| Poster and Date |
Post |
Bongoman
Wed Mar 17th, 2004 at 11:05 AM |
Some people distinguish between christians, buddhists, islamists, new agers and so on. But I have a theory that they all suffer from basically the same pathology. Depending on severity ofcource, this list is a list of what I find is of the worst kind:
They are unable to scrutinize themselfes in the light of different ideas, especially ideas that have something with their life situation, the status of the world, and latest general understanding of things.
They are unable to recieve critique, and especially critique regarding their ideas. (Like spinning water, homeopathy etc.)
They are systematically destroying the relationship, in language and thinking, between themselfes and the ordinary world.
They are systematically trying to brainwash themselfes and eachother.
When they recieve critique they usually take a defensive approach and say that nothing can be known whatsoever.
They cannot accept theories that can actually be proven.
They stress the virtue of intelligence and gaining of knowledge.
They use the critique they recieve as arguments.
They believe they have the only truth.
They are against science and doesnt understand the scientific method, yet love to use wordings like "scientifically proven" or "research" in their practice.
They refuse to call themselfes religious, since they think religious has a negative association.
They use terms from physics like energy and quantum mechanics to describe everything from baking pancakes to having sex.
They think everything that is made of matter is evil, or they think that all matter is illusion.
That reality isnt real at all.
These are examples only, Im not saying all religious people has all of these traits, yet its quite common in the neo-spiritual movement. The result I see is that religion is a compulsive liars syndrome. In the religious thinking they get a sense of self worth, and a sense of being real clever and they also get a sense of staying out of reach, yet having the position to know how people should live now and forever.
Religion must be stopped before it cripples the whole of mankind!
Comments? (Cuz GOD knows they are expected) |
ledbetter
Wed Mar 17th, 2004 at 04:22 PM |
Wow, that's a scathing indictment!
Just in case there are some religious lurkers, I would like to make a distinction between religion as a belief system and religion as practiced. I know of Buddhists and Hindus and certainly of tribal religions that do not have these characteristics. But, then, they are not the majority of religious people!
Daniel |
ledbetter
Thu Mar 18th, 2004 at 09:34 AM |
One more addition - Thom Hartmann's version of Christianity avoids these problems.
Daniel |
Bongoman
Thu Mar 18th, 2004 at 03:29 PM |
ledbetter and others
I dont know enough about Thom Hartmanns ideas to comment. But I would like to make a clarification, its not really the theories Im criticizing, or peoples wish to gain a deeper and more profound understanding and making life more interesting(because Im all for that and really respect that). I am criticizing the specific syndrome and its causes.
I think that it is a kind of psychological regression to primal states of human development, that is even supported in many of these theologies "you will not enter heaven unless you become as little children", "live only in the now" (children has no concept of past or future, many of the new age ideas are about forgetting about the past and future and only concentrate on the now, in other words, they support a very immature outlook on life) the causes; people live under big pressure and stress, fear, anxieties, loneliness, they live in a society that has fundamental misunderstandings about what a human is and what it needs.
Getting this question "What does friendship mean to you?" a friend of mine said "Friends makes me real" And I think we should ponder that thought for a while. Because what is it these religious people are really looking for? They are, superficially looking to be saved or whatever the religion teaches as an official goal, but what they really want to hear is that they are loved, that they are not alone, that they are safe, that there is someone who cares about them somewhere, even if it isnt in this society or even this planet.
My thesis is that people have become broken, and then hopelessly dependant on a theory that promises something that is actually a lie. Somethin that is useless to function as a method of changing society into becoming more integrated and friendly, instead makes it into a society of addicts. It deepens alienation and fuels misunderstanding and fanaticism. Religion becomes a cruch, an addiction, because the real thing is percieved to be so far out of reach. Religion will not be your saviour, just as Jesus does not exist in that Heroin shot. You'll be relieved for a while, but never satisfied and it numbs your senses so that you only need more and more and more.
I am not an atheist, I do believe that there is "something" going on that I cant understand, I guess I like to have the idea that there is always more to be understood, that I know that I dont have all the answers. This could be percieved as typically religious. But it coulld also mean typically scientific. But what the theologists do is that instead of being awed by the mystery of life, they condemn it, and they refuse to take it in. Regardless of what they say, that they embrace knowledge and so forth, they are not at all interested in that. They just want to hear more about how precious they are and how loved they are and what they have to do in order to get closer to that fictious place of unconditional love.
Then the religions have a fatal "sin", if you buy the idea that you are loved, you are always under somekind of conditional love that if you dont follow very stringent rules of behaviour, you are just a push of a button away from being sent to hell, or being condemned for eternity. This function is to make people into drones that cannot not criticize its logic. They are told not to judge, they are told to love the creator and so on, but never object to the thinking of the system.
There is a popular idea spread among technocrats (and others) that in the future we will be living in a totalitarian society where everyone has a computer chip installed in the brain that can keep everyone under 24 hour surveilance and control. The religions I criticize are quite similar to this strange idea I think, because in the beginning the authoritarian religious morality had not yet evolved into regarding even every thought you had, but with Jesus and his message, we are told that even our thoughts count. This makes up for a totalitarian system where each person is remotely observed and judged, by a force you cant see and cant comprehend. Like the thought police in Orwell's 1984. This is a belief that I completely condemn.
Although there are a lot of wicked ideas out there, I dont think that religious people are stupid. They dont even have to be gullible. I think everybody, given the right time and life situation, can be manipulated into buying the most outrageous ideas. Some grow out of them, but since they do seem to offer a kind of alienation from the loneliness and stress in society, many remain inside.
But the tragic outcome is that people turn into vegetables, they deny themselfes being really human. They refuse to be real, since reality is understood to be a harsh and cruel place without compassion or love. Thats what we have to change together.
Bongoman |
Vampire_IQ
Mon Apr 12th, 2004 at 05:02 PM |
Yeah, it seems that those are common traits among the world's leading religions. However, Generally speaking, religion is a control system meant only to in it's most basic manner to give guidance to those who have no idea what to do, or where they're going when they die. The end result of any and all arguing will result in: you're wrong. I personally don't think that life is either so complex or so simple as to be summed up by the defining lines of good and evil. Plus i just don't care. But you made some good points. :wink: |
Bongoman
Mon Apr 12th, 2004 at 05:52 PM |
Vampire IQ
I dont understand what you mean by "summed up in good and evil". I never presented it so it has to come from your own philosophical baggage. I have a strange relationship towards religious people, on the one hand I hate what they are doing, but on the other hand I am intruiged by it and I dont know the source for my fascination. But maybe its the lure of having all the answers ready, coupled with the game-like atmosphere, the wish to expose the absurd for what it is (religious people love to debate). The challenge of clearing out all misunderstandings and sorry ideas. And although you dont care about religion at least you seem to care about discussing it, wich might make you an accomplice :wink: |
Ghost
Mon Apr 12th, 2004 at 06:06 PM |
Yo, yo, yo, Vampire IQ.
Welcome to IshCon.
Please feel free to wander to the Chit Chat forum and post a little something-something about yourself on the Community thread.
We generally like to call each other by our first names around here. Mine's Matt. What's yours?
Peace and Love and Empathy,
Matt |
Xavin
Mon Apr 12th, 2004 at 06:28 PM |
Bongoman, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but maybe you are so fascinated with religious people because they know how to live their life? The reason most of us are here is because we didn't like the way that we had been living our life, and we are trying to change it to something we like better. Most of us have changed some, and many of us have started to change, then realized we didn't really like that direction. Just something to think about.
--William |
jefgodesky
Mon Apr 12th, 2004 at 09:58 PM |
Quoting myself in a different forum, responding to a Muslim's profession of faith:
I once made a study of all the world's scriptures; I've read the whole Bible, all of the Talmud, the Qu'ran, most of the Hindu & Buddhist scriptures, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I've known people from all of these religions who have said of the great and glorious truths in their particular books, but though I read all of them, none of them really touched me very profoundly. I've sometimes envied religious people that; that they can draw such hope and strength from their faith in these life-giving verses.
But then I'll go for a hike in the woods, find a proper clearing where the light falls just so through the leaves, sit down in the dirt, breathe deeply, close my eyes and simply be. It's strange, when you really do that earnestly, you realize just how blunted our day-to-day life is. We have to blunt it, we have to shield ourselves from it, because the true beauty of the world around us is so incredible it would overwhelm us if we tried to walk around in it every moment. So we have most of our brains dedicated to filtering it out; we cannot stare directly into the sun, and we cannot truly experience reality constantly without a similarly blinding effect on our souls.
It's in those moments, when I reflect on the intricate web of relationships that bind everything together, how we all create each other every moment, that I realize that I do have a similar respite to the religious. It's just not as easily accessible as something I can keep on my desk, that's all. Or, is it? It's something you can do anywhere, anytime; you could do it now. In those moments, there is a great miracle that occurs. In those moments, we can touch the very source of meaning and being and feel to our very souls what it means to live.
I know the ecstasy you're talking about, Ayman, and though we reach it by different ways, I'm just glad we can all experience that, however we do. So for that alone, if nothing else, I'll praise the Qu'ran, the Bible, or anything else that allows any person to feel the closeness of divinity and the strength of the bonds that bind us one to another.
And adding this: positivism refutes itself. Positivism says that reason is sufficient to understand the universe. But that is itself axiomatic; there's no way you can reason to that conclusion. In short, the belief that everything can be logically proven and faith is a foolish superstition is, itself, a statement of faith.
And topping it off with more quoting:
Science and faith are like the shoes on your feet--you can get farther with both than you can with just one. |
Bongoman
Wed Apr 14th, 2004 at 10:14 AM |
jefgodewsky
positivism is a scientific method/philosophy made by Aguste Comte in the 1800. It thinks that knowledge can be drawn from this world and its a strongly empirical philosophy, wich means that you go to the natural world to test your hypothesis. Positivism ranges three historical states of human knowledge: 1. the religious/theological state where you explain what you cant understand with gods and spirits. 2. the metaphysical state where the same questions gets their answers from more elaborate and advanced/complex arrangements of metaphysical systems. 3. The positivistic, where you have realized that you cant get any answers to the ultimate "why" but only to how things work.
Compare with other philosophies; relativism and hermeneuticism.
In antroposophy and in gnosticism however you build your worldview on the basic assumption that everything can be reasoned out without observing/studying the world.
- Xavin
8) dont worry about putting words in my mouth. I dont feel fascinated with religious people because I think they know how to live (or that I wouldnt). Fact is I think they are facinating because they so rigidly believe they know the big 'truths', yet produces answers that seldom or never makes any sense. They are a challenge debatewise.
