gurugeorge

In the Earl/Hebrews/Cosmic Christ thread, there's a lot of discussion about what the ancients' view of the world was.

There's a lot of evidence to show that the ancients thought of their gods as living on earthly places (e.g. the tops of mountains), and that by "heaven" they meant simply "the sky".

However, this fails to take into account the degree to which religious ideas, entities, tropes, are mediated by visionary experience, or what Western occultists called the "astral plane".

Looking at it from a rationalist, anthropological and cognitive science point of view, it looks like the brain has the capacity to produce in a waking state visions that have something of the convincingness and solidity of lucid dreams (dreams had while the dreamer is awake in the dream). It's ok to call these hallucinations, so long as it's remembered that these kinds of hallucinations aren't necessarily the product of a deranged brain, but can be the product of a normal brain under certain conditions.

With these kinds of visions, one may have an experience of seeming to see, meet, talk to, entities that aren't physically there, but may be superimposed on the ordinary worldly background. One may also have an experience of ascending (to the sky) or descending (into the bowels of the earth) to meet and greet such entities. As modern rationalists, we don't need to accept the ancient theory that the entities met and communicated with in such visions existed - we would tend to interpret them as deliverances of the unconscious, or simply products of non-conscious "rough working" in the brain, clothed in a medium of imagery derived from this capacity of the brain to produce the experience of apparent, seeming entities and objects.

People who are otherwise extremely clever can sometimes have these kinds of visions, and we may be sure that this was the case in ancient times too.

e.g. Parmenides in the proem to his great work on logic describes the vision in which the goddess Persephone "gave" him his great work on logic. The neo-Pythagoreans were quite familiar with the topic, and spoke of a "the body of light". Gnosticism is full of detailed visionary experiences outlining whole heirarchies of entities. Hermetic texts are usually descriptions of dialogues between gods and people. Judaism has always been famous for its mystical and magical practices, and Jewish mysticism of the time in question when we're discussing HJ/AJ issues was saturated with "ascension" imagery (Merkabah mysticism). Ranging wider, nearly every religion in the world describes similar kinds of experiences - even Buddhism which is non-theistic when it comes to God with a capital "G" accepts these kinds of visionary experiences and these kinds of "gods", and some of the sharpest philosophers in Buddhism, e.g. Tzongkhapa in Tibetan Buddhism, were also visionaries in this sense.

Nearly every religion is about the meeting of a prophet or seer with a "god" or "gods", who give to the seer or prophet some sort of communication and charge the seer with the task of promulgating that vision to his people, or to humanity at large. Rationalists are accustomed to explain this sort of thing away as either con-artistry or delusion in a pejorative sense; but it actually makes more sense, in view of the fact that as above mentioned, some of the people who had these kinds of experiences were among the greatest minds in antiquity, to explain these kinds of deliverances as the result of this natural capacity of the brain to produce these kinds of experiences.

Looked at this way, it would be surprising if early Christianity were any kind of exception to this general rule. I think any understanding of religion or religious texts has to understand the religious phenomenon as first of all being personal encounter with what is subjectively understood to be the divine in either visionary or mystical form (mysticism being something different again from this kind of visionary experience), long before it is a sociological or even intellectual phenomenon. The visions, the mystical experiences come first - otherwise there would be no material for the intellect to get to work on, or for social formations to coalesce around. If you look at the world around you ordinarily, there are obviously no gods, not even on the mountains or in the sky. If you look at the world having had an experience of literally (so far as you are subjectively concerned) seeing gods and talking to them, or if you look at the world as mediated by stories told by people you respect who have had experiences of literally seeing gods or talking to them, then it makes more sense that you would think gods are there - it would make sense for you to have ideas about them, talk about them. Without those kinds of experiences, it seems unlikely that any common sense mind would ever have thought gods up in the first place.

