The "Truth" of Symbol Part I (Demanding Evidence part 2)

[Syntax]

Magnanimity,

Quite honestly, I am not sure if you’re another one of Leela’s sock-puppets, or if you are a genuinely different individual. Please excuse me for my mistrust, but Leela has already created this strong impression on all of us who regularly engage with Leela that whenever some other individual tries to lessen Leela’s offense, the “other” alleged individual happens to be Leela trying to defend Leela under another pseudonym to soften the blow. So I’m skeptical. Please understand.

But then, how is Leela to fulfill her stated mission?
I don’t really know the answer to that question, but wha is worse is that I suspect there isn’t one. But, maybe Leela is ‘hopeful’ enough, even in her atheism, to surprise us.

I hope so, but I also seriously doubt it, Magnanimity. This has been going on for over a year now. And this is exactly what Leela would say to support Leela’s continued presence on here. I’m truly sorry about this. I just feel totally turned around by “the Leela question,” and I’m deeply suspicious when individuals have a very similar cadence and style of Leela’s own writing, which your own resembles some.

Syntax,

I hear you loud and clear. You’ve articulated a lot of my own reactions to Leela’s replies (and failures to reply). In my post #24 above I said,
“This point [of Campbell’s] seems odd to me, almost elitist. How would someone like Campbell who is outside some, if not all, religious traditions, know whether a group of believers were misenterpreting the myths of their own religious traditions? In one sense, what Campbell describes here is literally impossible–who else, besides the believers within a particular religious tradition, are going to describe and interpret the myths within their own tradition?!”

Yes, I like this.

And, I got no reply, just as you will likely receive here (or you’ll get a ‘ships passing in the night’ reply).

I don’t really get Leela either. I originally began engaging her (assuming female because the name sounds female) because (s)he seemed somewhat thoughtful but mostly because her stated aim is to, as an atheist, engage believers, which is very laudable. But, when I stopped getting engaging replies to what I thought were my best counter-arguments I thought I’d bow out undetected.

This is exactly my own frustration, and many others’, too. Right at the point where Leela’s claims are undercut by counterarguments, Leela disappears without a reply. What is going on with Leela? I’m not quite sure, but after eliminating the possible alternatives, here’s my educated guess: A secretly malicious attempt to undermine the Christian faith. Leela’s approach comes across congenial and polite, which makes Leela’s approach all the more deceptive, and it creeps me out. My gut continues to tell me something is seriously dysfunctional about the situation. Most atheists just make a fool of themselves by blasting away with their nonsense. But Leela comes across more thoughtful by beginning a post with some unsuspecting book-cover quote or plagiarized piece about what some other atheist thought about the topic. And then Leela bails out to create another post when he/she is genuinely confronted in the previous one starting the same process all over again with different people. This is scary!

But, it’s hard, you know, what we ask? The Catholic Church is like the Pacific Ocean in its vastness. It does seem a lot to ask of someone who is atheistic to read thoroughly and make the concerted effort we’re all expecting of Leela. I’ll probably be studying and growing in the Catholic faith for the next 50 years and anticipate that I’ll feel as if I’ve barely scratched the surface at the end of it. An academic may not feel that way, but your regular guy surely will, even one like myself who actually does read and reflect. .

Quite so. But I just don’t like the thought of a genuinely struggling Christian coming fumbling across the errors of Joesph Campbell (or Leela, I can’t tell who is which), and not have anyone to point out the lie for him/her. Leela’s whole approach is deceptive, and Leela knows this. So whatever Leela’s intention is, I can’t bring myself to tolerate this kind of rampant spread of error because it is dangerous to others. It makes me sick to my stomach, and it needs to be exposed for what it is. So I will not “duck-out” of the situation like you have tried to do. I strongly recommend against that out of a concern for our brothers and sisters in Christ who may be struggling with personal doubts.

 

[Magnanimity]

Ha! I like it!! One massive conspiratorial enterprise that’s been going on for over a year?! Wow. I had no idea. I do take the time to look at “join dates.” Yours is quite recent. I wouldn’t have thought of a year-long controversy with the notorious (as I’m coming to find out) Leela. As you can see, my join date is one of the oldest here. Joined right after I became Catholic in '04, and if you searched any of my prior posts you’d see the (relative!) consistency over time. Don’t you worry sir! Other than your own internal suspicions built up around the conspiracy idea, you’d have no special reason for thinking that I am a part of it. Besides which, Leela never answers my strongest arguments (as she probably doesn’t yours). I’m much too clever to be Leela…

 

[Syntax]

Ha! I like it!! One massive conspiratorial enterprise that’s been going on for over a year?! Wow. I had no idea. I do take the time to look at “join dates.” Yours is quite recent. I wouldn’t have thought of a year-long controversy with the notorious (as I’m coming to find out) Leela. As you can see, my join date is one of the oldest here. Joined right after I became Catholic in '04, and if you searched any of my prior posts you’d see the (relative!) consistency over time. Don’t you worry sir! Other than your own internal suspicions built up around the conspiracy idea, you’d have no special reason for thinking that I am a part of it. Besides which, Leela never answers my strongest arguments (as she probably doesn’t yours). I’m much too clever to be Leela…

I believe you; my conspiracy-theory hypothesis doesn’t hold up very well at all with respect to your own stats…haha…

I knew something was seriouly array when I first came across Leela’s posts. It just took other people to confirm the suspicion for me. So we are not alone about all this. But the whole stinky situation does make one paranoid, which is lame.

ahh! You’re a fellow philosopher! It’s good to be in the same company.

