Joseph Campbell is one of the most erudite and learned modern philosophers. I found this full length interview/show he did which covers love. I’ve been reading Richard Dawkins and recently watched a Daily Show interview with Sam Harris, both noted atheists. They much favor science over religion and posit the former as able to explain everything. For Campbell, however, the wonder of the Big Bang and the virgin birth are not far apart. I think this is correct in that any science which doesn’t include cultural and spiritual environment isn’t really describing lived reality. For all that some atheists say that science explains everything, that’s not really the need that religion serves. The explanation is almost coincidental. What Campbell actually says is that religions seek to address suffering and prescribe a way out. They are not so much literally explaining the world as promoting understanding through metaphor and belief.
In this video Campbell is talking about love, and the goddess. Specifically, he is talking about modern romantic love as a communion between two souls, not two bodies as in erotic love or two families as in arranged (historical normal) marriage. He discusses where this love is situated in terms of chakras (at the heart) and even how religious love can be romantic – how Satan (the fallen angel) is essentially the spurned lover of God, spurned because he would not bow to man. In the wrong hands these myths and stories can spin all kinds of bullshit, but it remains that similar themes and stories recur throughout history and across cultures.
None of this, of course, flies planes, but this religious and spiritual information can be priceless for regulating the internal lives of human beings, namely suffering. It is also quite interesting to watch and read.
// They much favor science over religion and posit the former as able to explain everything
First of all, those who are religious think that atheists think that “science explains everything”. This, I think is mainly because religious people measure atheists in their own image. Most people are religious because for them science does not explain “everything”, therefore to know the answers to the questions that science does not ask in the first place, they resort to non-sciences, and then get satisfied with the answers therein.
Secondly, atheism is the other side of theism. They are people who reject God concept. Apart from that an atheist could go ahead and reject science too. Being an atheist does not necessarily mean they have accept science. Anyway, the brand of atheists represented by Dawkins and Co. firmly believes in science. In more accurate terms, they believe in scientific methodology of building knowledge.
There could be atheists that could believe that science explains or will explain “everything”. However, then they ”believe” in science for the wrong reasons. The first question is; what is this “everything” means. Science can answer the question “where is my car key?”, “is my wife pregnant?”, “what happens when I die?” (ans: you get decomposed and become part of the earth). However if you ask “what happens in my next life?”. “do animals have a soul?” then science will tell you that those concept are not included in any of scientific models, and hence is not answerable. Similarly science will not be able to answer the question “what kind of wood Pinocchio was made of”. If the fairly-tale that introduced the concept Pinocchio does not say that, then science cannot. Same goes for the “Soul”.
Scientists, atheists and ‘whateverists’ who like scientific methodology should like it for its beauty (yes ‘beauty’) and the results it brings to make our lives easier and happier. If anyone “believe” in science thinking that they will be able to find out some objective truth about life, universe and everything……. then I have to say that Sorry I don’t think that is the objective of mainstream science. If one wants to find the answer to the question of life, universe and everything, then one should read “Hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Answer_to_the_Ultimate_Question_of_Life.2C_the_Universe_and_Everything_.2842.29
Indi, perhaps the last thing you wanted is to start a philosophical debate about science and religion :) …sorry..could not help it.
Lol. According to your definition religion serves the same need that alcohol and narcotics serve, they all give a way out. An opiate.
There alot of gobbledygook about science in this article. science doesn’t have to accommodate culture or spirituality. Science simply explains what reality constitutes of and how those constituents behave. it does so not by coming up with a bunch vague just so stories but through observation. Spirituality by definition resides beyond frame work of science, spirituality is about the bullshit undefined immaterial wibble that cannot be observed. And the communion between soul is exactly that, ill defined and unobservable nonsense.
Your secular srilanka website is going nowhere. Folks in SL are more religious than ever. You cannot separate the state and religion or people and religion, it is way too deeply entrenched and will be so for the forseeable future. The government funds everything from free material for Muslim girls to make hijabs, Saraswathi poojas in parliament, allows Islamic law, funds Buddhist religious ceremonies etc etc. to Ncie try though, but you’re going to get pissed on over and over again.
@Ruki
Yeah. No wonder they all vote for Mahinda Rajapakse.
Actually has there ever been a politician here that a secularist would vote for?
Maybe Mangala Samaraweera
Are you being sarcastic? Because I would class him as lower than decomposing faeces.
SLFP or UNP makes no difference, biyotch. Prasad Mapatuna’s campaign for a “secular Sri Lanka” has about as much chance of success as getting Chandrika to look beautiful.
Thanks Riki but if folks in SL are not more religious than ever, and if governments did not start going down the wrong path, then there would not be any need for a “Secular Sri Lanka” website :) The website exists exactly due to the reasons that you spelled out.
Religion and People cannot be separated until people feel the fear of unknowns. And the government and religion cannot be fully separated as long as politicians know that people can be manipulated using religious institutions. All this will be there for a long time to come.