/Bongoman
PS. Just a reminder for myself about those who think science is just another belief system. A belief system that can produce evidence moves beyond the metaphysical into the scientifical. Today many people think that science and metaphysics is going to blend and become a single unit. These are usually the same people who thinks science is arrogant and authoritarian, or that science is just plain evil. However the same people very often borrow the gown of science to their own claims. With the difference that they have so far never been able to produce any evidence. |
jefgodesky
Wed Apr 14th, 2004 at 11:24 AM |
Bongoman,
Your history of positivism is quite accurate. Like all religious belief systems, it posits itself as the ultimate culmination of mankind's intellectual development, just as Christians saw themselves as the superior heirs of Judaism and Muslims saw themselves as the superior heirs of Christianity. Like these, it is quite dismissive of all other worldviews. At its heart, the central tenet of positivism is that everything can be understood logically and empirically. This is self-refuting, since that very tenet cannot be proven logically or empirically. It must be either accepted or rejected, but there is no evidence to prove or disprove it. It is itself a question of faith.
Don't misunderstand; I like science. I like science a lot. I've studied it quite a bit. I routinely mock creationists and their ilk for their gullibility, naivety, and ignorance. However, we should be honest with ourselves here that science isn't perfect, either. There is a lot of value in the scientific worldview, in experimentation, hypotheses and the rigor of the scientific method. It has a very important place. But the scientific means of gaining knowledge is not the only way of getting knowledge.
For example, I doubt you have yourself tested every conclusion you accept. If you did, your knowledge would be very, very tiny; how do you test everything yourself? You do accept the findings of others when they seem reasonable, and when your research suggests those findings are true. This is not a scientific way of gaining knowledge; this is not the scientific method; you have not tested it yourself. This is a different way of gaining knowledge. But it is very useful, and it should not be discarded simply because it is not scientific.
The mythopaiec way of thinking is also valuable. It is an entirely different way of thinking, and is very useful for finding very different kinds of information. That science is valuable does not mean that religion is not; that religion is valuable does not mean science is not. You should not neglect half of human nature simply because the other half is useful; both halves are useful, and both should be used.
In fact, the convergence of the two is where many of our most powerful ideas come from. If you don't believe me, just ask August von Kekulé.
Religion and science both have much to offer. To reject one for the other is foolishness; the positivists are no better than the medieval priests. In fact, the point at which both go wrong is in their own beleifs about themselves. Religion's most negative influence is in its own self-importance and intolerance; in the crusades, missionaries, and zeal to crush all other beliefs. Science's most inexcusably unscientific folly is positivism. Neither can ever be proven irrevocably true, after all; how can you ever know if G-d exists, or if you're actually measuing anything but a fevered hallucination? You can't. Ultimately, everything we know rests on a basic foundation of one leap of faith. Once that leap is made, you can begin constructing a logic case, but it all comes back to one axiom or another. |
Bongoman
Wed Apr 14th, 2004 at 06:06 PM |
jefgodevsky
Well, it is a method used by scientists... and in order to achieve a status in the scientific community, a hypothesis has to be able to be tested empirically. It doesnt mean that things that cant be tested arent true, or that it doesnt exist anything outside of what can be empirically tested... its just that some things are suitable for empirical testing and others arent.
For example I can say that when I sleep my soul travels to the back side of the moon... who can dispute it? There is no evidence and I cannot produce any evidence, therefore my claim cannot achieve a scientific status. But it doesnt matter that it isnt true. Science is only about things that CAN be proven.
Noone has taken away your right to sit and think for yourself what the world is about, scientists has not laid claim for any ultimate truths, as you can see in the theory itself it says that positivism cannot answer the ultimate why's. I could be a chicken here and agree with you that its bad if positivism is a belief system that regards itself as mankinds noblest method of gaining knowledge so far. But I dont agree with you... :)... I think that any belief-system that can produce even slight evidence is a sound belief-system. The best one we have for gaining knowledge so far.
But what amazes me is how people blame science for somehow limiting their lifes and their own thinking. My goodness, invent something on your own, be artists, play jazz, believe in godzilla if you want, noone is gonna stop anyone, not even from the scientific community... unless you try to present something as a scientific artifact without having any evidence for it, because for calling something scientific you gotta have some evidence - thats what science is all about. You can tell everybody that you went to the center of the earth if you want, people might get amazed of your bravery. But in order to achieve scientific status you gotta produce the facts, the evidence.
There is a big world outside of what has become scientific truths and noone knows everything, far from it, although they claim to know it. Like how some people know there is no reincarnation, or there is no spirits, or there is no God. But they are not scientists, they are sceptics and thats another ballpark.
Bongoman |
jefgodesky
Thu Apr 15th, 2004 at 10:37 AM |
Really? Because with comments like....
Some people distinguish between christians, buddhists, islamists, new agers and so on. But I have a theory that they all suffer from basically the same pathology
... and ...
The result I see is that religion is a compulsive liars syndrome
... and ...
Religion must be stopped before it cripples the whole of mankind!
.. one could get the impression that you would very much like to stop me or anyone else from engaging in any sort of religious thought. Two points I agree with you on, though:
[list] [*:871713f0b4]Organized religion and the state have a very strong relationship together; they support and create each other. In short, organized religion is an integral part of the Taker Empire, and fundamental to maintaing dictatorial control. [*:871713f0b4]Most "New Agers" have no idea what they're babbling about. [/list:u:871713f0b4]
However, the same is true of science: it is often used to maintain dictatorial control, and most people who talk about it have no idea what they're babbling about.
You've said you think a belief system that can lend some sort of evidence for itself is superior to another system that cannot. That's still an axiom, though. Science can provide evidence of itself, if you given its founding premise that the universe can be seen, felt, touched and measured (as opposed to it all being an illusion of some kind). If you already accept it on faith, then it can prove itself. Yet, many religious people claim the same thing: if you accept the existence of this or that god, then you can see his/her/its influence on your life. Science validates itself once it is accepted; but then, so do most religions. In both cases, you have to accept its premise first, before you can be given validation.
I'm not advocating religion over science, I'm saying that both are valid, both have their place, and to try to discredit either one is a very big, very common mistake. You began this thread by talking about the peril of religion. But the peril would be just as great if it were science in the offing; the peril is a human race that only accepts one or the other as "truth" and rejects the other wholesale. It's the peril of a lop-sided humanity that's totally out of touch with half of its own nature. |
Ghost
Thu Apr 15th, 2004 at 01:24 PM |
I've been content to ignore this thread up till now, but I saw something that bothered me. So please take this as an interjection on a single point. I haven't read the rest of the thread and so I have no opinion on the other arguments.
There is nothing wrong with religion!
Issuing a blanket statement that religion is bad is the laziest form of bad intelectualism.
There is not a SINGLE human society that does not have a form of religious belief. My mother, a minister with the United Church of Canada, once posited that it is impossible to have a deep spiritual belief without religion because the moment you create a spiritual framework from which you prosecute your daily life, you have created religion.
Also, so many different groups have made the determination that spirituality is as imporant as any other of our processes. My personal favourite is Mohawk medicine wheel which says that there is a physical, mental, spiritual and emotional component to all humans as that if one goes out of whack the whole system suffers.
Now, there is a SPECIFIC FORM of religion that I will grant is very problematic and that is Salvationism. Salvationist religions tell us that we are flawed, inherrently evil, sinful and that our bodies are evil. I ain't down with that.
Also, it is this form of religious belief that the rulership class can manipulate in order to control the masses. It is that part of religion that Marx refered to as the opium of the people.
It is also this form of religious belief that Daniel Quinn has issue with; however, he is himself an Animist (an assumption on my part) and so I don't see him having a blanket problem with religion.
I think that pure scientists are abject fools for dismissing religion and in fact, do not understand the basics of human thought and decision making because without belief, without faith, science would be nothing.
Conversely, I think religious folks are abject fools for rejecting science out of hand.
Well... that was quite the rant 8) I'll melt back into the shadows now.
Peace and Love and Empathy,
Matt |
crow365
Fri Apr 16th, 2004 at 09:10 AM |
I had a discussion with a friend a couple of weeks ago (granted, we'd both been drinking, but we weren't that far gone...) who is pre-med. Long story short, he told me that he didn't believe in anything "mystical or magical or spiritual" unless he saw it in a medical/scientific journal. Now, that's his prerogative and I didn't try and make him believe what I believe, but I at least tried to get him to concede that perhaps what we think of as "magical" and "mystical" is simply some area of the physical world that we don't quite understand (kind of like the cargo cults of South Pacific tribes during WWII). But he wouldn't. Anyway, my point is basically the same as Ghost's: if you fall into complete materialism, you're making the same mistake that utter fundamentalists (of any religion) do. Saying that you'll only believe in something if you read it in a scientific journal is the same stumbling point as a Bible-thumper saying if it ain't in the Bible, then it ain't true.
Religion has a lot to offer mankind, even the Salvationist ones. Granted, I agree with all the points that Ghost and Jeff have made, but even the Salvationist religions do have their positive points. I don't think there could be any religious or spiritual tradition that didn't have at least a shred of positivity to it. And something I like to point out often: the Buddhists and Hindus were describing the world as an illusion 2,500 years or more ago, and in the past century, modern science has shown this to be basically true. "Matter" and substance do not exist in the way we perceive them (this is mainly due to the natural limitations on our physical senses), and so, the universe is in essence an "illusion". Now, these guys were describing the universe around us like this over 2000 years ago without the aid of quantum mechanical formulae or supercolliders...obviously they had something else, probably within the mental sphere, that allowed them to glimpse this view.
As well, serendipity and the eureka moment are much more prevalent in science than some would think. Most of the really amazing and radical discoveries in the last century or so came to the scientists who made them in a flash of insight and intuition, which they then went and tested.
To say that religion is a "compulsive liars syndrome" is to wipe away all true spiritual and religious experiences people have had all over the world, all throughout human history. Not everything can be mass hysteria or contaminated drinking water or whatever else a lot of die-hard skeptics will come up with to write off something that might hurt their fragile worldview. To chock up religion and spirituality to innate stupidity is, in essence, saying that every human generation that has ever lived has suffered from some sort of deficiency of intelligence that you do not. And to take such a view, in my opinion, takes just as much arrogance and hubris as any missionary saying that their religion is the only true one.
Now, I'm not saying you should believe anything you hear or read, that's just plain gullibility. A healthy dose of skepticism will keep one alive. But there are a lot of things that we perceive on a daily basis that one cannot experience through the normal five senses (like TV and radio waves, for example) or can be explained by science or rationality.
Can you tell me why one person falls in love with a certain other person and not someone else?
If you can, then you're a bloody genius. |
Bongcart
Sun Apr 18th, 2004 at 10:31 AM |
Okay first, lots of reactions on this thread, lots of long posts and comments. I appreciate all replies. But maybe I should perhaps write a book about my own experience so more can take this critique to heart.