Congratulations on your baptism! Still feel like a “neophyte”? I do…Funny, I became Catholic in '06 after about 3 years of seriously flirting with the whole idea, so I am still just a beginner myself. You know the deal with having to address all those ghosts of the past. The struggle can be really tough sometimes, but the joyous rewards are never what we expected while our horizon continues to expand. So I’d never go back to the liberally fashionable but lifeless beliefs about religion found in Sponge, Campbell, Watts, Wilber, Trungpa…This stuff just leads to a dead end. Something was always missing for me.
anyway…

I’ll check out some of your posts to see what’s on your mind

Cheers,

S

 

[Leela]

Magnanimity,

Quite honestly, I am not sure if you’re another one of Leela’s sock-puppets, or if you are a genuinely different individual. Please excuse me for my mistrust, but Leela has already created this strong impression on all of us who regularly engage with Leela that whenever some other individual tries to lessen Leela’s offense, the “other” alleged individual happens to be Leela trying to defend Leela under another pseudonym to soften the blow. So I’m skeptical. Please understand.

This is absurd. I have said that my real name is not Leela just as yours is not Syntax. I do use my real name on a different forum in which I’ve participated for about 10 years. WPS seems to think that he is some sort of a super-slueth for figuring that out, but there is nothing unusual about using different logins on different sites.

(Plus, I am not aware of anyone around here ever trying to defend me.)

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

I believe you; my conspiracy-theory hypothesis doesn’t hold up very well at all with respect to your own stats…haha…

I knew something was seriouly array when I first came across Leela’s posts. It just took other people to confirm the suspicion for me. So we are not alone about all this. But the whole stinky situation does make one paranoid, which is lame.

What do you suppose is my secret agenda? I’ve always been up front about the fact that I am not religious. You have no need to wonder if you are just being paranoid, I really am disagreeing with you.

 

[Leela]

In my post #24 above I said,
“This point [of Campbell’s] seems odd to me, almost elitist. How would someone like Campbell who is outside some, if not all, religious traditions, know whether a group of believers were misenterpreting the myths of their own religious traditions? In one sense, what Campbell describes here is literally impossible–who else, besides the believers within a particular religious tradition, are going to describe and interpret the myths within their own tradition?!”

Hi Magnanimity,

I don’t mean to ignore your posts. There is only so much time I can devote to this forum. Sometimes one slips through the cracks that I would like to respond to, and sometimes I just have to make choices about which posts to respond to. If you feel that there is an important issue I haven’t responded to please feel free to remind me to address it.

In the above, there is just a difference of opinion with no way to resolve. Campbell thinks a given myth ought to be understood in a certain way. Believers in a given tradition tend to interpret it a different way. Campbell think that the believers have it wrong. The believers think that Campbell has it wrong. There is not much more to say than that.

The only thing that Campbell could appeal to in claiming that his interpretation is the one that people within a given tradition ought to use rather than the one that they currently use is in arguing that his interpretation is how the given myth would have been interpreted in earlier days of the tradition. But they may be now way to argue that earlier interpretations are better than later ones generally.

However, it is important in interpreting ancient myths to recognize that the myths were written and interpreted by people who did not interpret science and history as we understand those terms today, because ancient people did not understand science and history the way we understand science and history. Of course, if you want to believe that the myths were divinely inspired and interpretation of them within a tradition is also divinely inspired, then all such academic points are irrelevent, which is why I probably didn’t bother to respond originally.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

You are making a caricature out of everything. And what Campbell says is plainly false because he couldn’t gather our inside of views of the matter since he himself wasn’t part of any religious organization.

This isn’t true. Campbell was raised Roman Catholic and remained so into his twenties.

So his analyses of the private affair of someone’s struggle with orthodoxy is presumptuous and misinformed. I find it very offensive that you outsiders are so arrogant as to tell us about our own relationship to the Church and its tradition without investigating it yourselves. You have no clue whatsoever. So just quite making unsubstantiated assumptions about our private and public faith.

The struggle he wrote about was his own struggle (and mine). The Church’s dogmatic interpretations of its symbols ceased to ring true for him.

Orthodoxy is intended to serve the people. Argument over.

Argument? Why must you get so heated? We agree then that the orthodoxy in general like the Sabbath in particular exists to serve the people. So if it ceases to do so, the orthodoxy must be changed.

When individuals have problems with their faith, this is either due to misunderstanding, confusion, concupsicience, denial, pride, or other personal issues.

To me this just sounds like part of the dogma of the orthodoxy itself.

