Which One: Religion, Philosophy, or Science?

The video was indeed just for an informative bit of fun. I tend to have a reserve of information for either side of a debate I join. The video just happens to be for the opposite side than the one I took.

I'm going to take what looks to be very much a minority view here, and say that religion addresses fundamental human needs that philosophy can address only for a few, and science can address not at all. I don't believe the role of religion in human life is primarily about social control or psychological security, although the role of organized churches often has been. Fundamentalism of various stripes has caused and continues to cause great harm, but religion and fundamentalism are not the same thing.

Hi CS,

Please give us some idea of the fundamental human needs that you believe can only be addressed through religion. (Don’t forget, this discussion deals only with the needs for living the good life – here on earth.)

I agree with you that the great harm wreaked by religion arises from its fundamentalist beliefs, as you say, “of various stripes” (particularly, I would add, the stripes of literal biblicism and belief against all reason). We differ, I guess, in our estimates of the degree to which religion, whether all religion or just Christianity, has these particular stripes.

That is a difficult claim to justify, CS, and I add my plea to Dewey's.If you can do it I will be glad, but I foresee rebuttals.

I would have written more yesterday, but I had a protesting six-month-old to contend with. She didn't feel that her "fundamental human needs" were being served by me debating philosophy on the internet, so I had to make it brief.
Have any of you read "The Mystical Mind: Probing the Neurobiology of Religious Experience" by D'Aquili and Newberg? The authors (both practicing neurobiologists) have this to say:

"Human beings have no choice but to construct myths to explain their world... this constructive orientation is inherent in the obligatory functioning of the neural structures of operators we have described."

D'Aquili and Newberg, in The Mystical Mind, present particular mythic stories as encoded problems, representations of the existential dilemmas of a particular religion or society. These problems, according to D'Aquili and Newberg, are "always presented in antinomous form in the surface structure, that is, in terms of juxtaposed opposites such as life-death, good-evil, or heaven-hell."

Whatever the society perceives as most fundamental, the core problems at the center of its view of the world, are transformed into myths. In the resolution of the mythic story the opposites are unified, incorporated into a transcendent unity. This resolves the dilemma and creates a more fundamental sense of underlying wellbeing. In merely reading or hearing the story, however, the emotional impact of this is limited, so most societies and most religions incorporate the option for more transformative experiences. Through community ritual or mystical practice the mythic structure is acted out, and the resolution of the mythic dilemma is felt much more powerfully.

The problem with fundamentalism is that it takes these mythic stories literally, so that their purpose changes from personal and communal transformation into blind obedience and dogma. But the basic need addressed by myth and religion is still a real one, and will continue to be so. One could argue that the relative weakness of myth in our own culture is the reason for the pervasive anxiety and alienation so many people experience- our core internal dilemmas are not being effectively addressed and resolved in this fashion.

Not being an atheist or an agnostic, I don't think that's all there is to it, but since the topic is living the good life here, that is my argument. I look forward to your responses- my daughter is calling me again!

Hi CS,

Your reply (as well as your baby’s patience) is appreciated.

D’Aquini’s book does indeed seem to provide a basis for your belief that “religion addresses fundamental human needs that philosophy can address only to a few …” But in so doing, it also seems to weaken, or even destroy, your companion claim that science can address those needs “not at all”. The book’ serves your argumennt only to the extent of its scientific soundness.

If, and this is arguable, the book is scientifically sound, mightn’t it be a forerunner to the disappearance of religion as a separate branch of our culture? Wouldn't religion just become a part of science?

Now, I can sit back and learn how wildly mistaken I am. Regards!

CS, don't you think that some myths have outlived their usefulness as elucidations of the human condition? For instance, the Biblical myths about Jesus' miracles are no longer suited to a scientific age and tend to discredit the portrayal by Jesus of the Kingdom of righteousness.

The rituals too need updating. The medieval costumery and decor of traditional churches with their processions, smells and bells are not going to engender any help for suffering humans beyond the superstition of priest-magic.

The most deleterious myth of all that the theistic religions promote is that of Divine Providence. This myth which was good for controlling poverty- stricken common people, and for rationalising the depredations of the rich, is devitalising in its insistence that all will be well . All will not be well , unless we actively change the world to promote continuing life on Earth, and to relieve suffering while we are at it.