Lots of this argument seem to rest on the language barrier and the difficulty of communication (language vs. reality). "Religion" is a term that has no established meaning, not yet tho. But the people I talk about usually know what it is, for them, and if you put a little pressure on that nerve they scream out loud, and thats the other barrier. That people are personally commited to somekind of religion themselfes and dont want to have it "removed". Because religion is also based on thought, wich is mostly not part of the defenition. But religion is a thought complex, and what most religious people do is to exist primarily in this realm of thought.
Whats usually common about religion is that it relies on faith. But do I critisize faith? No I dont. Faith is a very strong and helpful trait, it can bring you great power, especially in difficult situations.
Another common trait among religion is that it has ideas about a world beyond this one, what happends after death, a trancendental reality or a higher power. Do I critisize anything of this? No I dont.
It would sound harsh if I would say that I critisize people who are lost, but thats actually what I am doing it seems. Mostly I critisize the excuses that exists in the "community" of "lost souls" for not dealing with life, and for making people out of tune with their own mind and their own thinking, and how it reaffirms this state of being as if it would lead somewhere. Its all just lies tho. Deceitful affirmations of your superiority. Many religious people I come into contact with has the idea that they are god, that they are the source of everything and so on. They are ofcource deeply misled.
Peoples intuitive circles has been moved out of place and RE-placed by something alien and unhealthy. I used to be into buddhism before I read Ishmael, and I loaned a book on buddhism to a friend of mine. Then I realized my mistake and gave him Ishmael to read. And he said "How easy it is to get your balance shaken" talking about the book on buddhism, because he actually had begun to dig it but realized later that it was just a very absurd tale.
And the way we are being led to dig religion is because of its promises of a better world, that you actually feel deeply personally engaged in something BIG. I for example was totally into zen and getting enlightened. I suspected tho that I had been misled, but I also had no arguments to counter those offered in the books I read and the people I talked to. The world of religion was just something that promised something better and better and better. And the argumentation of it all was very convincing because I so wanted to believe it to be true, and because of the feelings that it awoke in me.
And in the period when I got exposed to this "teaching" I was in a situation when most things looked black. But it was only the beginning of a trail into intellectual wilderness, with contradictions everywhere, with demands and fictious problems to be engaged in. After a couple of years my mind was so out of touch with things I couldnt almost feel or control my own body.
It doesnt turn out that bad for everyone I know, but I just want to put a knife down the throat of someone who says that "the world needs religion" because that person doesnt know what he is talking about. Or he is religious himself and thus misled. Just like ideologies, religion doesnt make people better or happier, it doesnt work that way. What makes a person happy is being mentally stable, part of something that gives a real sense of purpose, not something just existing in the imagination. Religion is a drug and like drugs it is fundamentally unsatisfying because it doesnt deal with the real issues. It just dulls your pain for a while. Then you need it again, and again, and again.... |
jefgodesky
Sun Apr 18th, 2004 at 11:11 AM |
So we're not so far apart after all. And yet, as tempting as it is to gloss the entire religious enterprise, precision is important. Consider what precision has done for us. There are many environmentalists and activists, but because the most obvious answer is the evil of industrialized Western civilization, they focus solely on that. Ergo, much of the environmentalism movement's efforts focus on laws and regulations to limit industrialism. This misses the point entirely, because rather than investigate the real reason, they've only considered the most blatantly obvious examples. DQ helped all of us here understand that these are deeply rooted in our cultural definitions of ourselves, and the only long-term solution is to radically change our culture. Industrial Western civilization is only one incarnation of the problem. The peril in ancient or Eastern civilizations is not as obvious, but just as real, while technology in a tribal context can be not only benign, but very helpful. Once we've dug to the real heart of the matter, the whole argument shifts in a much more useful frame, and we find out that some things we had otherwise opposed we should support, and things we would otherwise support should be opposed.
Religion, I think, exists in a similar context. 40,000 years ago, humanity developed its first religion; shamanism, animism, pantheism, whatever you call it, it was humanity's first and only universal religion. Shamanism has a lot to do with schizophrenia. Today, that's categorized as a mental illness, but the definition of mental illness is always tied to a culturally constructed normalcy. Before the Civil War, slaves who tried to escape were diagnosed as mentally ill due to their "pathological obsession with freedom." Until 1976, the DSM categorized homosexuality as a mental illness. Tribal societies integrated schizophrenic behavior as part of shamanism. Its emergence 40,000 years ago was almost certainly the cause of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, and all the "civilized" things that define "modern humans"--music, art, philosophy, science, mathematics, and abstract thought. In fact, shamanic/schizophrenic thought appears to be hard-wired into our brains as an evolutionary advantage, and something that has come to define us as human (PDF).
The central belief of shamanism can really be distilled to the idea that the universe is shaped by our perception and belief. The shaman applies this practically by altering his perception in order to alter reality. The use of drugs in this process has been greatly exaggerated, primarily by Carlos Castenada. In reality, only 10% of shamanic cultures use drugs, and even in Castenada's fiction, the Don Juan character explains in one of the later books that drugs are used as a crutch for weak or inexperienced shamans. By far the most popular method is rhythmic sound and motion, as in the use of drums, rattles, singing and dancing. The shaman's role is to serve as the tribe's counselor, physician and psychiatrist. Shamans have a very impressive success record, and while most researchers are quick to chalk that up to ethnobotany and the placebo effect, I've seen enough examples to withhold judgment where miracles are concerned when it comes to shamanism.
The shaman is also the tribe's spiritual advocate; tribalism in general emphasizes relationships between people, and the shaman extends this idea by cultivating relationships with the spirits. Thus religion reflects the reigning social order. Amongst egalitarian tribes, shamans bargain, befriend, coax and cajole the spirits just as they would their fellow tribesmen; the spirit world is filled with one's peers, just as in the physical world.
Naturally, civilized religion does the same. Civilized religions worship all-powerful gods who demand their worshippers' obedience to their laws, just as civilized kings and priests do. The autochthonic civilizations are always theocratic: Teotihuacan, Egypt and China all rested the power of the State on the supremacy of their gods. Perhaps the best example is in the Roman Emperor Constatine I, who united the two halves of the Empire under his own dictatorial rule and began the totalitarian rule that marked the latter centuries of the Western Roman Empire. To further augment his supreme power, he adotped Christianity as the official state religion; by positing a single G-d who reigned over all with omnipotent power, Constantine could posit himself as an earthly manifestation of that power. As above, so below. The Church was co-opted as the "spiritual arm of the empire," who not only set a spiritual precedent for a totalitarian dictator ruling over a vast, brutal military regime, but also provided the perfect apparatus to maintain control of an oppressed population.
Thus have religions been used as a means of control by civilization since its inception. Often, it is by placating revolution by promising an eternal reward to those who suffer under the oppressors' heel. At other times, it can be used to direct fervor and hatred in a venue useful to the State. There are countless ways to use religion for the ends of civilization. Confucianism is little more than civilized apologia, as is the work of Augustine of Hippo. In one of the great ironies of history, Jesus' decidedly anti-civilization, Cynic-derived, "just walk away from civilization and start something new" movement was actually twisted into a defense of civilization by Paul and his followers who coopted the movement for their own gain. Religion is easy to coopt, because it's an integral part of a culture, and culture is always a reflexive, integrated system. Like an organism, the whole culture adapts to accomodate any change, and civilization, contrary as it is to human nature, is an important change to accomodate.
But neither is religion the only thing to ever be used by civilization to bolster its own aims. Everything has been at one time or another: nationalism, science, art, music, history. Because these, too, are part of a culture. To say religion is evil because of how it's been used by power-mongering warlords is no more useful than to say music is evil because of how the Nazis used Wagner, or to focus all one's efforts solely on industrial Western civilization because it's the most obvious culprit. Religion is part of who we are. It is no more the problem than technology is. The problem is the civilized worldview that uses religion, technology, and everything else good in our species to such destructive, tyrannical ends. We need to keep that focus, and remember where our enemies lie, lest we end up destroying all that's good in humanity in the name of its survival. |
crow365
Sun Apr 18th, 2004 at 02:02 PM |
Wow.
I don't think anyone can add to want Jeff just said.
I will raise the point, however, concerning shamanism and schizophrenia. I don't know what source you're coming from Jeff, but I think the connection between schizophrenia and shamanism was given up on a while back. Brushing off shamanic ecstasy and dealings with spirits as mental illness, schizophrenia specifically, was something a lot of the early anthropologists and scientific explorers used to do, but as time went on, more and more anthropologists found that the symptoms of schizophrenia did not match with the behaviors of shamans. Shamans were on average intelligent, collected, thoughtful, and usually the most respected members of their community...and not because the people were too stupid to recognize mental illness. There's a difference between talking to spirits while in a trance and talking to them all the time.
I'm not saying you were coming from this angle, but thought I should mention anyway, since it didn't seem that right to me.
For those interested, a classic on shamanism is Mircea Eliade's Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Very insightful. |
jefgodesky
Sun Apr 18th, 2004 at 02:10 PM |
Mircea's work is classic, but also of dubious academic quality. I was taking the schizophrenia angle from a lot of reading I've been doing recently on neurology and shamanism. Winkelman (PDF article linked above) writes a lot about this. I wasn't dismissing shamanism; I was trying to cast some doubt on our usual ideas of mental illness. There does appear to be a pretty solid neurological connection between schizophrenia and shamanism, but nobody would call a shaman "handicapped." So how debilitating is schizophrenia, really, and how much of a schizophrenic's suffering is culturally constructed? There's no doubt that many schizophrenics do suffer a great deal, I've known several, but how much of this is because we have no good way of integrating such behavior into our society, so they're instead forced into marginal roles? That's really what I was driving at there. But neurologically, the connection is there, and the dichotomy in the end effect is also there. So how do you deal with that, is the big question. |
jefgodesky
Sun Apr 18th, 2004 at 02:21 PM |
Oh, and why I'm so fascinated by shamanism. Humanity is killing itself because of its destructive vision; we need a new vision. It needs to be better than the old one, so people will prefer it, and it needs to work well. Shamanism fits the bill perfectly. We all share it in common; it is the basis of every culture on the planet. It's about seeing the world in terms of relationships between living things. It makes wanton destruction unthinkable. It is a powerful idea that can really grip people, and it goes all the way down to our DNA. We need a new vision for humanity before the current one kills us all, and if shamanism isn't it, then it may at least be our best hope for a model and lessons learned to devise a new one. |
crow365
Sun Apr 18th, 2004 at 08:59 PM |
I wasn't saying you were being dismissive about shamanism at all. Just inquiring about the schizophrenia connection based on my own knowledge. :wink:
Also, I've never come across anything to put Eliade's book into question on the quality of its accuracy and research. Doesn't mean that stuff isn't out there, I've just never come across it.
