Mythology, Religion, Anthopology and Science: What Makes Sense, or not, Philosophically?

Jack Cummins

I am writing this thread as a response to @
@180Proof in a discussion of the Buddhist concept of the Middle Way. He queries the relationship between religion and philosophy. I am extremely interested in this relationship and whether religion was central in this, or a later development. I am writing this thread because it seems outside of the scope of the idea of Buddhist ethics.

Also, I am reading Karen Armstrong's , ' The Great Transformation: The World in the Time of Buddha, Socrates, Confusiaa and Jeremiah', (2006). She looks at the time between 800 and 300 BC in thinking about religious ideas. She also explores of Socrates, Buddha, Confucius and Jeremiah, as aspects of religious beliefs.In.addition, she looks at Karl Jaspers' idea of the axial age in thinking of belief, especially religious belief. The idea of 'God' or 'divinity' encompasses the issue of inner and outer 'reality', subjectivity and objectivity. It also encompasses idea of mythology and story as narrative understanding. This may be opposed to some perspectives of science and objectivity.

I am of the view that inner as opposed to outer, objective aspects of 'reality' are important here in the tradition of human understanding. Science, similarly to religion may be embedded in mythic understanding. What do you think, especially in relation to the concept of myth?.As far as I see it is a topic involving dialogue between ancient philosophy, as well as anthropological thinking and research. How may the development of ideas about 'gods' or one God be understood in the history of religion and philosophy?.

Barkon

Isn't religion, educational things (including philosophy) put in practical use considering the nature of living on this planet? Sure, God is significant in the bible, but the amount of words alongside God outnumber God. God can be considered a creative tool set to enforce the latter, that is, the way to live. Isn't it just an attempt at co-ordinated living given all what we know?

tim wood

How may the development of ideas about 'gods' or one God be understood in the history of religion and philosophy?. — Jack Cummins

I imagine this is the point of your post - is there another? But these seem but different names for the same thing.

Jack Cummins

↪tim wood

I am sure that the issue of hows and whys of religious thinking have been explored on so many threads. One major aspect may the psychology of religion, and why do people seek to attribute so much to gods or God?

Of course, it could be turned around, as into the question of whether psychological aspects are a question of higher metaphysics? I see it as very complex, but I am probably someone who overthinks. This relates back to your query about 'names' for the same thing', because it may be a matter of language and framing in human explanations.

Jack Cummins

↪Barkon

The concept of 'God' or ''gods' is interesting. It is worth considering to what extent it represents 'a higher reality' as such, or a tool in human understanding? This may be an issue which spans psychology and anthropology, as well as philosophy. It may go back to core basics of metaphysics, and how these are constructed by human beings.

Jack Cummins

The question, or issue, may also be about what is an explanation, which may be answered so differently. It could come down to a 'supernatural deity', a material cause or some kind of psychological intermediate. Historical origins may be important but it may also be about origins in terms of causes, or how these are understood, involving both logical explanations and metaphors or symbolic dimensions of thinking.

Nils Loc

Science, similarly to religion may be embedded in mythic understanding. What do you think, especially in relation to the concept of myth? — Jack Cummins

For Joseph Campbell, myth was somewhat like the educational operating code for integrating folks into their culture. He had used the metaphor of a womb often to refer to cultural providence/support structures. The stereotypes we value, the stories we tell about those types, help to guide the development of persons to be functional members of society. I think Campbell conceived of the informational global age as producing a kind of wasteland of shattered or diminished cultures which poses new adaptive challenges to individuals trying to make their way in world.

Ideology is likely a good stand in for the word myth. Do we need ideologies to live healthy lives? Which ones ought we accept and embrace?

Jack Cummins

↪Nils Loc

The issues of ideologies in relation to myth is a good question. That is especially in relation to 'a kind of wasteland of shattered of shattered or diminished cultures'. It involves the idea of meaning, hope but may be a little different from worldviews in which an entirely different stance was taken. Some of these were utopian and some built upon differing metaphysics entirely, such as resurrection of the dead.