It is not a fault of the symbol. Just as it is not the fault of the stop-sign when people can’t read it or when they refuse to pay attention to it out of stubborn willfulness.

You are misunderstanding Campbell here. He does not fault the symbol. He thinks they function just fine on their own without teh Church dictating how they must be interpreted.

This is where you and Campbell are totally wrong. Are you saying religous organization is, or ought, to be only the performance of rites and rituals and not the interpretations of such symbols?

This is Campbell’s view. I haven’t made up my mind on the matter. I tend to think that different people need different sorts of religion, and some people may best served by a Church that insists on a given interpretation of its symbols.

Either way this is incorrect. Religious organizations, especially the Catholic Church, has a wealth of intellectual interpetative tradition. It also has thousands of documented **unique **personal experiences within this tradition such as Therese of Lisieux, Therese of Avila, John of the Cross, Fr. Padre Pio, Thomas Merton, Edith Stein, Fr. Corapi, etc, etc… Faith is very personal and very unique to each indivdual, but it is not an entirely subjective or private affair either.

There is no disagreement about the facts of what the Church has done to interpret symbol and myth. The question is about whether or not it serves well to insist on a particular interpretation as dogma.

Lol. No one tells anyone how to “experience God.” This is precisely your misconception of the whole Christian prayer experience. Prayer is a willed act on the individual’s part to commune with God, and the transcendent experience of Him is a gift no one has any control over, nor does the Church itself either. I don’t “meditate” myself into God’s presence as if I could manipulate Him. This is precisely the fundamental Eastern-Mystic error you are throwing onto Christianity as if we were Hindus and Buddhists. This is why Campbell’s gloss over the similarity in religions doesn’t do any of them any justice.

While you were rolling around on the floor laughing you seem to have missed what Campbell was actually saying in that quote. He never asserted anything about experiencing God, he said that the Church dictates how its symbols are to be experienced.

Here is the quote again:
When the Church creates dogmas, Campbell wrote, “telling precisely what kind of meaning you shall experience in a symbol, explaining what kind of effect it should have upon you, then you are in trouble. This symbol may not have the same meaning for you that it had for a council of Levantine bishops in the fourth century. If you do not react as expected, you doubt your faith.” For example, “whatever the relationship of the Father to the Son, or of the Father to the Holy Ghost may be, as defined by high ecclesiastical authority, the individual’s assent to a definition is not nearly as important as his or her having a spiritual experience by virtue of the influence of the symbol.”

The transcendence of God himself cannot be captured in a formula; and a person’s inability to discover the full import of these symbols is not the fault of the symbol that points to Him. Symbols are not static signs with one and only one meaning. They are living dynamic realities which Christians continue to plunge deeper into while the individual uncovers the infinite layers of his own soul through the very assistance of this symbol.

Campbell would agree with this as I understand him.

False. Symbols speak directly to the individual psyche by the collaboration of personal experience and Church teaching. It requires the cooperative interplay of both to have any lasting impact on the individual.

This is where you and Campbell disagree.

And again, symbols are not static signs with only one meaning!! They are living dynamic realities.

Campbell and Tillich would agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Leela]

This is a dangerously convoluted use of “truth” which I don’t understand.

And why do you even propose such a theory about truth? Campbell is doing precisely what you object to, namely, creating a “penultimate” theory of truth!!

Truth=mythology.

Sounds inconsistent with your own beliefs to me, Leela.

Yes, Campbell’s use of the word “truth” as applied to myths and symbols is a problem for me. I have suggested in the past that I think it would be better to say that a myth or symbol is either alive or dead–either it performs its function as a mediator of the sacred or it does not–rather than true or false.

“Hostage”? Where do you get off saying such crazy nonsense? How would YOU know anyways?

I am a human being with personal experience in such matters.

It’s your own fault, not the “symbol.”

My point was that the insistence on a particular interpretation of a symbol allows it to only speak in one way. When the symbol ceases to speak to a given person in that one way, it is not the symbol’s fault but the Church which insisted on that single interpretation that is at fault. You can say it is the person’s fault, but what would be the point of saying so? What could the person do about the problem?

I’ve read Sponge quite extensively when I was younger before I joined the Church. And I assure you, his analysis is flat, lifeless, and contradicts the experiences of many devout believers.

Believers seem to have very diverse experiences and ideas about what is lifeless and flat and what is dynamic awe-inspiring.

Best,
Leela

 

[Magnanimity]

ahh! You’re a fellow philosopher! It’s good to be in the same company.

…

Congratulations on your baptism! Still feel like a “neophyte”? I do…Funny, I became Catholic in '06 after about 3 years of seriously flirting with the whole idea, so I am still just a beginner myself. You know the deal with having to address all those ghosts of the past. The struggle can be really tough sometimes, but the joyous rewards are never what we expected while our horizon continues to expand.