Hi Dewey,

You wrote:

>The book’ serves your argument only to the extent of its scientific soundness>

This is true, but I didn't say that science couldn't explain or describe or account for the process by which those needs are addressed- only that it could not itself address them. Unless there is a science that would give you a "spiritual experience," that is- but I'm pretty sure that's outside the purview of science!
I do think it's possible that very private forms of spiritual experience based on artistic rather than religious forms of understanding will replace religion in the lives of many people. In fact, I think this is already happening.
For instance, many fans of Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" comics treat the mythology of that series as a personal mythology, but without "belief" in the conventional sense. Can something like this perform the same function as conventional religion in terms of experiencing a resolution of internal existential problems? Personally, I think it's possible, but I can't present any evidence.

-CS

Hi Belinda,
It depends on how the myths are approached. If you happen to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient deity- something science can neither prove nor disprove- then miracles present no problem regardless of what age you happen to live in. No matter what physical laws are discovered by science, such a deity could disregard them at will. Presumably you do not believe in such a deity, so miracles seem outlandish to you.
However, I do believe that the literal interpretation of myths (which is what I call "fundamentalism") is harmful and should be set aside. Al Ghazali (or one of the other medieval Moslem Aristotleans, I can't quite remember) taught that the allegorical interpretation of scripture was forbidden to the ignorant (since the allegories were beyond them anyway) but that the literal interpretation of scripture was forbidden to intellectuals. I think we've reached the stage as a species where the literal interpretation of myths should be avoided by everyone- although I do believe that there is a spiritual reality beyond what science can account for.
As for the "smells and bells" aspect, the internal experience the church is trying to evoke is created by a whole host of aesthetic elements working in conjunction. Don't assume that because those aesthetic elements don't work for you, that they can't work for others. Many Catholics, for instance, still find the old Latin Mass far more numinous than the modernized version.
Lastly, myth is something that can continuously be reinterpreted if one has the need and the will to do so. Thus the "Liberation Theology" movement among Jesuits in the 70s and 80s, which used Catholic doctrine to argue for revolutionary social change. This was eventually squashed by the Church, but it does show the potential for taking the same scriptures in a different light when that is what is needed.

-CS

Liberation Theology is good. I admire Oscar Romero.

Is there not a danger that numinous experiences are escapist? I am not against escapism, or emotionalism, but how can these pleasures help us to explore and promote better ways to live? I am saying that religions are too conservative and tend to exclude ideas that may disrupt the old ways.Perhaps Buddhism is an exception.

Presumably you do not believe in such a deity, so miracles seem outlandish to you.

Yes, to me. But I was actually being reasonably objective I think. This is a scientific age is it not? Miracles are inconsistent with science because science depends on repeatable, verifiable experiments, and falsification of theories and hypotheses. Miracles can neither be repeated nor falsified, because miracles by definition are not subject to laws or theories.This is why I agree with you that

I think we've reached the stage as a species where the literal interpretation of myths should be avoided by everyone- although

The notion of an omniscient deity helps me to understand what eternity is, in the same way that a thought experiment can be helpful.

although I do believe that there is a spiritual reality beyond what science can account for.

What is 'a spiritual reality'?

Hi CS,

While you and Belinda proceed nicely along in this discussion, I’m stuck back here still trying to understand your claim that religion addresses some fundamental human needs that science cannot “at all” address.

We seem to have identified one of those needs as that of having spiritual experiences. Having such experiences, you say you’are pretty sure of, is outside the purview of science. That led me to think we’re on the way to our goal. We seemed to be pinning down religion as the sole source for one of the things needed to live the good life. But in support of that view you have offered a book describing the strong role of the brain in religious thoughts and tendencies -- including having “spiritual experiences” . The slogan used to launch this book in the popular media is “Are we hardwired to believe in God?. (This suggests a belief that the function of having spiritual experiences evolved in our species as a way to understand the world.)

You have also gone so far as to indicate your agreement with the book’s claim about the human brain being so constructed as to give us no choice but to construct myths.

