Re-discovering religion

[Pointedstick]

Are the Greek myths true?

What about Norse myths?

Does it matter? If Achilles and Loki are purely fictional, does that somehow diminish the power of their stories?

These mythological religious traditions' stories are still told today because their characters represent classic, universally appealing archetypes: hero, king, trickster, rogue, wizard, and so on. These archetypes reflect aspects of our own personalities--courage, compassion, leadership, cleverness. In this respect, they are no different from modern non-religious stories. For example, Clint Eastwood's character Dirty Harry reflects the archetypes of rogue and hero at the same time. This combination appeals to people whose senses of courage and justice are bottled-up and infrequently expressed.

People are intrinsically drawn to stories with characters that strongly express classic archetypes, and all cultures have produced such stories. Prior to the modern age, most of these stories were religious and mythological, refined over millennia to increase their appeal and power. But today we swim in a wide sea of shallow stories, and our modern understanding of science and the natural world allows us to deflate the power of any story we choose by applying rational analysis to its fanciful, unrealistic elements.


-------------------------------------------------------------------


Priory to modernity, most people practiced Religion 1.0. In Religion 1.0, you believe that your religion's teachings are literally true: forest spirits oversee and influence everything; God created the world in 6 days; the ancestors demand animal sacrifice; bad karma will get you reincarnated as a mosquito; and so on. Your belief gives you power. It makes you feel contented and centered. It gives you pre-recorded narratives to call upon in challenging situations. It allows you to externalize mental problems. It provides powerful or morally positive role models to aspire to. It helps you contextualize yourself in the world.

But science proves that forest spirits don't exist, that the Earth is billions of years old, that animal sacrifices are a waste of good meat, and that when you're dead, you're dead. Modernity makes it obvious that our own religious traditions are just as fictional as ancient Greek or Norse myths, so we lose the ability to authentically participate in Religion 1.0. This presents us with a difficult choice: throw Religion 1.0 away entirely, keep it and deny science, or try to reconcile the two.

Throwing Religion 1.0 away means losing that religious power. You are cut off from spiritually powerful archetypes and must scavenge for them in the charnel ground of mass media or among the flawed humans around you. You frequently feel alone and unmoored. You engage in a lot of unhealthy pleasure-seeking behavior. Downtime becomes uncomfortable. And you lose access to religious communities and perks. Life becomes a series of increasingly elaborate distractions and rationalizations.

Denying science looks ridiculous, and people who try suffer from tension and cognitive dissonance, because becoming modern is like eating the fruit of the tree of good and evil. It cannot be un-eaten, just as modern knowledge cannot be un-known. The heart may want to deny science to preserve the ignorant bliss of Religion 1.0, but the head knows that it is impossible because science successfully underpins 100% of modern society. The only way to make it work is with force--either mental force, inside the mind, or physical force, to destroy the contradictions in the real world. This risks destroying modern society itself.

But reconciling Religion 1.0 with science also looks ridiculous. Religions are pre-scientific; the two are not compatible. Attempting to force them together requires favoring science where the two contradict, and selectively removing anything controversial. Such watered-down religions are bland and indistinct blobs of metaphor that explain nothing, their power and appeal drained away.


-------------------------------------------------------------------


I feel like there's a way out: in Religion 2.0, you don't literally believe the truth of the stories, but you acknowledge and access their spiritual power. This is what I now realize MediumTex was doing every time he would describe his journey back to Christianity. In Religion 2.0, it doesn't matter whether or not Jesus rose from the dead; what matters is his intense personification of the King and Healer archetypes. People flocked for miles to be led by him, to be healed by him. His generative leadership attracted millions. It was so strong that after he was gone, people created a new religion worshiping him and drove it to become the most popular religion in the world. Christians can access those King and Healer powers within themselves--in an unconscious manner in Religion 1.0, or consciously with Religion 2.0.

With Religion 2.0, you separate out the functions of explaining the world and explaining ourselves and our feelings. Science explains the world better, so you use science for that. But religion gives it meaning, power, and significance better, and still provides universally accessible positive archetypes to draw upon in our own personal lives. It does this much better than anything else in modern society, which is why people who turn to pop culture and politics for their sources of meaning and aspirational role models seem so unmoored and unsatisfied.

And for the first time in my life, I'm finding Christianity to be appealing. Jesus Christ is an immensely attractive and admirable figure to me, quite apart from whether any of his miracles actually ever happened. His King and Healer energies are intoxicating, which makes sense to me personally since those are the parts of myself that are the most underdeveloped. Other religions emphasize different archetypes, and they're all fascinating in different ways.


