Does Belief Require Literalism?

[moksha]

Say I wanted to be a follower of Odin. Would I have to have a firm and abiding testimony of the truthfulness of Norse mythology? Would the Prose and Poetic Eddas become my all-encompassing guidebooks for living life?

Or could I simply hope that Odin's thunder son Thor would come to my rescue with his mighty hammer Mjolnir when I need him? I mean, the thought being carried by winged Valkyries from our Midgard to beyond the Rainbow Bridge of the fabled Valhalla in Asgard sounds nice, does it not? Would I need to embrace 13th Century author Snorri Sturluson as the last soothsayer of this age of Men in order to make it past the guarding Valkyries at Glaðsheimr, or could I just view him as a good Icelandic storyteller? I mean, mythology is fun as long as it enriches rather than rules you.

What sayest thou?

[Palerider]

To achieve "fun" and "enrichment" there is no literal belief required.

Mythology by definition claims fabrication as it's genesis and yet can be instructive.

The duality of scripture as an amalgamation of myth and fact requires a concerted effort to hunt down the factual, while still finding truth in the mythological. See Job.

[moksha]

To achieve "fun" and "enrichment" there is no literal belief required.

So Funeral Potatoes can be enjoyed without proclaiming their status as the one true cultural artifact? That way this potato dish does not have to slug it out with fry sauce and Jell-O.

Are we certain mythology was labeled a fabrication from the get-go? Do you suppose those Greeks bringing offerings to the Temple of Athena atop the Acropolis were not in earnest? I suspect some feared Zeus' lightning bolts while others like Leda truly appreciated all things Avian.

[Palerider]

Are we certain mythology was labeled a fabrication from the get-go?

The label "mythology" is declared by those who either no longer believe or never believed to begin with. But the word "mythology" implies" by definition fabrication or possibly better put as "conjecture"?

Just as non-belief fails to change what is true, "faith" exercised in mythological beings fails to prove their existence. It only proves the sincerity of belief.

But isn't there a difference between total mythology and legend-laced fact?

I believe quite sincerely that Crockett lived and was a great woodsman but "kilt him a bar when he was only three"...? Kinda doubt it.

[slavereeno]

That way this potato dish does not have to slug it out with fry sauce and Jell-O.

Love it.

[1smartdodog]

I think literalism creates a much stronger belief sustem. If you have to chew on all the crazy stuff and then swallow it you will tend to find justification for it. On the other hand if you are a wishy washy believer you just pick and choose what you like. Not sure that reallly inspires belief in any supernatural being. At least to the point of answering any question.

[Corsair]

There are openly atheist Jews that still follow Liberal and Reform Jewish movements. They still may hold a Seder meal at Passover and follow many cultural traditions of the faith. But they still may eat bacon, among other things. Lots of liberal Christians hold their beliefs to different levels of belief.

Mormonism is not at this point yet, but I suspect there are many Mormons who hold LDS beliefs as mythical and non-literal. They can't spread this around in Gospel Doctrine class or in a temple recommend interview, but they do exist.

[Jeffret]

Definitely not. But, it is easier to inspire intense devotion and loyalty that way.

Literalism is one of the central components of a Stage 3 faith perspective. These are the people who are strongly aligned and strongly loyal to their tribe, their religious institution, and their recognized religious leaders. They'll put forth the effort to make their Stage 3 communities and institutions successful.

Stage 5 folks have typically dismantled their literal beliefs and their binary worldview. Some of them may still have some fondness for and participation in their earlier religious community, such as the LDSman who started this forum, but the level of intensity is usually decreased. They may expend effort to support their community, but they're not likely to consecrate everything they own to their leaders or institution.

People may still have a lot of belief, or even faith, particularly as Fowler defined it, and not adhere to any level of literalism. They can still believe in or find meaning in many things. Joseph Campbell is an example of someone who studied myths and their origins a lot, finding lots of commonality across different religions and beliefs, but still found belief, of some form, a productive practice. Bishop John Shelby Spong is another notable example. He wrote about how he was no longer able to sustain literalism, and indeed doesn't believe it is sustainable, but he still retains beliefs that are important to him.

