Originally posted by vistesdQuite.
[b]The notion that these were allegories is modern.
Allegory, per se—you might be right. I’ll do some research on the history of allegory as a genre.
THEY intended them to be taken literally.
What evidence do you have? I think its far more complex than that. They likely believed that the sun revolved around the earth, for example, and ...[text shortened]... d that no second-century CE Christian writer interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures literally.[/b]
I stand to be corrected but the OT is in exactly the same category as the Norse myths which were taken VERY seriously.
2 edits
Originally posted by sugiezdI do think that all the old myths/religions were taken very seriously, qua myth/religion. And, not only was some of it “histo-myth,” there is undoubtedly some of what was their version of “natural science” mixed in, too—I’m not denying that. But I think that to not see myth, symbolism, metaphor, allegory as deliberately written into, say, Genesis or Exodus, is to ignore their literary form (and literary criticism).
Quite.
I stand to be corrected but the OT is in exactly the same category as the Norse myths which were taken VERY seriously.
I don’t doubt that the Norse believed in the supernatural realm and gods. Did they believe there had actually been dwarves, giants an elves (I don’t recall much being said about the elves, except for reference to alfheim)?* Perhaps. Did they believe that the first man was licked out of the ice by a primordial cow? (I’m operating on little sleep at the moment, and memory, so forgive me if I don’t get the details right.) Did they really believe that the earth was encircled by the midgard serpent? Did they think that Yggdrasil was an actual tree?
At some point, it seems unlikely that they were not using metaphor—and allegory, understood as extended metaphor. Otherwise, it is not their knowledge that we are questioning, and not even just their credulity—but their actual ability to think.
Twhitehead has a point: among the Norse, say, there was undoubtedly a statistical distribution of intelligences not unlike our own. There would’ve been people who were totally credulous, and those who were weren’t. At some point in the development (which we do not know), the myths are complex enough that I would think that the authors/redactors were pretty intelligent.
Just as a side-note, Nietzsche’s take on at least the Judeo-Christian myths was that those who knew what they were about formed the priesthood (somewhere in the cultural progression) part of whose power and authority came from fostering credulity among “the believers.”
You can see that my mind is starting to wander, so I need to get some sleep...
* One of the problems with the Norse/Germanic tradition is that a lot of knowledge of it did not survive the coming of Christendom. Large parts of the Germanic tradition have to be derived from the Norse, which was largely saved by Snorri Sturulson.
EDIT: I put them in the same category, too—despite issues such as the development of monotheism versus polytheism, etc. That’s because I tend to follow Campbell in seeing the same basic psychological motifs, even if they are interpreted and rendered in radically different ways (African polytheism, for example, and maybe the Celtic, seem to retain more of an animistic view, which seems to have faded in what we have of the Norse myths). That psychological analysis is, of course, looking back from a modern perspective.
Originally posted by vistesdInteresting comments.
I do think that all the old myths/religions were taken very seriously, qua myth/religion. And, not only was some of it “histo-myth,” there is undoubtedly some of what was their version of “natural science” mixed in, too—I’m not denying that. But I think that to not see myth, symbolism, metaphor, allegory as deliberately written into, say, Gen ...[text shortened]... ermanic tradition has to be derived from the Norse, which was largely saved by Snorri Sturulson.
Certainly you're right about the spread of intelligence - no different from today in terms of the inate aspect.
Without wanting to get into the old nature v. nurture argument, you must concede that they didn't have the knowledge to critically evaluate the crap they were being fed. Alos, the old god-shaped vacuum probably had more sucking power.
I really think that they were intended to be taken as gospel (sorry). Look at the power held by the priests in all ancient religions.
Originally posted by sugiezdThey were hardly all the same. In the Roman Empire, for example, the Emperor usurped most of the functions of the priesthood.
Look at the power held by the priests in all ancient religions.
What about religions without priests? Your views here seem quite--fundamentalist...
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePlease give a few examples of religion without priests.
They were hardly all the same. In the Roman Empire, for example, the Emperor usurped most of the functions of the priesthood.
What about religions without priests? Your views here seem quite--fundamentalist...
