Mageth

Originally posted by Starboy
Hi Mageth, My daughter and I have read "The Power of Myth" several times and have watched the PBS show of the same name several times as well. We have discussed it extensively. She is an artist and I come from a background of the hard sciences. There was something my daughter picked up from Campbell that I glossed over, which she brought up the other day. That Campbell thought that the source of the new guide for mankind would not come from the sciences but from the artists. I think I have to agree with them.

I picked up on Campbell's reference to artists as the best potential source for guidance, for providing metaphor, in the modern age. (I even mentioned it briefly a few posts back). I'm still working through Campbell and pondering all this a bit, but I too think I agree.

BTW, if you're so inclined you should read others of Campbell's works. An Open Life might be a bit repetitive since you've read The Power of Myth. The Hero with a Thousand Faces would be a good choice. In that book he goes more in depth into the various mythologies, their common motifs, and the meaning myth can, and perhaps should, have in our lives.

After I read the book a notion that I picked up from one of my lives as a systems analyst clicked. That science and engineering create models of reality using constructs such as electrons, genes, gravity waves and so forth, but that these constructs are not reality itself. This realization is what drives the scientific method. The models are a picture of reality but are not reality itself and never will be yet can be used to explore reality. These constructs are metaphors of reality, that as humans we cannot know nature directly. The best we can do is to create metaphors for what we experience.

Wow, I like that, and totally agree.

This actually follows along the lines of something I've picked up along the line from somewhere (Hawking, I believe, but probably other sources as well). There may not be, probably is not, one such metaphor that can completely explain a quality, any quality, of the universe. Thus, multiple metaphors may be necessary (or useful) to describe different aspects, or views, of any one quality. The particle/wave duality is a good example.

I think organized religions make the mistake of insisting there's "one true metaphor" that explains life, the universe, and everything (which we now know is (highly) probably not true) and that metaphor is, of course, the one they're selling. A problem with the bible, and I think this ties back into your objection to it, is that, taken as a whole, it's pretty much a "one true metaphor" explanation for the universe.

So electrons, genes, gravity waves and so forth are the metaphors of the twenty first century. That any guide we create must be based upon these metaphors not those of the past which of course includes god.

I'm leaning in that direction, though I've not quite crossed the threshold of throwing out all other metaphors and declaring that any guide we create must be based on the metaphors of physics. Perhaps I'll get there soon. But yeah, I think human experiences such as "transcendance", "spirituality", and "mystery" could, even should, be described within the bounds of the metaphors of physics (if that makes any sense; I'm posting at 3 am).

The artist will construct the future guides for humanity but they will be informed by the metaphors of science.

Again, I agree that's a worthy goal, if we (the human race) are wise enough to achieve it.

This is why I think the bible is just wrong for this time and place. What is currently bunging up the works is that the old metaphors are so pernicious that for most of the population, artists included, the metaphors of the twenty first century are yet to become a main component of everyday culture. What I mean by everyday culture is that which is passed down from generation to generation at the level of families.

I pretty much agree, believe it or not. It's important to remember that the old metaphors were mankind's earlier attempts to explain much of what the new metaphors need to explain. So it may be useful for the creators of the new metaphors to know the old metaphors, to perhaps even borrow or adapt useful bits, and of course to avoid the bad bits.

It's the bible's use for the "big", exclusive metaphor (i.e. God-centric religions) that I have a problem with. Perhaps the rise of the "cherry picking" christians over the last century or so might be signs of the beginning of the end of the bible as a reliable, useful source for the "big" metaphor. Perhaps the bible's beginning to be seen more as a non-exclusive source for "little" metaphors. That's at least a step in the right direction. But I agree, we could use some newer, better metaphors, more attuned to reality.

We are all submersed in the results of science but very few of us actually understand it.

I think it's worse than that; a large chunk of the general population don't have a clue about science, let alone approaching any kind of understanding, or even worse have a grossly warped understanding of it (read some of the "creation science" web pages, for example).

You've helped me to think through some of the things I've actually been reading and thinking about lately. It's been quite enligtening. Thanks!

Rational BAC

Bumble Bee----

You make some good points. And some of that is my fault, I guess. (I do so hate to admit to any error on my part.)

However a very long thread does end up with problems like that. I have a problem myself on remembering what has already been discussed many times. If I think a dead horse has been kicked too many times, I leave that part alone and try to answer some newer question I don't remember hearing. --- Or at least an old question but stated a clearly different and more challenging way.

And sometimes--you are correct. I am being a little lazy. Or it's late at night and I figure---tomorrow is another day. And of course, like everybody, things come up and you forget what you promised to do and don't really get back to it. Mea culpa on that part of it.