The neuological link is, however, interesting. I have to admit, even though I don't really like the idea of linking what we think of as "mental illness" with shamanism, that it does pique my interest. Though, I would have to question it, since there are a lot of cultures all across the world where individuals who become shamans choose to quest and make contact with the spirits, instead of being "called" in the classically understood sense (ecstatic "seizures", dreams of being cut up and put back together, etc.). Even though it is interesting, I'd have to see a lot more conclusive proof to link the two, especially if anyone who is dedicated enough can basically become a shaman.
Of course, this also requires us to ask just what is a shaman? Considering even most academic authorities really can't agree on a firm, clear-cut, no grey-areas definition of that.
But I definitely agree with you that shamanism is our best bet for a new cultural vision. |
Bongcart
Mon Apr 19th, 2004 at 03:53 AM |
hrm, so shamanism = schizophrenia = our last hope?
I said this before and I will say it again, we dont need any religions, we dont need any ideologies, those are just toys and grants only satisfaction in the short run. Let me formulate it this way; we should not be looking for a new ideology/religion, we should be looking for eachother. |
jefgodesky
Mon Apr 19th, 2004 at 08:52 AM |
"Looking for each other" is a pretty wide target. You could use that to describe most anything. We don't need a new religion nearly so much as we need a new way of seeing the world. One aspect of that is religion. So, we do need a new religion, and several other things besides. That's all part and parcel of changing a culture. While it's certainly possible to come up with something entirely new, that also means it has no precedent and no pre-existing appeal. Shamanism has the benefit of already being in our genes. Unlike our brand-spanking new monotheistic religions, this is a unviersal religion we've all believed in at some point or another, a religion hard-wired into our neurochemistry itself.
Crow: I'll post with some more references on Eliade and "neurotheology" later today, hopefully. |
Ghost
Mon Apr 19th, 2004 at 03:31 PM |
Don't minds me. This is just an interjection from the peanut gallery.
We don't need a new religion nearly so much as we need a new way of seeing the world.
I would put forward the idea that religion is a by-product of vision.
Vision leads to goal Goal leads to systems, structures and strategies The day-to-day lives of a people within the framework of a given SSS, leads to culture.
All that is to say that culture comes last. Culture is nothing more than the ritualised and habitualised behaviour of a given group; language, ceremony, celebrations, etc. You an only become habituated to something that you do repeatedly. That's why culture comes last.
Religion is a part of culture. So vision inderectly affects the tenets of a religion. So deciding on a religion first is, I don't know, not counterproductive... perhaps, premature.
Peace and Love and Empathy,
Matt |
ledbetter
Mon Apr 19th, 2004 at 03:37 PM |
Matt
I wouldn't have said it that way but we are very close in our views on what you've said. Out on the web there is a writing by Jiddu Krishnamurti called "Ideology" that sort of expounds these views from a less technical standpoint. Ron turned me onto it, I thought I'd pass it along....
Daniel |
jefgodesky
Mon Apr 19th, 2004 at 03:46 PM |
Thanks for clarifying, Matt; that's actually what I was trying to convey. :) |
septicreptile
Mon Apr 19th, 2004 at 04:27 PM |
It's probably an irrelevant shaggy dog story, but all this talk of schizophrenia makes me think of something one of my psychiatry tutors in South Africa told me a long time ago, although the story may have been exaggerated. A black teenager was admitted with what seemed to be severe acute schizophrenia. She had florid, bizarre delusions, she was hearing voices everywhere, she was wild and very difficult to restrain -- a danger to herself and others -- and showed no response to sledgehammer doses of several different neuroleptics. Her mother was distraught. In desperation, the psychiatrists invited a sangoma, i.e. shaman, to speak to her, and after half an hour, she was cured, completely normal again. |
jefgodesky
Mon Apr 19th, 2004 at 10:07 PM |
Michael Winkelman has probably written more on the subject of shamanism and neurology than anyone else. He has a very interesting perspective coming from evolutionary psychology.
Shamanism: The Neural Ecology of Consciousness and Healing is a pretty dense, academic tome where Winkelman shows that the shamanic ecstatic experience is a fundamental function of the human brain. A slightly more condensed version can be found in Winkelman's paper, "Shamanism as Neurotheology and Evolutionary Psychology." (PDF). Shamanism is universal, in large part because it's part of our neural chemistry.
Mircea Eliade's Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstacy was one of the definitive works in the formation of "neoshamanism."* I believe I've already addressed Carlos Castenada's hoax, yes? With Mircea, we're not dealing with such out-and-out fiction as with Carlos, but just shoddy scholarship. While most criticisms of Eliade focus on his collaboration with the Nazis, this is irrelevant to his arguments--it's the logical fallacy of the ad hominem, confusing the mssage and the messenger. Rather, some of Mircea's indicate that he was willing to play a little fast and loose with the truth, and checking up on his sources bears this out. It's been a while since I last went over all this stuff, but Daniel C. Noel's Soul of Shamanism: Western Fantasies, Imaginal Realities goes over the subject in some detail.
Schizophrenia is usually characterized as an inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy. Schizophrenics are plagued with hallucinations, voices, delusions, and extremely erratic or bizarre behavior. Shamanism begins with the fundamental assumption that reality is defined by our perception, and alters perception to take a pragmatic control of reality, that is, shamanism begins with a rejection of any distinction between reality and fantasy. Shamans claim to see vision and converse with plants, animals and spirits; i.e., they hear voices, and suffer from delusions and hallucination. Shamans are universally described as bizarre and erratic in the extreme; shamans are usuallyvery frightening and overpowering figures who are somewhat isolated from the mainstream of tribal life by their eccentricity. In other words, the symptoms of schizophrenia and shamanism are identical; the difference lies, once again, in perspective. Schizophrenics are considered ill in our society and treated as such; shamans are revered and respected.
And, as Winkelman points out, this pattern of thought is not only natural, but critical. The lack of a schizophrenic element in our society could have a lot to do with our failure as a society. This is apparently something humans need, and trying to deny it appears to be detrimental to us. I've heard stories like that many, many times, septicreptile, and I know of at least three similar stories that are actually documented. So, I'm on the fence regarding shamanic miracles; you won't hear me making any claims one way or the other of where shamans get their power. All I know is that shamanism does work, and works quite well.
Also, to address a point crow made, shamans don't usually pursue shamanism. Shamanic ecstasy is a terrifying experience; anyone who actually wants to be a shaman usually doesn't make it. Always be suspicious of someone that eager for such an overwhelming and lonely burden. Only in "neoshamanism" do you find people who actually pursue shamanic ecstasy as some sort of spiritual joy-ride (something any actual shaman would abhor). Rather, shamans are almost always "called." The "shamanic sickness" is ravaging. Nightmares of being torn limb from limb iis the nicest the sickness gets; usually, it's a devastating disease (physical or mental) that forces the person into shamanism just to save their lives. Afterwards, they decide to use that experience to help their tribe as a "wounded healer."
Is shamanism and schizophrenia the same thing? Would seem so. And schizophrenics have given us everything best in humanity. The first evidence of mathematics and science comes from shamanic observations of the stars in the Upper Paleolithic; the first art is distinctly shamanic motifs like painted on cave walls like the Sorcerer of Les Trois Freres; the first evidence of philosophy or religion is found in animism, shamanism and their burial practices. The first musical instruments date to the Upper Paleolithic, when shamanism likely emerged; shamanism usually relies on music and dance to enter an ecstatic trance. The prophets of the Hebrew scriptures were revolutionary in their liberal denunciations of wealth, power and the foundations of civilization; they were also ecstatic preachers who claimed to hear voices and see visions--they were shamans.
It makes sense that our ability for abstract thought would be owed to schizophrenia, if you consider it; what is abstract thought but the ability to divorce ourselves briefly from "reality"? Schizophrenia isn't crippling in itself, but in how we treat schizophrenics. We have bracketed them as "ill," when we should embrace them and integrate them as part of our society. They provide the divine, creative spark of madness that keeps us moving forward. Having divorced ourselves from that, civilization quickly decays into its current murderous state. If there is a hope of finding a new vision for humanity, it surely lies in shamanism; it's the shamans who have always given us our vision.
* My open hostility to neoshamanism is well-documented. Rather than reiterate my reasons yet again, I'll just link to this parable by DQ. |
jadjad
Mon Apr 19th, 2004 at 11:23 PM |
That paper was awesome ("Shamanism as Neurotheology and Evolutionary Psychology." )... Cant wait for when I have more time and can read it in depth. Ive always pondered the links between brain chemistry and shamanism. Ive also always been fascinated by religious symbolism as being tools to access certain psychological states and using them to express aspects of personality perhaps suppressed etc... That article puts it all so nice and succinctly. Having had many personal experiences with altered states of consciousness as a child which have lead to dramatic personal changes Ive always alwyas romanticised about the days when a shaman could have helped guide me through some of my fucked up states, yet at the same time im proud of myself for getting through them somewhat on my own... very interesting thread by the way guys :-) |
JCamasto
Tue Apr 20th, 2004 at 12:55 AM |
Just a little aside hinging off Matt's comment:
Culture is nothing more than the ritualised and habitualised behaviour of a given group; language, ceremony, celebrations, etc. You an only become habituated to something that you do repeatedly. From someone, somewhere I recall the quote:
"We ARE what we repeatedly DO."
That there is the story of my life, in a nutshell…
-Jim |
septicreptile
Tue Apr 20th, 2004 at 04:27 AM |
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
A vociferous website, but some interesting ideas, that seem to tie in well with The Jesus Mysteries.
New religions i think often steal older religions' symbols, rituals, and cosmologies, but infuse them with completely new meanings. It's what the Christians did with the Pagan Mystery Cults.
So if tribalism is reborn, it may be that, outwardly, the old salvationist religions won't change much. |
jefgodesky
Tue Apr 20th, 2004 at 08:58 AM |
That some guy named Jesus was crucified is one of the best-attested facts of the ancient world. We have more solid evidence of Jesus existing than we do of Alexander the Great. People have been making claims otherwise for some time, but they are roundly and soundly debunked and taken as complete kooks by everyone who's ever spent more than ten minutes researching the topic, myself included.
That said, everything beyond "some guy named Jesus was crucified" is up for debate: why he was crucified, what he said, when he said it, under what circumstances, and especially such patently ripped-off myths as the virgin birth and resurrection. You're very right, new religions always borrow liberally from those before. Christianity did it a lot. But to take that all the way to the point of saying Jesus never existed because his later followers dressed him up in some very mythological clothes is, well, not a very tenable hypothesis. |
septicreptile
Tue Apr 20th, 2004 at 09:02 PM |
There were so many men called Yeshua and so many aspiring Messiahs about at the time, sooner or later one of them who happened to be called Yeshua was going to be crucified.