For people interested in these ideas and themes, I recommend the following for further reading:

https://www.amazon.com/King-Warrior-Mag ... 0062506064

https://meaningness.com/choiceless-mode

https://meaningness.com/systems-crisis-breakdown

https://vividness.live/2015/10/12/devel ... ompetence/

https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/b ... e-a-state/


P.S. what are our culture's modern myths? I believe the answer is superhero stories. See how they depict strongly archetypal characters and are continually re-told, refined, and iterated over. And they are enormously popular--almost universally so outside of the upper middle-class. They are our culture's attempt to build secular myths to replace the religious ones we're losing.

[farjean2]

P.S. what are our culture's modern myths? I believe the answer is superhero stories. See how they depict strongly archetypal characters and are continually re-told, refined, and iterated over. And they are enormously popular--almost universally so outside of the upper middle-class. They are our culture's attempt to build secular myths to replace the religious ones we're losing.

I never liked superhero stories. When I had to take my daughter to the Harry Potter movies I always rooted for the snake to eat him.

Finally saw a superhero movie I enjoyed the other day. It had all the usual archetypes you are talking about but also much more .....

[Mountaineer]

She has most of the essentials. Nice sword and shield.

From Ephesians 6:
The Whole Armor of God
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. 16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; 17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, 18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.

[Greg]

With Religion 2.0, you separate out the functions of explaining the world and explaining ourselves and our feelings. Science explains the world better, so you use science for that.

I very much agree with the quote above. A religious text is not necessarily meant to also be a scientific text. I read this article (reasonably short) that helped me out with this:

https://cccdiscover.com/5-misconception ... ign=buffer

"1. Old Testament history is full of inaccuracies and missing information.

The ancient world did history differently than the modern world does. Modern history is focused on reporting all the information and data, like taking a picture of an event in sharp focus. However, the ancient writers of the Bible reported events and details for the specific purpose of telling God’s redemptive plan. This does not make their history false, but it does mean that they do not report with scientific accuracy or precision. Their history is much more like a painting than a photograph, with events and details given to drive home a theological point."

and

"3. The Old Testament is inaccurate about the natural world, therefore it is unreliable.

The descriptions of the natural world in the Old Testament represent the views and understanding of the people of the time. Because the Bible ultimately claims God as its author, some assume it should reflect God’s own understanding of reality. This assumption misunderstands how God chose to communicate. God inspires human authors to write and condescends to their understanding of the world so that his message is clear. Like an adult who speaks to a child in simplified terms according to what the child can understand, the Bible speaks in the language of the time it was written. The Bible is not meant to be a scientific textbook, so it should not be read as one."

[Mark Leavy]

A wonderful and serious post, PS. I very much enjoyed it.

We may have passed on the road, traveling from different starting points.

Do you read much of N. Nassim Taleb? He is one of the few minds that I've run across that match your caliber. Math, philosophy, finance, anatomy, language and culture - and yet he still retains a strong affinity to his Lebanese (Ottoman) Christian family roots. I very much appreciate the argument that religion has much to offer. (Yes, Desert, I do)

Speaking of archetypes and religion.

"I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwDmV1KWrKQ

[farjean2]

She has most of the essentials. Nice sword and shield.

From Ephesians 6:
The Whole Armor of God
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. 16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; 17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, 18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.

Yes, indeed. I thought of those scriptures every time Wonder Woman came on the screen but try as I might I couldn't find the breastplate.

[Mountaineer]

She has most of the essentials. Nice sword and shield.

From Ephesians 6:
The Whole Armor of God
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. 16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; 17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, 18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.

Yes, indeed. I thought of those scriptures every time Wonder Woman came on the screen but try as I might I couldn't find the breastplate.

Perhaps you were mesmerized by the bowls so much that you missed the plates.

[Greg]

Back in R0.0, I disliked most of Christianity, but somehow still liked Jesus and the Solomonic book of Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes describes 21st century modern life quite accurately despite its age. It's a very honest description of our lives on earth; I think it's a book that should be appreciated by atheists perhaps even more than Christians.

2nd'ed to the recommendation of Ecclesiastes. It very much appeals to my nihilistic side but has a positive note of "nothing matters, but God" in my eyes.