Many times when I read a question I think "Golly --isn't this the 3rd or 4th time I tried to answer that one?" "Haven't got any better answers than the last time--Why duplicate? -so might as well just agree to disagree". Probably should just say that rather than just ignoring questions. Again---"C'est ma faute."

While I've got you here----seems like I remember on a post somewhere (I think on a different thread) you said you were a "strong" atheist rather than a "weak" one. Would you please explain the difference and state why being a "strong" atheist is the correct position to take---in your opinion?

Treacle Worshipper

Seen as you're around, R'BAC:

How & why did you come to the conclusion that it was the Holy Ghost guiding you? (Rather than, say, the spirits of your ancestors or the god Mercury.)

I'm truly interested.

TW

Rational BAC

Treacle ---

That is just one of those things theists and non-theists can never agree on. It is a "faith" thing. Not really explainable in any fashion that would be understandable to a non-theist.

I do call myself a Rational Born Again Christian------but I do not mean 100% rational. If I were 100% rational, I would go back to being an agnostic.

And miss out on so much that is important to me.

Rational BAC

This is really kind of an add-on to previous post.-----

Not to start a whole new discussion here (or maybe I do)--------But I have always considered the agnostic position to be a much more rational and more easily defensible one than the atheist position.

If I lost my faith----I would go back to being agnostic.

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by Rational BAC
That is just one of those things theists and non-theists can never agree on. It is a "faith" thing. Not really explainable in any fashion that would be understandable to a non-theist.


Fair enough. BTW, I am an ex-theist. Just because I wouldn't agree doesn't mean I wouldn't understand.

But I have always considered the agnostic position to be a much more rational and more easily defensible one than the atheist position.

The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

Agnostic: I don't know.
Atheist: I don't believe.

I tend to just call myself an atheist. If I was being specific, I would call myself an agnostic atheist: "I don't know whether there are any gods or not (and I don't know whether it's possible to know anything about gods anyway), but I certainly don't believe in any gods."

You could have an agnostic theist, as well: "I don't know, but I do believe." (Or, "but I think there's something out there.")

TW

Starboy

Thank you Mageth! It is a shame that so much of the discussion on this board is the same old broken record. There are new ideas and understandings that are available only to the atheist since we are free of the presuppositions of religion. It would be great if those were discussed more.

Starboy

Mageth

Right on, Starboy. I'm continuing to read Campbell and expanding into other sources, so perhaps I'll think up some threads to start in the near future.

Radorth

Skeptics often makes the accusaton in my experience, that we don't answer the questions, or choose to drop out. Of course very few questions are new or original, and 98% of skeptics' questions have been answered at one time or another. To their satisfaction? No, of course not. But some cannot agree to disagree and like to pretend the Christians avoid the tough questions, and IMO it is these very people who themselves avoid answering certain questions.

The "beating a dead horse" analogy is all to appropriate I'm afraid. Most all the philosophical questions raised here, in one form or another, have been asked and answered a hundred years ago by dogmatists on both sides. That is why I try to at least phrase questions which get at motives and core beliefs because I think we all ought to look at those. We would find we are all all much alike and less clever and holy than we imagine, and have a good laugh at ourselves, hopefully.

I know my erstwhile friend BBT, that &^%$#@*, whole heartedly agrees.

Rad

Sabine Grant

Hello son ! Maybe our skeptic friends cannot be satisfied with our attempts to answer because we yet have to make sense. It is a fact that we cannot promote reason to be the source of faith. We are challenged to present rational arguments to present evidence for our faith. Also Rad, I believe that even if we could present rational evidence for the existence of God, there is no certainty that evidence would be what convinces anyone that the God of Abraham is just, good, fair etc.... there is still a personal choice to accept or reject the character of God.
If it were not for the manifestation of God thru Christ, the Ot God would not be my choice. Explaining the theology involved with the New Covenant may not make God be more likeable.
We must make the effort to place ourselves in the shoes of a skeptic who wonders how we can claim the goodness of God while we promote the concept of a hell for those who have rejected His plan. It is a difficult concept to accept Rad...
Prior to my conversion, I struggled enormously with the thought that people of other faiths or no faiths at all who demonstrated qualities and a character similar to how Christ treated people would be condemned to hell....then I came to believe by faith that God would deal with those issues without ignoring the state of heart and mind of those folks.
For that matter... claiming to be a christian does not guarantee that God would be fooled by our words if our actions do not come from a christlike state of mind. See the comparaison of the goats and sheep in Matthew. Both claiming be part of the " flock"... yet Christ warns us, the claiming flock, that how we treat others may result in being told by Him " depart from me for I do not know you". So God does pay attention to our intents. He can differenciate between fake goodness and genuine goodness in our choice of actions. He will not be fooled by appearances and claims.