In Defence of Theology

Bernardo's assertion might be right, but I can think of a multitude of reasons why he might also be wrong. Even if he's right, it could be for completely different reasons.
That's because you, and others of a similar mindset, don't understand the primacy of symbols. The church I attend is host to about eighteen nationalities and is standing room only. Obviously you don't need to attend church to understand symbolism, but it's clearly an internationally transferable asset. Or perhaps we're simply the downtrodden masses (sic).
 
Indeed I don't. I just don't share your premise. Great literature, if read with the right symbol-interpreting eyes, gives us profound insights into the depths of the psyche, which touches on the first-person perspective of mind-at-large. Personally, I am utterly uninterested in whether religious stories were literal historical facts or not. It's possible that some of them were, since archetypes also manifest in the world. But to me that is unimportant when compared to the immense, true value of those stories.

You may find Calasso's Literature and the Gods to be of interest. He argues that literature has to incorporate the gods, or at least the reality they-as-icons point to, in order to reach the more sublime heights. From the NY Review of Books (sadly they put most it behind a paywall...will try to find another analysis...):

The surprising durability of ancient Greek myths in an age when Homer, Ovid, and other classics are no longer taught in our schools is astonishing and not easy to explain. In this country, we have never been very good at history, barely troubling to remember our own in much detail, and the same is true of the literary past, which is gradually being expunged from the curriculum. When it comes to pagan myth, most of the champions of progress take it for granted that they have nothing to say to us anymore. How wrong they are. This year, for example, saw the publication of Gods and Mortals, an anthology of modern poems based on classical myths. Out of 323 poems in the book, roughly one fourth are the work of contemporary American poets. When it comes to being out of sync with reigning intellectual fashions, poets get the prize every time....

...What is it in these stories that the poets find indispensable? The answer has to be that they still feed their imagination. What Ezra Pound said long ago still appears to be true today: “No apter metaphor having been found for certain emotional colours, I assert that gods exist.”...

Here's a beautiful interview with Calasso in the Paris Review of Books:

INTERVIEWER: It’s strange, this desire to turn Adelphi—and yourself—into a political machine. In fact, you are far more interested in transcendence than in politics.

CALASSO: Not so much transcendence, but the perception of the powers in us and around us. People talk a lot about religion, but they might as well be talking about huge political parties. The most delicate point to grasp is that society itself has become the major superstition of our times. This is the pivot of the last section of L’ardore. What I mean is that the belief in society as the ultimate crucible of progress creates a vast amount of bigotry even in the so-called secular world. So in actual fact it’s difficult to find an intellectually rigorous atheist. Though I have met many secular bigots.

INTERVIEWER: The notion of sacrifice lies behind almost everything in your work. The other striking theme is ebbrezza, which seems difficult to translate, as the word is polysemous in Italian.

CALASSO: All of my books have to do with possession. Ebbrezza, rapture, is a word connected with possession. In Greek the word is mania, madness. For Plato it was the main path to knowledge. For us it’s become the main path to the lunatic asylum. So you see that from Schreber up to La folie Baudelaire, the theme runs through my work. Even in my last book, L’ardore, of course. The Vedic people developed the most rivetingly complex theories and rituals about soma, the mysterious plant that provoked rapture.
 
That's because you, and others of a similar mindset, don't understand the primacy of symbols. The church I attend is host to about eighteen nationalities and is standing room only. Obviously you don't need to attend church to understand symbolism, but it's clearly an internationally transferable asset. Or perhaps we're simply the downtrodden masses (sic).
Lee Child's books seem popular across the globe...
 
Quite right, thank god for common sense! One also needs to explore what one means by scripture; what particular religious scripture one is referring to; how long it's been around; and how and why it was popularized; which scriptures failed; and are no longer around etc... and consider whether such statements are even valid, perhaps speed of communication reduces duration of interest, and/or literacy improvements; perhaps increasing availability of competing literature, verses pressure on time causes the effect you claim; perhaps early starters gain advantage.

Certainly in the UK, growing up in a non religious household, I had little to no exposure to scripture. During my childhood many of the churches closed down and were turned into DIY centers, congregations are still falling, churches are still closing, and interest seems virtually non-existent in scripture.

Bernardo's assertion might be right, but I can think of a multitude of reasons why he might also be wrong. Even if he's right, it could be for completely different reasons.

