The Clash of Science and Unreason.

[Zarathustra]

I think some of you are equating "full explanation" with "full knowledge." Just because we can understand, say, evolution doesn't mean that we know the direction it will take. Explanation isn't the same as predicting the future. We're not talking determinism. Just understanding. There is enough randomness in nature that we'll always face surprises, even when we have enough knowledge to understand them when we encounter them.

[Vraith]

Lol post wiped.

OK well to get back to my musings...I don't mind anyone who tries to know/model everything, and while it seems to be impossible, I don't really see the harm in people believing it's possible (except maybe if they succeed in achieving that knowledge ). But seriously, I don't think that a world of utter certainty as the result of complete knowledge would be really boring. In some ways, it would be more boring though. Would kind of eliminate the suspense.

And if something doesn't exist, it can't exist. And if it doesn't exist at a particular place and time, it can't exist at that particular place and time.

One other thing I'll say is that some people seem to assume the supernatural is comforting, or lends itself to a framework of beliefs. Maybe the real supernatural (lol) is or does. Or that which is passed down through generations, real or not. But if you don't have confidence or trust in it, the belief in the supernatural can become the biggest challenge to your faith in what makes sense. And even if you return to a belief that things make sense, you won't necessarily believe you can make sense of them.

Wow, lots of stuff happened here while I was moving to my winter nesting grounds!
H---I wonder what you think of peeps like me who like to try to know/understand everything while knowing full well it is impossible?
[and not only me...there are at least 5 peeps in this thread alone that fit,partially anyway, that description...you included]
Also: I don't think complete knowledge results in complete certainty unless everything is already in past tense...and then it's too late.
I'd really say that in most contexts "knowledge" and "certainty" are antonyms. [if anyone has noticed and is wondering why I'm talking about synonyms and antonyms so often lately across threads/subjects, it's cuz of, as I posted somewhere, the fact that I'm enmeshed in an involuntary miasma/exploration of how language works and means. Somewhat similar to something from some Herbert book, probably part of "Dune"...where the nature of the universe and your individual position/state in it, makes demands, irrefusable ones, upon your total being/consciousness]

But on the supernatural...I'm pretty sure it will conceptually always exist among people...because we are not fully rational beings. [if the day comes when we ARE, we will no longer be people...we will be something else]. Because the supernatural in all aspects fundamentally rests on the question "why?" [in the sense of "purpose"]...rationality will never answer that question, it doesn't even CARE to...in the rational mode, "why?" is a mythical question in the same way, for the same reasons, that a unicorn is a mythical beast.
Relating something someone said regarding fiction:
Just like the supernatural it can be valuable, and for the same reasons.
Because [also if, and only if] we KNOW and realize it IS MADE UP. Created, by us. If one believes the supernatural [or fiction] is literally real, contains actual Truths beyond, superior to, the natural, the only possible final results are insanity and/or murder. [not simple death, which is natural, but slaughter]. I think people who find "comfort" in the supernatural don't understand that end result of what they find comforting.
IF the supernatural is "True," THEN all that is natural, every bit, is "False."
[That above keeping in mind the previous thing about 'what is supernatural'...I refer back to my earlier post containing the sentence about what are NOT synonyms for supernatural.]

I dispute the claim someone made earlier that science is defensive about only one way of knowing. Science is about the fact there are more ways of knowing, BUT the different WAYS apply to different kinds of "things." No scientist would claim a person doesn't "know" a sunset is beautiful [though they may well want to investigate how that comes about in your senses and mind]...they WILL defend, with good justification, that the kind of "knowing" you obtain/contain/explain in "beauty" has any theoretical/explanatory/applicable knowledge-content for the what/how/when/where of sunsets.

That's all a bit loose, but as is often is the case, I'm not in the mood for rigor and minutia. [especially in leaving out the arguments about knowing itself, which is why it [among other things] is mostly scare quoted.]

[Zarathustra]

Vraith, it's an interesting point you make about the supernatural will always be with us based on who we are. I would dispute this using Joseph Campbell. In his writings on mythology, he has said that ancient peoples who first invented these myths understood them as metaphors. They didn't take them literally. We are mistaken to think of those people in the past as "simpler." They had a more complex and realistic relationship with their own myths. For them myth was more like fiction (fantasy actually), a story that resonates with you because it expresses a deep, universal truth of the human condition. So in this sense, I think we can combine your points on the persistence of supernatural belief and the power of fiction into a single point: we'll always relate to our being with stories. And I believe Donaldson is right: the stories that capture this meaning the best--with the most powerful and apt metaphors--is fiction that contains magic and monsters. Mythology and fantasy stories connect us with what it means to be human in a way that other literature cannot (lacking the tools to reach those deepest levels).

I think Campbell had a point. It's easy for us now, with our scientific knowledge, to look back and think of mythology as a primitive understanding of the world. But I believe that their connection via these means was deeper than most people's connection today with either science or religion. I think for them there wasn't this division that we have today between natural and supernatural ... all of the world was simply transcendent. They were connected to the fact of their being more than we are. They had nothing to shield them from the hard truth of their being, no air-conditioned homes to hide from life, nor cushioned church pew to hide from death. For them the messy miracle of life was a daily immersion. To participate in life was to dip your own bloody hands into its perpetual circle. These myths were stories told by the first animals to wake up to themselves and the "miracles" of fertility, regrowth, seasons, harvest, slaughter, coming-of-age, and then death.

We do not confront our being today in the same way; we have invented a million ways to look away. Thus, both science and religion can be "empty" for people because they either take religion too literally or they take science too figuratively. The solution isn't a dualism of irrationality and reason, forcing together two things that don't fit. The solution, I believe, is to remember the power of myth, and simultaneously to carry with you the deep and hard-fought knowledge of science. The literal truth of science is mind-blowing enough on its own, without trying to force it to fit Eastern mysticism or Christian creationism. But this doesn't mean that we can't still use metaphor and fiction to illuminate the marvel and the horror of the transcendent which we otherwise forget in our daily lives.

[Vraith]

I agree almost entirely with that. A case/example on point: Talking creation stories in a Nat. Am. Lit class, the professor [who was Nat. Am.] often reiterated that the peoples didn't LITERALLY believe the tales of Raven, or warrior spirits became stars when they died. They were fully, intentionally, consciously aware of the mythical/symbolic/psychological nature/function.
[and yea, I meant the explicit connection/union you made between fiction/stories and the supernatural. You packaged it nicely.]

And your last point, especially, I agree and have almost certainly said somewhere before: there is no necessity for reason/science and unreason/non-science to be at war. That only comes about when one attempts to make claims from one arena rule over claims and terrain that belongs to the other.
When properly recognized/utilized, the two are really complementary.
For instance there are BOTH good, practical/pragmatic/rational reasons for the claim that murder is wrong AND a-rational/empathic/emotional/"spiritual" "reasons."
I'd suggest that all of the very best choices/options/joys we can have/make as and for humans as a whole align with that...support from both realms.

[aliantha]

Good post, Z.

[Fist and Faith]

How can we know that ancient peoples didn't take their myths literally? I haven't studied these things at all, but I'm surprised we could know enough about them to be able to say. Jung said he experienced an earthquake, and the most powerful feeling he had was that there was a giant serpent under him. Maybe the ancients, knowing much less of the structure of the world, and the universe, and not being able to think in ways we can, thought it really was a serpent somewhere down there. Maybe as we grew in our knowledge, and as our brains became more able to know and think, we changed it from actual belief to metaphor.

As insane as this is gonna be... *clears throat* Chesterton criticized people of his day of assuming they knew what cavemen were like, which we can't really know. He thought they were just assuming cavemen must have been like today's "primitive" cultures, and we have no legitimate reason to assume that. (But he then went on to say, "I think it much more likely that they were like ____". Heh)

I'm wondering if we grew into beings who could view things metaphorically, and falsely assumed our ancient ancestors also could. Maybe they didn't yet have the capacity.

OTOH, I don't see a difference between believing the kinds of things in the world's myths, and believing in the things found in any of today's major religions. Angels and demons fighting for our immortal souls in another realm isn't more reasonable, rational, or likely, as far as I can see. But some people believe that stuff is actual, and not metaphor.

