From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Apr 25 2004 - 01:44:24 BST
Hey all MOQers, especially those following the religion threads:
Sam had asserted that Christianity is 'true'. I asked, "In what sense is it
true?" Although Sam left the forum about that same time, I persisted
privately and in reply he sent a relevant post from the past, as well as
these opening comments...
Sam said:
Briefly, 'truth' is a high quality static pattern. As I view mythologies and
language as social level phenomena, the question is, which is the highest
quality social level pattern available - and I say Christianity has higher
quality than secular atheism. That is the sense in which it is 'true'.
dmb says:
Its true because its better than secular humanism? Because it seems like the
best to Sam? That hardly seems to meet the critera for 'truth' by anyone's
definition of the word. And to the extent that Christianity is social and
secular humanism is intellectual, they can't rightly be compared. To assert
the former over the latter would violate the moral codes of the MOQ. And
finally, I think the idea that one can choose the best mythology that
informs one's life is iffy at best. Its not as far fetched as believing that
one can choose their gender, height or hair color, but almost. Each of us is
utterly immerse in a vast background of cultural material over which none of
us has any conscious control. As Wilber puts it, "I do not fashion this
meaning, this meaning fashions me."
Sam said;
I don't see 'truth' as depending on propositional reference to some
essentialist externality. I do think there are historical truths, though,
and I think that (for example) the resurrection is a historical truth. What
the resurrection actually was is highly debatable, but that something
happened to turn a demoralised rabble into a world-conquering church seems
indubitable to me.
dmb says:
Very clever. See what he did there? He used postmodern contextualism to deny
the need for evidence or outside referent, then proceeded to assert the
historical truth of a scientifically impossible myth. Yes, very clever and
it is an argument that can't hold a single drop of water.
Sam said:
Think of Aesop's fables, the story of the tortoise and the hare. This story
has a point, a moral. It is using a story to convey a wise teaching..In
doing so it is conveying a teaching about how to live. If you take account
of the story, then you will be able to live in a more fulfilled way. ...For
a great many reasons, it is important to be aware that our understanding is
founded upon our imagination and empathy as much as on our rational
intellect (that is, in traditional terms, the heart is more important than
the head). To believe otherwise is a modern mistake, which has only come
about in the last couple of hundred years, and is now widely accepted as
false in the academic world. ...Now, religious language operates in a
similar way. It uses a story to convey a truth about life.
dmb says:
To assert that myths come before intellect is only to echo Pirsig and most
pomo linguists. Sam's complaint applies to most specifially to the
representational paradigm that pomo has dismantled. The problem with Sam's
particular take remains the same here. Mythology certainly contains moral
codes, but there is so much more to them than that. There are some rather
profound psychological truths to be discovered there. We live by them
whether we know it or not. They're in our dreams and motivate us by day in
unseen ways. Sam has reduced myth and religion to a mere morality tale.
Sam said:
Religious language is concerned with teaching us how to live, and it does
that by telling stories. ...the way in which religious meaning is conveyed
is primarily through stories. Stories are more fundamental than statements
of doctrine (propositions). They govern the way we approach our lives.
..Consider, for example, the major decisions that we face in life. When to
get married, and who to get married to. What sort of job/career to pursue.
Whether to have children, and if so, how to raise them. These questions are
not going to be finally resolved by logical reasoning, athough logical
reasoning can do a lot to clarify the choices that we face. ...Whatever the
answer is, it reveals the things that we place most value on.
dmb says;
Marriage, kids and career? This is pure social level stuff. Not that there's
anything wrong woth that. People have had these concerns for many thousands
of years, but I'd also point out that there is nothing particularly
spiritual about it either. I mean, isn't religious language supposed to
suppose to convey a truth about spiritual matters, not practical matters? I
think mom and dad are supposed to teach us how to make those choices, not
religion. These are fleshy concerns, the concerns of social level moral
codes, not genuine spirituality.
Sam said:
So, instead of saying 'Jesus died to save you from your sins' it would be a
faithful reinterpretation to say 'Jesus shows you how to sort your life out'
What Christianity is. A brief recap: religious language is based on
particular stories which teach us how to live. Those stories get integrated
into systems of belief, which shape our choices and how we understand the
world. Christianity is, in large part, a practical means of developing those
required virtues.
dmb says:
Jesus shows you how to sort out your life?! Christianity is a practical
means of developing virtues?! Holy clap trap, Batman! Sam, the diabolical
anti-mystic, has turned one of the world's great religions into a Victorian
self-improvement program from hell! It misreads the myths, defies the
intellect, ignores the mystical and otherwise wrecks havoc and destruction.
Back to the bat cave! (Sorry, my son just turned four and so I'm up to my
eyeballs in superheroes.)
Sam said:
I happen to think that Christianity is true - in other words, that we really
are people, we are fundamentally constituted as human beings, who can only
find satisfaction and happiness through looking after each other. We can
only find ourselves through human fellowship. And that is what the Eucharist
is all about - a symbolic reenactment of the teaching of the person who
shows us the way.
dmb says:
People who need people are the luckiest people.. yea, its a fine sentiment,
but I hardly think it qualifies as a reason to think Christianity is true.
This argument is devoid of any actual content. Human fellowship, looking
after each other. There is nothing to knock in that. Its a widely held
sentiment, but again the concerns here are social, not spiritual. If the
churches are to function as a mean of social cohesion as they did in
premodern times, that's fine with me. But as I understand the terms
"religion" and "Christianity", their primary function is SUPPOSED to be
spiritual.
I think the MOQ's moral codes are very helpful in sorting things out and
otherwise appreciate the power it has as an idea. But its not just an
academic exercise either. Since it is so fresh in your mind, dear reader,
let's take Sam's argument as an example. When I read Sam's reinterpretation
of the salvation of Christ, I actually recoiled in horror. It felt very
wrong. Not just logically flawed or otherwise incorrect, but dark and evil.
It felt a little like one might feel upon seeing some beautiful little thing
crushed by some drunken clod.
In what sense is Christianity true? I don't think Sam knows. Anyone else
care to take a crack at it? As mentioned, I think there is a certain kind of
truth to it and since its the central religion in Western culture - well, it
might be worth exploring - especially for you atheists and agnostics. The
MOQ and mysticism help to explain each other and are clearly quite
compatible. I don't see why Christian mysticism would be an exception.
Thanks.
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 25 2004 - 01:47:52 BST