<>
This from the estimable "Gagdad Bob," a/k/a Robert Godwin, clinical psychologist/philosopher, on the seemingly inexplicable propensity of human beings to construct totally unlivable "ersatz-realities" in their system(s) of thought. (Or so I gather.)
In an earlier writing — his book One Cosmos under God: The Unification of Matter, Life, Mind and Spirit, Godwin was much more expansive re: who is to be included within his analytical category of "constructors" of alternative, or "second" realities. It turns out this category encompasses, not only the "religious doofuses," but "indoctrinated 'scientists'" as well:
Early Desert Fathers of Christianity such as Origen railed against ... concrete thinking, in that "to take the language of the Bible 'literally' was for him to empty it of all transcendent reference, to confine it to the 'corporeal' world. Allegory was required to give the biblical text appropriate depth and density of meaning." Harris points out that what religion promulgates in its early, concrete form is likely "a representation at some more or less developed stage, of what emerges under criticism as a metaphysical concept." Ironically, both religious fundamentalists and spiritually bereft secularists are identical in approaching scripture in such an unsophisticated, concrete, and literal manner. In both cases ... the "factuality" of scripture is the focus of critical attention, rather than its "pointing beyond itself."On this criterion, both doctrinaire religious and dedicated atheists stand on the same cognitive and fideistic ground: Both allow themselves to be "defined" by their ideological commitments, by the doctrine they hold, without first exploring the causes and implications of their doctrinal commitment, in Real terms.... That is, according to actual human experience, individual, social, and historical.
Godwin continues:
But irrespective of whether or not something actually "happened" in an historical sense, the historical (or horizontal) perspective of any scripture is only useful insofar as it helps to illuminate a non-historical or "vertical" dimension operating outside chronological time. Both religious and scientific fundamentalists attempt to locate in historical time what can only be found in metaphysical space, and mistakenly regard conventional history as more "real" than the deeper or higher truth from which it is a declension. To cite just one example, one may believe that Moses led the enslaved Israelites out of the death-cult of Egypt and into freedom. But what relevance does this have for us today, unless it is still possible, with divine assistance, to escape the spiritual earth-cult of our own psychic Egypt and be led toward the higher Light and Life?.... [O]ne could almost define scripture as a special kind of language that operates in a top-down fashion, containing material from every stage and dimension of reality, from the mystical, noetic, and spiritual, to the moral and psychological, to the mythic and allegorical, to the concrete, material and historical. And this is precisely why it is so easy for billions or people to get caught up in the most concrete and literal aspect of scripture. oblivious to the higher and more subtle meanings it contains, for "they have ears, but hear not."RE: your second cite, dear Matchett-PI, Godwin's notice that a thinker like this — e.g., the late Christopher Hitchens — is not postmodern at all, but rather is truly "operating out of a defunct, 19th century Victorian picture of the world": O my word, what a brilliant insight! (IMHO of course.)
And I would only add, Hitchens — R.I.P. — has plenty of still-living company: E.g., the "usual suspects" Dawkins, Lewontin, Monod, Dennett, Harris, et al. That is, professional atheists, scientific materialists who are pleased to sacrifice the depth and feeling of human thinking and experience to some "abstract," doctrinal blueprint which seems to bear no correspondence or resemblance to the world of reality of common human experience — individual, social, historical....
Really, such folk have been "outdated" by the amazing insights of 20th-century physics. The problem is, it seems such folk simply, doggedly refuse to notice such developments, or to consider how they might be relevant to the "field of biology."...
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear Matchett-PI!