[Fist and Faith]

I think we need two threads about this. One about things like religion, giving us facts about reality and our lives that cannot be gained via any other method; the other for things like love, the beauty of sunsets, and lone-twin, that are about how we interpret reality and our lives.

[Orlion]

We also need to ban Fist for mentioning Chesterton

[Fist and Faith]

I just washed my mouth out with soap. But hey, he wrote like a bazillion paragraphs. One of them was bound to be relevant at one point or other. Still, I'm real glad I'm mod here.

[Orlion]

I just washed my mouth out with soap. But hey, he wrote like a bazillion paragraphs. One of them was bound to be relevant at one point or other. Still, I'm real glad I'm mod here.

Well, I guess you've been castigated enough.

With that out of the way, Chesterton does make a very good poi-....oh...my... god... sorry, everyone *goes to sit in corner and think about what he's done*

[Vraith]

How can we know that ancient peoples didn't take their myths literally? I haven't studied these things at all, but I'm surprised we could know enough about them to be able to say. Jung said he experienced an earthquake, and the most powerful feeling he had was that there was a giant serpent under him. Maybe the ancients, knowing much less of the structure of the world, and the universe, and not being able to think in ways we can, thought it really was a serpent somewhere down there. Maybe as we grew in our knowledge, and as our brains became more able to know and think, we changed it from actual belief to metaphor.

As insane as this is gonna be... *clears throat* Chesterton criticized people of his day of assuming they knew what cavemen were like, which we can't really know. He thought they were just assuming cavemen must have been like today's "primitive" cultures, and we have no legitimate reason to assume that. (But he then went on to say, "I think it much more likely that they were like ____". Heh)

I'm wondering if we grew into beings who could view things metaphorically, and falsely assumed our ancient ancestors also could. Maybe they didn't yet have the capacity.

OTOH, I don't see a difference between believing the kinds of things in the world's myths, and believing in the things found in any of today's major religions. Angels and demons fighting for our immortal souls in another realm isn't more reasonable, rational, or likely, as far as I can see. But some people believe that stuff is actual, and not metaphor.

I'm fairly confident [last thing first] that many in the deep past, just as now, had various mixtures in themselves of literal/metaphor mixing/agreeing/conflicting.
I suspect GKC was wrong as usual...though I'm not sure how accurate and/or widespread evidence and supportable theory was then, what the state of the art was.
But we can be reasonably certain that biologically "modern" humans were familiar with literal/metaphorical. Obviously they couldn't/wouldn't always draw the lines in the same place...the tech/methods weren't available. But we have written evidence of literal and metaphoric understandings from pretty much the beginning of writing itself. Even earlier than actual writing, in pictographics and archeology.
I mean, it's absurd to think even the most primitive folk, when they drew horses and bison on cave walls thought the drawings were literal creatures and not representations.
And we have the biological evidence...we aren't different in construction from 40K years ago...and nearly all communication of information/teaching/learning/ideas between humans is analogical, and all analogy is metaphor.
Even much "less evolved" primates than us have no problem at all recognizing the difference between a thing and a representation of a thing...and even more importantly can USE the representation to communicate ABOUT the thing.

[Fist and Faith]

I'm not thinking that the guy drawing a picture on the cave wall of a snake demon in the earth didn't know it was only a representation of a snake demon in the earth. I'm thinking he truly thought there was a snake demon in the earth. Does anyone really think he was drawing a part of his, or a collective, psyche, which was easily represented as a snake, because yadda yadda?

[Vraith]

I'm not thinking that the guy drawing a picture on the cave wall of a snake demon in the earth didn't know it was only a representation of a snake demon in the earth. I'm thinking he truly thought there was a snake demon in the earth. Does anyone really think he was drawing a part of his, or a collective, psyche, which was easily represented as a snake, because yadda yadda?

Actually, yes, I think exactly that. [except the collective subconscious part...it might exist, but how and what in means is arguable] People have ALWAYS known how to separate yet connect things, and ALSO been able to blur them.
I'd bet anything the metaphor came first, and the literal belief came after. I'd bet anything someone said "I felt/saw/dreamed something" and someone else said "What?" and the first said "it was LIKE."
They represented it that way cuz it was communicable, everyone knew what a snake was, what fear/"evil" felt like, not because it was literally real...and then, of course, the power-players stepped in to misuse/abuse/literalize it.
NEW/REAL insight/understanding/change almost always is metaphor/intuition/analogy FIRST. It then alters depending on circumstances and loci of power/control/context/accessibility for current tech/analysis/knowledge.