Switching off that unwanted light in your house will not solve the energy problem in Sri Lanka. And great many people will not have the state of mind to do that. Still, would you not switch that light off as an individual, and also promote the idea among at least your peer group? May be you would, may be you would not. If you are the former kind, then you understand what Secular Sri Lanka effort is about.
I am just a supporter of Secular campaign and does not ‘own’ anything :)
//has about as much chance of success as getting…..
Depends on how you measure success. If you are expecting a secularist political party to win the next election. Or secularist to be the national leader within next 20 years. Then I would say, that such goals will surely fail.
Why would ‘change’ need to be through political parties or political personalities? The change can happen within the intellectual circles. The problem today is that great many so called intellectuals in SL today are enemies of secularism (or rather the servants of established dogama). IMO Secualar Sri Lanka should not be a political movement targeting politicians, or the masses that vote for them. It is a simple endeavor to keep the secular dialog alive within the intellectual circles that can influence the political methods.
Before someone challenges the word ‘intellectual’…….. what I meant by that are those people who read, listen, think and discuss matters that concerns them, without looking for any immediate personal gains.
Sri lankan society is simply not ready for a conversation about secularism. The country needs to develop further to so that people distance themselves more with the old way of life and old institutions. then we can start talking about the separation of temple & government
Hmm….
I think there is quite a number of ‘secularists’ now, especially among the younger generation.
I hope you are not suggesting that a discourse about secularism is harmful in current circumstances. It is true that most people will not pay attention to, or even hostile to such a discourse. However, if we do not keep the light going, there won’t be any potential for such a discussion, even when the time is right.
*yawn* Good luck with your going nowhere initiative, Prasad.
Just make sure you don’t start a fucking religious conflict right after the end of a 25 year old war, or you might just end up like Prabhakaran – fat, diabetic and dead in a lake, without having achieved your goals.
Not harmful but it will be a little masturbatory just like the current prepubescent discussion about democracy I keep overhearing. Infact, it will be even more so because proper discussions about secularism & atheism are more abstract.
There is no country that is truly secular, possibly excepting hard core communist ones.
just about all Scandinavian societies are extremely secular
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Atheists_Agnostics_Zuckerman_en.svg
Thats alright Dodo. A little masturbation is not something anyone should be ashamed of :)
@Ruki, I thought the idea of secularism is all about NOT starting another religious/tribal fiasco; exactly the kind that you just mentioned. No one should be fat, diabetic and/or found dead in a a lake, especially not for religious or tribal reasons.
If secularism has any danger of starting a ‘conflict’ (other than of course secularists themselves getting hammered left and right by all kinds of religious conservatives; which is kind of OK ) then I have got my self in to something that I did not ask for.
Ha Ha. No, he’s serious. He even thinks Mangala will make a better president than MR.
Look dude, cut the bullcrap. People in SL are super sensitive over religion and all you are doing is just creating conflict, although you may think you are doing the right thing. Don’t fuck people over (especially those who can’t run off to the USA like you can) in the pursuit of your goals. If you want “secularism” get economic development hapening in the country first and people will automatically start moving away from religion and their crazy beliefs, whatever they are. For example, for all your grandstanding about secularism I don’t you will have the balls to go to Kattankudy and tell all the Muslims there that Sharia Law is a fucking joke.
“just about all Scandinavian societies are extremely secular”
I agree their societies might be secular, but their countries are most definitely not:
DENMARK – Official state religion is the Evangelical Lutheran faith
NORWAY – Official state religion is the Evangelical Lutheran faith
FINLAND – Offical state religion is the Evangelical Lutheran faith
SWEDEN – Offical state religion was the Evangelical Lutheran faith (only removed in 2000)
About pretty much everything Joseph Cambell says, it’s a load of crap.
I think if society is secular, it doesn’t matter what the “official” religion is, because religion doesn’t become a political banner. I think many people just don’t even understand what true secularism is. It isn’t about rejecting religion or being an atheist. For instance, Jewish Israel is largely a secular society.
You’re correct secularism isn’t about atheism or agnosticism or religious preference. But having an official religion and a a rather large religious community makes things easier for religion to become a political banner
Only if the society is bankrupt of all other moral anchors and needs a religious banner to rally around (or hide behind). A good example is the Palestinian nationalist movement. In the ’60s and ’70s, the movement was very secular — Palestinian rights being the only real banner. Palestinian terrorists/freedom fighters drank, smoked, and had sex with each other much as the world around them was doing. It was once the struggle had been corrupted by other Arab nations, that Islamic radicalism became a necessary banner. The PLO is still fairly secular in comparison to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Another example is Iraq; when Saddam was fighting Iran, his party remained secular, but wrapped themselves in Islam when they faced the west, simply because it was a flag of convenience.
If you look at Scandinavia, or for that matter western Europe, a religion maybe official and supported by the administration through taxation of the (voluntary) public and official concessions, but that religion has no place in making laws, or in governance. Religion becomes solely a personal choice and not an official sanction — that is what makes a state secular.
