I think it's a combination quote, paraphrase, original:

To see the artifice in art is good, unless it robs you of the meaning therein. To see the truth in art but not see the invention is a fantasy. There can be wisdom in tales told that never happened.

“Humility is the mother of giants. One sees great things from the valley; only small things from the peak.”

― G.K. Chesterton, The Innocence of Father Brown

I'd just go with "humility is greatness." Because it is the lack of vapid ego. I love that style of person.

"Humility is all-important and may save your soul but false modesty is pride’s veiled twin." –Norm Macdonald

I have to be careful not to deify this guy. Chesterton would say celebrity worship is an American phenomena and to a large extent, he's probably right.

Well, not sure why I ordered Orthodoxy instead of The Everlasting Man, given the title of the thread. I think in reading the jackets and descriptions it seemed more interesting.

I'm meh on the guy. He lands on orthodoxy of what turned out to be an appallingly corrupt institution. Somehow that level of corruption is channeling the holy of holies. Nope.

He was called a blowhard and windbag and for good reason. His effusive self-deprecation went way too far, too deep-seated.

Orthodoxy is just religious writing, churchy sophistry. All kinds of flowery language that is unsound, unfounded, leads nowhere, but just appeals to religious impulses. Meh.

The institution doesn't consist of only corrupt elements. People from all over the world and throughout the years are part of it. There is an entire history of saints, tradition, writings and art going back two two millennia. Cases of corruption aren't reason to discard those things.

“There is something else which has the power to awaken us to the truth. It is the works of writers of genius. They give us, in the guise of fiction, something equivalent to the actual density of the real, that density which life offers us every day but which we are unable to grasp because we are amusing ourselves with lies.” ― Simone Weil

A less profound observation would be that in order to have an emotional reaction to a story, the story itself must portray truths about our experiences already understood by the reader, otherwise they wouldn't be capable of evoking such feelings. Whether or not the reader is actively looking for truth is beside the point.

Yup, stories about things that never happened can have deep moral and emotional meaning. We already covered that. Once we say the stories in the Bible never happened, there is a whole lot of religionizing that goes out the window with that.

I'd have the find the original context of the Chesterton quote, but what he seems to be saying is something like: It's not that science is not true (fallible, yes) but that it is a lesser truth. The reason that people are generally more drawn to novels than books of science and metaphysics is because novels convey truths that we understand—often implicitly—are more significant than mere facts and philosophical theories about the world. There is nothing more real than what we experience. Whether someone is falling in love for the first time, seeing their favorite band, riding a rollercoaster or arguing with a friend, concerns about facts and philosophies fall to the wayside and disappear.

A primary reason people are drawn to fiction is that it is often a stylized, romanticized, idealized, edge-taken-off-of-an-unforgiving-reality type experience. We can't say it's a greater truth, but a more artistic vision of life. I agree completely that the most meaningful part of life is experience, and that to the extent science discounts this in preference of repeatable experiments, it is wayward. As empiricism rose, one can hear Jung saying, the subjective got "counterfeited" (poker lingo) ... but this is a colossal error. Our spirituality is found in that experience, but that spiritual experience itself is insulted and counterfeited by canned supernatural religion.

... insulted also by all the self-proclaimed messengers of god who fancy themselves at the top of the spiritual ladder, with absolutely no explanation as to how or why this came about, but just as some kind of given ... very suspiciously like all the other messengers of all the other countless gods. Give us a reason to think it's something else because all the other revealers of the other gods, all false, were doing the same thing.

When believers criticize nonbelievers and try to convince them of God's existence or that their religion is the right one, they're basically fighting the wind. I enjoy talking about theology, but I'm not under the illusion that I can change anyone's mind when it comes to the big question; it's not my aim. If anything, maybe someone will have an epiphany one day and be able to look back on past conversations and say, "Oh, now I get it!" That was my experience, anyway.

I think that most believers come to know God through suffering, and I also believe that God reveals Himself to people when He decides. It's not up to the subject. The reason theists such as myself can't offer an explanation is because it isn't something that can be communicated through words to someone who has never had the experience. It's kind of like what I was saying about how it's impossible to describe green to a blind person, or love to a person who has never felt the emotion. However, I do think theists can understand each other to a certain extent due to having had similar experiences. I can't read anyone's mind, but Craig, for example, has shared some insights that have made me go, "Wow," while others make fun of him for it.

Then there are those who just parrot some teaching, and when they try to argue their view as objective truth, they fall into traps. Religion is deeply personal and very subjective. That isn't to say that the Bible can't or shouldn't act as a foundation. I believe the writers of the those books had great revelations, and whether the truths revealed come from something that developed over time or are built in to us as humans, isn't really my concern. What matters if that I find truth in them; I find answers, but they're not as straightforward as a lot of "mainstream" Christians or critics would have one believe. And even if I wanted to rationalize those beliefs away, I couldn't.