The only extra-Bibilical evidence I know of to "prove" Jesus ever existed are those passages in Josephus, which were almost certainly doctored.
Personally I would prefer to think that Jesus lived and died roughly as I was brought up to believe, but you can't escape the fact that there is no single detail of his alleged life which could not have been "borrowed" from one of the myths of all the other dying-and-resurrecting Pagan godmen.
It doesn't matter that much anymore, other than for the sake of being diplomatic to Christians. Were Osiris and Serapis and Antinous and co. (or even the Buddha) really based on real people or were they pure myths... no one cares about their historical reality much anymore, and rightly so.
It's the myth and its meaning that's important to me. |
jefgodesky
Tue Apr 20th, 2004 at 09:21 PM |
There's a lot more than Josephus. The Testimonium Flavium is usually rejected, but I agree with Wiston's argument that the tone is precisely the sort of sneering, mocking sarcasm that typifies Josephus' style (I have an extraordinarily low opinion of Josephus, primarily for how he betrayed the Galilee garrison and toadied up to the Romans). References to Jesus' existence are made by almost a dozen Roman historians within a century of his death (by comparison, our first mention of Alexander the Great comes a century after his death, and there's only one such, but I don't see anyone doubting his existence). I really don't care about being polite to Christians, but this idea's been floated by a bunch of kooks, crackpots and charlatans masquerading as historians who managed to con people into buying some half-baked theory with no validity to it whatsoever, and that sort of shoddy, underhanded farce of scholarship really sets me off. I don't like these guys at all. Their theory has absolutely no credence to it whatsoever, and the political motivations for it are quite obvious. Not that I have a problem with undermining Christianity, mind you; I do it quite often myself. But rewriting history to advance whatever political agenda you happen to support is a rather perilous pasttime, as history attests.
Mind you, the only thing I'm standing by here is that the man existed, and was executed. Everything--and I mean everything--else is up for grabs, but those two points are pretty immutable.
I'd be just as crazed if somebody was going around saying Buddha never existed, too, actually, 'cause that's just as untenable and just as much an attempt to rewrite history for political gain. And I quite often get this ticked by the whole "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" thing and their attempt to recast the Albigensians in their paranoid medieval conspiracy theory. So I'm not by any stretch a crazed Christian here; I guess my primary allegiance is to historical accuracy in this particular argument. |
septicreptile
Tue Apr 20th, 2004 at 09:46 PM |
Interesting: which other Roman historians mention this historical Yeshua of the gospels?
The Holy Blood-Holy Grail thing is indeed just a conspiracy theory, but a jolly hilarious one i think.
I do care about being polite to Christians, otherwise I find they don't talk to you at all, and some of them are very nice people actually. :lol:
I'm a reasonably devout little Buddhist myself, but I have to admit it, there is not a shred of historical evidence the man ever existed in the flesh. If you read Mahayana sutras, sometimes it seems like he was just a minor figure anyway, not very important in comparison to all the other primordial Buddhas and celestial Bodhisattvas busy communicating with the gurus down here on earth. There isn't even agreement about what was discussed at the second conference of monks held over a century after his supposed death. :twisted:
Anyway, the crux of the matter is, do you absolutely have to give up the bad old salvationist religion in order to have a changed mind? I'm sure Bongoman and Bongcart would be saying you do, but I'm not so sure about you and Ghost. And when tribal people are converted to salvationist religions are they always immediately Takers too, at that point?
And another thing: can we really go backwards in time to old-fashioned shamanism? To me it sounds as impractical as abandoning technology or expecting population to fall with adequate condom usage. It's wishful thinking. |
Xavin
Tue Apr 20th, 2004 at 11:06 PM |
Septicreptile,
do you absolutely have to give up the bad old salvationist religion in order to have a changed mind? In my opinion, it depends on how strongly you interepret the religion. Evangelical Christians certainly won't have a changed mind, but I think that a moderate Christian might. Reformed Jews probably could, too. I would think it a bit uncomfortable to have two sets of memes that are discordant like that, but it's possible.
The day you see a group of tribal Christians is the day you know that we are winning the meme war. :lol:
--William |
Heretic
Tue Apr 20th, 2004 at 11:16 PM |
Anyway, the crux of the matter is, do you absolutely have to give up the bad old salvationist religion in order to have a changed mind?
A few months ago I probably would have said yes. I know quite a few people here find some of them incompatible with the new vision. But now I would definitely have to say no, we don't. Some people are able to reconcile the differences between their religion and the new vision. If that religion doesn't interfere with your new vision, then by all means keep it.
Thom Hartmann is a perfect example. He is an author (one of my favs) that has been mentioned several time in these discussions. He's also a Christian. The first book I read of his, The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, was a fantastic read, and mentioned Ishmael and Daniel Quinn several times. The second book I read, The Prophet's Way, was just absolutely fantastic, focusing entirely on Christianity. Like William just mentioned, certain versions of the Christian faith may not work with a new vision, that book showed me it is definitely not the lost cause I thought it was. |
Bongcart
Wed Apr 21st, 2004 at 12:24 PM |
Okay Im lost here, jefgodesky, you introduced som pretty interesting thoughts into the discussion/debate. (Schizophrenia being something normal). However I think its pretty unfair to sort of heaping all mental activity into what we know and call schizophrenia. It is true that our psychologists thinks of them as ill and even they doesnt really understand whats actually 'wrong' with them. But the burden for people to bear a person who is mentally ill is a very heavy one (I know), and one sickness differs from another, its not possible to say that its all schizophrenia because it isnt. And to say that having ability for abstract thought or imagination would be schizophrenia is simply outrageous. Just because you long for some madness in this world (like it wouldnt exist) you cant make such judgements. Another thing, schizophrenia has nothing with cultural vision to do at all, to hope for schizophrenia to save us is just as stupid as it sounds. But I guess you would just call stupidity the crown jewel of our next vision... so I cant really argue with you it seems, we are not on the same terms at all.
If you long for acceptance of this madness I suppose you wont find it in our society, its true. Like with any animals that live in packs the ones that doesnt fit in are either killed or left behind to die and become food. But the question still lingers, what IS the normal behaviour of human beings? MC is a perfectionist and a progressivistic payment-by-result culture. Some contries more than others tho, compare Cuba or Colombia with Japan or Sweden and you see what I mean. In such value schemes the eccentrics place is either in jail, in the asylum or on TV. Its a very shameful thing to be an eccentric too so people who are naturally eccentric either commit suicide, become insane (Like bubbles in Finding Nemo "Fishs arent meant to live inside a box - it does things to you...") or they become outsiders, some tho gets respected, but usually after their death. I saw a movie about a natural eccentric who lives in New York, he dresses like something like a tribal outfit and sings and chants in a language he invented himself. Today our society is more value-fractured than ever so there are groups who thinks its cool, while other thinks its absurd. Most keep their distance tho because they dont want to be in the spotlight revealing their own eccentricity. Some people are courageous tho and dare to be themselfes in the face of everyone else. The truth is that we all are eccentrics, I give you that, but all of us are not schizophreniacs. |
jefgodesky
Wed Apr 21st, 2004 at 03:36 PM |
As much effort as I put into trying to put it in a way you could understand, Bongo, I really never deluded myself into thinking it was possible. I don't expect to make overwrought Christian zealots see that science has its place, and I guess I don't hold much hope for reaching you, either. But, for the sake of posterity (since everything online is logged forevermore), I feel I need to correct the mischaracterizations of my argument you've made.
There is no "2" in reality. You cannot see, touch, smell or taste "2." It's a concept, entirely in your head. If all of us were perfectly grounded in reality, we would have no math and no science, because mathematics is thought, completely divorced from reality, and science is based on math, and also requires us to impose our thoughts and mental models on reality. We have theories and laws--thoughts--that we expect to see reflected in reality. We form hypotheses about the extent to which nature will obey our ideas, take note of the exceptions, and revise our hypotheses in renewed expectation.
In other words, we are expecting the separation of reality and fantasy to be paper thin. If we were utterly devoid of any hint of schizophrenic influence, we would be entirely bound by the purely physical world. That precludes any abstract thought (abstract thought is the opposite of physical reality, isn't it?), math, science, not to mention art, music, or philosophy.
We're not all schizophrenics. I've known schizophrenics, and they've suffered a lot. Even in tribal societies, the "shamanic sickness" is devastating, even life-threatening. They become shamans first and foremost to save themselves. However, the influence of that effect--either from schizophrenics we live with, or from some very dull hum of madness in all of us--is what gives us the ability to think at all.
When Takers started claiming the one right way, they weren't doing anything new. Shamans claim to have the One Right Way all the time. But, being schizophrenic, they very easily accept that another shaman also has the One Right Way. P and not P is a contradiction; it is illogical; you would need to be more than a little bit crazy to be able to really accept it. Which is how civilization emerged; civilization is extremely logical. Civilization is a neglect of the passionate, for the logical; it is highly ordered and structured, but has no life in it. We know what life without structure can do, and civilization proves the opposite is just as terrible. We're humans, we have both, we should use both. Neglecting either one is suicide.
We need a new vision. Shamanism is a very old vision; old enough to appear new again. We know people respond to it, because it's already worked once. We could try something new, and maybe it will work; but we already know shamanism works, because it's been working for quite some time now. We marginalize schizophrenia, and in so doing make the suffering of those afflicted many, many times worse. Tribalism found a way of dealing with it that not only accepted it and integrated it, but made it the key ingredient in making their societies work. Perhaps we're scientific and knowledgeable enough now to disparage it, but only because it helped us reach this far in the first place. And frankly, I think it's the same sort of sheer hubris we can all see so plainly in monotheistic zealots to think modern science is the One Right Way to Think. |
Bongcart
Thu Apr 22nd, 2004 at 06:30 AM |
jefgodevsky
Okay, I understand what you are talking about, but your arguments are entirely philosophical/hypothetical and lacks the empirical foundation to make them true. Its not as simple as you seem to like to see it, like connecting two dots. There is this religious dualism here as well wich I am allergic to. We have evolved a certain way, noone can point out exactly why. Im very much a positivist and that means I dont include the big why's into the discussion. Metaphysicists usually begin from the whys beyond the lighted path, and then turn to the middle (where we are), and usually that picture of the middle gets perfectly screwed up, so I do quite the opposite, I begin from where we are standing and then broaden the perspective outwards, and I am quite confident I will never reach those places in the margin where the metaphysics are focusing their attention.