Now, I'm hung up by your proviso that science itself cannot address these needs we are discussing.

Suppose we agree that, as you say, science itself cannot “address” – meaning “perform” – this function of the brain, To be consistent in our reasoning, I think then we would also have to agree that religion – meaning a set of faith-based beliefs – itself cannot perform the function.

I hope you’re not getting too bored by my slowness to explain some more.

Hi Belinda,

>Is there not a danger that numinous experiences are escapist?>

No, I don't think so. Not unless they are misused. They are not primarily or essentially about "pleasures," and all mainstream mystical literature repeatedly earns against emphasizing that aspect of the experience, which is referred to as "false mysticism". If you believe (as mystics do) that such experiences give access to a higher understanding, then it is the understanding and not any sense of euphoria that is the point of the experience.

>I am saying that religions are too conservative and tend to exclude ideas that may disrupt the old ways>

All institutions do this. Also, if you are presenting what you honestly believe to be an eternal truth, what good could be served by "changing with the times"? I do think that religions need to change over time, but they need to do so in reference to and as part of a dialog with their own traditions, or they'll lose sight of whatever insight justifies their existence in the first place.

>Miracles are inconsistent with science because science depends on repeatable, verifiable experiments, and falsification of theories and hypotheses>

Of course you're correct- and that's why miracles cannot be assessed by science. You either accept them as part of a conscious choice involving a complete commitment to a certain worldview (Kierkegaard has a lot to say about this) or you don't. "Proof" doesn't come into it. So to the extent that we live in an age that only wants to talk about what can be proven, then miracles are not in the spirit of this age. Still, I see a church on every corner, and I'm not quite sure where I'd go to find a scientist in my neighborhood.

<What is 'a spiritual reality'?>

Not something I can readily define!
I personally think in Neoplatonic terms and could speak of it using that language, but I don't think it would much aid our mutual understanding if those aren't the terms you think in. Maybe this will do- think of it in terms of such things as dreams, imagination, vision etc- but with the assumption that such things are to be taken seriously and that they are a window onto the architecture of reality. I'm not saying I can prove any such thing, only that it is a way of looking at the world or a way of living in the world.

Hi Dewey,

>the sole source for one of the things needed to live the good life>

Almost. I'm not actually a member of any religion myself, so I can't quite mean that, or I'd be ruling myself out from living the good life by doing so!

To clarify, I also think that mystical philosophy (such as Neoplatonism) and certain aesthetic experiences (if entered into whole-heartedly) can fulfill the same needs. Both of these things require a type of flexibility and an imaginative spirit that most people aren't very inclined toward, so for those people (who are in the majority) religion is their primary source for this need.

>we would also have to agree that religion – meaning a set of faith-based beliefs – itself cannot perform the function>

If we were to define religion as "a set of faith-based beliefs," then this would be correct.

I would define religion as "a set of actions and experiences related to whatever the members of that religion consider as Absolute Reality, and designed to engage with the world and life in terms of that understanding."

>I hope you’re not getting too bored by my slowness to explain some more.>

Now you're being facetious.

-CS

if you are presenting what you honestly believe to be an eternal truth, what good could be served by "changing with the times"? I do think that religions need to change over time, but they need to do so in reference to and as part of a dialog with their own traditions, or they'll lose sight of whatever insight justifies their existence in the first place.

(CS)

It's a big 'If'.Since many or most Abrahamic religions do present what they as institutions believe to be eternal truth are they guilty of hubris? After all, to believe that the Maker of the universe condescended to reveal eternal truths to some prophet is hubristic isn't it? What part of the Christian myth is it that claims that humans are the centre of the universe, as far as Almighty God is concerned? My final question is not hypothetical ,by the way.

'Whatever insight justifies their existence in the first place' is , as far as Roman Catholic Christianity is concerned that of St Paul's Cosmic Christ. This insight of Paul's , however jusifiable in view of the harsh slave society that existed at the time, is so discontinuous from the this-worldly universalistic message of Jesus and his Kingdom of God that Paul's view is not 'in the first place' but is a new formulation.
As a matter of fact, religions as we know them in the west are crumbling as educational leaders of flocks.There is not a church on every corner in the UK where I live, the Protestant ones that are gaining support look as if they are escapist and emotionalist and non-intellectual to the point of vapidness. One can easily access the work of scientists via the Internet. I am sure that children at school during their IT studies are being trained to sort the reliable Internet sources from the rubbish.Perhaps I have missed your point here.


