Campbell's take on Christianity

[Mudgely]

I have been reviewing some of Joseph Campbell’s writing and lectures. He makes the interesting statement that the reason that Christianity and western culture are dying is that the fatal error was made of confusing mythological archetypes with factual beings, starting with the Old Testament.

He points out that this leads to an ethical and moral system of living which lacks spirituality. Religious systems and societies which have not made this mistake, are vibrant spiritually.

I realize that this statement will be controversial around here, but it just could be that many of our societal problems come from this lack of spiritual basis in the religion which has been the foundation of our society. Campbell claims that the current state of affairs is inevitable for that reason. Here, I see folks proclaiming that the loss of Christian influence in society is detrimental. Campbell takes exactly the opposite view for the reasons stated, but it is an even greater problem when a society devoid of spiritual religion, also loses its moral foundation. So, in this sense, Campbell would agree the oft expressed opinion on this forum.

 

[exnihilo]

Why does he consider confusing mythological archetypes with factual beings bad? And what does he mean by spirituality? I see no link between factual beings and a necessary decrease in spirituality. Is he saying that no true religion does any good but that only false or made up religions do?

 

[Mudgely]

Why does he consider confusing mythological archetypes with factual beings bad? And what does he mean by spirituality? I see no link between factual beings and a necessary decrease in spirituality. Is he saying that no true religion does any good but that only false or made up religions do?

You state it precisely. Campbell would say that every religion is made up, and that the failure to understand that leads to a misunderstanding of the archetypal forces at work. Keep in mind that Campbell spent his life finding the similarities between spiritual systems. To him, there is more in common than there is different between spiritual traditions.

For example, when he speaks on virgin birth, he draws from all of the spiritual tradition who rely on it as a part of their story. It is not a concept unique to Christianity. Campbell would probably say that a fault of Christianity would be that it confuses this archetypal story with an actual event.

 

[Mudgely]

Another example of classic Campbell is his view that Paul’s insight while on the road to Damascus was that Christ’s death is not an actual physical death, but as something representative of the tradition of religious death of the corporal attachment in order to be reborn or resurrected in the spirit, which is common to most religions. He would see himself as bringing a more catholic sense, in the original meaning of the word. He seeks the unifying themes in mythology and religion across time and cultures.

 

[Barbkw]

…the reason that Christianity and western culture are dying is that the fatal error was made of confusing mythological archetypes with factual beings

…Christ’s death is not an actual physical death…

Muhammad’s heresy.

 

[GelasianumVetus]

What Campbell seems to fail to deal with is the fact that Western culture has not been continuously declining since the peace of Constantine and the somewhat later establishment of Christianity as the state religion of Rome. There have been ups and downs over that period, but it seems like a sort of narrative which does not meet with the historical facts. Now perhaps the decline in spirituality can be partly linked to a merely historical interest in Jesus, but it simply does not follow that the events of Jesus being true historically means that spirituality can no longer exist easily. What about the great spiritual movements that arose in the early days of Christianity?

Often, I think Campbell, while having some great insights into common themes in human religiosity, has to stretch sometimes to make his point. And he has to because of the underlying assumptions about the unity of human religious experience.

He often reinterprets things in a way which an adherent of the religion, or even the text itself, would not. As an example, take how he speaks about the Ascension in his interview with Bill Moyers, written down in the Power of Myth (I am not quoting, but recalling what I read). He says that obviously Christ didn’t go up into the sky, but rather went into himself, into his inner Christ. No Christian theologian would accept that. Whether Jesus actually went into the sky or not, the symbolic meaning of going into the sky is that he was going to the Other, to his Father, and not to some universal being contained within himself. Campbell has to change the ostensible meaning of the event in order to make it work in his system.

 

[Mudgely]

Can you explain why mythological and religious systems all share the same themes? This is the problem of choosing one of the other, right? How does one decide which particular system among the essentially similar systems is the “one true” system of belief?

This is why Pascal’s wager fails.

 

[exnihilo]

You state it precisely. Campbell would say that every religion is made up, and that the failure to understand that leads to a misunderstanding of the archetypal forces at work. Keep in mind that Campbell spent his life finding the similarities between spiritual systems. To him, there is more in common than there is different between spiritual traditions.

So then he is saying that mankind does best (a metaphysical concept) when he believes in something which is false, that is something that does not comport with reality. That seems rather strange. He is saying man does best when he is irrational. Are the best political systems that which are run by men whose only justification for actions are ‘the gods told me to do this’ (assuming they were not actually so instructed)?

