Religion and contradictions.

@neologist,

Quote:

the phrase "better union"?

I suppose technically he ought to have written "more nearly perfect union"

0 Replies

I remember reading Joseph Campbell and his saying, "All religions are true in that they are metaphoric of the cosmic mystery, but if you get stuck to the metaphor, then you're in trouble." Metaphor is the only way to discuss religion, and to "get stuck to the metaphor", I assume is meant, taking the metaphor literally. Now, this is what most religious institutions do and the problem is that with widespread public education, especially in the science fields, the religious metaphors are contradictory if taken literally. Obviously, just as poetic metaphors are absurd if taken literally.

Religion is subjective, just as the perception of music is subjective. One can analyse music and break down its components into various parts, harmony, melody and counterpoint, et. al., but its not music until you finally shut up and listen to it, the subjective experience. Likewise religion.

Campbell liked to quote another philosopher when he said that the best things can't be told because they transcend the mind [experience]; the second best things refer to that first thing and are always misunderstood; the third best is everything else. Religions usually dwell on the second best thing, and it's no wonder they're misunderstood.

2 Replies

@coluber2001,

Thanks coluber. That was a good post!

It is perhaps true that we see contradictions only when we take the metaphors literally. It is my impression, at least.

I agree that religion is subjective. To use the language of your quote, religion is the individual experience of the cosmic mystery. To speak of it, or to in any way bring this experience into the realm of language deconstructs it, and it is no longer religion. It becomes the second best thing, as you put it.

But this is true of anything.
One second worth of experience can take hours to relate with words, and even then you will be leaving a lot to the imagination of your audience. And after all those hours you might still feel that you failed to capture the brilliance of that single moment despite all your words.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Thanks coluber. That was a good post!

It is perhaps true that we see contradictions only when we take the metaphors literally. It is my impression, at least.

I agree that religion is subjective. To use the language of your quote, religion is the individual experience of the cosmic mystery. To speak of it, or to in any way bring this experience into the realm of language deconstructs it, and it is no longer religion. It becomes the second best thing, as you put it.

But this is true of anything.
One second worth of experience can take hours to relate with words, and even then you will be leaving a lot to the imagination of your audience. And after all those hours you might still feel that you failed to capture the brilliance of that single moment despite all your words.

Unfortunately, sometimes it is difficult not to take "religious metaphors" the way many take them.

Here are two:

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.”
Leviticus 20-13

That is a teaching of the god of the Bible. How can one deal with this "metaphor" in any kind of realistic way without concluding that the god is so offended by homosexual activity...that he dictates the most severe of punishments?

Here is another:

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you BUY them from among the neighboring nations. You may also BUY them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves YOU MAY OWN AS CHATTELS, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, MAKING THEM PERPETUAL SLAVES. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen."
Leviticus 25:44ff

How can one interpret this "metaphor" except to mean that the god sees nothing wrong with the ownership of one human by another?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Yes, and it speaks poorly of the religion containing them. As I see it these are not religious statements (re: homosexuality and slavery). They are social policy statements even though they are in the Bible.
I like to think that true religion (re-ligare) with its "mystical" focus on the unity of everything (of us and our world) and its realization of the falsity of dualistic perceptions of reality has no problem with contradiction. No problem at all. "Contradiction" pertains to the perversity of mutually opposed distinctions. Religious "paradox" pertains to their nondualistic complementarity.

Yes, excellent posts Coluber and Cyracuz.

1 Reply

@coluber2001,

Nice post Coluber.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

That's a good reason why anything anyone says about religion and god should not be trusted blindly.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Yes, and it speaks poorly of the religion containing them. As I see it these are not religious statements (re: homosexuality and slavery). They are social policy statements even though they are in the Bible.
I like to think that true religion (re-ligare) with its "mystical" focus on the unity of everything (of us and our world) and its realization of the falsity of dualistic perceptions of reality has no problem with contradiction. No problem at all. "Contradiction" pertains to the perversity of mutually opposed distinctions. Religious "paradox" pertains to their nondualistic complementarity.

