Tag Archives: faith

The Value of Myth in Depicting the Conflict Between Good and Evil, Part Two: Reinhold Niebuhr on the Superiority of Christian Myth

Posted on by

In a previous essay, I discussed the conflict between good and evil tendencies within human beings and the role of myth in depicting these tendencies. The philosopher Plato employed colorful myths to depict the struggle within humans between a lower nature and a higher nature, but he argued that reason could direct human impulses to a devotion to ideal forms.

The American Christian theologian Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) was also concerned with the internal conflict between good and evil within human beings, but argued that Christian myth was ultimately more accurate in diagnosing the problems of human nature and more effective in providing guidance in how to live. Niebuhr’s essay, “The Truth in Myths,” (The Nature of Religious Experience, Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1937) made the case that, despite the historical and scientific inaccuracies of the Christian religion in the books of the Bible, Christian myths used symbols to express moral and holistic aspects of reality more effectively than reason, philosophy, or science.

How is it possible that stories composed of fictions (partly or in whole) can serve as the basis of a valid belief system? According to Niebuhr, there are several aspects of reality that defy attempts at explanation solely by logic, mathematics, and the sciences, requiring recourse to myth.

The first such aspect is that of value or goodness. The search for goodness is fundamental to human experience — it is the basis for morals and art, and it even underlies the creative inspiration responsible for mathematical and scientific discovery, as Robert Pirsig argued in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Religion illustrates what is good not only through commandments but through stories that contain a greater or lesser amount of fiction. Of course, moral systems can be developed through reason, but there must first be a commitment to a transcendent vision before one can begin deducing. Without a commitment to a higher, ideal state of being, reason can just as easily justify self-aggrandizement without limit. According to Niebuhr, religion supplies ideal ends through its imaginative and poetic interpretation of life.

The second aspect of reality that religion addresses is wholeness. In science and logic, analysis attempts to explain reality by breaking it down into parts and observing how the parts fit together; misalignment or malfunctioning of parts leading to disorder, decay, and destruction. But knowledge of how things work is not the same as knowledge of what things are as a whole, what qualities and properties existing things have, and the value of those qualities and properties. This latter knowledge is holistic knowledge. Holistic knowledge moves beyond atoms, molecules, and chains of causation, and evaluates wholes, including the meaning and value of existence. (For an extended discussion of the role of holism in understanding reality, see this post.)

A third aspect of reality that religion addresses, according to Niebuhr, is the organic nature of reality. The devotion of science to predictive cause-and-effect sequences has led to a mechanistic view of the universe, in which eternal laws dictate the motion of objects, from the very beginning of the universe to its likely end. The mechanism metaphor has been widely used in science and is responsible for a great many useful predictive models. However, the mechanism metaphor sometimes goes beyond specific predictive models to support general interpretations of the universe as being merely a mechanism. This interpretation is too sweeping. In fact, the universe can also be interpreted as being analogous to an organism — that is, an organized structure containing parts that are coordinated in a single, harmonious whole. In this metaphor, the universe is more similar to a life form than a machine — and in fact, the growth of the universe from its very simple beginnings to the gradual creation of stars, heavier elements, planets, primitive life forms, and complex life forms — does resemble a growing organism more than a machine. In fact, a number of physicists have even proposed that the laws of the universe themselves emerge and grow over time, and are not unalterably fixed from the beginning.

These three aspects of reality — value (goodness), wholeness, and the organic nature of the universe — are symbolized and communicated in the myths of religion, according to Niebuhr. While the myths cannot be taken as literally accurate depictions of events, they illustrate aspects of existence, life, and meaning that straightforward historical descriptive accounts and scientific explanations have difficulty expressing.

Religion in contemporary western societies was declining in Niebuhr’s time (1892-1971), and has diminished even further since Niebuhr’s death. But Niebuhr noted that even the modern, rational, science-based civilizations of the west relied upon secular myths – in particular, the myth of historical progress. The idea of inevitable historical progress toward an ideal end is, in Niebuhr’s words “really a rationalized version of the Christian myth of salvation,” in which faith in the redeeming love of Christ is replaced by allegedly unstoppable historical forces. Unfortunately, Niebuhr argues, the myth of historical progress “is more optimistic and really less credible than the Christian myth.”

Consider the fate of the two most prominent theories of historical progress, those of Hegel and Marx. The German philosopher Hegel saw the ideals of the French Revolution as culminating in the full realization of freedom and reason at the “end of history”; and yet the French Revolution devolved into terror, the attempted conquest of Europe, and the crowning of Napoleon as emperor. Karl Marx took Hegel’s idea and proposed communism as the logical endpoint of history, with all societies governed according to the principles of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Fired by Marx’s vision, communist parties emerged throughout the world, and at one point, communist governments controlled nearly one-third of the world’s population; yet the result was oppression, starvation, and the extermination of populations.