Well, nothing on the level of yourself, that’s for sure. Pursuing the PhD at Boulder…? nicely done. I’ve heard that’s a very good program. I’ve read some from Wes Morriston before, but that was a while back in my MA program. I am more drawn to the subject-matter of theology/religion, so if I were to do a PhD it would probably be in that area. However, with my BA being in philosophy and learning through that program, and later studies, just how essential philosophy is to ‘doing theology’ responsibly, I could only do a program that was strong in both areas. Much theology today is flat out irresponsible, philosophically-speaking, and that bothers me greatly.

In my Master’s studies, I became inexorably drawn to medieval philosophical theology (esp Aquinas and Scotus), so in my mind, that’s the successful way to do theology. Theology which ignores philosophy, on the other hand, will always seem amateurish to me. But, that’s partly just my bias, I would guess. And that inexorable tug I felt occured while I was studying at an Evangelical seminary. One year after finishing my studies there, my wife and I entered the Catholic church. And yes, I do still feel new. It’s amazing, the Church, there’s so much magnitude to it, and yet it can be approached simply as well. No one has to be a scholar, but if you have those leanings, the Catholic Church can fulfill you so incredibly well. I simply love it.

 

[Magnanimity]

I don’t mean to ignore your posts. There is only so much time I can devote to this forum. Sometimes one slips through the cracks that I would like to respond to, and sometimes I just have to make choices about which posts to respond to. If you feel that there is an important issue I haven’t responded to please feel free to remind me to address it.

In the above, there is just a difference of opinion with no way to resolve. Campbell thinks a given myth ought to be understood in a certain way. Believers in a given tradition tend to interpret it a different way. Campbell think that the believers have it wrong. The believers think that Campbell has it wrong. There is not much more to say than that.

…

However, it is important in interpreting ancient myths to recognize that the myths were written and interpreted by people who did not interpret science and history as we understand those terms today, because ancient people did not understand science and history the way we understand science and history.

Hi Leela,

Yes, I think there is some incommensurability here between Campbell and the religious tradition(s) he’s trying to criticize. Which would decide the day? Probably the religious tradition, as it’s going to be immune to this sort of outside criticism, basically telling it that it’s off track, when the track it got onto was the one decided upon by the believers themselves. In a sense, any group is going to maintain some level of immunity to outside criticism in the same way. Evolution, as an example, maintains this immunity to external critique of it by Creationism. The only real way to reform is from within, so I think I must agree with you that Campbell isn’t going to get very far here, at least not with Catholicism. He just has no in-roads.

As to your last point, I don’t think the Catholic Church has to deny all of it. In fact, it pretty much admits the primacy of oral tradition/liturgy–the “faith, life and worship” spoken of in Vatican Council II. Consider that there was no complete Bible for the first 300 years of the Church’s existence. Consider also that there has been, as Cardinal Newman argued, a progress of dogma over time. Yes, overemphasis on dogma can lead in astray directions. However, the corrective to this lies somewhere back toward a ‘golden mean,’ not in denying historical aspects of the revelation.

Also, as I said in an earlier post to you, the Greco-Roman world was no stranger to historical writing (recall Herodotus, Thucydides and later Tacitus and Plutarch?). And, it is confusing to conflate science (which undeniably is modern) with history. They are neither the same discipline, nor the flip-side of the same coin. To say, correctly, that the Bible isn’t scientific (as in modern science) entails nothing with regard to its possibly giving historical accounts.

 

[Leela]

Yes, I think there is some incommensurability here between Campbell and the religious tradition(s) he’s trying to criticize. Which would decide the day? Probably the religious tradition…

But different religious traditions don’t even agree. Who should decide those disputes?

, as it’s going to be immune to this sort of outside criticism, basically telling it that it’s off track, when the track it got onto was the one decided upon by the believers themselves. In a sense, any group is going to maintain some level of immunity to outside criticism in the same way. Evolution, as an example, maintains this immunity to external critique of it by Creationism.

Of course any group can claim immunity from anyone outside, the question remains whether that immunity is likely to be regarded as justified by anyone not in that group. How is this immunity justified inside the group?

Keep in mind here that Campbell’s claims about the role of clergy are not claims about the Catholic Church in particular. They are claims about religious organizations in general. Catholics can claim that he is off track and just doesn’t understand Catholicism. Campbell would say, this isn’t about what Catholicism in particular is like, it is about how religion in general ought to function by nature of being a religion.

I’m reminded here of Dawkins who is often dismissed for “just not getting it.” His approach to religion is something like coming upon a group of adults earnestly playing and discussing Dungeons and Dragons and, feeling embarrassed for them, is compelled to point out, “uh, you fellows DO realize that this is just a game?” The objections to Dawkins then come hurling by but do not stick. They amount to complaints like, “how can you criticize what you don’t understand? You haven’t even read the whole ‘Official Rules of Dungeons and Dragons’ or Drago the Great’s commentary on the rules. You may have played a bit as a kid, but you have never played with a truly gifted Dungeon Master like Drago.” Dawkins then shrugs, “all that is true, but none of it changes the fact that it is just a game. I mean, such rules and commentaries and experts are exactly the sorts of things that games would be expected to have. I don’t need to read all that stuff to know a game when I see one”

Likewise, Campbell could say that his knowledge of Catholicism is entirely beside the point. What he has studied is religion and how it functions best across cultures and throughout history. Catholics can be expected to say that they are a special case because their mythology is actually true as history. Campbell would probably not bother to argue. There is no point. This disagreement isn’t likely to be settled in any such conversation, and there may be no point in arguing. Of course, arguing becomes necessary when the point of contention becomes the basis for justifying sadism.