Originally posted by sugiezdI think that many stories for example "The world is on the back of a giant turtle." originated from someone who did not believe that to be the case but realized that a flat world must stand on something. Sometimes is can even be an explanation given to children who ask too many questions or to other adults to avoid looking ignorant. It is quite common for religious leaders in a community setting to want to seem wise and all-knowing and they will always have an answer to everything, if they don't know the answer then they talk in riddles or just make something up. (Do you think Jesus ever said "Don't ask me that" or "I don't know".)
Interesting comments.
Certainly you're right about the spread of intelligence - no different from today in terms of the inate aspect.
Without wanting to get into the old nature v. nurture argument, you must concede that they didn't have the knowledge to critically evaluate the crap they were being fed. Alos, the old god-shaped vacuum probably had more ...[text shortened]... to be taken as gospel (sorry). Look at the power held by the priests in all ancient religions.
Originally posted by sugiezdAlos, the old god-shaped vacuum probably had more sucking power.
Interesting comments.
Certainly you're right about the spread of intelligence - no different from today in terms of the inate aspect.
Without wanting to get into the old nature v. nurture argument, you must concede that they didn't have the knowledge to critically evaluate the crap they were being fed. Alos, the old god-shaped vacuum probably had more ...[text shortened]... to be taken as gospel (sorry). Look at the power held by the priests in all ancient religions.
LOL!! I’m glad I didn’t toddle off just yet. That gets a rec, for a good-humored laugh.
In a sense—and I’m just thinking “out loud”—I might conjecture that their whole attitude was generally more “aesthetic” than rational/critical. (Hope I got enough qualifiers in that sentence.) Most of them didn’t have the knowledge to do any kind of “structural” analysis of myths across cultures, for example. One can’t adopt a critical stance toward what one simply does not know. Numbers were once treated symbolically (and there are “number puns” in the Hebrew scriptures), and the Pythagoreans still had a number mysticism. We don’t. Supernatural explanations are discarded precisely when perfectly natural explanations are discovered (though they may die hard).
For myself, I’m not even convinced we can get at some kind of noumenal thing-in-itself behind the phenomena—let alone leap to a supernatural category. Even in a Zen-type clear (pre-conceptual) awareness, our neuro-biological processes are still “translating” sensory data into image and form. Science takes us beyond our everyday perceptions, but there still may be limits to our cognitive capabilities (though we certainly shouldn’t impose a priori limits). Even if there is always mystery because some aspects of the cosmos transcend our cognitive abilities, that would be no reason to leap into the supernatural.
Further, if what the cosmos discloses to us are facts and phenomena and patterns, but not meaning (which I think is the case), we will continue to use our aesthetic as well as our interpretive faculties to compose meaning (individually, culturally). And myth, broadly defined, is one way to do that. But we ought not allow our aesthetics to override our reason, and begin to believe that what we compose is something else.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhich raises another point: we are more credulous when we have to rely on an authority figure to tell us what’s what—such as our parents when we were young children. At some age, we couldn’t know whether or not there was, or could be, a Father Christmas. So we simply accepted what our parents told us (for those of us who were told there was a Santa Claus); after all, there’s the present, there’s what’s left of the carrot we set out for the reindeer.
Do you think that the Myth of Father Christmas was ever meant to be taken seriously and was it ever believed by adults? Why not? How does it differ from other myths that you claim were once taken as fact.
My parents didn’t believe in Santa Claus, but I did. And then I grew up in a culture that was thoroughly Christian, and that was simply a larger and more complex myth, that even allowed for some use of critical faculties—scriptural criticism and hermeneutics, theological speculation. (Rabbinical Judaism is perhaps an even larger mythos, in which critical thinking is de rigueur—so long as one remain within the paradigm—and hermeneutics is virtually endless.)
In retrospect, I thank my parents for the Santa Claus deceit, because that was a powerful lesson in credulity based on authority, albeit a painful one, when it collapsed.
We still have to accept some things on authority—I’m not a scientist, so I have to trust those who are, and the self-critical features of the scientific method. As well as their willingness to explain and educate, which is what prevents a scientific “priesthood.”
Originally posted by twhiteheadSt. Nick - relatively modern, different ball game, like the Easter Bunny.
Do you think that the Myth of Father Christmas was ever meant to be taken seriously and was it ever believed by adults? Why not? How does it differ from other myths that you claim were once taken as fact.