Anyway, we have evolved a certain way, we can see and comprehend the world around us, we can think, we can reason, we can feel etc. What you are saying sounds in my ears that we are ill allready, but that surpasses the entire ground for why we have a term for a real disease that takes the minds of people in their later years. for example, I understand you like this; your claim could be that all people are might get cancer, and its a normal condition, and I would say that we are all vulnerable for getting cancer since we are made of cells, but its a disease and no sane person would like to have it. |
jefgodesky
Thu Apr 22nd, 2004 at 09:05 AM |
A disease is a disease because we say it's a disease. For instance, in Africa, a disease with a very long name that I can't remember :lol: caused by parasites has been normalized, such that its symptoms have become signs of adulthood. In our own society, environmental devastation has grown to such a point that we have glossed many of the milder symptoms of air and water poisoning as mere allergies (why do you think we have more "allergies" than ever before?). Schizophrenia in tribes is not nearly as devastating there as it is here; why? Because they don't consider it a disease at all.
We have evolved a certain way because that way worked; no greater "why" is required. I, too, tend to be quite minimalist in the knowledge I'm willing to accept. All I'm really asking is that you be a tad more scientific, actually. A good scientist is always open to the possibility that everything he knows is wrong. That includes the whole idea that knowledge of the outside world is possible, or that there's even an outside world to know.
I don't know if shamanism is correct or not; nor do I know if schizophrenia is "bad" or not. We usually reserve the diagnosis only for those cases where the symptoms reach the point of interfering with daily life, but the actual symptoms themselves are common to us all in a much milder degree. We all mix fantasy and reality all the time; it's what gives us everything from abstract thought to planning tomorrow's lunch. What I do know is that, when placed in a shamanic context, it works. I'm very black box about this. I don't know how or why, I just know it does. |
Vampire_IQ
Thu Apr 22nd, 2004 at 10:25 PM |
if you really want to discuss this or debate the matter, you can always go to debtaforums.net and see what the unopened eyes of the world see about your claims. i'm trying it, and so far it's not that bad. |
Bongcart
Sat Apr 24th, 2004 at 07:56 AM |
jason
J: "What I do know is that, when placed in a shamanic context, it works. I'm very black box about this. I don't know how or why, I just know it does."
B: What is it you are talking about here that 'works'?
J: "A disease is a disease because we say its a disease"
J: "we have glossed many of the milder symptoms of air and water poisoning as mere allergies"
J: "Schizophrenia in tribes is not nearly as devastating there as it is here; why? Because they don't consider it a disease at all."
B: Do I have to get kiddie-basic with you? When a person is suffering from something we call its a disease, AIDS isnt just a disease because we say so, its a disease because its something in your body that is killing you and you suffer a lot because of it as well. And there are exceptions to the rule, since you seem to only understand rules I have to state that rule too, female menstruation for example, lots of women are in a lot of pain and bleed. But its something that is normal because it serves a cleansing function. Whatever those African parasites contribute with that would make them a normalcy would be interesting to know.
Schizophrenia is a state of mental suffering, and it doesnt serve any purpose... you might think that its about getting in touch with the spirit world or something but its not, its a very confused state of being where you even if it was spirits who came to you, be unable to really appreciate it and use it in any practical way because you are generally screwed in the head. Therefore its a disease and the natural response would be to try and help a person that is under that great emotional stress. What proof do you have that American or Brazilian Indians or Malaysian Indians or Mongolian peoples does not concider schizophrenia a disease? That book you read? Yeah if its in a book it has to be true right? On the contrary I think they would try to save that person from that illness with whatever ways they could come up with, just like we would.
J: "We have evolved a certain way because that way worked; no greater "why" is required. I, too, tend to be quite minimalist in the knowledge I'm willing to accept. All I'm really asking is that you be a tad more scientific, actually. A good scientist is always open to the possibility that everything he knows is wrong. That includes the whole idea that knowledge of the outside world is possible, or that there's even an outside world to know."
B: I am a positivist and therefore I think that you cant answer the big why's, that said I dont think its forbidden to think or reason about them, else we wouldnt be talking here. Its just that its very important to distinct between things we can know and point at as proof, and things that are entirely hypothetical. Another thing I believe is that you can find real knowledge and you can make real distinctions between an illness and a healthy state of being, and schizophrenia is not a healthy state of being. Dont get semantic on my ass just prove me wrong man.
To prove me wrong you have to :
1) explain and provide examples where a disease is not something inherently threatening (bad) for the organism.
2) show how schizophrenia contributes or works on the organism that it could be concidered a normalcy. |
jadjad
Sat Apr 24th, 2004 at 10:20 AM |
i think what J is trying to say is that in a tribal context schizophrenia did not necessarily become a disease process. If you want to look up research on the incidence of schizophrenia amongst 'leaver' cultures versus ours I am sure you can find some on the web. From everythign I remmeber the incidence of all forms of mental illness is far lower amongst hunter gatherer people. There are a number of possible reasons for this e.g. the fact that a schizophrenic person may be outcast after their first psychotic episode therefore eliminating them from the gene pool (not a likely one fromw hat I have heard), or because of the absence of gluten in their diets from grains, or because of the high amounts of omega threes, or because of their exposure to sunlight, or because of a lack of exposure to certain viruses during pregnancy that may be linked to schizophrenia, or because of the lack of emotional stress on the mother during pregnancy etc etc...there can be many reasons. One very interesting possibility though is that people with a tendency towards psychosis in these communities become shamans. This doesnt necessarily mean that the spirits cure them. If you take a much closer look at the article j mentioned you will notice it suggests that schizophrenia can be an extreme presentation of normal brain functioning, where in a shamanic context the realms of psychosis can be navigated ina positive way, whereas in our culture a schizophrenic/psychotic person is marginalised, institutionalised, drugged, electrified etc etc theres no attempt to incorporate their mental state into a normal daily life framework. Its hard to explain clearly and i am getting the feeling bongcart that youve formed your own opinion about what j is suggesting... An example is depression versus sadness. Depression is a HUGE problem in our culture. Its a diseased form of sadness. Ina leaver culture there is social and personal ways to deal with sadness so it doesnt become such a huge problem and turn into depression. Similiarly perhaps psychosis and schizophrenia are the diseased manifestations of normal fluctuations in a humans thoughts and experiences. Hope that doesnt simplify it too much?
You have mentioned much abotu science and empiricism etc. So perhaps define what you mean by 'knowledge', truth and fact and how these things can be observed without any subjectivity ont he part of the viewer?
I personally dont believe in god. But if one night god suddenly spoke to me with full force and i felt gods presence with full force, it wouldnt matter what science tells me about gods possible existance/non existance because i would have direct experiential evidence that he/she does. Failing that though im willing to believe what observations I have made about the universe and put FAITH in what science has observed (so far!) about the universe. Therefore i dont believe in god. We live off faith all the time. I have faith that tomorrow morning i will wake up and go to work as normal. I base that ont he evidence that for the past 23 years of my life i have woken up pretty much every morning (or late afternoon depending how good my night before was). But all observed evidnce is only useful if you put FAITH in the fact that it can be reproducible. Faith and fact are way too intertwined to dismiss either... |
jefgodesky
Sat Apr 24th, 2004 at 03:54 PM |
Actually, your criteria are wrong, logically. I must:
1.) Provide an example of a disease that is not inherently threatening.
2.) Provide an example of something that is inherently threatening that is not considered a disease
3.) Provide an example of some way that schizophrenia could be considered an advantage, such that it would be "normal" and the suffering involved in it would make it no more a disease than menstruation.
So....
1.) Since we are speaking of mental diseases here, mental diseases would seem the most appropriate. Though homosexuality in itself is not threatening to anyone, it was listed as a mental illness in the DSM until the 1970s. Before the Civil War, blacks who tried to escape were diagnosed with "Drapetomia," which was characterized by "the absconding from service." Today, ADD and some ideas about aging may prove to be tomorrow's examples; since disease and health are culturally constructed, it is almost impossible to point to modern examples for the same reasons that the medieval mind could not understand the Renaissance. If we could recognize modern examples, then we would immediately cease to consider them diseases, just as we did with Drapetomia and homosexuality. The idea of what "normality" is extends to physical health; disease is aberration from that, and so disease is culturally constructed.
2.) Schistosomiasis. This is a parasitic disease that afflicts over 500 million people in developing countries. In Africa, it has become so widespread that the symptoms associated with it--blood in the urine--has been normalized as a natural part of puberty, and accepted as a sign that a child has passed into adulthood. There is also Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Osteoporosis, Pelvic Congestion Syndrome, fibromyalgia and ARCD in our own culture which, while quite debilitating, are not considered diseases.
Bottom line: our ideas of disease and health is culturally constructed. This is the underlying assumption of medical anthropology. A small selection of medical anthropology journals and periodicals:
3.) Never have I claimed that schizophrenia puts one in contact with spirits. I'm utterly agnostic as to why shamanism works. By "works," I mean that when a shaman claims to cure a man, he is cured, even when there is no obvious place for a placebo effect. I don't how, or why, I just know it happens. Shamans claim spirits, but I'm incredulous; scientists claim the placebo effect, and while that can account for most of a shaman's effectiveness, they have not yet suggested any mechanism for all of a shaman's effectiveness. I give the placebo effect far more credence than most, but even I can't see it putting a tumor into remission the way I've seen shamans do.
That said, our usual criterion for whether a given complex is a mental illness or not is whether or not it interferes with one's daily life. The normal emotion of sadness becomes the clinical mental illness of depression when it becomes an interference to one's daily life. Schizophrenia, too, is a mental illness only when it interferes with one's ability to function in society. That depends a lot on what the society is. In our society, schizophrenia is debilitating. In tribal societies, there is an integrated place for schizophrenics in shamanism, which minimizes the negative effects of it. All the schizophrenics I know had at least 90% of their hardships not from anything inherent to their mental functioning, but from the way our culture thinks about schizophrenia. Much like drugs; the majority of the problems associated with marijuana use have nothing to do with marijuana or its physical effects, but with the fact that it's illegal.*
What advantages might schizophrenia provide? The human brain operates in several ranges, often referred to as brainwaves.
The mental activity normally associated with Beta waves is the active awareness state that we experience from day to day at work and play. There are many external chemicals that can be induced into the brain to produce this state and they are known generally as stimulants. Some of those stimulants are small amounts of alcohol, the nicotine in cigarettes, caffeine in coffee and tea, diet pills, and amphetamines (which are illegal).
Alpha Brainwaves add images and visuals; you could view this as escape from reality. Too much alpha activity leads to excessive escapes and too many daydreams. Too little makes us human machines:– in motion, but without dreams that direct. "Just right," adds perfect porridge bowls balanced for healthier lives.
Theta Brainwaves engage inner and intuitive subconscious. You’ll find theta in places where you hold memories, sensations and emotions. Sometimes, we also store secrets there, which we block out in times of pain, to survive what we feel unprepared to fix.