I'd like to add that I don't think it's devoid of errors. Books have been translated, edited and removed; cultures have evolved, and so on. Nonetheless, there is an incredible amount of wisdom in those stories, and the reason they pierce so many hearts is a consequence of more than mere indoctrination, even if roots play a role one's religion of "choice." It's also true that being honest with oneself proves difficult when conflicted.

Keeping with the quotes, a few more from Simone Weil that you might like:

“We do not obtain the most precious gifts by going in search of them but by waiting for them. Man cannot discover them by his own powers, and if he sets out to seek for them he will find in their place counterfeits of which he will be unable to discern the falsity.”

“No human being escapes the necessity of conceiving some good outside himself towards which his thought turns in a movement of desire, supplication, and hope. Consequently, the only choice is between worshipping the true God or an idol. Every atheist is an idolater — unless he is worshipping the true God in his impersonal aspect. The majority of the pious are idolaters.”

I'm on board with most of that. The part about the experience being undescribable with words I don't buy. Are not all the religious texts/scriptures a communication in words to human beings about religious experiences? "Undescribable' is code there for "It wouldn't seem the least bit supernatural if I tried to describe it, and I prefer to hang on to my inner narrative that it is supernatural. Therefore I will never attempt to describe it."

I'm fully capable of understanding, grokking, feeling, appreciating, etc. a transcendent experience, an epiphany, a religious experience. But the description is more elusive than the Loch Ness Monster. Scratch a theist and you get a dogmatic, gullible, non-critical thinking, fanciful believer; scratch an atheist and you get a contrarian, inane ego ... each about 99% of the time. Of course I'm interested in the 1% and I don't discount the experiential.

As you obviously realize from your post, the vast majority of religion is just the parroting of what's expected sans any real personal experience. And then when someone perhaps does have an experience they refuse to describe it, saying it's impossible. So religious experience is the one experience that doesn't translate to other human beings???? I guess we have to go back to the book of stories and fables to get a dramatic revelation story. Exactly how reliable is that? When we know quite well it is a book chock full of stories and tales that never happened?

No doubt there is marvelous story telling, wisdom, and beautiful literature (Ecclesiastes is my favorite) in the Bible. I often read it with a feeling of reverence. But you don't get to just ignore or skip over the horrendous messages, lessons, morals, etc also in it. Every preacher on earth it seems is guilty of that. Another of their tricks is quoting the 1.5 billion figure or whatever, when they know darn well the vast majority are lip service only and don't qualify as disciples. The orthodox religion is a house of cards. So we are back to the mystic, the gnostic, to experience. And there is a conspiracy of silence around that.

You've made some interesting references, so I'll recommend William James, Jung, Dan Barker, and Aron Ra to you in terms of ideas about this.

Mythical figures correspond to our own experiences and inner configuration, arising from what Jung called "archetypes," which are like psychic templates or patterns specific to the nature of human consciousness. NATURE being a big word there. We don't know the Source of that nature. Some claim to and maybe .1% of them have had corresponding experiences that lend one to have justification for thinking that nature leads to another realm of "supernature" or a god. The "perennial philosophy" of Huxley would hold that all of the various religions envisioned there are pieces of the puzzle toward understanding.

These so-called archetypes are kind of loosely formed ideas which take form, which crystallize, into specific "manifestations" or prototypes of that, one might say, canon, and are held dear within cultures. Jesus is one of those, Muhammad is one of those, Buddha is one of those, Paul Bunyan is one of those, Ebenezer Scrooge is one of those, the Medicine Man is one of those, the Trickster is one of those, the old man in the cave on top of the mountains sage is one of those. Some are actual beings, some aren't.

Drawing from this archetypal spirituality -- after all, the nature of man's consciousness and our connection to or alienation from it is quite a a natural based spirituality -- a great richness arises in the human experience. It's a path to be walked discretely. As soon as a canned religion sits in for this gnostic, experiential process the whole thing is undercut and cheapened, and leads not to exploration of the self's reality in this world but to its blind obedience, subjugation, and self-sacrifice. This type of religion, drawn from primitive and barbaric cultures, is immoral.

Like everyone else, you have experienced the supernatural.

The lasting goodness which we desire deep down — the reason why that desire persists is because we have experienced it as a young child. Memory seems to primarily emerge as a response to having lasting goodness (heaven) ripped away. Still, if you stretch your memory, you can recover intimations of that lost lasting goodness.

How do we know this is supernatural (associated with the soul) and not natural to this world? Because you can test this and see. No matter what you chase (pleasure, status, connection) in this world, none of it sustains across time. It all increasingly diminishes. Ask the drug addict chasing that first high, or the billionaire playboy, or the world traveler, or the selfless volunteer who is highly esteemed. If they are being honest, they will admit that none of the fulfillment sustains across time.