I’ve never really thought about it but this system is almost some sort of Platonism gone awry. In this case the ideal (the form) does not actually exists in any sense at all.

For example, when he speaks on virgin birth, he draws from all of the spiritual tradition who rely on it as a part of their story. It is not a concept unique to Christianity. Campbell would probably say that a fault of Christianity would be that it confuses this archetypal story with an actual event.

There are other virgin birth stories. But not quite so many as people suggest. If there is something actually good about virginity (purity) then it would only make sense that a virgin birth would be a better thing than the standard birth. Man could reason to this on his own. This kind of criticism I find lacking because it suggests that if God conforms in any way to the reality we experience He is false. At the same time with Christianity one ought to observe that throughout the Sacred Scriptures God does many unexpected things. Particularly He elevates the lowliest to the highest.

Can you explain why mythological and religious systems all share the same themes? This is the problem of choosing one of the other, right? How does one decide which particular system among the essentially similar systems is the “one true” system of belief?

People will dismiss a religion because it is like others or because it is unique. There is no obvious standard for deciding the truth of a religion that relates to that religions uniqueness.

Regarding deciding which one is the one true I think that is a bad way to look at it. I would look at which religion contains the most truth. Most religions contain some element of the truth. Man is by his nature limited and can never fully understand God (even if you dont believe God exists you would have to admit as much based on the definition of God). Deciding which religion contains the most truth is not always easy. Man grows in his knowledge and understanding throughout his life. Personally I think if one examines the various religions he will find Christianity makes the most sense. But at the end of the day many things keep people from belief.

 

[Mudgely]

So then he is saying that mankind does best (a metaphysical concept) when he believes in something which is false, that is something that does not comport with reality. That seems rather strange. He is saying man does best when he is irrational. Are the best political systems that which are run by men whose only justification for actions are ‘the gods told me to do this’ (assuming they were not actually so instructed)?

I’ve never really thought about it but this system is almost some sort of Platonism gone awry. In this case the ideal (the form) does not actually exists in any sense at all.

There are other virgin birth stories. But not quite so many as people suggest. If there is something actually good about virginity (purity) then it would only make sense that a virgin birth would be a better thing than the standard birth. Man could reason to this on his own. This kind of criticism I find lacking because it suggests that if God conforms in any way to the reality we experience He is false. At the same time with Christianity one ought to observe that throughout the Sacred Scriptures God does many unexpected things. Particularly He elevates the lowliest to the highest.

People will dismiss a religion because it is like others or because it is unique. There is no obvious standard for deciding the truth of a religion that relates to that religions uniqueness.

Regarding deciding which one is the one true I think that is a bad way to look at it. I would look at which religion contains the most truth. Most religions contain some element of the truth. Man is by his nature limited and can never fully understand God (even if you dont believe God exists you would have to admit as much based on the definition of God). Deciding which religion contains the most truth is not always easy. Man grows in his knowledge and understanding throughout his life. Personally I think if one examines the various religions he will find Christianity makes the most sense. But at the end of the day many things keep people from belief.

In a way, I think Campbell would say that, but he would not call what is mystical “false”, he would rather say that there are universal archetypal truths, and the confusing those mystical archetypes with actual corporal entities is what is false. That is not to say that a relationship cannot be found between the two. The first one that he cites is a very old statue which equates the cycle of the moon with a woman’s cycle. I don’t recall the date, but at least 2,000 BC. To make it more concrete, he might say that Christianity confuses the lightbulb with the light. To him, what is important is not the vehicle, but the light.

 

[greylorn]

I have been reviewing some of Joseph Campbell’s writing and lectures. He makes the interesting statement that the reason that Christianity and western culture are dying is that the fatal error was made of confusing mythological archetypes with factual beings, starting with the Old Testament.

He points out that this leads to an ethical and moral system of living which lacks spirituality. Religious systems and societies which have not made this mistake, are vibrant spiritually.

I realize that this statement will be controversial around here, but it just could be that many of our societal problems come from this lack of spiritual basis in the religion which has been the foundation of our society. Campbell claims that the current state of affairs is inevitable for that reason. Here, I see folks proclaiming that the loss of Christian influence in society is detrimental. Campbell takes exactly the opposite view for the reasons stated, but it is an even greater problem when a society devoid of spiritual religion, also loses its moral foundation. So, in this sense, Campbell would agree the oft expressed opinion on this forum.