Out of all the different types of brain waves there is a very interesting range called the Alpha-Theta border. I've already mentioned that the Alpha was half the story, well the Theta wave is the other half of a state of mind that brings about creativity, intelligence, and a host of other abilities the brain is capable of doing when properly stimulated.
It is a state where the central nervous system reduces input from the peripheral nervous system. The lowering of sensory input serves to normally protect the central nervous system from sensory overload caused by stress or physical damage.
Without these outside functions for the brain to control the brain expands its functioning powers. The normally unused portion of the brain becomes active and performs at maximum capacity. This range is between 7-8 hertz and this is not so surprising when you learn that the resonant frequency of the earth and ionosphere is approximately 7.5 hertz. Our brains evolved within this dynamic field and used it as a standard to function on. The mind experiences the body in a half-in half-out state of sleep or detachment. The feeling is of being conscious of all things around you but the body being in deep relaxation.
Many cultures discovered this and the methods to achieve this state naturally and artificially. Many of the worlds religions were founded on reaching this state and devised strict disciplines to do so. The Alpha-Theta range occurs during reverie, hypnogogic imagery, meditation, and by self-hypnosis.
So, intelligence and creativity--the very things that positivists use to define humanity, the very things positivists insist are sufficient to understanding how the universe works--come from the same brain wave activity one reaches in hypnosis, meditation, and shamanic ecstasy. These are related processes, and as we have already seen, shamanism is associated with schizophrenia. A tiny percentage of the population having schizophrenia may be the genetic price of human intelligence, much like sickle-cell anemia is the genetic price of greater protection against malaria.
The contribution that schizophrenia makes is intelligence itself, the ability for abstract thought. The difference between you or I formulating a scientific hypothesis and a schizophrenic is a matter of degree, not kind. We are both engaged in purely mental activities, and expecting to see them reflected in reality. This is not a difference of kind; in a different social setting, mathematics could be disruptive, and you and I would be deemed schizophrenic. It's all relative, because it's all culturally constructed.
Are we all schizophrenic? No, of course not. And in practical terms, schizophrenia can be debilitating for the person afflicted. Even in tribal societies the "shamanic sickness"--that is, schizophrenia in most cases--is a shattering, life-threatening occurence. We further add to their suffering by maligning them with our positivist faith, where tribal societies at least entertain the possibility that it may be they who are correct, and all of us who are wrong. I don't know if that's true or not, but it's a possibility worth considering, and can add a great deal to life. What is animism if not the anthropomorphic, schizophrenic conviction that the trees and animals are alive? Maybe they are just crazy; many of our species' best ideas are very crazy.
A Christian asks me to make one leap of faith, and believe that his Bible is the inerrant truth. A positivist asks me for four leaps of faith: 1.) that there's an outside world, 2.) that my senses can be trusted to give me reliable information about said outside world, 3.) that logic is true, and 4.) that the combination of my senses and my logic is sufficient to understanding how the world works. None of these four premises can be proven, of course. They are all axioms; they are all leaps of faith. That makes positivism not only a religion, but an even less reliable religion than, say, Christianity, which at least only demands the acceptance of a single axiom. No axiom can ever be more or less true than any other, since none of them can be proven. Yes, positivism can present some evidence for itself if you accept its underlying premises. So can Christianity, and Buddhism, and every other religion. They are all self-reinforcing belief systems, that pile on more and more evidence for themselves, but only after you accept their axioms. But those axioms must always be accepted on faith; none of them have a single shred of evidence for or against those underlying assumptions. That's what makes all of them, positivism included, faiths.
And, like all other faiths, positivism declares itself the One True Way and disparages all others. So, religion is not a compulsive liars' syndrome at all, but an important and vital aspect of human existence. Even positivism. But because most religions have forsaken their shamanic origins, they have lost the all-important schizophrenic point that other religions are also the One True Way, and that you can have several different, contradictory One True Ways simultaneously. Because of that, these faiths crumble, degenerate, and fall upon each other and destroy each other, and in the process, slaughter many innocents. And positivism is not excluded here; the 20th century saw some of the worst atrocities civilization had ever wrought, and most of them were executed by positivists. Note the Chinese fervor against the Tibetan theocracy, or any number of "eugenics" programs.
So what's my point? Simple. Mythopaiec, even schizophrenic thought has a very important place in human life. So does scientific thought. Neither is more important than the other. There are times when it's most beneficial to think logically; at other times, it's most beneficial to think illogically. We have no proof that logic is true or false; it's all in our heads, after all. We're humans, and we've evolved the ability to do both because we need both. Abandon one or the other, and you'll quickly destroy yourself and any society you hope to build on such a suicidal, anti-human foundation.
* Disclaimer: I'm very much in favor of decriminalizing marijuana, but I do not smoke pot. For that matter, I also avoid alcohol and tobacco quite strictly. Caffeine and carbohydrates are my only addictions, and I'm working on kicking those, too. |
Csharpm5
Sun Apr 25th, 2004 at 05:50 AM |
what i notice in those who arre religious is that they seem to glow with arrogance and are closed minded.
a friend of mine says that "humans are suckers for security" i feel that religion is for those who are weak minded and insecure. I do not say this to religious people because i just let every one be what they are. |
Bongcart
Sun Apr 25th, 2004 at 07:00 AM |
jefgodevsky
Im losing my patience with you, you say my criteria are wrong and then you go ahead and write some new ones wich anyone could answer. No, you are not being honest or sincere. Im pulling myself out of this rabbithole. |
jefgodesky
Sun Apr 25th, 2004 at 09:33 AM |
#1 and #3 were yours ... you forgot #2, either through forgetfulness or logical sloppiness, but a proper counterproof would have to include #2. If I only proved your two, I would prove nothing at all. But, having proven all three, your arguments have been quite soundly rebutted. I didn't change your points at all, I merely observed that you had set the bar way, way too low.
But I agree, this argument is going nowhere quickly, not because of any insincerity of mine, but because you are no different than the religious people you started this thread condemning. Understandable; that which we hate most is always that which reminds us most of ourselves (otherwise, how would we ever work up that much interest in the matter?). Unfortunately, no zealot, whether positivist, Christian, Muslim or anything else, will ever be able to recognize that fact. Not that I expect this admonition to really be taken to heart, either, but if it has even the slightest possibility of opening up a sliver of doubt (because true understanding, especially of oneself, always begins with doubt), then it's worth the few seconds to type. |
Bongcart
Sun Apr 25th, 2004 at 09:57 AM |
jefgodevsky
The most typical argument religious people have against those who try to be scientific is that they (the scientific dudes) are so close minded. This is a complete misunderstanding of the whole idea of science, but in the minds of religiously misled people science is the conservative ruler defending the boring and materialistic kingdom while they portray themselfes as the cool spiritual rebels in sunglasses. (Like in the movie matrix)
Religious people have their own idea of what science is and what science does, and in all cases I have witnessed it, their ideas are simply pure fiction. Like everything else they believe in.
What they are doing is that they want to discredit science simply because it is empirical, so they produce these fanciful tales about empiricism that it cannot be trusted while their stories should be. I think that somewhere inside the mind of the religious person he feels that what he believe actually is absurd, but that impulse has to be hidden away from sight so he studies his religion over and over and over to really integrate it completely in his mind so the uncomfortable feeling of insecurity about the tales is diminished. Its tragic really.
There is just one thing I can agree with you on jefgodevsky and that is that religion will never sieze to exist, just like humans ability to live in denial wont sieze to exist. |
septicreptile
Mon Apr 26th, 2004 at 08:22 AM |
Jefgodesky: nice work. :)
I was still rather hoping you'd give the names of the other historians beside Josephus who documented the existence of Jesus. :?:
In principle i agree that a disease is not a disease unless we say it's a disease, and schizophrenics in some non-western cultures fare a lot better between psychotic relapses simply because the general community is more tolerant of their symptoms.
But schizophrenia is currently so far on one end of the spectrum (unlike chronic fatigue syndrome etc etc.), it's seen as a very bad disease. If you're going to bring back shamanism by depathologizing it you need practical suggestions as to how to make it be seen as less of a disease.
What are your thoughts about the different subtypes of schizophrenia, e.g. paranoid as opposed to the primarily thought-disordered? |
jadjad
Mon Apr 26th, 2004 at 09:42 AM |
awesome work jefgodesky!! :) I just wish bongcart got what your trying to say, coz i think he is totally missing your point. I guess religion CAN be a compulsive liars syndrome, but so can positivism, empiricism, or any other belief system that claims to know exactly what its all about.... |
jefgodesky
Tue Apr 27th, 2004 at 10:00 AM |
Thanks, guys.
Did Jesus Exist?
Biblical Accounts The earliest of the gospels is Mark; we have a fragment of Mark (Pilate asking Jesus, "What is truth?") that dates to 70 CE. In fact, it's probably even older than that. Matthew uses Mark as a source, and turns Mark's rather ambiguous apocalypse in chapter 13 becomes a vivid and detailed description of the sack of Jerusalem in Matthew. So, Matthew is written after 70 CE, but this also indicates that Mark was probably written some time before 70 CE, or why would he not have made the same conclusion? So, the earliest gospel may have been written as little as 30 years after Jesus' death. So, it would be about as reliable as a book on JFK or Martin Luther King, Jr. written today would be. Over the next century, several hundred gospels were written, all with their own take on the story. There's little doubt they added quite a few mythological elements, but it should be remembered that the standards of "proof" for modern history are very low--there just aren't that many reliable sources to draw from. For example, we only have about a dozen ancient sources for the life of Alexander the Great, many of them dating to as late as the first century CE. By comparison, the gospel accounts alone constitute a veritable orgy of evidence by ancient standards.
Paul's epistles reference a Jesus of Nazareth, dating to only a decade after his death.
The Testimonium Flavium Josephus' reference is probably the most contentious. Many have objected to why a Jew would refer to Jesus as "the Christ," but this misses the point that in Josephus' time, Christianity was a form of Judaism. Also, Paul's epistles refer to "Jesus" only rarely, but to "Christ" many, many times. It is likely that Josephus' Roman audience would have a passing familiarity with a cult figure called "Christ," but not necessarily with anyone named "Jesus." It could be redaction, or simple clarification. Let's not forget Josephus' primary reason for writing his histories, either: to endear the Jews to their Roman conquerors, and posit his patron, the Emperor Vespasian, as the Jewish messiah. To this end, he never refers to any of the rivals to the title as "messiah" but as bandits; Jesus may be called "the Christ" because it was more familiar, or it may have been added by Christian clerics later. One of Josephus' arguments is that the sack of Jerusalem was G-d's punishment for the murder of James, brother of Jesus. Ergo, there must be some reference to the brother that James would be called this and not son of ____.
