From a purely rational perspective I find these works, and in particular Russell's position, to be difficult, if not impossible, to tear down. I believe this is an interesting question not only because an important charge made by Russell and the New Atheists is utilitarian in that the lay out the damage caused by organized religion in the modern age, but also the inherent conflict this movement has with the fundamental fact that so many people, educated and otherwise, find religion to be such an important part of their lives. These facts lead to all kinds of intellectual conflicts, such as the number of great scientists often acting as "apologists" for organized religion, trying to find any manner of complex argument to rectify science and religion.
One approach that may have some merit is the notion of myth. We can understand myth as at least one important foundation of any modern organized religion. The literal interpretation of ancient gospel, such as the Bible, is easy prey for the likes of Dawkins and Russell. However, as Karen Armstrong points out in The Case For God, this kind of literal interpretation is really a modern phenomena, and I think results in a straw-man attack, leaving out the heart of the matter. Consider the very powerful Christian myth: "Jesus, the son of God, died for your sins." This myth hits at a very emotional level. The emotional impact is very different than the kind of language relevant to a literal interpretation of the Bible attacked by the New Atheists. It resonates instead at a personal level. I don't need to think about distracting details such as why God would have have a mortal human son, or why an all-powerful God would need to impress mankind in this way. From an emotional level this is immaterial. In this context a sacrifice is being made, the ultimate sacrifice open to God and one that as a parent or child I can feel directly, and it is levied directly at me. Consider how different the impact would be if it read: "Jesus, the son of God, died for our sins." This is a personal statement, directly from God to me. It resonates at a personal, emotional level. Rational considerations are not relevant here.
I believe this is the power that myth plays in the context of religion. Taken together, the myths associated with, say, the Bible resonate with fundamental needs and concerns we have as people to understand and get at basic questions we have about who we are, why we're here, what our purpose is, etc. Rationally it very well may be the case that these questions cannot be answered (beyond the answers provided by, say, natural selection.) But at some emotional level it may be possible through myth to satisfy curiosities of this type.
If this is true, an important observation can be made. In the end, it does not matter at all that these myths are based in any rational or factual foundation. Rationality and some kind of consistent historic fact is simply not relevant here. The litmus test for myth to have value here is that at some emotional level these stories resonate with people and as mentioned above provide some satisfaction to these basic, abstract questions. For example, the Native American Sioux have a myth whereby a group of girls are chased by a bear, they pray to the Great Spirit to save them, and the Devil's Tower rises up from the ground saving the girls. When the girls reach the sky they are turned into the constellation Pleiades. Did this really happen? Is this how the stars of Pleiades was actually formed? Does it really matter? This myth allowed the Sioux to relate to the world around them. It brought the distant stars into something they could relate to more directly, at least in an emotional way.
No comments:
Post a Comment