Campbell over-intellectualized the issue but is essentially correct. Judaism was going no where because its leadership consisted of useless, trivial, and seriously inbred kings, and its “spiritual” God, of whom no pictures or statues could be made, and who offered no explanation for the human purpose, was not an entity with which real people could identify. Evidence shows that Jewish families played CYA by keeping little Chinese-made statues of other gods around the house.

Christianity solved this problem brilliantly, by retaining the God of Judaism as God the Father and Creator, producing a corporeal version of God as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and retaining an ineffable spirit God in the form of the Holy Ghost, giving Christianity the best of all possible God concepts by embracing all God-concepts.

It had a Big God to do the Creating, a corporeal God who could be hung up on a bedroom crucifix or behind a cathedral altar for cursory worship, and the mysterious, spiritual Holy Ghost to represent all that we cannot possibly understand.

Christianity’s rise to religious ascendancy was inevitable.

However, its festering pimple, the long suppressed human curiosity for knowledge, finally broke in the late16th century, under the name Galileo Gallilei. He told the Church the direction it needed to go, and the Church replied, with the respect that Galileo had earned, shut up or die.

Since then the Church has taken its own path, and science another. Forget the over-intellectualized “archetype” nonsense. It has come down to a matter of science-educated egoists vs. religion-educated egoists, a battle of programmed brains which religion is certain to lose (to the world’s detriment).

 

[Mudgely]

Campbell over-intellectualized the issue but is essentially correct. Judaism was going no where because its leadership consisted of useless, trivial, and seriously inbred kings, and its “spiritual” God, of whom no pictures or statues could be made, and who offered no explanation for the human purpose, was not an entity with which real people could identify. Evidence shows that Jewish families played CYA by keeping little Chinese-made statues of other gods around the house.

Christianity solved this problem brilliantly, by retaining the God of Judaism as God the Father and Creator, producing a corporeal version of God as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and retaining an ineffable spirit God in the form of the Holy Ghost, giving Christianity the best of all possible God concepts by embracing all God-concepts.

It had a Big God to do the Creating, a corporeal God who could be hung up on a bedroom crucifix or behind a cathedral altar for cursory worship, and the mysterious, spiritual Holy Ghost to represent all that we cannot possibly understand.

Christianity’s rise to religious ascendancy was inevitable.

However, its festering pimple, the long suppressed human curiosity for knowledge, finally broke in the late16th century, under the name Galileo Gallilei. He told the Church the direction it needed to go, and the Church replied, with the respect that Galileo had earned, shut up or die.

Since then the Church has taken its own path, and science another. Forget the over-intellectualized “archetype” nonsense. It has come down to a matter of science-educated egoists vs. religion-educated egoists, a battle of programmed brains which religion is certain to lose (to the world’s detriment).

I would say that Tyco Brahe broke the Christian dam, not Galileo. But I understand your point.

What is so fascinating about Campbell is his encyclopedic knowledge of various religious and mythological systems, and his ability to find the common threads in them. He is able to able to find a synthesis of their origins, and their evolution.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Mudgely
**
I have been reviewing some of Joseph Campbell’s writing and lectures. He makes the interesting statement that the reason that Christianity and western culture are dying is that the fatal error was made of confusing mythological archetypes with factual beings, starting with the Old Testament.**

Christianity is not dying. It is struggling against atheists like Joseph Campbell who would have liked to see it dead and buried. You are impressed by a weak philosopher and a weaker historian who liked to pass himself off as the fount of all worldly wisdom.

If you are an atheist, which I suspect, you are blowing hot air in this forum. Save yourself a wasted effort.

 

[Mudgely]

Mudgely
**
I have been reviewing some of Joseph Campbell’s writing and lectures. He makes the interesting statement that the reason that Christianity and western culture are dying is that the fatal error was made of confusing mythological archetypes with factual beings, starting with the Old Testament.**

Christianity is not dying. It is struggling against atheists like Joseph Campbell who would have liked to see it dead and buried. You are impressed by a weak philosopher and a weaker historian who liked to pass himself off as the fount of all worldly wisdom.

If you are an atheist, which I suspect, you are blowing hot air in this forum. Save yourself a wasted effort.

you clearly do not understand his message. try again.

Christianity is dying, but not as rapidly as the Catholic sect, if you look at attendance rates and so forth in “Catholic” countries. Belgium came up recently in the news. The attendance rate is right around 5-6 per cent according to the church, and declining at a rate of 1% per year. If this were a publicly traded company, you would be getting rid of it.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

you clearly do not understand his message. try again.