Josephus has a very slithering, back-handed, passive-aggressive writing style. He likes to attack his enemies without really attacking them--read "Against Apion" for a shining example. Immediately following the Testimonium Flavium is a completely irrelevant interlude of a Roman whore who was tricked into sex with a centurion posing as Anubis, who then claimed the child was the virgin-born son of a god. That Mary was raped by a Roman centurion is a story that has been in circulation a very long time, but this interlude makes sense only if the Testimonium Flavium precedes it, and then it fits perfectly with Josephus' general style: refer to the claims people have made as facts ("he is called the Christ"), and follow-up with a passive-aggressive backhand if you don't like them.
Some scholars still dismiss the Testimonium out of hand, and I agree that on the surface it looks highly suspicious. However, on closer inspection, it not only fits Josephus perfectly, but several of Josephus' arguments fall apart without it. I'll go along that the Christians may have added some glow to the account to make it more pious, but it seems obvious to me and an increasing number of other scholars that Josephus made some sort of reference to Jesus of Nazareth's existence.
Jewish Sources Though interesting, other Jewish sources generally come from the Talmud, making them dubious as historical sources. Unlike the gospels, the earliest copies of these come from nearly half a millennium after Jesus' death. Still, they're interesting to read.
Roman Sources Jesus is referenced by Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Seutonius, Thallus and Lucian. These tend to be from the second century, which would have been the earliest that Romans would have really cared.
Concensus Most of the arguments for dismissing the existence of Jesus revolve around holding the ancient world to modern standards of history, which is simply impossible when you have so few good sources. That a man named Jesus was crucified is one of the most solidly attested facts of the ancient world. Consensus is solidly behind the existence of some sort of historical Jesus; ideas that he was entirely made up are, academicaly speaking, in the same category as von Daaniken's "civilization was started by aliens" and the nonsense in Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
What does it mean? To be sure, the details of Jesus' life are a complete mystery. Personally, I'm with Dom Crossan: Jesus was a peasant Cynic sage who told people to abandon civilization and live together in small, egalitarian communities. The Romans recognized the threat and executed him. Paul then coopted the movement for his own empowerment and turned it into a set of civilized apologia to attract a Roman audience and imperial sponsorship. And so, in one of the great ironies of history, a poisoned dagger poised at civilization's heart becomes its staunchest defender. This is, of course, a theory, and can be disputed. What seems beyond dispute is that there was a Jesus of some kind, and he was crucified. Everything else is open to question, but if this is rejected, then intellectual honesty requires you also reject the historicity of Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and basically anything and everything prior to c. 1500 CE. |
septicreptile
Sun May 2nd, 2004 at 02:35 PM |
Thank you for your response Jason. I apologize for my tardiness in launching a blistering counteroffensive. :twisted:
...Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Seutonius, Thallus and Lucian...
I would be grateful for more precise references. I'd love to look them up.
What seems beyond dispute is that there was a Jesus of some kind, and he was crucified.
As i've said, Yeshua was such a popular name, and being a Messiah was such a popular hobby, this is likely to be true. So i'm not sure where you actually disagree with the conspiracy theorists. :)
Everything else is open to question, but if this is rejected, then intellectual honesty requires you also reject the historicity of Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and basically anything and everything prior to c. 1500 CE.
Yup. Can do. Sounds like fun to me. History was written by the Takers. Let's start ripping it up.
But these comparisons with Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar are wholly specious. Only one Alexander is alleged to have been Great, only one Julius is alleged to have been Caesar, but Yeshuas and Messiahs we have in abundance. No one has taken the time and effort to develop reasonable theories about why the characters of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great might have been fabricated, as they have with Jesus Christ. If they had, i would listen to them as well.
Julius Caesar's writings tell a clear story in a linear fashion. They are written in no-nonsense Latin prose, the most straightforward we have left. They require us to believe the Romans invaded Gaul. The comparison with the four standard gospels is stark. They are full of contradictions and mystical language, and they ask us to believe in the supernatural.
Over the next century, several hundred gospels were written, all with their own take on the story.
You are asking me to believe that the four standard gospels came first, and all the Nag Hammadi gospels were spun out later by the overactive imaginations of some renegade Christians. There's no evidence for this, and lots of reasons to suppose the exact reverse is true. Your mind is in the grip of a conspiracy theory.
By comparison, the gospel accounts alone constitute a veritable orgy of evidence by ancient standards.
Dude, what they possess in quantity, they sure lack in quality. :evil:
The earliest of the gospels is Mark; we have a fragment of Mark (Pilate asking Jesus, "What is truth?") that dates to 70 CE. In fact, it's probably even older than that.
This is a radical stance to defend. Not even the most conservative Christians i know are prepared to say that Matthew and Luke are not heavily dependent on Mark, or that Mark dates earlier than 70 CE. And this is significant, because the letters of Paul, which in many places refer to a mystical, all-encompassing, Gnostic-style "Christ", and barely mention an historical "Jesus", can be dated earlier. They are the oldest Christian documents we have. Actually there are documented ancient allusions to no less than three different gospels of Mark, with the surviving gospel being the exoteric one. The earliest version of Mark makes no mention of proven resurrection: it ends with an empty tomb.
...Jesus was a peasant Cynic sage who told people to abandon civilization and live together in small, egalitarian communities... And so, in one of the great ironies of history, a poisoned dagger poised at civilization's heart becomes its staunchest defender.
You are imposing your own philosophy on Jesus, saying that he was the first Ishmaelist. Historians call this "the deep well effect". You gaze down the well and you can imagine anything being there. Jesus is such a flexible, nebulous character, you can see whatever you want in him if you look hard enough. He can be literally anything: a rabbi, a zealot, a descendant of a royal line organizing a revolution, the founder of the Merovingian dynasty, a Tibetan Buddhist, etc etc.
Bye for now.
Mark. |
jefgodesky
Sun May 2nd, 2004 at 06:20 PM |
I would be grateful for more precise references. I'd love to look them up.
Sure ... looking things up is hard, and I was at work. But here's some more detail.
Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the City.
This is from Suetonius' Life of Claudias (25,4), written about 120 CE. This is some disagreement over whether or not "Chrestus" is Jesus, but the general concensus is that it is.
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
Annales (15,44), written about 109 CE.
They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.
Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.
Dated to about 112 CE
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [it] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.
Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4., cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 206.
Dated to about 120 CE
But these comparisons with Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar are wholly specious. Only one Alexander is alleged to have been Great, only one Julius is alleged to have been Caesar, but Yeshuas and Messiahs we have in abundance. No one has taken the time and effort to develop reasonable theories about why the characters of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great might have been fabricated, as they have with Jesus Christ. If they had, i would listen to them as well.
Actually, I would argue the opposite. Paul was the only one who might have had an interest in making up a Jesus, as the Jesus Movement itself did little to help anybody's wealth or power, and the Movement preceded Paul's cooption by several years. Even Paul never got to benefit from the Movement. If Jesus was made up for someone's benefit, that someone would have to live for four centuries to see any pay-off at all.
But the Diadochi built whole dynasties and flourishing kingdoms based on their inheritance from Alexander the Great; Julius Caesar's life was the foundation upon which Augustus built the Roman Empire. Does ruling the world count as sufficient motivation to make up a character?
I don't actually believe that either were made up, mind you; I'm saying that it would make more sense to make them up than Jesus, and since Alexander or Julius Caesar being fictional is entirely outlandish, a fictional Jesus is even more absurd.
You've fallen back to the defense of many Jesuses and many Messiahs (though I have my doubts that Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah--see "The Five Gospels"). The only thing I've claimed as a historical fact is that somebody named Jesus was crucified. What relationship this Jesus has with the Christ of the Gospels is open to very spirited debate on all the details, but that there was some kind of Jesus somewhere in there seems beyond question. You seem to admit as much here--so, the argument is not that Jesus was entirely made up, but that Christians elaborated on the story to a significant extent. And that I definately agree with. The Greco-Roman and ancient Middle Eastern influences on the Jesus story as we have it today are just as unquestionable as the existence of some sort of Jesus. The "virgin birth" of Christ is obviously patterned after the virgin births of Mithras and even such figures as Alexander the Great.
Julius Caesar's writings tell a clear story in a linear fashion. They are written in no-nonsense Latin prose, the most straightforward we have left. They require us to believe the Romans invaded Gaul. The comparison with the four standard gospels is stark. They are full of contradictions and mystical language, and they ask us to believe in the supernatural.
The "book within a book" by Immanuel Goldstein in 1984 is a very lucid philosophical treatise. The writing of Gabriel Marquez is magically surreal. But Marquez is real, and Goldstein is not. Ernest Hemmingway writes simple, no-nonsense prose chronicling the activities of fictional characters, while Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" makes the G.I. Generation sound like superheroes. Lucidity and clarity of writing hardly proves historicity. Multiple, independent attestation is the primary criterion of historicity, and even though not one of the gospels should ever be taken as a reliable historical document, the fact that they all refer to a "Jesus of Nazareth" proves (as much as any historical fact can be proven) that such a man existed. What he did and what he said is a very open question, but not that he lived.
You are asking me to believe that the four standard gospels came first, and all the Nag Hammadi gospels were spun out later by the overactive imaginations of some renegade Christians. There's no evidence for this, and lots of reasons to suppose the exact reverse is true. Your mind is in the grip of a conspiracy theory.
I never said that. Q probably pre-dated all of them. We can only date Thomas to about 100 CE, about the same time as John. However, as a sayings gospel, I would say both Thomas and Q are more reliable (it's easy to remember pithy one-liners), whereas John puts long, rambling, and very, very Greek philosophical speeches in Jesus' mouth. If we were to believe John, then we'd have little course than to take Jesus for a rambling megalomaniac. Fortunately, John's about as reliable as the Martyrdom of Peter from the second century (that is, not at all). While the majority of the non-canonical gospels cluster in the second century, several were written quite early, at the same time as the four canonical gospels or earlier. I don't give the canonicals any sort of pride of place; these are just the easiest to reference and the ones everyone knows. Frankly, Thomas is my own favorite gospel, and Q is almost certainly the most reliable.
Dude, what they possess in quantity, they sure lack in quality.
Not if you're trying to prove the historicity of a given figure. We can proven that about a dozen of these gospels were written independently of each other (the later ones being composed from some combination of those dozen as sources). A dozen nearly contemporaneous sources all talking about the same person? That's almost unheard of in the ancient world; and for non-royalty, Jesus stands out as the only example.
This is a radical stance to defend. Not even the most conservative Christians i know are prepared to say that Matthew and Luke are not heavily dependent on Mark, or that Mark dates earlier than 70 CE. And this is significant, because the letters of Paul, which in many places refer to a mystical, all-encompassing, Gnostic-style "Christ", and barely mention an historical "Jesus", can be dated earlier. | |