The only real way to reform is from within, so I think I must agree with you that Campbell isn’t going to get very far here, at least not with Catholicism. He just has no in-roads.

I don’t think Campbell had the aim or hope of reforming the Catholic Chrurch. He is not trying to get the Church to change the way it reads the Bible, he is trying to change the way people read the Bible. You may see the Bible as the possession of the Catholic tradition, but for Campbell it is part of our universal human heritage. It belongs to all of us.

Why should he think that the Church should get to say how these myths should be read but he himself can have no say? If they are the Church’s myths as seen through the eyes of the Church then they Church gets to say. If they myths belong to all of humanity, we all get to have our say and the best ways of reading them will hopefully rise to the top. There is no way to settle such a dispute because the two positions are based on different assumptions.

As to your last point, I don’t think the Catholic Church has to deny all of it. In fact, it pretty much admits the primacy of oral tradition/liturgy–the “faith, life and worship” spoken of in Vatican Council II. Consider that there was no complete Bible for the first 300 years of the Church’s existence. Consider also that there has been, as Cardinal Newman argued, a progress of dogma over time. Yes, overemphasis on dogma can lead in astray directions. However, the corrective to this lies somewhere back toward a ‘golden mean,’ not in denying historical aspects of the revelation.

Also, as I said in an earlier post to you, the Greco-Roman world was no stranger to historical writing (recall Herodotus, Thucydides and later Tacitus and Plutarch?). And, it is confusing to conflate science (which undeniably is modern) with history. They are neither the same discipline, nor the flip-side of the same coin. To say, correctly, that the Bible isn’t scientific (as in modern science) entails nothing with regard to its possibly giving historical accounts.

Science, as the effort to get consensus on the best way to predict and control our enviornment, has different criteria for truth than history, the effort to get consensus on an account of the past. We agree on that. But I would think that the criteria for what ought to count as part of history as practiced in the ancient world were different from the criteria applied today.

 

[Syntax]

This isn’t true. Campbell was raised Roman Catholic and remained so into his twenties.The struggle he wrote about was his own struggle (and mine). The Church’s dogmatic interpretations of its symbols ceased to ring true for him.

So you were a Catholic until your twenties like Campbell, and now the religion no longer “rings true” for you? And this subsequently makes you and Campbell experts on interpreting the real function of organized religion and its role in everyone else’s lives? Sounds very elitist to me.

Argument? Why must you get so heated? We agree then that the orthodoxy in general like the Sabbath in particular exists to serve the people…

Because we think the claims orthodoxy makes are also true, Leela, independent of whether or not it happens to function usefully for this or that person.

So if it ceases to do so, the orthodoxy must be changed…

No, this is a fallacy deriving a normative statement from a statement of fact about this or that individual. “It must be changed because individual X is getting nothing out of it.” lol…uhhh… I don’t think so!

And why “must” it be changed? Because religion merely serves our pragmatic purposes and has nothing to do with the historical facticity of it?? But this is your own ideology, not ours. Your version of religion advances an individual consumerism, “if doesn’t work for me, then I should abandon it because it is no longer”** true for me**."" Whatever; this is garbled subjectivism talk that no devout Christian buys.

You are misunderstanding Campbell here. He does not fault the symbol. He thinks they function just fine on their own without teh Church dictating how they must be interpreted…

No, how do you know symbols function just fine independent of the dogma surrounding them? What are your criteria of evaluation for determining this, Leela? Do you have some standard in mind for making this claim? And who, or what, is the standard? Campbell, Sponge?

This is Campbell’s view. I haven’t made up my mind on the matter. I tend to think that different people need different sorts of religion, and some people may best served by a Church that insists on a given interpretation of its symbols.

If this isn’t your view, then stop quoting Campbell’s views as if it was.

There is no disagreement about the facts of what the Church has done to interpret symbol and myth. The question is about whether or not it serves well to insist on a particular interpretation as dogma…

This is religious consumerism again. “It it doesn’t work well, then abandon it.” But work well with respect to what standard of “working well”? What the heck does “working well” mean? How do you qualify this? The spiritual journey consists of coming across many instances in our lives where the teaching doesn’t “work well.” There are many times dogma ceases to be “convenient” or “useful” with respect to our own selfish desires and wants. Why do you think Catholics coined the term “cafeteria catholic”? When you adapt teachings to suit your own individual purposes and private practices, you’ve just reduced religion to another consumer product.

