Quote:
Originally Posted by craig1120
I’m going to make this a one way dialogue to save time because I already know how this goes. I’ve done it before.
I ask the rationalists, “Do you agree that we can act in ways that are more or less in accordance with reality?” Response: “Yes”.
Then I ask, “Do you agree that it’s valuable to be in accordance with reality?” Response: “Yes”.
At this point, it’s established that both sides agree the moral domain (how we act) is valuable. The rationalists will agree to this out of one side of their mouth, but then on the other side, they will dismiss religious stories on the claim that they are not historical events. If the moral domain is associated with reality, then it doesn’t matter whether or not a story is historical if there is moral value in the story.
This doesn’t go far enough, however, since plenty of rationalists will agree to this and still reflexively dismiss religious stories. Why?
It’s largely because the rationalist prioritizes being coherent, or being singular, above all, and they see the division of religious people. We all desire coherence. Still, it is a mistake to prioritize coherence over fulfillment. Stories which communicate truths about the moral domain are not just for children to keep them in line. They are for those people who rightly prioritize fulfillment even over singularity or coherence.
Rationality blinds us to our division (coherence vs fulfillment) and/or projects the frustration over our division onto others, in which religious people are an easy target. The hidden story of the soul, which the best stories seek to uncover, incorporates this division (“The Son of Man brings division”, “We must deny ourselves”).
This lowering of the self, acknowledging error, in order to re-prioritize fulfillment to its rightful place is called repentance. It’s a relational move rather than a rational move. It’s relational because you are mercifully taking your foot off the neck of the one within you who prioritizes fulfillment.
You might be surprised that I'm very much into the story of the soul, and have written and read millions of words on it. It's just that I think it is very natural, not of some supernatural realm, and that it is not fairly represented by man's panoply of gods, by literalized myths, by mass murder stories, by judgment, by hellfire punishment, etc.
I, and any psychologist, see self-expression as a great value in life, not this ignorant, backwards, neurotic self-denial creed. We all have a NEED for coherence, but we don't all (or always) desire it (as you say we do). Every act of addiction, repression, denial, dissociation, strategic dissonance, fantasy in place of reality, faking reality over real reality, is testament to the will to escape coherence. Fairy tales in lieu of reality don't help with this vice of man (children's fairy tales, of course, are age and development appropriate and not of the same ilk).
You seem to pose a revealing dichotomy between religious and rationalist. Rationality and reason are just limited tools, not anything omniscient. It is religion that claims omniscience while believing that kissing donkeys cures infections, that demons cause leprosy. Name another subject besides religion where you put rationality as an enemy of understanding it??
The emotive core of man -- the soul, our sense of humanity -- is vital above and beyond the intellectual and abstract abilities, by far. It's found not in superstition and magic, but in the nature of human consciousness. Once we start investigating that, we are studying something where rationality and our "heart" are not opposing, but are complimentary aspects of natural human consciousness. No Zeus, Thor or the rest of the panoply needed. THAT is myth.