yea, swift and far I journey.

The Chief of Mountains, and beyond it,
Yea, now arrived home behold me;
In Life Unending, and beyond it,
Yea, now arrived home behold me;
In Joy Unchanging, and beyond it,

bon apetite

wow! never fails, i just spent a couple of minutes reading Inner Reaches and had to stop half way through the intro 'cause it's just too powerful. master blaster. thanks for the recommend geo may your orbit always be synchronous.

9th century BC some indian dude was rockin the house