Comments on: Spiritual Pillar #2: Allegoricalism http://www.sacredriver.org/17/spiritual-pillar-2-allegoricalism Exploring a nontheistic spirituality grounded in naturalism and humanism Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:54:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Ropian http://www.sacredriver.org/17/spiritual-pillar-2-allegoricalism#comment-89 Ropian Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:08:37 +0000 http://www.sacredriver.org/?p=17#comment-89 Now that I think of it some more, I have a feeling that if there will ever be an established naturalist religion, it should make extensive use of metaphores, and stress the ability to switch perspective. Ability to switch perspective between different levels of descriptions of nature and ourselves (let's say holistic approach), between different layers of "truths" of wisdom, and between different metaphores capturing different aspects of the same thing. That is our antidote to the "literal fallacy" and also a big consciousness raiser for people not yet on the naturalist platform, that their scriptures, relics, rituals and finally beliefs should not be interpreted literal, that they are just metaphores at best that people choose. Now that I think of it some more, I have a feeling that if there will ever be an established naturalist religion, it should make extensive use of metaphores, and stress the ability to switch perspective. Ability to switch perspective between different levels of descriptions of nature and ourselves (let’s say holistic approach), between different layers of “truths” of wisdom, and between different metaphores capturing different aspects of the same thing.

That is our antidote to the “literal fallacy” and also a big consciousness raiser for people not yet on the naturalist platform, that their scriptures, relics, rituals and finally beliefs should not be interpreted literal, that they are just metaphores at best that people choose.

]]> By: Ropian http://www.sacredriver.org/17/spiritual-pillar-2-allegoricalism#comment-88 Ropian Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:35:31 +0000 http://www.sacredriver.org/?p=17#comment-88 I have a friend who is a linguist, and we had a discussion about metaphores once. We came to the conclusion that there's a fair chance that most of the religions of the world may ultimately be results of misinterpretations of metaphors. :) That may be an exaggeration thanks to the glasses of wine we had, but there's a point that in the long run, someone will come along eventually, who takes some allegorical wisdom serious and starts crusading. But I like the concept of having a core myth backed by science (obviously a naturalist wordview or spiritualism must be compatible with our scientific knowledge of the world), which should be quite resistant to drift towards the supernatural even on historical timescale... As for symbols, I now tend to agree that they indeed bring life and strength to a worldview or religion. I hope to see something emerge for naturalism. I have a friend who is a linguist, and we had a discussion about metaphores once. We came to the conclusion that there’s a fair chance that most of the religions of the world may ultimately be results of misinterpretations of metaphors. :) That may be an exaggeration thanks to the glasses of wine we had, but there’s a point that in the long run, someone will come along eventually, who takes some allegorical wisdom serious and starts crusading. But I like the concept of having a core myth backed by science (obviously a naturalist wordview or spiritualism must be compatible with our scientific knowledge of the world), which should be quite resistant to drift towards the supernatural even on historical timescale…

As for symbols, I now tend to agree that they indeed bring life and strength to a worldview or religion. I hope to see something emerge for naturalism.

]]> By: Ash http://www.sacredriver.org/17/spiritual-pillar-2-allegoricalism#comment-85 Ash Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:55:22 +0000 http://www.sacredriver.org/?p=17#comment-85 I think that a very strong argument can be made, as has been done by folks like Ursula Goodenough and Loyal Rue, that what makes for a religion is the existence of a core myth, generally supported by various interpretations, rites, symbols, and artforms. The naturalist myth, whatever that turns out to be, will be based upon nature as it really is. The common idea being bandied about is the Epic of Evolution, not just natural selection, but the idea of ever-more complex forms of matter/energy starting from the Big Bang. We would not need to worry about “fundamentalism” in this case because such a myth would be based upon the scientifically empirical understanding of the world. With that said, there will be differences of opinion regarding various symbols, especially those that involve things like godforms. I myself do not mind such symbols and enjoy using various gods to symbolize principles and forces as metaphors. At the same time, we are explicitly naturalistic at Sacred River. The very premise of our system denies, or at least does not acknowledge, the existence of supernatural beings or forces. I find it difficult (tho not impossible) to believe that we would fall victim to our own creations and suddenly take our symbols as being true in themselves. Of course, I also do not imagine our future symbolism to include personal gods or creator intelligences, which would go against our entire worldview. I think all these considerations are why we haven’t seen a rise in naturalistic symbolism. It is very difficult! I certainly do not have any easy answers. But I do hope to create an environment that will encourage and promote such things, because art and ritual add a great deal of life to a religion. Thanks so much for your comments! I think that a very strong argument can be made, as has been done by folks like Ursula Goodenough and Loyal Rue, that what makes for a religion is the existence of a core myth, generally supported by various interpretations, rites, symbols, and artforms. The naturalist myth, whatever that turns out to be, will be based upon nature as it really is. The common idea being bandied about is the Epic of Evolution, not just natural selection, but the idea of ever-more complex forms of matter/energy starting from the Big Bang. We would not need to worry about “fundamentalism” in this case because such a myth would be based upon the scientifically empirical understanding of the world.

With that said, there will be differences of opinion regarding various symbols, especially those that involve things like godforms. I myself do not mind such symbols and enjoy using various gods to symbolize principles and forces as metaphors.

At the same time, we are explicitly naturalistic at Sacred River. The very premise of our system denies, or at least does not acknowledge, the existence of supernatural beings or forces. I find it difficult (tho not impossible) to believe that we would fall victim to our own creations and suddenly take our symbols as being true in themselves. Of course, I also do not imagine our future symbolism to include personal gods or creator intelligences, which would go against our entire worldview.

I think all these considerations are why we haven’t seen a rise in naturalistic symbolism. It is very difficult! I certainly do not have any easy answers. But I do hope to create an environment that will encourage and promote such things, because art and ritual add a great deal of life to a religion.

Thanks so much for your comments!

]]> By: Ropian http://www.sacredriver.org/17/spiritual-pillar-2-allegoricalism#comment-83 Ropian Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:30:39 +0000 http://www.sacredriver.org/?p=17#comment-83 I'm not really for symbols, relics and rituals, but I think I see the point. Though I wonder if there was an intrinsic danger of the literal interpretation, an open invitation to the supernatural never to be eliminated, that outweighs the benefits (not for the understanding naturalist individual itself, but to the coherence of the naturalist platform, when promoted as a spiritual practice to broad audience) or at least an argument could be made to use new symbolism, that has no past supernatural connotations in order to reduce the temptation. I’m not really for symbols, relics and rituals, but I think I see the point. Though I wonder if there was an intrinsic danger of the literal interpretation, an open invitation to the supernatural never to be eliminated, that outweighs the benefits (not for the understanding naturalist individual itself, but to the coherence of the naturalist platform, when promoted as a spiritual practice to broad audience) or at least an argument could be made to use new symbolism, that has no past supernatural connotations in order to reduce the temptation.

]]>