Yes, excellent posts Coluber and Cyracuz.

So...you are still certain that you KNOW the true nature of REALITY.

Can't you shake that, JL?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

That's a good reason why anything anyone says about religion and god should not be trusted blindly.

Agreed!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

With the exception of people who say, "I really do not know...and prefer not to guess"...of course.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

It is easy to find contradictions in other people's religion. Can you find the contradictions in your own?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

In a sense, everyone knows the true nature of reality. We know it intimately, because we are it. But the knowing is lost in the telling.

If you didn't know the true nature of reality, Frank, how would you be able to know that any explanation or belief about the true nature of reality was false?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

JL made the distinction between contradictions and paradoxes. Perhaps we find contradictions in things we don't sympathize with, and paradoxes in things we do? A contradiction is a bad thing. A logical error. A paradox on the other hand- That's mystical and profound.

I don't fancy myself of any particular brand of religion, so I have no scripture to search for contradictions. But if I were to try to explain my beliefs, I do not doubt that there would be both paradoxes and contradictions enough to fill three religions. But these contradictions and paradoxes arise when we dress our thoughts in words, which is why I don't feel any kind of need to explain my beliefs to people who believe a version of something similar, only expressed completely differently.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

In a sense, everyone knows the true nature of reality. We know it intimately, because we are it. But the knowing is lost in the telling.

If you didn't know the true nature of reality, Frank, how would you be able to know that any explanation or belief about the true nature of reality was false?

I disagree with you on this, Cyracuz...and have been through my reasons many times.

I have never said your beliefs are false. They MAY BE absolutely right on the button. I have said that dozens upon dozens of times.

But you are claiming to KNOW they are correct...and I am questioning that.

So far, you have never given me a reasonable answer for how you know you are not deluding yourself.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

I don't fancy myself of any particular brand of religion

You don't fancy yourself a Buddhist?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Keep in mind that there are many forms of Buddhism, as there is with Christianity and Islam.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, I am not surprised.

But what I mean is that everything has something of the true nature of reality. By virtue of existing you and me are expressions of reality. And there is no cause to name ourselves any more or less true than any other phenomenon in the cosmos.
From this perspective, everyone knows the true nature of reality.
But this knowing is one of familiarity. We know it like we know a friend, not like we know the answer to a question.

Quote:

But you are claiming to KNOW they are correct...and I am questioning that.

I am not claiming to know that my beliefs are correct. I am claiming that I know true reality. It is the basis upon which all these questionable beliefs are formed.

Let's use love as an example. If you are raised with love and care, if you found companions through life and had children of your own, it would be safe to say that you know as much as anyone about the true nature of love. It is an intimate knowledge in the form of experience, not of thinking about it, but living it.
Love is such an available experience, and yet the existence of poets is proof of it's elusive nature. We know it intimately, but we cannot say anything true about it and have it done with once and for all. It is not because the experiences we have, that inspire us to form our beliefs, are false. It is because our language isn't able to capture these experiences, and trying will only result in approximations that we either embrace or discard based on association with our own experience.

So the true nature of reality is a secret that everyone knows, but no one can share, because anything we say about it will be lies. That is in the nature of language.

So yes, I know the true nature of reality, but you should not believe anything I tell you about it.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

No, I do not fancy myself a Buddhist, and that is in itself in keeping with Buddhist philosophy. (For me, at this stage of my life. Not necessarily for everyone.)

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

No, I do not fancy myself a Buddhist, and that is in itself in keeping with Buddhist philosophy. (For me, at this stage of my life. Not necessarily for everyone.)

That is wonderfully ironic in a thread entitled "Religion and Contradictions".

1 Reply

In one breath atheists say the Bible has been edited, chopped, and messed about with over the centuries to make it look neat and tidy, but in their next breath they say it's full of contradictions!
So which is it, has it been prettied up or hasn't it?

1 Reply

Religion and contradictions.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know