However, it's one thing saying that the study of these texts ought to be done in a fuller context, and in that fuller context one's expectations change; it's another thing to actually prove that the texts are talking about these kinds of entities. But yet, to look at things in this way is to make Earl's view more plausible - it may be that there just is this fuzziness between what was meant by "where" the events of religious texts happened. They happened on earth, but also were sometimes heavenly in character - this means, the events were seen in visions in which the extraordinary powers and abilities of entities in dreams were mixed with or superimposed on, ordinary earthly reality.

It's also understandable that people who are into the philological side of things are loathe to broaden their investigation and make it more interdisciplinary (to include anthropology, cognitive science, etc.), but I think the way forward (as in science generally nowadays) is actually interdisciplinary. Religion has to be understood sociologically, neurologically, psychologically, anthropologically, cognitively, etc., etc., all at the same time, for religious texts to be really understood.

It also has to be remembered that knowledge is all of a piece, and the departmental distinctions we have in the academy are merely conventions and conveniences inherited from the mediaeval genealogy of the University system. It's useful and has been extremely helpful to divide knowledge-discovery into limited areas; but it has recently become clear that we are entering a period where it's again possible to synthesise the results of separate disciplines, and come up with better answers to the most important questions as a result (and here cognitive science, with its blend of neurology, psychology, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, biology, evolutionary theory, economics and game theory, has shown the way).

dog-on

...or they just made it up...

gurugeorge

That's always possible, but in most cultures "made up" is in a different category from "religious" - I think ancient people understood sheer fiction, story-telling, and understood the difference between sheer fiction and religious material. People who create fictions don't usually believe in their own fictions and promulgate them as fact. People who have visionary experiences are compelled (by the real-seeming nature of their experiences) to promulgate their visions as fact.

And prior to the modern understanding of how the brain works, commencing in the 17th-18th centuries, that was actually quite understandable. We naturally believe the evidence of our senses - and these kinds of experience can carry fully as much conviction as sensory experience. No need to posit either illness, mendacity, or stupidity - error yes, in light of a modern, rational understanding of things, but not necessarily wilfull error, or error based on some kind of foolishness or illness.

dog-on

On the other-hand, Cpt. Caveman could have been hanging around the camp fire one evening and spun a tale about the Great Pumpkin. Upon seeing the reaction of those in attendance, the good ole Cpt. probably saw a great opportunity for self-"improvement"...and took it...

David

I must admit whenever these kinds of discussions emerge I find myself wondering if we are trying to exact a level of specificity from the text that simply doesn't exist. Or in other words. If you could actually sit the author in question down and ask specific direct questions would the answers all be internally consistent, or would they eventually contradict themselves? I don't know the answer, but as I said, I do wonder, especially when the conclusions are used to either bolster or undermine a larger argument or theory.

PhilosopherJay

Hi gurugeorge,

An excellent position statement that I heartily agree with.

Hi dog-on,
That can also be done too.

I think we can distinguish somewhat between reports of mystical experiences and making things up, although they are often intertwined. Usually reports of mystical/dream experiences are in the first person and quite vivid, poetical and detailed. Parts of Revelation are like this, for example 21:9-13:

9And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

10And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

11Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

12And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

Note that the phrase "descending out of heaven from God" (καταβαινουσαν εκ του ουρανου απο του θεου) is meant to refer to the city of Jerusalem. This, however, makes little sense. Why would the city be descending at this time? It also interupts the phrase "the holy city of Jerusalem, having the glory of God" The position of this phrase about descending is best considered a gnostic/millenialist edit. The proper reference for this phrase about descending would be the angel. So 9-11 should read:

9And descending out of heaven from God, there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

10And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem,

11Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

When people make things up, they make specific changes to already existing works to make specific points. For example, the author of Matthew's placing the Roman guard around the tomb of Jesus is "made up" in response to the idea of disciples stealing the body.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

dog-on

Of course, I will not disagree that it is certainly within the realm of possibility, if not highly likely, that liberties were taken with pre-existing works, from time to time. I do, however, believe that the most likely source for all this would be the imaginations of individuals as opposed to some "mystical/ethereal" experiences.