 

[Syntax]

While you were rolling around on the floor laughing you seem to have missed what Campbell was actually saying in that quote. He never asserted anything about experiencing God, he said that the Church dictates how its symbols are to be experienced

Here is the quote again:
When the Church creates dogmas, Campbell wrote, "telling precisely what kind of meaning you shall experience in a symbol, explaining what kind of effect it should have upon you, then you are in trouble. This symbol may not have the same meaning for you that it had for a council of Levantine bishops in the fourth century. If you do not react as expected, you doubt your faith." For example, “whatever the relationship of the Father to the Son, or of the Father to the Holy Ghost may be, as defined by high ecclesiastical authority, the individual’s assent to a definition is not nearly as important as his or her having a spiritual experience by virtue of the influence of the symbol.”…

I am still laughing because the Church doesn’t tell someone how a symbol is to be “experienced” or what kind of “effect you are supposed to have” as if the magisterium were some kind of physician telling you to “take this pill” to cure your disease and call him in the morning. You forget that the Church’s very own teaching is that a person’s private experience ****IS **just as important **as correct teaching. You seem to think “private experiential meaning” and “correct interpretation” of the symbol are incompatible notions. No, they are not. Again, you and Campbell have a very elementary understanding of the relationship between private experience and correct teaching.

And what do you think symbols are, eh? They are means through which God manifests himself. When you misread the stop-light as if it said “go” then you’re in trouble. If you misread go-light as if it said “stop” then you’re also in trouble. In both cases, the individual gets lost down the rabbit hole of his own interpretations as if he were his own personal God and expert on the private religious experience. But this is bologne.

Time and again the Church has battled these private interpretations because they produce faction, divorce, dissent, while advocating a rugged individualism with respect to “correct teaching” and everyone becomes his or her own scholar and expert on the interpretation of the symbols which point to God. I find this very distasteful. By no means do I think I am an expert on the human religious symbol precisely because I suffer from too many blindnesses, moral imperfections, and pride that will influence my very own perspective on these symbols. Quite frankly, I don’t trust my own judgment on these matters at all; I only trust the tried-and-tested unique experiences of others the Church has gathered in its history the past 2000 years.under the banner of a consistent interpretation of the symbol.

But this doesn’t mean the Church or these other individuals are “telling me how to experience these things” for myself. No, all experiences are very unique. It is when people start interpreting these symbols any way they want that people lose sight of God, because they’ve just become their own authority and expert on these matters. And people can certainly have an experience outside these symbols altogether, so God Himself is not constrained by these teachings since he can work any way he pleases. But these teachings are also revelations from God, and to maintain a deep and continual growth in our relationship with Him requires a strict adherence to these revelations.

 

[Syntax]

Well, nothing on the level of yourself, that’s for sure. Pursuing the PhD at Boulder…? nicely done. I’ve heard that’s a very good program. I’ve read some from Wes Morriston before, but that was a while back in my MA program. I am more drawn to the subject-matter of theology/religion, so if I were to do a PhD it would probably be in that area. However, with my BA being in philosophy and learning through that program, and later studies, just how essential philosophy is to ‘doing theology’ responsibly, I could only do a program that was strong in both areas. Much theology today is flat out irresponsible, philosophically-speaking, and that bothers me greatly.

You’re familiar with Wes Morriston?!! Awesome! I am taking a graduate course with him right now and I will seem in a couple hours. I’ve known him for years, and he’s definitely the most kind-hearted individual in our department because he has a deep love for his students and their own struggles. He remains a theist, but he has always struggled with his own denomination. I’ll never forget the day when I told him I was becoming catholic. He was surprised, and then recommended I join the episcopal church instead. We both laughed.

Sometimes the analytic style approach to philosophy can become overwhelming for one’s faith, especially when 90% of those in your department are reductive-materialist atheists. Many times I’ve struggled because, as Leela would say, “it was no longer functioning for me.” So I have to continually remind myself what’s important–Truth, Beauty, and Goodness, all of which are God’s philosophical aspects of himself. So this reminder will always reinforce my own neo-Platonism. lol.

In my Master’s studies, I became inexorably drawn to medieval philosophical theology (esp Aquinas and Scotus), so in my mind, that’s the successful way to do theology. Theology which ignores philosophy, on the other hand, will always seem amateurish to me. But, that’s partly just my bias, I would guess. And that inexorable tug I felt occured while I was studying at an Evangelical seminary. One year after finishing my studies there, my wife and I entered the Catholic church. And yes, I do still feel new. It’s amazing, the Church, there’s so much magnitude to it, and yet it can be approached simply as well. No one has to be a scholar, but if you have those leanings, the Catholic Church can fulfill you so incredibly well. I simply love it.

I totally sympathize. It sounds like our journey’s might have been similar in some respects since we were drawn to both the Church’s intellectual tradition and its simplicity. The Church is beautifully rich with its history and its members because all types of people can find a different niche within it. Amazing! Nothing against protestants, but I always found this wide expression of diversity lacking in other denominations. Chesterton really hit the nail on the head when he said something like “christianity appears to be contradictory to some outsiders precisely because human nature itself is a contradiction”…lol. something like that…

 

[Betterave]

No, this is a fallacy deriving a normative statement from a statement of fact about this or that individual. “It must be changed because individual X is getting nothing out of it.” lol…uhhh… I don’t think so!