I'm kinda of the opinion that focusing on scripture is not the best idea in the first place. Like Paul says, "the letter kills, but the spirit gives life", or like Shankara said, "Deliverance is not achieved by repeating the word 'Brahman, bit by directly experiencing Brahman". Since, Idealism says everything is in Mind, I think the emphasis should be on the experience itself, not on the written word that is only talking about the experience. I think this is what Bernardo meant by "first-person perspective of mind-at-large". The defense should be focused there, not on any given scripture (which all directly, or indirectly, ultimately reference this perennial experience, anyhow)
 
I'm kinda of the opinion that focusing on scripture is not the best idea in the first place. Like Paul says, "the letter kills, but the spirit gives life", or like Shankara said, "Deliverance is not achieved by repeating the word 'Brahman, bit by directly experiencing Brahman". Since, Idealism says everything is in Mind, I think the emphasis should be on the experience itself, not on the written word that is only talking about the experience. I think this is what Bernardo meant by "first-person perspective of mind-at-large". The defense should be focused there, not on any given scripture (which all directly, or indirectly, ultimately reference this perennial experience, anyhow)

Ah, great post. I'd agree the end game of understanding has to go beyond signifiers, as Gabriel eloquently stated above. Though I do think a refinement of intuition can be accomplished by some academic study so long as it's combined with interplay with Nature, engaging with art, meditation/lucid dreaming/ritual and so on.

A Dante scholar I worked for long ago once said that the final part of the Commedia, when Dante beholds the language-transcendent divinity of the White Rose, was reachable only because Dante had gone as far as he could with language. (It's also fascinating Paradiso is also the only part of the poem where the reader is warned away, lest they be shipwrecked, but that's a discussion for another time/thread...)

Plato has a similar story in Symposium, via the tale of Diotima's Ladder, where the steady appreciation of beauty within varied incarnate things in mind & matter leads to an appreciation of Beauty itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since, Idealism says everything is in Mind, I think the emphasis should be on the experience itself, not on the written word that is only talking about the experience.
I don't have the time to develop this as the pub is calling, but the debate is an old one. With the reformation came the abandonment of symbolism, and an identification of the word as a discrete, self-contained signal. The effect was felt beyond religion and at every level of society. Meaning was in harness, and the Enlightenment was its natural inheritor. Understanding was previously a form of grace; it became a logical cul de sac. I like to think of us returning to the unharnessed language of the symbolic, before the fun police set the word in bondage and robbed it of its grace.
 
People put their religion as Jedi Knight on census forms. It doesn't mean they believe Luke Skywalker is the Alpha and Omega.
And why not? Those stories came from part of the source consciousness, thus as valid as any other (according to Bernardo).

If you're saying theology needs a special place for scripture, I'm with you. Under Bernardo's Idealism, either everything is special, or nothing is...

Although, I can see why he is keen to imbue his worldview with some 'meaning'. ;)

Enjoy the pub. I would genuinely love a drink with you...
 
I don't have the time to develop this as the pub is calling, but the debate is an old one. With the reformation came the abandonment of symbolism, and an identification of the word as a discrete, self-contained signal. The effect was felt beyond religion and at every level of society. Meaning was in harness, and the Enlightenment was its natural inheritor. Understanding was previously a form of grace; it became a logical cul de sac. I like to think of us returning to the unharnessed language of the symbolic, before the fun police set the word in bondage and robbed it of its grace.

I think a lot of that is related to what I posted in the Robin Williams thread not too long ago, specifcly the part I italicized/bolded (although I'm not sure what any of that has to do with Robin Williams!). Obviously, Neumann (who was a student of Jung, for those not familar) goes into this in much greater depth in his book, but you can really see an evolution here that has been happening for a LONG time that makes a lot of sense of how we view things today and why things, like what I bolded above, probably happened.

Christianity doesn't really stand by itself, by which I mean you can argue there is hardly any unique elements/symbols in it, when coming at it from a comparative mythology standpoint. Perhaps the BIG unique element is the emphasis of the historicity of Jesus. But, if you look back at the Ten Commandments which really is the first major "instilling" of moral development in the whole Judaism/Christian storyline, they had a parallel development over in Babylon where Hammurabi received tablets containing laws from the God Shamash, which arguably predates the Moses story. There are other parallel collection of laws beyond these two, some of which predate Moses story and some that come after. So, all these developments are intertwined. (Campbell even shows how some of the developments taking place going from the Old Testament to the New Testament were also paralleled in the East going from Hinduism to Buddhism, but over there it happened 500 years earlier!)

I think what you have in the West is a strong development of the ego and sense of individuality that has taken place as the "western" patriarchal religions have developed over time, culminating in the Christianity and Islam that we have in the world today. Erich Von Neumann goes into this in depth from a psychological standpoint in his Origins and History of Consciousness. I've long argued this is the explanation for where materialism comes from, as well, which also means materialism has been in the making for 1000s of years and goes well beyond just the usual modern technological interpretation of it, which is a small part of it. (It also means modern-day exoteric western religion is as much a "victim" of materialism as science is!) You could also argue this is where any modern-day nihilism ultimately came from, as the seeds may have been planted a long, long time ago. It's only via a greater sense of ego/individuality, as talked about by Neumann, that enables one to feel separate from and thereby shrug off the "Cosmic Order" mentioned in Nietzsche's ideas above.

Egyptian myths are neat because they contain greater amounts of elements from both the earlier matriarchal myths and the newer patriarchal myths. I still remember reading a book on Osiris by E.A. Wallis Budge. I had to check the cover every now and then to make sure I picked up the right book, because I kept thinking I was reading about Christianity! The point Budge makes is how much the story of Jesus was already pre-figured in the Osiris/Horus myths. This happens enough that some philosophers have said things like Schelling says here:

"In the pagan religions, Christ was implicit; in the Old Testament prophesied; and in the New Testament revealed. Thus, Christianity is innate and as old as the world"

[Paraphrased and totally butchered, I'm sure, but it gets the point across]

So, I guess that is a (very?) long-winded way of saying I have a hard time looking at Christianity in isolation on issues like this. To me, it's like trying to talk about the evolution of a certain species, while ignoring what came before it and the environment it interacted with while developing.
 
Bernardo, I don't think there's always the difference you point to between scripture and ordinary literature. The greatest novelists, poets, and playwrights also manage to make powerful connections with the human psyche. I suppose Shakespeare would be the most prominent example.

Fair enough... Still, I can't help but observe that there are over 1 billion Christians, and probably not as many Shakespeare enthusiasts. The symbol must be simple, immediate, intuitive, accessible, causing immediate resonance.
 
Quite right, thank god for common sense! One also needs to explore what one means by scripture; what particular religious scripture one is referring to; how long it's been around; and how and why it was popularized; which scriptures failed; and are no longer around etc... and consider whether such statements are even valid, perhaps speed of communication reduces duration of interest, and/or literacy improvements; perhaps increasing availability of competing literature, verses pressure on time causes the effect you claim; perhaps early starters gain advantage.

Certainly in the UK, growing up in a non religious household, I had little to no exposure to scripture. During my childhood many of the churches closed down and were turned into DIY centers, congregations are still falling, churches are still closing, and interest seems virtually non-existent in scripture.

Bernardo's assertion might be right, but I can think of a multitude of reasons why he might also be wrong. Even if he's right, it could be for completely different reasons.

I'm not hostile to this. I am open-minded about it.
 
I'm kinda of the opinion that focusing on scripture is not the best idea in the first place. Like Paul says, "the letter kills, but the spirit gives life", or like Shankara said, "Deliverance is not achieved by repeating the word 'Brahman, bit by directly experiencing Brahman". Since, Idealism says everything is in Mind, I think the emphasis should be on the experience itself, not on the written word that is only talking about the experience. I think this is what Bernardo meant by "first-person perspective of mind-at-large". The defense should be focused there, not on any given scripture (which all directly, or indirectly, ultimately reference this perennial experience, anyhow)

The symbol can also take you to the direct experience in a moment of gnosis (Christians would call it 'grace'). That's the via positiva of Dionysius. According to it, you aren't meant to stay stuck in the image, but to look at it like you look at the finger pointing at the moon. You don't get stuck at the finger; the point is to look at the moon. The via negativa (Zen, Advaita, etc.) also points, but not through symbols; they point by elimination; neti neti. Dionysius (whoever he actually was) recognized the ultimate equivalence between the two paths.
 
Last edited:
I don't have the time to develop this as the pub is calling, but the debate is an old one. With the reformation came the abandonment of symbolism, and an identification of the word as a discrete, self-contained signal. The effect was felt beyond religion and at every level of society. Meaning was in harness, and the Enlightenment was its natural inheritor. Understanding was previously a form of grace; it became a logical cul de sac. I like to think of us returning to the unharnessed language of the symbolic, before the fun police set the word in bondage and robbed it of its grace.
Ditto.
 
And why not? Those stories came from part of the source consciousness, thus as valid as any other (according to Bernardo).

If you're saying theology needs a special place for scripture, I'm with you. Under Bernardo's Idealism, either everything is special, or nothing is...

Although, I can see why he is keen to imbue his worldview with some 'meaning'. ;)

Enjoy the pub. I would genuinely love a drink with you...