Why try to ennoble the original fabricators of these tales, when a "razor sharp" explanation stares us in the face. Such a treatment serves only to cushion the impact for believers. For the rest of us, it simply adds to the overall murkiness of an already murky picture.

gstafleu

gurugeorge, you are quite right to see religions visions and experiences as "deliverances as the result of this natural capacity of the brain to produce these kinds of experiences." This has been studied by Michael Persinger, see Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs. He places the part of the brain that can produce such visions and sensations in the right temporal lobe, and has build a machine that can stimulate that area with certain electrical patterns, resulting in a "god experience." From http://web.ionsys.com/~remedy/Persinger,%20Michael.htm:
Gerard Stafleu

gurugeorge

On what basis? Capt. Caveman wouldn't necessarily be believed and feted - more likely he'd be ridiculed. Usually, religious visionaries have had some trouble and persisted through great difficulties to press their message on the public. Sheer storytellers, people who entertain, are usually feted. This would seem to show that it's actually easier to "make a living" from fiction as fiction, than from fiction presented as fact.

Whereas if you understand that these experiences can be so real-seeming as to carry conviction (just as "solid" an experience as someone who has an intellectual conviction, only this is a conviction arising from the strong seeming of having had a certain type of experience), it's easier to see how visionaries would have persisted through ridicule and eventually gotten people to come around to their way of thinking. Ancient people admired courage and persistence, and that often comes from conviction in one's beliefs.

Well you've got the cart before the horse here, it's not that anyone's "trying to ennoble" anything, it's that these kinds of experiences exist, and while not exactly common are more common than one might think, and more easily accessible, therefore they would seem to be the most likely candidate for the origin of the general religious meme of "I met X and he told me ABC, and told me to tell you lot."

Again, the aim isn't to disabuse believers of their comforts, the aim is to get at the truth, to see what was really happening in religions - if that happens to disabuse believers of their comforts, that's unfortunate but that's the way it is.

James Madison

Well, I wonder if the argument of X author's prose has Z writing style, themes, and concepts because at the time they were popular and used by other writers/authors?

This really does not make Earl's view more plausible unless one accepts the presupposition that since other authors were using similar themes/concepts, then so was the author of Hebrews. Yet, this is not a very good argument. This is, in my opinion, weak circumstantial evidence. Any value it adds to the plausability of Earl's proposition is de minimis.

I think the more plausible explanation (not sure if I believe it yet) is some early christianity was at times relying upon this "mysticism" but other times in their writings they were intentionally seeking to be the 'exception.' Aren't the Gospels evidence of some early christians seeking to be the 'exception?' Early Doherty certainly does not perceive the Gospels as employing a mysticism account of Jesus and consequently, the Gospels are evidence some of the early christians were composing their writings in such a manner as to be the exception to the prevalent use of mysticism by other authors/people of the time.

Yet, you have expounded upon a dilemma which plagues not only the pursuit of understanding ancient religious texts but more recent documents, such as the U.S. Constitution. Attempting to figure out what the author intended to convey, understood to convey, or wanted to convey is rarely if ever simple. Generally, I agree with your proposition of, "Religion has to be understood sociologically, neurologically, psychologically, anthropologically, cognitively, etc., etc., all at the same time, for religious texts to be really understood.....However, it's one thing saying that the study of these texts ought to be done in a fuller context, and in that fuller context one's expectations change; it's another thing to actually prove that the texts are talking about these kinds of entities.


Absolutely correct! It is one thing to correctly identify a popular and pervasive theme from an era but quite another to assert/prove some writing from the same era incorporated, employed, adopted, or borrowed those popular themes and ultimately, the issue can be reduced to one simple phrase: "Does the evidence adequately support X claim/interpretation/reading/understanding of the text?," just as it does with a lot of writings, such as the U.S. Constitution.

A similar example, one I unfortunately do not have any time to expound upon, are the words "due process" in the U.S. Constitution.