[Fist and Faith]

So you think it went in the other direction? Because many people believe God made the universe in six days, or that there are different avatars of this or that deity, or that other beings are fighting over us on other planes, etc. You think those kinds of things were originally metaphors - and understood as such - but people came to believe them literally?

[Vraith]

So you think it went in the other direction? Because many people believe God made the universe in six days, or that there are different avatars of this or that deity, or that other beings are fighting over us on other planes, etc. You think those kinds of things were originally metaphors - and understood as such - but people came to believe them literally?

Basically, yes, though it is complicated and interpenetrating/dynamic. People can only experience on a literal level, and only literally for themselves individually. BUT they can only understand/organize, and most importantly communicate those things metaphorically. So....the literal fact that, observably, every person is created/born from other people leads, to the myth/story of an Adam/Eve/Creator that, barring deeper technical/observable things that births people from non-people, leads to a definitive/literal Adam/Eve/Creator. In the beginning it was a general "well, it makes sense there is some story of us that...." which becomes "there is only our particular, literal..."
But story, metaphor, myth, intuition, the reaching towards, precedes the rest.
Or...the literal fact of birth from a parent gives rise to the [sort of logical, given available evidence] myth of a creator or progenitor couple. Which for many reasons becomes the acceptance of a literal god/couple. [which is in almost every single case lost/scoffed at, btw, by later generations through the simple process of being conquered/marginalized by a better system...whether military or economic. "Ooops," they say, "guess we were wrong...it makes perfect sense NOW." There is no evidence at all that survival of a myth as truth is connected in any way to the truth of the myth.

[Fist and Faith]

It seems to me you're adding a step. Why not think the literal fact that, observably, every person is created/born from other people leads to the literal belief in an Adam/Eve/Creator? Why would humanity have begun its existence with the complexities you're talking about, instead of interpreting things literally? And if they did, why would the village witch have been so feared? I don't get the impression that villagers feared her evil-eye for metaphorical reasons. They thought she would turn them into a newt.

[Orlion]

But they'd get better...

[aliantha]

"But I'm not dead yet!"

(That's the second spontaneous Monty Python reference I've seen on the Watch in the past week. It's starting to feel like the good old days around here! )

Fist, are you sure the village witch was always feared? I don't mean post-Christianity, I mean before -- and I don't mean the Salem witches, but the wise women who you'd go to for a charm, or to help deliver your baby. I don't doubt some of them *were* feared, probably because they were nasty people in general. But I think many were simply considered part of the village scenery.

Vraith, I suspect it was a little of both -- some people recognized the metaphor and some believed the myths as literal truth. Just like today. I don't think humanity is any more gullible now than they were in ancient times -- or any less, either.

[Fist and Faith]

If they went to the pre-Christianity witch for a charm, did they expect it to be worth the walk? I assume they thought the charm had some power. Because she was in touch with powers, not metaphors.

And I'm a little surprised I didn't take some flack from you for mentioning that name that I won't type again any time soon.

[aliantha]

I did kind of go when I saw what you'd done.

I would assume those who went to see the village for a charm expected it to work. But the thing about any magic charm -- then *and* today -- is that you can't expect the charm to do all the work for you. It's a means of focusing your intent. I can light all manner of "wealth" candles, but if I keep pulling out my credit card to buy stuff I don't need, the "magic" isn't going to work. And lighting a "love" candle isn't going to attract a soul mate to my door -- I'd still have to go out and meet people. I expect a decent hedge witch would provide some similar advice along with the charm.

(I'm working on this concept myself right now. I'm planning to make a "manifestation board", but the first step is writing down goals I can commit to -- and I keep hesitating, because I know that reaching the goals will require some hard work and behavior modification on my part. *Much* easier to just put a wish out into the ether and expect the Universe to fetch the thing for me! )