Step one in pursuing true fulfillment, or accessing the good life for you and your loved ones, is affirming its association with the soul, with the supernatural.

But is it the only one? Do you know what it's like to be schizophrenic?

Or to really like anchovies on pizza?

Is this an objective fact or an opinion/belief?

Well, we know what it is like to really like the taste of something, and therefore can relate to the idea of liking anchovies on pizza. This is across the board for so much of human experience. But you have ipso facto claimed that religious experiences defy such relatability. For what reason? With what evidence? The vast majority of people in history have indeed been religious, so the idea that religious experience just can't be related to is bogus.

I probably know more about what it's like to be schizophrenic than over 99% of the population. It probably isn't going to go well for your case to use that example. If the only example you can come up with that isn't generally relatable is profound mental disturbance, that's not very good company for your claim. Maybe insanity and the supernatural are related like that, eh?

We know what it is like to taste, like something or not like it; we know what it is like to be sad; we know what it is like to feel hungry; we know what it is like to seek meaning; we know what it is like to be frustrated; we know what it is like to be moved by a great story; we know what it is like to feel stress or feel peaceful ... and a trillion other such things that are relatable.

You have claimed religious experience is non-relatable among a species that is overwhelmingly religious.

Morality is always subjective and opinion-based, including with the religious whose omniscient authority on the subject is merely a matter of their opinion.

Could be. Such as? What are some of the supernatural things that everyone has experienced?

I never said that religious experiences aren't (at least somewhat) relatable, just that it's only possible to relay them to those who've already had similar experiences they can use as a reference point. There should also be a distinction between those who are nominally religious and true mystics.

A person without a sense of taste wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Coke or Pepsi You might know what anchovies taste like, but you don't know what it's like to actually enjoy them. The anchovies thing was kind of a joke though.

As for schizophrenia, no one knows what it's like to be schizophrenic unless they are schizophrenic. I don't know what it's like to have auditory hallucinations—not just the sound of them but also how they influence one's beliefs and perception of reality. I will never be able to grasp that experience no matter how much I read about it or how much time I spend around those who suffer from it. I'm just an observer. Psychedelics are a good example as well. Sure, anyone can take them and experience what they're like, but no matter how much someone tries explaining a mushroom trip to a person who's never done them, that person won't be able to understand it. We can say a lot about how schizophrenia affects someone's ability to function and what's going on in their brain, but we both know/believe that consciousness is more than brain activity. Maybe their unconscious is hyperactive and what they're experiencing is all too real. Who knows.

This clip from Waking Life touches on the limitation of relating with others through words.

The reason I asked is because you argued that something was immoral, but as you readily admit, it's just an opinion. That's fine since everyone doesn't have to form a philosophical argument for everything they say is right or wrong.

I basically agree with you on the subjective part but not that morality is opinion-based. Moral truths are known to the individual and go beyond opinion. Morals are objectively true to the individual, even if they're subjective in the sense that others may not share those same values. They are out of our control, but we can work towards discovery.

Moral absolutism may be true, but if it is, I don't see how we can all understand it.

And so when you are discussing your religious experiences with a person who has had similar experiences, what kinds of things do you say to describe the experience? Checkmate for the "I just can't describe it for you" defense. Besides, I have had "religious" experiences. If I commit the mortal sin of not attributing them to a "savior" of the 1st Century, well, maybe that's not a sin but just realism applied to the spiritual, instead of, you know, canning it with the beliefs, so often flagrantly mistaken, of the 1st Century.

For some strange reason, the first example you gave of not being able to identify with something (the anchovies), wasn't serious. The second one (schizophrenia) seemed to be putting religious experience on a footing with psychosis. On that score I would say in watching the movie "A Beautiful Mind," or in reading "The Divided Self," "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden," "The Center Cannot Hold," etc. one can get a very real feeling for what is being experienced in such mental experiences. We are all human and all have very closely related nature and capacities. ANY experience draws on those capacities.

What are some of your religious experiences? How do you know what to attribute them to? Is it just obviously the predominant religion in your culture? What does it mean that such experiences are being attributed to different religions, different gods, and are so often just ipso facto attributed to the dominant religion of one's culture? What does it mean such experiences are being attributed to all manner of bizarre cults, and also that such experiences are even wholly lacking as people simply march to the drummings of some religion. It's a problem, no?

Let's hear what YOU are doing with language and what is in your inner narrative attempting to account for such experiences. Give me a feel for how it is supernatural.

“Mr. Shaw cannot understand that the thing which is valuable and lovable in our eyes is man--the old beer-drinking, creed-making, fighting, failing, sensual, respectable man. And the things that have been founded on this creature immortally remain; the things that have been founded on the fancy of the Superman have died with the dying civilizations which alone have given them birth. When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its corner-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward--in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.”

― G.K. Chesterton