[farjean2]

Although it is a fringe group right now, there are lots of folks on the internet promoting the idea that Jesus is an entirely mythical character. Although I don't believe he was the Son of God, I tend to believe there was a real historical person behind the gospel stories for no other reason than the discrepancies. Mark, the first gospel writer, has no birth narrative but has him living in Nazareth and when he started his ministry his family, including his mother, thought he had gone nuts. Along came Matthew and Luke to the rescue providing widely different birth narratives that can't be reconciled, declaring him to be the Son of God and jumping through implausible hoops to get him born in Bethlehem to fulfill the Messianic prophesy. If there wasn't some real person behind the story, why would they even need to do that?

Having said that, I used to think the "mythicists" as they call them were in the same category as conspiracy theorists not to be taken seriously but after reading some of the literature I'm starting to think the theory isn't as implausible as you might think. When you start looking at the data you will see that early Christianity falls into a black hole as far as the historical record goes. Basically, apart from the New Testament itself, there is no historical record. Mark, the earliest gospel was written nearly a generation after the supposed events and by the time we get to the the last gospel, John, we have Jesus making statements about his own divinity that were never noted in any of the earlier gospels. I smell a growing legend myself - so how much of it do we really know is true?

But the question P.S. seems to be asking is does this even matter? For me, it does. It's like still believing in Santa Claus after you learn the truth. There are others who still hold onto some sort of mystical Jesus however, even though they don't take the stories literally. One is John Shelby Spong who doesn't seem to believe in much of anything, even God, but calls himself a follower of Jesus. P.S., you might want to read some of his books. I tried myself a little while ago but couldn't get through it because I can't, for the life of me, figure out what it is he really believes. That may just be a failing on my part however.

[Pointedstick]

But the question P.S. seems to be asking is does this even matter? For me, it does. It's like still believing in Santa Claus after you learn the truth.

Does it make Star Wars less magical to know that Han Solo is just actor Harrison Ford portraying a fictional character that he didn't really like all that much?

I'm saying that stories have power, even if we understand that they're just stories. And that religions feature the oldest and most finely honed stories our civilizations have to offer.

[farjean2]

I'm saying that stories have power, even if we understand that they're just stories. And that religions feature the oldest and most finely honed stories our civilizations have to offer.

Hard to disagree with that. Only bothers me when the stories are powerful enough and taken literally enough to cause men to fly planes into buildings and other such things.

[Pointedstick]

I'm saying that stories have power, even if we understand that they're just stories. And that religions feature the oldest and most finely honed stories our civilizations have to offer.

Hard to disagree with that. Only bothers me when the stories are powerful enough and taken literally enough to cause men to fly planes into buildings and other such things.

Indeed. Today's religious fundamentalism is a reaction to the legitimate threat that science poses to Religion 1.0.

Of course, the 9/11 hijackers acted with a geopolitical motivation, not a religious one.

[farjean2]

I understand that concern. One "comfort" may be that atheism has resulted in far more deaths than religion. Of course both should be examined.

I've heard that many times but I'm hard pressed to think of any instance where people were killed in the name of atheism.

[Tyler]

I've heard that many times but I'm hard pressed to think of any instance where people were killed in the name of atheism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuti ... viet_Union

[farjean2]

Of course, the 9/11 hijackers acted with a geopolitical motivation, not a religious one.

Nobody survived to tell about it but I'd be willing to bet the hijackers yelled "Alahu Akbar" as the planes were hitting.

[Pointedstick]

Of course, the 9/11 hijackers acted with a geopolitical motivation, not a religious one.

Nobody survived to tell about it but I'd be willing to bet the hijackers yelled "Alahu Akbar" as the planes were hitting.

Sure--those were the dummies on the front lines. The guy who organized it though; what was his motivation? He wanted to get the USA to close its military bases in Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries (how well did that work out...?).

I think the real problem is how easily charismatic leaders can twist a yearning for Religion 1.0 into willingness to die for a cause that is not only secular in nature, but also happens to benefit the leader and not the footsoldiers.

[Pointedstick]

By the way Desert and Greg, Ecclesiastes is blowing my mind right now. There truly is nothing new under the sun.

[Greg]

By the way Desert and Greg, Ecclesiastes is blowing my mind right now. There truly is nothing new under the sun.

*Thumbs up*. Technology keeps on improving, but strip that away and we're still just humans who desire pretty basic things: land, power, material goods, sexual partnerships, etc. Couple thousand years doesn't seem to change much of that.

[Mountaineer]

By the way Desert and Greg, Ecclesiastes is blowing my mind right now. There truly is nothing new under the sun.

cool! Some people find it depressing, but I actually find it encouraging and almost comforting!

+1