The Christian view of human history, by contrast, is definitely not one of inevitable worldly progress. Rather, Christianity sees the growth of both good and evil in history. In this view, there is no motor of history that gradually builds toward an end state of lasting human freedom and happiness; only divine intervention can rescue humanity from its predicament. Now this Christian view of history is not easy for secularists to accept. But the secularist view history as an unstoppable motor of liberal progress seems scarcely more credible, given actual historical events. For Niebuhr, the myths of Christianity provide a much better explanatory framework for the human predicament than frameworks that emphasize human reason and historical progress:

“The real fact is that the mystery of both good and evil in human life and in the world can not be completely comprehended or stated in perfectly rational terms. Every sensitive human spirit is conscious of belonging to a reality which embodies values beyond his achievements; but he is also conscious of incarnating forces of evil which mysteriously defy this order. . . . Neither the vital thrust of life, nor its organic unities nor its disharmonies nor its highest possibilities can be expressed in terms of logic and rational consistency. The dynamic and creative energy of life can be described but not comprehended by reason.”

Niebuhr argues that human beings have free will, but that human sin is also inevitable. This paradox cannot be solved or fully explained by reason, nor can it be overcome by history. Only myth can express it. Even if humans can transcend most of their animalistic impulses, these primitive impulses are easily replaced by human dreams of conquest, great wealth, and rule over others:

“The relation of man to freedom and to mechanism is paradoxical. His conscious self is never in complete control of the mechanisms of impulse with which nature has endowed him. Yet it is in sufficient control not only to check these impulses in the interest of a more inclusive purpose but to interfere with the harmony of natural impulses, and to transmute the harmless impulses of nature into demonic lusts and imperialistic purposes. It is, in other words, the nature of human sin that it arises at the juncture of nature and spirit and is as much the corruption of nature by spirit as the corruption of spirit by nature. All this is darkly expressed in the myth of the fall in Christian theology, much more adequately than in rational explanations of human evil. . . . It is because man can transcend nature and himself that he is able to conceive of himself as the center of all life and the clue to the meaning of existence. It is this monstrous pretension of his egoism, the root of all imperialism and human cruelty, which is the very essence of sin.” (p. 128)

Whatever the historical and scientific inaccuracies of the Bible, then, the Christian religion still contains profound truths. These truths are communicated through stories that have a greater or lesser degree of falsehood about historical events, but the stories are still capable of telling facts about human nature, about the conflict between good and evil, and about reconciling our desires with the needs of others. The teachings of Jesus and the nobility of his self-sacrifice on the cross point to clues about the meaning of our existence that philosophy and science alone cannot fully express. In the words of Niebuhr, “The Cross justifies itself to human faith because it symbolizes an ideal which establishes points of relevance with the deepest experiences and insights of human life.”

Two Types of Religion

Posted on by

Debates about religion in the West tend to center around the three monotheistic religions — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  However, it is important to note that these three religions are not necessarily typical or representative of religion in general.

In fact, there are many different types of religion, but for purposes of simplicity I would like to divide the religions of the world into two types: revealed religion and philosophical religion.  These two categories are not exclusive, and many religions overlap both categories, but I think it is a useful conceptual divide.

“Revealed religion” has been defined as a “religion based on the revelation by God to man of ideas that he would not have arrived at by his natural reason alone.”  The three monotheistic religions all belong in this category, though there are philosophers and elements of philosophy in these religions as well.  Most debates about religion and science, or religion and reason, assume that all religions are revealed religions.  However, there is another type of religion: philosophical religion.

Philosophical religion can be defined as a set of religious beliefs that are arrived at primarily through reason and dialogue among philosophers.  The founders of philosophical religion put forth ideas on the basis that these ideas are human creations accessible to all and subject to discussion and debate like any other idea.  These religions are found in the far east, and include Confucianism, Taoism, and Hinduism.  However, there are also philosophical religions in the West, such as Platonism or Stoicism, and there have been numerous philosophers who have constructed philosophical interpretations of the three monotheistic religions as well.

There are a number of crucial distinguishing characteristics that separate revealed religion from philosophical religion.

Revealed religion originates in a single prophet, who claims to have direct communication with God.  Even when historical research indicates multiple people playing a role in founding a revealed religion, as well as the borrowing of concepts from other religions, the tradition and practice of revealed religion generally insists upon the unique role of a prophet who is usually regarded as infallible or close to infallible — Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad.  Revealed religion also insists on the existence of God, often defined as a personal, supreme being who has the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence.  (It may seem obvious to many that all religions are about God, but that is not the case, as will be discussed below.)

