1 edit
Originally posted by sugiezdI really think that they were intended to be taken as gospel (sorry). Look at the power held by the priests in all ancient religions.
St. Nick - relatively modern, different ball game, like the Easter Bunny.
I really didn’t respond to this. My opinion—which entails conjecture—is that originally they were not intended to be taken as gospel. But that feature developed. How early probably varies from culture to culture.
BTW, did the Norse have priests? I think they had oracles (Freya seith stuff).
Originally posted by vistesdExcellent comment, vistesd.
Which 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); ...[text shortened]... l as their willingness to explain and educate, which is what prevents a scientific “priesthood.”
I'm not sure about your retrospective conclusion, though. I think a little illusion in a child can help develop some skills by stimulating imagination and that careless and pure appreciation of life that we almost only find in children.
And did you really learn that link with authority when you found out or later when you watched it as a third party (or even as the parent)?
Originally posted by PalynkaThat’s a good thought, too. As long as we recognize that life is not strictly rational, but aesthetic as well, fostering the ability to fantasize, etc. is helpful. (For some people—Einstein, perhaps?—the rational/critical and the aesthetic seem more closely entwined than for others.)
Excellent comment, vistesd.
I'm not sure about your retrospective conclusion, though. I think a little illusion in a child can help develop some skills by stimulating imagination and that careless and pure appreciation of life that we almost only find in children.
And did you really learn that link with authority when you found out or later when you watched it as a third party (or even as the parent)?
No, I didn’t learn that link at the time; it’s more as if a seed was sewn in that disappointment, that came to some fruition much later. (I still have either the skill or the debility to suspend disbelief easily; when I’m aware that that is what I’m doing—at a movie for example—I view it as a skill.)
I think that imagination and fantasy and some open-ended hermeneutics, along with whatever other faculties that we use to weave a sense of meaning for our lives, in a universe that discloses facts, phenomena and patterns but not meaning—are perfectly valid, so long as we keep that “ironic distance” that keeps our aesthetics from overwhelming our reason., or vice versa.
This is crassly simplistic, but if we could treat religious faith (of whatever particular stream, so long as it’s expression is socially benign in other ways) simply as Beethoven’s Ninth symphony (which I cannot listen to as “background music,” because it moves me sufficiently that I must give it my whole attention), then a lot of arguments (as well as religious fundamentalism and extremism) would be dissolved. (Which is precisely what the Sufi master Hazrat Inayat Kahn recommended.) Do I think that’s likely to happen? No. Can I accomplish it in my own life? That is the testable hypothesis...
BTW, I am now consuming glass after glass of my wife’s home-made, dry-as-a-bone strawberry wine to try to get to a point where I can get some sleep... Apologies for any incoherency that results therefrom.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHave you read the piece yourself?
Educate yourself:
http://www.biopark.org/peru/shamanism-priesthood.html
It simply defines the shaman as having natural power and the priest as learning (in a very verbose manner).
Says nothing about the respect and thus control they both would have had.
There - I feel educated now - your turn.
I agree with you to a point, speaking as a former athiest, then a catholic at the age of 26, then losing fatih in both aithiest and catholic belifs. I learned that taking one day at time, and not looking for guidance to a place or person or belife that you really don't understand to the full extent! defeats the whole purpose. try being yourself, and follow your instincts, watch how fast life comes more clear, than taking in what someone teaches you! Now I'm not sure if that is a "Sin" according to other's but so far, I've been lucky. the only thing I truly belive and not fully understand is tat God does excist! I know that sounds contrdicting, but it makes sense to me tim-obryan@hotmail.com
Originally posted by ObryanI'm interested in your story - atheist to catholic to something else?
I agree with you to a point, speaking as a former athiest, then a catholic at the age of 26, then losing fatih in both aithiest and catholic belifs. I learned that taking one day at time, and not looking for guidance to a place or person or belife that you really don't understand to the full extent! defeats the whole purpose. try being yourself, and follow ...[text shortened]... t! I know that sounds contrdicting, but it makes sense to me tim-obryan@hotmail.com
I became an atheist for the exact reason you describe - not looking for guidance in any other place or person. In fact, that's how I define my atheism - I'm it.
I don't mean this in any solipsistic way, but rather that I'm in charge of my life. I get to control what I think and feel and believe. Now obviously that doesn't take into account the enormous range of interactions I have with the people around me - family, friends, colleagues, and so on. They just add to the mix I guess.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think a lot of this discussion is missing the key point.
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.
We analyse the past from our own position here in 2006 - from our own world view and framework of the modern age.
And the modern age is one - like it or not, agree with it or not - which is dominated by the rational, the secular, the scientific.
So, when we view past beliefs and myths and stories, we do it from our perspective. What are stories? What are myths? we ask ourselves and then we answer based on how we see the world.
People from the past didn't live in our world. Their lives weren't based on the very clear dichotomy of science/fact/truth versus fiction/myth/false. So to discuss their viewpoints from the perspective of our own is continuing the problem that the literal interpretations of biblical texts begins.
And it's a problem that creates the groundwork for the disaffection in many parts of the world, including amongst us in the west, with the secular and the modern.
It fuels the rise of religiosity, of faith in politics, and of religious inspired terrorism.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomNo you misunderstand me.
thats completely wrong, they were fascinated with that stuff.
What I'm saying is, they didn't separate their lives into truth/fact and fiction/myth as we do, giving extra credence to truth and downplaying the importance of myth. Their world incorporated both as equal partners.
So, you're right.
They were fascinated by it.
Originally posted by amannionoh. oops lol
No you misunderstand me.
What I'm saying is, they didn't separate their lives into truth/fact and fiction/myth as we do, giving extra credence to truth and downplaying the importance of myth. Their world incorporated both as equal partners.
So, you're right.
They were fascinated by it.
Originally posted by ObryanWhat are these "beliefs" an atheist supposedly has that you "lost faith" in?
I agree with you to a point, speaking as a former athiest, then a catholic at the age of 26, then losing fatih in both aithiest and catholic belifs. I learned that taking one day at time, and not looking for guidance to a place or person or belife that you really don't understand to the full extent! defeats the whole purpose. try being yourself, and follow ...[text shortened]... t! I know that sounds contrdicting, but it makes sense to me tim-obryan@hotmail.com