@Ruki: Perhaps we should discuss this when you are in a better mood :) And perhaps what you said is correct about people being overly sensitive about their religious roots.
Anyway, no one should listen to what indi has to say about religion. Once he did the craziest thing possible by tying buddhism with Quantum Mechanics.
Oh dear, I missed that. :(
“If you look at Scandinavia, or for that matter western Europe, a religion maybe official and supported by the administration through taxation of the (voluntary) public and official concessions, but that religion has no place in making laws, or in governance.”
Really? The head of state of England has to be an Anglican Christian. The head of state of Norway/Sweden/Denmark has to belong to the Evangelical Lutheran faith. Even the parliament has to have a set number of ministers who belong to the Evangelical Lutheran faith.
For example, let’s take Norway
– The Church of Norway (Den norske kirke in Bokmål or Den norske kyrkja in Nynorsk) is the state church of Norway
– The constitutional head of the Church is the King of Norway, who is obliged to profess himself a Lutheran.
– The Church of Norway is subject to legislation, including its budgets, passed by the Norwegian parliament, the Storting, and its central administrative functions are carried out by the Royal Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs.
— From wiki
——————–
ARTICLE 12 of the Norweigian Constitution:
Article 12 [Council of State]
(1) The King himself chooses a Council from among Norwegian citizens who are entitled to vote. This Council shall consist of a Prime Minister and at least seven other Members.
(2) More than half the number of the Members of the Council of State shall profess the official religion of the State.
——————–
Religion involved in making laws:
“Without making any of these crucial changes, the committee and later the majority in the Norwegian Parliament decided to establish a Christian Evangelical-Lutheran subject in which all pupils are obliged to participate.”
http://www.iheu.org/node/536
Ruki aiya, boru post daanna epa, harida?
You are mentioning norway country without scolding also… what is meaning of this? we are supposed to sciold, no? but maybe government mahattayas ok with norway after HE Pressident sir is talking very nicely to norway man on the big jolly trip to amarica with all his friend sirs. I don’t know. this is very good trip, and is impressing everyone very much only – their pressident only having 4 floor of best hotel while our pressident sir is keeping ten floors and getting much better treatment than even for their own pressident. Our pressident he is like to dutugamunu, these days. like great king only.
I am not knowing whether to scold the norway because you are not help me still.
it is also difficult to keep up, this days. one time tigers are bad and fonseka sir is great commander, now fonseka sir deshadrohiya and tiger sirs very respectful and getting good position and treatment from the Pressident sirs. one time UN and norway is very bad and we have to scold and also fast and only shape eke eat the leman puff, then pressident sirs is going behind them and smiling with them. if you tell me properly who is good and who is bad nowadays i also can help no?
You are nice going to kade, on the aanduwa side and happyly taking their money but not letting me also kade yanna..
You are very shellfish fellow, ruki aiya.
Ruki, in my first comment I pointed out that many people don’t understand what secularism is. It doesn’t mean not having a religion, or not believing in a god or gods. So countries having state religions doesn’t make ’em non-secular.
Also, the fact that the head of state of Britain must be Anglican isn’t as exclusive as the requirement that he/she must be descended from the House of Windsor :) I think you also don’t understand the difference between the head of state and the head of government. In Britain, the head of state is the Queen, and most of the Scandinavian countries have monarchs too. However, almost all of these have parliamentary systems in place, and as far as I know it isn’t required that the heads of government be of a particular religion.
Your link is outdated too btw. That law allowing religion to be a compulsory subject in Norwegian schools was overturned in 2007 (Google’s a bitch, no?) — http://www.iheu.org/node/2724
Going back to your misunderstanding of secularism, it isn’t required that a government be non-religious to be secular. As I pointed out, Jewish Israel is largely secular. Secularism comes out of the practice or non-practice of a religion, not in its existence or non-existence. To be non-secular, the state religion should have control of the state (in practice, not necessarily by constitution), whereas in the countries you mention, the head of state is also the head of the church, placing in effect the state in control of religion.
For example, in Germany, which identifies itself as a Christian nation, “The freedom of religion in the Grundgesetz (Basic Law) means one may adopt any kind of religious or non-religious belief, practice it in private or in public, confess it, or keep it for oneself. The state does not identify with any religious organization.” All recognized religious bodies must operate under corporate and other laws, with transparent financial records. Financial support for religious bodies maybe raised themselves from local contributions, or by state taxes from voluntary taxpayers. This applies to all religions. There is no state law. But in practice, this is neither more nor less secular than the Scandinavian nations which are seen as the epitome of secular society.
On the surface of it, it seems like non-secularism to insist that a certain percentage of a state council be of a particular faith, but for that to be true the said faith would have to have some place in lawmaking, and since it largely doesn’t it isn’t a threat to secularism. Having said that, I’m sure no nation is 100% secular, and I’m sure we could dig up some law in every nation’s constitution that is religion-based, but that isn’t the point. Western Europe and Scandinavia are certainly as close to being 100% secular as is humanely possible.