Yes, Star Wars tapped powerful archetypes, but not the deepest archetype (which Jung called the Self), despite there being a tenuous, rather caricatural link through the idea of the 'Force.' The Self (mind-at-large) is the subject of religious symbolism. Star Wars was pretty good at tapping the archetypal Hero's journey (the whirlpool's little journey), the old-wise-man archetype, the shadow, etc. And Lucas did it on the cheap: he just read Joseph Campbell's books and used them as a template. Campbell had already mapped out the key elements from his study of ancient mythology, including religious mythology. Star Wars was just a re-clothing of ancient 'scripture.' No wonder it was such immediate success.

Will Star Wars still be popular a thousand years from now, you think?
 
Last edited:
Yes, Star Wars tapped powerful archetypes, but not the deepest archetype (which Jung called the Self), despite there being a tenuous, rather caricatural link through the idea of the 'Force.' The Self (mind-at-large) is the subject of religious symbolism. Star Wars was pretty good at tapping the archetypal Hero's journey (the whirlpool's little journey), the old-wise-man archetype, the shadow, etc. And Lucas did it on the cheap: he just read Joseph Campbell's books and used them as a template. Campbell had already mapped out the key elements from his study of ancient mythology, including religious mythology. Star Wars was just a re-clothing of ancient 'scripture.'

Will Star Wars still be popular a thousand years from now, you think?
If a Star Wars type story was passed down through ancient, more primitive times and then was adopted and promoted and enforced as a political tool, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the themes could survive and thrive.

Will we all be Scientologists worshiping the one true Tom in 2000 years? Perhaps... Stranger things appear to have happened.

But my major point is that within Idealism all art and literature has source consciousness as its... well, source. What, within idealism, makes the Bible "special"? Is the Bible "more special" than The Koran, because it's been around longer?

I think you're treading a tricky line because as soon as you raise the Bible above other art, we're right back with Berkley, aren't we?
 
Fair enough... Still, I can't help but observe that there are over 1 billion Christians, and probably not as many Shakespeare enthusiasts. The symbol must be simple, immediate, intuitive, accessible, causing immediate resonance.

I checked, and apparently there are over 2 billion Christians and counting: they're on the rise in China and parts of Africa. I don't know how many Shakespeare enthusiasts there are, but I doubt that many English speakers don't quote Shakespeare, even if they don't realise it, so embedded is it in the language.

In terms of native speakers, English is the third most prevalent after Mandarin and Spanish, but in terms of total number of speakers, it may well be the most widely-spoken in the world; I've seen estimates as high as 1.5 billion. And of course, Shakespeare is also widely known in translation, so all in all there might well be as many people at least aware of Shakespeare as there are Christians. And Shakespeare isn't the only influential writer: Think of Tolstoy, Cervantes, Goethe and many more.

In any case, I didn't claim that literature had more influence than scripture: more that the difference wasn't as marked as you seemed to be indicating in terms of making powerful connections with the human psyche, a point I'm happy to see you think a fair one.

As regards symbology, I'd agree that there are some Christian symbols that can be interpreted in relatively simple ways: but whether or not they're intuitive, I'm not so sure. I had to be taught their meaning. I can remember from my very first day at primary school wondering what the heck all this business about making the sign of the cross was about: it made no sense at all. And then, later in life, I was able to uncover a more sophisticated interpretation of scripture, doctrine and symbol which owes little to literalism. It simply isn't that intuitive or accessible, I don't think.
 
If a Star Wars type story was passed down through ancient, more primitive times and then was adopted and promoted and enforced as a political tool, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the themes could survive and thrive.

Will we all be Scientologists worshiping the one true Tom in 2000 years? Perhaps... Stranger things appear to have happened.

But my major point is that within Idealism all art and literature has source consciousness as its... well, source. What, within idealism, makes the Bible "special"? Is the Bible "more special" than The Koran, because it's been around longer?

I think you're treading a tricky line because as soon as you raise the Bible above other art, we're right back with Berkley, aren't we?

I do see where you're coming from, and the tricky aspects you're sensing. I don't think any writing should be seen as a priori more connected to deeper layers of the psyche than any other. Whether that is the case or not becomes a test of time and 'resonance' with people and cultures. The best known religious scriptures have passed that test, which doesn't preclude anything else from passing that test too, or even from being deeper than religious scripture one second after being created (after all, scripture was also what it was one second after it was created); we may just not know it for sure for a thousand years. That's all I am saying, essentially.
 
Back
Top