Faith is central to revealed religion.  Rational argument and evidence may be used to convince others of the merits of a revealed religion, but ultimately there are too many fundamental beliefs in a revealed religion that are either non-demonstrable or contradictory to evidence from science, history, and archeology.  Faith may be used positively, as an aid to making a decision in the absence of clear evidence, so that one does not sustain loss from despair and a paralysis of will; however, faith may also be used negatively, to deny or ignore findings from other fields of knowledge.

The problems with revealed religion are widely known: these religions are prone to a high degree of superstition and many followers embrace anti-scientific attitudes when the conclusions of science refute or contradict the beliefs of revealed religion.  (This is a tendency, not a rule — for example, many believers in revealed religion do not regard a literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden story as central to their beliefs, and they fully accept the theory of evolution.)  Worse, revealed religions appear to be prone to intolerance, oppression of non-believers and heretics, and bloody religious wars.  It seems most likely that this intolerance is the result of a belief system that sees a single prophet as having a unique, infallible relationship to God, with all other religions being in error because they lack this relationship.

Philosophical religion, by contrast, emerges from a philosopher or philosophers engaging in dialogue.  In the West, this role was played by philosophers in ancient Greece and Rome, before their views were eclipsed by the rise of the revealed religion of Christianity.  In the East, philosophers were much more successful in establishing great religions.  In China, Confucius established a system of beliefs about morals and righteous behavior that influenced an entire empire, while Lao Tzu proposed that a mysterious power known as the “Tao” was the source and driving force behind everything.  In India, Hinduism originated as a diverse collection of beliefs by various philosophers, with some unifying themes, but no single creed.

As might be expected, philosophical religions have tended to be more tolerant and cosmopolitan than revealed religions.  Neither Greek nor Roman philosophers were inclined to kill each other over the finer points of Plato’s conception of God or the various schools of Stoicism, because no one ever claimed to have an infallible relationship with an omnipotent being.  In China, Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism are not regarded as incompatible, and many Chinese subscribe to elements of two or all three belief systems.  It is rare to ever see a religious war between adherents of philosophical religions.  And although many people automatically equate religion with faith, there is usually little or no role for faith in philosophical religions.

The role of God in philosophical religions is very different from the role of God in revealed religions.  Most philosophers, in east and west, defined God in impersonal terms, or proposed a God that was not omnipotent, or regarded a Creator God as unimportant to their belief system.  For example, Plato proposed that a secondary God known as a “demiurge” was responsible for creating the universe; the demiurge was not omnipotent, and was forced to create a less-than-perfect universe out of the imperfect materials he was given.  The Stoics did not subscribe to a personal God and instead proposed that a divine fire pervaded the universe, acting on matter to bring all things into accordance with reason.  Confucius, while not explicitly rejecting the possibility of God, did not discuss God in any detail, and had no role for divine powers in his teachings.  The Tao of Lao Tzu is regarded as a mysterious power underlying all things, but it is certainly not a personal being.  Finally, the concept of a Creator God is not central to Hinduism; in fact one of the six orthodox schools of Hinduism is explicitly atheistic, and has been for over two thousand years.

There are many virtues to philosophical religion.  While philosophical religion is not immune to the problem of incorrect conceptions and superstition, it does not resist reason and science, nor does it attempt to stamp out challenges to its claims to the same extent as revealed religions.  Philosophical religion is largely tolerant and reasonable.

However, there is also something arid and unsatisfying about many philosophical religions.  The claims of philosophical religion are usually modest, and philosophical religion has cool reason on its side.  But philosophical religion often does not have the emotional and imaginative content of revealed religion, and in these ways it is lacking. The emotional swings and imaginative leaps of revealed religion can be dangerous, but emotion and imagination are also essential to full knowledge and understanding (see here and here).  One cannot properly assign values to things and develop the right course of action without the emotions of love, joy, fear, anger, and sadness.  Without imagination, it is not possible to envision better ways of living.  When confronted with mystery, a leap of faith may be justified, or even required.

Abstractly, I have a great appreciation for philosophical religion, but in practice, I prefer Christianity.  I have the greatest admiration for the love of Christ, and I believe in Christian love as a guide for living.  At the same time, my Christianity is unorthodox and leavened with a generous amount of philosophy.  I question various doctrinal points of Christianity, I believe in evolution, and I don’t believe in miracles that violate the physical laws that have been discovered by science.  I think it would do the world good if revealed religions and philosophical religions recognized and borrowed each other’s virtues.