Wayfarer

I am of the view that inner as opposed to outer, objective aspects of 'reality' are important here in the tradition of human understanding. Science, similarly to religion may be embedded in mythic understanding. What do you think, especially in relation to the concept of myth? As far as I see it is a topic involving dialogue between ancient philosophy, as well as anthropological thinking and research. How may the development of ideas about 'gods' or one God be understood in the history of religion and philosophy? — Jack Cummins

They're good questions, but also very big questions. There is a description you might sometimes encounter, 'scientia sacra', meaning the sacred science. It is not a popular term, but still has currency amongst the advocates of the perennial philosophy, such as Seyyed Hossein Nasr and others. This is the theme that there are universal, undelying tenets of wisdom which are made manifest in the individual cultural forms throughout history. In the pre-modern world, there was a perceived unity between the human being as 'microcosm' and the universe, Cosmos ('as above, so below', although the traditionalist vision has been undermined by science in some important respects.)

But it's a vast field of study, which can be approached through a number of perspectives. Karen Armstrong is a good source on that. Huston Smith might be another to consider. Joseph Campbell, as mentioned already. James Hillman another. There's also the more up-to-date and contemporary approaches, like Brian Swimme's evolutionary cosmology. Gary Lachmann's books might be of interest also.

180 Proof

↪Jack Cummins

Apologies if the following rambles too far off-topic ...

An excerpt of a post from a (2022) thread The Philosopher will not find God

Recognizing that "God" does not explain anything (re: mythos) is what motivated the Presocratic proto-scientists (physiologoi) in Ionia & Elea to speculate on rational explanations (logos) of nature (phusis) and our minds (nous). — 180 Proof

In other words, it seems g/G is just a primitive – atavistic – personification of (an) unknowable-inexplicable power(s), likely beginning as animism (i.e. the world is enchanted aka "magical thinking"). Later Mythos had been invented to ethno-narratively memorialize such personified – anthropomorphized – power(s) by and around which (the) cultus formed and then, iirc, medieval scholars had called "religion" (from religare). For two and half millennia the Western philosophical tradition has striven to exorcize, or domesticate (deflate), ineliminable Mythos (i.e. narrative g/G-of-the-gaps pathos) by making explicit – reflectively meditating on – (its) Logos. :fire:

(2020) An excerpt of a post from your thread What is the purpose of dreaming and what do dreams tell us?

Logos confronting, or reflecting on, mythos (but within the hermeneutical context of mythos) was once the grounds for doing philosophy and, I think, still is; otherwise, Jack, why bother? — 180 Proof

Also, Jack, from your (2021) thread To What Extent Does Philosophy Replace Religion For Explanations and Meaning?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/614799

tim wood

It's long past time to consider (also) the deadly toxicity of religion. If we consider g/Gs to have evolved from 180 Proof's account above as explanatory of the phenomena of the world, to be just regulative ideas, those which lead us or advise to be whatever might be our best selves, then we have arrived at an account which on the whole is beneficial to all, notwithstanding that "some of us cherish some queer crotchets no ways touching the grand belief.”

And these thems what don't believe - or rather they (and I one) who simply hold onto what seem good ideas. On the other hand are those that truly believe. Belief here understood as the acceptance of propositions as true that even by definition cannot be known to be true. And here I will only note that by these and in the name of all they hold holy and true have been committed most of the murders on this planet in the entire history of people on this planet.

While they're not murdering, they're trying to enact and impose acceptance of their beliefs as true, as facts. To my way of thinking, humanity is a dangerous psychopath of a child for so long as it maintains these beliefs both as facts and the practices they lead to. And its not too farfetched to imagine it leading to war. Not too farfetched because it already has many times across centuries and even now.

T Clark

He queries the relationship between religion and philosophy. I am extremely interested in this relationship and whether religion was central in this, or a later development. — Jack Cummins

I don't know enough to speak about the historical relationship between religion and philosophy, but from my modern perspective, they fill very similar roles. Whether or not God exists is a matter of fact - yes or no - but religions are not just about God or gods. They also have associated metaphysics that guide people's understanding of the universe just as the kinds of philosophies we discuss here do. That being said, I wonder if religions have more of a focus on looking inward rather than outward. I don't know enough about comparative religion or comparative philosophy to say whether that's true.

Mythology, Religion, Anthopology and Science: What Makes Sense, or not, Philosophically?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions