In chapters six and seven, Daniel Dennett goes on to
speculate on how folk religion developed into organized religion and became
institutionalized , or, as he says, “domesticated,” complete with “stewards,”
such as shamans, imams, rabbis, clergy, and other leaders who use their power
to ensure the perpetuation of belief, religious practices, organizational
structures, and, of course, their own positions. These stewards use fear, deception, the
promise of rewards, and organizational hierarchy, as well as, appeals to a Higher
Power to maintain their positions and sustain the religion. Religions act like corporations, developing a
“brand,” competing in the “marketplace,” and selling “goods” to their
“customers.” A “God you can talk to,”
who offers eternal life, is the ultimate consumer good.
In chapter eight Dennett discusses how “the stewardship of
religious ideas creates a powerful phenomenon, belief in belief,” which
reinforces the need, even the duty, to believe.
This belief in belief serves to deter rational questioning and
disinterested investigation. One form
that it takes is the redefinition of religious terms to make them ever more
resistant to empirical doubt. Thus “God”
develops from a supernatural, anthropomorphic being to an abstract concept, a
concept, like infinity, which seems compatible with math and science.
To say that Dennett casts religion in a cynical light would
not be too strong a statement.
Repeatedly, often sarcastically, he inveighs against religious
insistence on belief in “fictions.”
As stated in a previous post (Jan., 2014), I continually
find myself wondering if Dennett is capable of suspending his disbelief long
enough to appreciate the power and, yes, the truth, of imagination.
Can fiction ever tell the truth? Can religious “fictions,” understood
figuratively or symbolically, embody an important truth of human
experience? Just because a story or
belief is literally false, does that mean it cannot be true in a larger sense?
In the 18th century there were a group of
literary critics who argued that it was irrational and unrealistic for a play
to move freely through time and space.
If a play takes three hours to perform, it should take place in three
hours. Similarly, since a play can only
be performed in one place, the action on the stage should occur in one
locale. They also thought the action
should be limited to one plot.
Otherwise, the spectators would not be able to suspend their disbelief
enough to appreciate the performance.
Shakespeare, of course, broke all these rules of the “three unities,” as
they were called. And Samuel Johnson
famously derided these critics, arguing that “the audience is always in its
right mind” and can both believe and disbelieve at the same time. That is, the audience is capable of knowing
that a dramatic performance is both imaginary and “true” at the same time.
Surely, even an atheist can appreciate the power and truth
of religious myth. Let’s take the story of Jesus Christ.
Most Christians probably consider it to be a unique story,
but actually it follows the familiar pattern of a hero/quest myth found in
almost all, if not all, cultures: (1) mysterious or miraculous origin, (2)
hiding, (3) initiation and divine signs or special powers, (4) preparation,
meditation, withdrawal, refusal, (5) trial and quest, (6) death and the
scapegoat, (7) descent to underworld, (8) resurrection and rebirth, (9)
ascension, apotheosis, atonement. Not
all hero myths contain every element, but all roughly follow the same outline. (See David Leeming's *Mythology: The Voyage of the Hero,* 2nd ed.)
In the case of Jesus Christ, (1) he is born of a virgin, (2)
he is born in a kind of “hidden” place, a manger, (3) he shows a maturity beyond
his years during his conversation with religious teachers, (4) he spends forty days and forty nights in the wilderness
resisting the temptations of Satan and preparing for his “quest,” (5) he calls
his disciples and undertakes his ministry performing miracles and spreading his
message, (6) he is crucified and dies as a scapegoat for human sin, (7) he is
buried in a tomb, (8) he rises from the dead, and (9) he ascends into heaven
and is deified.
So, if we dismiss the story as factually and literally
false, on what basis can we affirm its truth value? For one thing, we can affirm that, regardless
of time and place, some individuals seem to acquire special status. These individuals perform outstanding acts or
make noteworthy contributions to their communities. In turn, their communities elevate them and
attribute unusual qualities to them in recognition of their
accomplishments. Hero myths thus
represent the enduring human truth that some individuals rise above the rest of
us and that the rest of us confer upon them a distinctive standing. Likewise, these myths embody the truth that,
as humans, we seek role models, mentors, and heroes, who inspire and lead us
toward our own higher life.
From a psychological perspective, we can also view these
myths as representing the universal story of each individual’s life
journey. As we grow, we become conscious
of ourselves as having a distinct identity.
We often think of ourselves as having a special calling or mission in
life. We may face threats to our
survival; we look for signs of our “destiny” or our unique goals in life; we
seek success in one form or another and we prepare ourselves to achieve it; we
encounter obstacles and trials that must be overcome in our life’s
“quest.” Not all “heroes” are
successful, and we may experience a failed quest, perhaps more than one. Regardless of success or failure, we must
face death, but we take comfort that we will live on after death, even if it is
only in the form of the memories of the living or the legacy we leave behind. Psychologically, our apotheosis is the mark
we leave on the world.
Thus, the literally false myth embodies the symbolic truth
of our sense of unique identity, our individual life journey, and our shared
human experience of trial and quest, success or failure, suffering, death, and
the hope, if not the conviction, that our life was significant.
Stripped of its religious meaning, the story of Jesus Christ
is the same story that we each live, and that is perhaps one reason the story
can resonate powerfully even for an atheist, assuming the atheist has not
rejected imagination along with religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment