---thanks for the excellent campbell quotes dave.
this one kinda nails it i reckon:
'Therefore God and the gods are only convenient means
- *themselves of the nature of the world of
names and forms*, though eloquent of, and ultimately
conducive to, the ineffable.
They are mere symbols to move and awaken the mind, and
to call it past themselves.
...'For,' as Jesus states it, 'behold, the kingdom of
God is within
you.'
the reality of 'god' as an idea, an abstraction, a
symbol is something that is beyond doubt. it is
culturally universal. what it refers to, or as
campbell beautifully puts it, 'is eloquent of', is the
mystery itself: the ground of being etc etc.
therefore to say 'i don't believe in god' is akin to
saying 'i don't believe in 'pi', or 'zero' or, to try
another tack, 'love'. all these things are
abstractions that point beyond themselves. pi is a
numerically indeterminate marker of the relationship
between a circle and its radius. zero.....well it sure
don't refer to any object. love... well love is simply
indefinable, the word points beyond itself to an
experience of ego dissolution.
to clarify, 'god' is A CONCEPT. you can't believe or
disbelieve it, it just is. you can interpret it, play
with it, expand or ignore it but you can't make it
disappear by not believing in it. this is just plain
absurd.
on the other hand 'to believe in god' is a problematic
state also, as you pointed out. one does not *believe*
in love, pi or zero, one understands them, love
experientially, pi and zero through abstract thought;
there is no need to believe in god either. again this
position is simply absurd.
symbols are *extra-lingual referents*. by that i mean
they cannot be reduced satisfactorily to a literal
explanation...otherwise what use the symbol? the
symbol is a bridge between the conscious and
unconscious - the light and dark, the reflective and
the existential.
so what is the best way to approach the concept of
god? well obviously *the concept* exists! that is
first.
secondly the concept is *symbolic* - ie is to be
interpreted mythologically, not literally. this takes
us out of right/wrong, true/false territory. myth is
the territory of complementarity.
i see you are making a distinction between atheism and
anti-theism. this is fine as long as it is clear that
anti-theism implies anti-atheism also. this should be
obvious as 'atheism' cannot exist without the concept
'theism'.
and hopefully we are moving a little closer to seeing
the illusory nature of the religion- science quarrel.
as with all dilemmas they simply *dissolve*. etymology
gives the nature of the *solution* away.
you know i am trying to think what use beliefs are? i
guess one use is when they are shared. they are
creations that differentiate one group from another
and cohere the members within groups.
it is clear that beliefs are always partial. they
create conflict: to believe one thing is to not
believe another, always. beliefs divide. the word
itself is derived from 'belie': to give a false notion
of. all beliefs are false, or if you like, contain a
lie.
you know i think there is a lot to be said for
philology. seemed to inspire nietzsche for starters.
cheers
gav
_________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all
webmail accounts.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