Agreed. Leela talking about orthodoxy reminds me of Ender talking about morality.

This is religious consumerism again. “It it doesn’t work well, then abandon it.” But work well with respect to what standard of “working well”? What the heck does “working well” mean? How do you qualify this? The spiritual journey consists of coming across many instances in our lives where the teaching doesn’t “work well.” There are many times dogma ceases to be “convenient” or “useful” with respect to our own selfish desires and wants. Why do you think Catholics coined the term “cafeteria catholic”? When you adapt teachings to suit your own individual purposes and private practices, you’ve just reduced religion to another consumer product.

From what I’ve been able to gather, the standard is the neo-Pragtonic form of the Good, the standard of no-standards (it’s basically Platonism for philistines).

 

[Syntax]

Agreed. Leela talking about orthodoxy reminds me of Ender talking about morality.

Yes, and I continue to challenge Leela to broaden Leela’s horizons by reading things other than the numerous unqualified pop-icons about philosophy and religion. It’s not so much the content of their opinions which will warp a person’s mind, but the rampant failure to employ any critical thinking. So many of these ideologies are just the irresponsible mistakes of old under a new “heading.”

From what I’ve been able to gather, the standard is the neo-Pragtonic form of the Good, the standard of no-standards (it’s basically Platonism for philistines).

I know…and it only gets adopted in self-satisfied and egotistical cultures such as ours. It’s sad that our wide-spread consumerism has this effect on one’s view of religion too.

 

[Leela]

So you were a Catholic until your twenties like Campbell, and now the religion no longer “rings true” for you?

Something like that.

And this subsequently makes you and Campbell experts on interpreting the real function of organized religion and its role in everyone else’s lives? Sounds very elitist to me.

I don’t consider myself an expert on anything. Campbell did claim to have some experitise on the matter of religion. Is that elitist? Is everyone’s opinion supposed to be just as good as anyone else’s or is it that no one is allowed to have an opinion on the Catholic Church?

It’s quite a set up. Anyone criticizing Catholicism from the inside is not a true Catholic or just doesn’t get it. Anyone criticizing Catholicism from the outside has no right to criticize because they are not Catholic.

Because we think the claims orthodoxy makes are also true, Leela, independent of whether or not it happens to function usefully for this or that person.

Of course the Church claims that its dogmas are true. That is a separate question from whether or not it should insist that all Catholics must recognize one particular interpretations of its symbols.

No, this is a fallacy deriving a normative statement from a statement of fact about this or that individual. “It must be changed because individual X is getting nothing out of it.”

Campbell’s point is not that such facts ought to be changed to suit individuals. It is that the Church shold not be in the business of aserting such facts.

lol…uhhh… I don’t think so!

I’d like you to consider whether the lol’s and smilies rolling around laughing are helping us comunicate. Are you performing for an audience? I think it is a common misconception to think that there is an audience of others out there hanging on our words that are just too timid to enter into the conversation themselves. I think it’s just you, me, and Magnaminity here. No need to perform. We don’t use our real names, so no need for ego involvement.

And why “must” it be changed? Because religion merely serves our pragmatic purposes and has nothing to do with the historical facticity of it?? But this is your own ideology, not ours. Your version of religion advances an individual consumerism, “if doesn’t work for me, then I should abandon it because it is no longer”** true for me**."" Whatever; this is garbled subjectivism talk that no devout Christian buys.

This “no devout Chrsitian buys” phrase is interesting. There are many many ways of being Christian. I suppose that you won’t count ones as devout if they take certain positions that differ from yours?

No, how do you know symbols function just fine independent of the dogma surrounding them? What are your criteria of evaluation for determining this, Leela? Do you have some standard in mind for making this claim? And who, or what, is the standard? Campbell, Sponge?

I don’t make this assertion. I am reporting what Campbell says. I don’t have a view about whether or not Catholic symbols are functional. All I know is that they have ceased to function for me.

If this isn’t your view, then stop quoting Campbell’s views as if it was.

??

I’ve quoted Campbell to say what Campbell’s view is. I started this thread to discuss his views to help me form my own views.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

This is religious consumerism again. “It it doesn’t work well, then abandon it.” But work well with respect to what standard of “working well”? What the heck does “working well” mean? How do you qualify this? The spiritual journey consists of coming across many instances in our lives where the teaching doesn’t “work well.” There are many times dogma ceases to be “convenient” or “useful” with respect to our own selfish desires and wants. Why do you think Catholics coined the term “cafeteria catholic”? When you adapt teachings to suit your own individual purposes and private practices, you’ve just reduced religion to another consumer product.

I think Harold Bloom said something like, there is nothing more American than starting our own religion.

I don’t think you or anyone else has avoided such “religious consumerism.” Presumably you have chosen the Catholic faith over all other brands of Christianity and over all other religions based on your own individual purposes and desires. Catholics, Baptists, and Lutherans are all “cafeteria Christians,” aren’t they? You have a lot of brand loyalty and trust in the product that the church you’ve chosen offers, but you have still chosen a church that suits you. I don’t see how you could deny that you’ve made a personal choice.

Best,
Leela

 

[Syntax]

I don’t consider myself an expert on anything. Campbell did claim to have some experitise on the matter of religion. Is that elitist? Is everyone’s opinion supposed to be just as good as anyone else’s or is it that no one is allowed to have an opinion on the Catholic Church?

It’s quite a set up. Anyone criticizing Catholicism from the inside is not a true Catholic or just doesn’t get it. Anyone criticizing Catholicism from the outside has no right to criticize because they are not Catholic.

No, the problem isn’t who is crticizing, or where those criticisms are coming from. It’s that the criticims are all false, so they are all straw-men. You and Campbell make a caricature of Christian Orthodoxy and then knock it down precisely because neither of you understand what you are talking about.

Of course the Church claims that its dogmas are true. That is a separate question from whether or not it should insist that all Catholics must recognize one particular interpretations of its symbols.

Obviously the latter is for you decide. It is just very evident that your own grasp of the interpretations already there is pretty weak–so is Campbell’s. I’ve never read an exposition by him anywhere that offered an extensive analysis that ever came close to trumping the thousands of documents doing just this within the Church for 2000 thousand years. So I am sticking with the Church’s “interpretation.”

Campbell’s point is not that such facts ought to be changed to suit individuals. It is that the Church shold not be in the business of aserting such facts.

Huh?? But Campbell and Sponge do this very same thing: they are in the business of interpreting such facts! Your own personal tastes as to what counts as the correct interpretation doesn’t entitle you to say the Church shouldn’t be in the business of interpreting such facts. This is very elitist for Campbell to to think he has the license to be in the business, but the Church does not.

I’d like you to consider whether the lol’s and smilies rolling around laughing are helping us comunicate. Are you performing for an audience? I think it is a common misconception to think that there is an audience of others out there hanging on our words that are just too timid to enter into the conversation themselves. I think it’s just you, me, and Magnaminity here. No need to perform. We don’t use our real names, so no need for ego involvement. .

Whatever. It just makes me upset that you get off making claims just as misinformed, convoluted, uneducated, and silly about our own faith as Ender does about morality. I have a total right to be angry because you are making a straw-manned caricature about our very own home! For instance, we are “hostage to the facts,” our “symbols are dead,” and “the Church tells us what to experience” etc.

This “no devout Chrsitian buys” phrase is interesting. There are many many ways of being Christian. I suppose that you won’t count ones as devout if they take certain positions that differ from yours?.

So most self-labeled Christians don’t believe that Christ’s rising from the dead is a historical fact, like Sponge and Campbell? I doubt it Leela.

I’ve quoted Campbell to say what Campbell’s view is. I started this thread to discuss his views to help me form my own views.

If that’s truly your motive, which i highly doubt it is, I will then recommend the following literature directly contrary to Campbell to get you started:

Chesterton–Orthodoxy
Guardini–Freedom, Grace, and Destiny
Edith Stein–The Science of the Cross and Finite and Eternal Being
Lewis–Mere Christianity and Miracles
Merton–New Seeds of Contemplation
Ratzinger–God and the World
Augustine–The Confessions
JPII–Theology of the Body
St. John of the Cross
etc.,etc., etc.,

 

[Magnanimity]

You’re familiar with Wes Morriston?!! Awesome! I am taking a graduate course with him right now and I will seem in a couple hours. I’ve known him for years, and he’s definitely the most kind-hearted individual in our department because he has a deep love for his students and their own struggles. He remains a theist, but he has always struggled with his own denomination. I’ll never forget the day when I told him I was becoming catholic. He was surprised, and then recommended I join the episcopal church instead. We both laughed.

Ha! That’s a great story and much better than the reaction I got from my Christian mentors when I broke the news. I got a lot of shock, dismay, and apologetics used against me! That’s also wonderful to hear about his genuine faith lived out. That always makes such a difference to me and seems like a harder path to take–the scholar who doesn’t lose sight of his spirituality.

Sometimes the analytic style approach to philosophy can become overwhelming for one’s faith, especially when 90% of those in your department are reductive-materialist atheists. Many times I’ve struggled because, as Leela would say, “it was no longer functioning for me.” So I have to continually remind myself what’s important–Truth, Beauty, and Goodness, all of which are God’s philosophical aspects of himself. So this reminder will always reinforce my own neo-Platonism. lol.

I hear you, that historic triad had so much exploration by the philosophical theologians I admire, that I’m right there with you. It’s a wonderful thing to be anchored by. I have a few friends who ended up completing their PhD’s at mainstream schools (like yours), and they said the same thing. It was a struggle, especially in the beginning but they just had to stay focused on what they already knew was important. I can only imagine how difficult it must be at times…

Well, I’m glad you’re here at CAF. I for one get a lot out of your posts.