Christianity is dying, but not as rapidly as the Catholic sect, if you look at attendance rates and so forth in “Catholic” countries. Belgium came up recently in the news. The attendance rate is right around 5-6 per cent according to the church, and declining at a rate of 1% per year. If this were a publicly traded company, you would be getting rid of it.

Mudgely, if you are going to present what is a fairly vacuous argument from Campbell, you should probably start by at least trying to define some of the pretty vacuous terms he used, if you want the argument to be taken seriously on this forum.

What did Campbell mean by “spirituality”? If he denied the existance of a supernatural (or, hypermundane) reality, then from where does an individual’s "spirituality derive? If he simply used the term to describe a positive inward-looking (and presumably beneficial) psychological state, what is the benefit of a false state of consciousness, even if it is personally beneficial, from a psychological perspective, to the individual?

If one denies that a supernatural reality exists, but still argues that a “spiritual” state may contain benefits for the individual, this leads to some extreme difficulties for anyone arguing from a naturalist perspective, BTW, As Plantinga pointed out, from a naturalist perspective our cognitive apparatus, to include our neurophysiology and brain chemistry, were created solely through the processes of natural selection. If so, only features that promote individual survival and the transmission of DNA were involved in the development of the cognitive appartus, not the need to identify truthful propositions (any number of untrue beliefs can lead to greater reproductive success and individual survival, after all). Campbell’s apparent belief that a non-objective “spiritual” state is desirable, actually supports this proposition. This leads to huge problems for a naturalist perspective of reality and the supernaural, as if, based on a strictly naturalist worldview, we can’t accurately judge the truth or falsity of a statement, we can’t also argue for the truthfulness of the naturalist perspective itself.

If Campbell’s argument was that while (as you state) all religions are “made up,” does he then argue that his own “spiritual” views, such as they are, are the only correct ones?

Did Campbell argue that although all religions are made up, yet “archtypal truths” possess a sort of mystical reality? If so, where do these archtypal truths derive from? Individual brain chemistry? Racial Memory? A shared human consciousness? Literary antecedents? Did Campbell try to define the origin of a term that he, like Jung, threw around pretty loosely?

Accusations of antisemitism have dogged Campbell’s reputation since his death (and, it should be pointed out, his followers have defended him against such accusations just as vociferously). He definitely seemed to favor the eastern traditions (which can be seen as metaphorical rather than literal truths, and which avoid some of those messy moral imperatives to which we ignorant westerners continue to cling, along with our guns and Bibles), just as Sam Harris does. His distaste for the more rigorous Judaeo-Christian mystical and moral traditions, in favor of following one’s bliss and suchlike, could probably be seen as a reflection of his own personality preferences rather than any real insights into the human condition.

Plus which, he was responsible for increasingly bad iterations of the original Star Wars movie, amd generations of lazy screenwriters.

 

[greylorn]

I would say that Tyco Brahe broke the Christian dam, not Galileo. But I understand your point.

What is so fascinating about Campbell is his encyclopedic knowledge of various religious and mythological systems, and his ability to find the common threads in them. He is able to able to find a synthesis of their origins, and their evolution.

No real quibble here. I’m more a student of science than its history, which has come in fits and starts along the way. Given my current understanding, Brahe, Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler were part of a disconnected consortium, each doing what they could to the best of their abilities. Galileo is important because he put his posterior on the line and publicized his ideas. I also appreciate that he developed the first formal law of classical physics.

These were all intelligent men who did their best to advance human understanding. I doubt that any of them would currently care about their relative importance— but if they did I would kill to be privy to the argument.

Methinks that you are one who understands human behavior, which explains your fascination with Campbell. For someone with your focus, I cannot imagine (from what I’ve read of him) a better mentor. Perhaps you will be to Brahe as Mendelssohn was to Bach. I suspect that a Fox News poll asking people what they knew about Tycho Brahe would produce even more stupifying comments than questions about Millard Fillmore. Brahe deserves better.

And, since I am socially inept, having but the vaguest understanding of human behaviors, I can only offer some limited
notions about the physics of things and the logic of conceptual relationships.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

An article on Campbell’s strengths and weaknesses (I didn’t know he was a lapsed Catholic) from Crisis Magazine:

crisismagazine.com/2012/the-master-mystifier-joseph-campbell

 

[Arizona_Mike]

An article on Campbell’s strengths and weaknesses (I didn’t know he was a lapsed Catholic) from Crisis Magazine:

crisismagazine.com/2012/the-master-mystifier-joseph-campbell