Can you tell me why it is that university theology teachers know very well , and have known for centuries, that Christianity has changed out of recognition from the early practical, socialist, message of the Sage of Galilee , and yet the flocks are not being kept informed? Why Christian doctrine has elevated beliefs over works?

To justify their existence, religious institutions must change, if indeed they can clean away all the detritus of the centuries, and become practical leaders in an age of extreme danger to life on Earth.

I am not entirely against religion, but it must change away from authoritarian governance based on claims of possessing eternal truth.

CS I accept what you say about numinous experiences and mysticism.

Hi Belinda,

>Since many or most Abrahamic religions do present what they as institutions believe to be eternal truth are they guilty of hubris?>

Arguably, yes. But then perhaps eternal truth of some kind is more readily available than most people believe. Maybe those prophets did have access to something special, but they weren't the only ones. It's not the claims to eternal truth that bother me, but the claims to *exclusive* truth.

>After all, to believe that the Maker of the universe condescended to reveal eternal truths to some prophet is hubristic isn't it?>

Only if it's portrayed as an exclusive revelation. But if such truths are equally available to all of us if we know how to access them, then it's a different story.

>What part of the Christian myth is it that claims that humans are the centre of the universe, as far as Almighty God is concerned?>

That was a theological assumption of an earlier stage in our history, but I'm not sure it's official doctrine for any mainstream church now. Feel free to correct me!
The insights of the Catholic church are multi-layered and have a lot more to offer than the "Cosmic Christ" concept. And yes, many of these insights date to a later period than the original message of Jesus. The Catholics incorporated the insights of Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and others into their doctrines over the centuries. They really have been a lot more flexible than most people realize.

>the this-worldly universalistic message of Jesus and his Kingdom of God>

The Kingdom has to be understood in the context of what was happening at the time. Exactly what Jesus meant by it is not made clear. Most of his fellow Jews seem to have had this expectation of a messianic figure that would lead a violent revolution against Rome. After the failure of the Second Jewish Revolt, we get the gnostic Gospel of Thomas saying that the Kingdom of God is within you, and the mainstream early Christian church saying it will happen at some indeterminate future point.
If I had been in Roman Palestine at that time, I may well have joined the rebels. That's certainly where my sympathies would have been. But their actions were an unmitigated disaster for the Jewish people. To switch to an allegorical interpretation of the Kingdom (as the gnostics did) or to defer it to an unspecified future (as the Catholics did) was about the only option they had left at that point. With Jerusalem in ruins, what other stance could they have taken?

>As a matter of fact, religions as we know them in the west are crumbling as educational leaders of flocks>

In Europe, I'm sure that's true. Here in the US, where I am, they remain quite powerful. At the same time, our "born again" churches don't exactly have what I would call mystical insight...

>non-intellectual to the point of vapidness>

Our "born again" churches are anti-intellectual. Large segments of the society are anti-intellectual. The Catholic church, on the other hand, is and always has been very intellectual- priests are among the most highly educated people out there. The Catholic intellectual tradition is part of what I respect about them, even though I do not share their views.

>Can you tell me why it is that university theology teachers know very well , and have known for centuries, that Christianity has changed out of recognition from the early practical, socialist, message of the Sage of Galilee , and yet the flocks are not being kept informed?>

The information is out there, and readily available. People don't want to know. In the Middle Ages, when many more people were fervently religious, there were many heretical sects that emphasized that core message. The "Spiritual Franciscans," for instance, and the Beguines.

>Why Christian doctrine has elevated beliefs over works?>

Protestant doctrine does- Luther actually altered lines in the Bible to ensure that! Catholic doctrine is more nuanced on the issue. As for the "why," I think it has to do with the psychology of human powerlessness before God- what Otto called the "disvaluation of the creature before the numen."

>it must change away from authoritarian governance based on claims of possessing eternal truth.>

Substituting "exclusive" for "eternal," I would agree with you.