HUXTABLE@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Kathryn Huxtable) (07/06/89)
In article <5725@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) writes: >In article <8907011558.AA19050@cattell.psych.upenn.edu>, gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.EDU (Gretchen Chapman) writes: >> [stuff about defining deities deleted --- KAH] > >Frequently I read writers who, it seems to me, are blatantly involved >in the business of creating a new theology. What surprises me is that >they, and so many of their readers, take their attempts seriously. > >If gods or goddesses exists, perhaps the one thing that is certain >about them is that their characteristics are not determined by >people's imaginings. Traditional religions understand at least this. >If you could convince the traditional Christian that the miracles of >the Bible are all just someone's fantasies [1], or an ancient Greek >that the gods were just men's imaginings, then they both would have >the good sense to realize that their religions are false. So how can >one possibly take seriously a religion that one knows is pure fantasy >because one is making it up as one goes along? > >Or does the writer, perhaps, claim to be a prophet, someone who speaks >for the god(desses)? In this case, there is no need to rationalize >*why* one sees the gods and goddesses the way one does, since there is >no way to argue against someone who possesses Revealed Truth. >(However, good prophets do tell their followers how to distinguish >them from false prophets.) > >I see no in-between here -- either the author is claiming to >possess Revealed Truth, or it's all cow dung. > >> Why get into all this sloppy polytheism? > >Why get into theism at all? What you make up may be more appealing, >more comforting, and less sexist than all the religions that have been >made up in the past, but there is no reason to think it will be any >more true. Or does this matter? Speaking solely for myself, I think you have missed the point. When I see people trying to define their deity, I do not think they believe they are prophets. Neither do I think they view religion the way you seem to (though a Christian filter, darkly). There *is* an in-between. Christianity has so defined the way we view divinity here in the West that we have trouble realizing that the ancient Greeks to the contrary of your example did not really believe that Apollo (for example) really existed in any real sense. Apollo is just a metaphor for aspects of the "divine" which humans seem to need psychologically. The Greek playwrites and philosophers realized this, whether the common citizen did or not. Christianity (unlike, say, Hinduism or Buddhism) *requires* that its god(s) be taken as literally real and that its miracles be taken as literally real or else it's no good (cow dung, that is...). But many religions don't require any such belief. The folks you are inveighing against are trying to define a psycho- and sociologically useful religion in a philosophical fashion. I recommend reading Joseph Campbell's _The Masks of God_ (4 vols), or just _Myths to Live By_ to see what might be behind people's search for a deity they don't *really* believe in. Campbell uses the term "mythology" in place of "religion" and defines four basic functions of a properly functioning mythology (I am quoting from memory): 1) To awaken in the individual a sense of awe at the ineffable mystery of the universe (or world, or creation, or whatever you perceive as the cosmos). 2) To inform the individual of his/her relation to the godhead (whatever *that* may be). 3) To center the individual in relation to the rest of human society. 4) To relate the individual to his/her own inner self. I stated the last two particularly badly, but I'm away from my library. The way *I* think of these is that they relate the individual to 1) the universe; 2) the deity; 3) the society; and 4) the self. You should look up the original, though. In many religions (*not* Christianity and some others), the godhead is immanent in the universe, i.e. in every human being, every animal, every plant, even every object. So in some sense there isn't a lot of difference in those mythologies between functions (1) and (2). In some other mythologies, notably Marxism/Leninism, there isn't much difference between functions (3) and (4) since the individuals only have worth insofar as they contribute to society and conform to the society's rules. Campbell points out that with what we now know of cosmology (incomplete and inaccurate though it may be) *all* previous mythologically (religiously) based cosmologies are known to be false. This doesn't invalidate a mythology which accepts a self-correcting picture of the universe conforming to what we currently think to be true. Thus, modern science provides a framework for function (1). His basic thesis is that we need a global mythology which values the individual and values differences among individuals or the differences between our clashing mythologies will lead us to strife and destruction. I don't know....this makes a certain amount of sense to me in psychological and sociological terms. I personally cannot have a theistic mythology, but other people are not me. If many people need to personify their psychosocial symbols centering their world-view, who am I to complain. Basically, I complain when I perceive that the symbol is being taken too literally, but I don't automatically assume that the symbol must be taken literally or lose all value. Hope this clears everything up :-). -- Kathryn Huxtable huxtable@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
bloch%mandrill@ucsd.EDU (Steve Bloch) (07/11/89)
HUXTABLE@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Kathryn Huxtable) writes: >Campbell uses the term >"mythology" in place of "religion" and defines four basic functions of >a properly functioning mythology (I am quoting from memory): > >1) To awaken in the individual a sense of awe at the ineffable > mystery of the universe (or world, or creation, or whatever you > perceive as the cosmos). > >2) To inform the individual of his/her relation to the godhead > (whatever *that* may be). > >3) To center the individual in relation to the rest of human society. > >4) To relate the individual to his/her own inner self. > >I stated the last two particularly badly, but I'm away from my >library. The way *I* think of these is that they relate the >individual to 1) the universe; 2) the deity; 3) the society; and 4) >the self. You should look up the original, though. That sounds pretty good to me. The corresponding passage, as I copied it from a tape of the TV series into my diary, is: Four functions of myth: "1) Opening the world to mystery [The literary function?] 2) The cosmological function: seeing that mystery as manifest through all things 3) The sociological function: validating and maintaining a certain society (this is the side of the thing that has taken over in our world) 4) The pedagogical function: teaching how to live a human lifetime under any circumstances" >Basically, I complain when I perceive that the symbol is being taken >too literally, but I don't automatically assume that the symbol must >be taken literally or lose all value. Again from my diary, copied from Campbell: "Every mythology, every religion is true in this sense: it is ... metaphorical of the human and cosmic mystery. But when it gets stuck to the metaphor, then you're in trouble ... That's reading it in terms of prose, not in terms of poetry, reading the denotation rather than the connotation." By the way, back on the subject of Feminine Spirituality, Campbell points out that "Christians didn't invent the Virgin Birth; it appears only in Luke, who was Greek, harking to (Athene) Lena, Persephone, etc." "A crystalline set of dominoes / Except not really crystalline; And sort of domino-like, / But not really." -- Jane Siberry bloch%cs@ucsd.edu