Much of the shift these days away from organized religion shares the same nature. The fastest growing religious group in America is the "Nones", or "None of the above", the unchurched or those who do not belong to or support any particular religion. A quarter of Americans are religiously unaffiliated and that has been growing dramatically over the past years. Surprisingly the number of atheists in the country hasn't climbed significantly. Many of these "Nones" sustain some level of belief but a lot of them have abandoned literalism and exclusivity.

[oliver_denom]

People may still have a lot of belief, or even faith, particularly as Fowler defined it, and not adhere to any level of literalism. They can still believe in or find meaning in many things. Joseph Campbell is an example of someone who studied myths and their origins a lot, finding lots of commonality across different religions and beliefs, but still found belief, of some form, a productive practice. Bishop John Shelby Spong is another notable example. He wrote about how he was no longer able to sustain literalism, and indeed doesn't believe it is sustainable, but he still retains beliefs that are important to him.

Much of the shift these days away from organized religion shares the same nature. The fastest growing religious group in America is the "Nones", or "None of the above", the unchurched or those who do not belong to or support any particular religion. A quarter of Americans are religiously unaffiliated and that has been growing dramatically over the past years. Surprisingly the number of atheists in the country hasn't climbed significantly. Many of these "Nones" sustain some level of belief but a lot of them have abandoned literalism and exclusivity.

This is where the next major reformation in Christianity is set to occur, a mass movement into a stage 5 religion. I like to use Star Wars as an example because of the Campbell and Jung influences. A myth like Star Wars doesn't need to be literally believed in order to evoke insight or a religious type experience. Of all the people who have ritually pre-ordered their tickets and have all meticulously planned their viewing with family and friends, and who will endlessly speculate and discuss the story on the internet, none will actually believe it's a documentary. Yet it will evoke religious and communal behavior. Why is that?

It's because archetypal stories and symbols speak to the human brain on a level below conscious thought. These things don't bring about reflection, they bring about an instinctual feeling. The same is true for religious imagery and myth. They work regardless of whether you believe their literal facts in the world, and if they don't evoke a deep feeling of awe or wonder, then they're useless as a symbol. You don't have to be catholic to be wowed by a cathedral, and the same is true for our common mythologies.

So I imagine a time when many of these religious "nones" will all congregate together for a worship service where everyone is perfectly aware that the mythos they're discussing isn't literal fact. This is already the case for a lot of protestant and catholic clergy. There's no reason that sort of transformation couldn't happen among the parishioners. If anything, then I would expect this to happen, because it isn't natural for human beings to be without community and myth. If the modern world has made the old religious model useless, then the old model is bound to receive an upgrade. It's a rare event, but it does happen. It happened with the explosion of monotheism. It happened again with the protestant reformation, reform Judaism, and soon I think, a reformed Islam. We're on the vanguard of something new.

[Jeffret]

This is where the next major reformation in Christianity is set to occur, a mass movement into a stage 5 religion. I like to use Star Wars as an example because of the Campbell and Jung influences. A myth like Star Wars doesn't need to be literally believed in order to evoke insight or a religious type experience. Of all the people who have ritually pre-ordered their tickets and have all meticulously planned their viewing with family and friends, and who will endlessly speculate and discuss the story on the internet, none will actually believe it's a documentary. Yet it will evoke religious and communal behavior. Why is that?
...
It happened with the explosion of monotheism. It happened again with the protestant reformation, reform Judaism, and soon I think, a reformed Islam. We're on the vanguard of something new.

But will it resemble anything like the institutional religions of today? The evidence suggests it will be something quite different.

The wide growth of the unchurched suggests something quite different. Communal behavior will likely be less rigid and fixed. It will come more individually. More by conscious choice to affiliate for some uncertain amount of time. Location may likely not be a determining factor.

It remains to be seen how the internet and social media will impact all of these changes and how it will all play out. Will we abandon our fascination with the online world? Will we continue to keep heavily involved in it and evolve new social patterns? It's hard to really tell, but it's unlikely the internet and social media will go away.

Even before the advent of widespread and pervasive internet, organized religion was on the wane. In the U.S.A., it hit the liberal churches first, while the religious right rejoiced, but now it has penetrated into their arena. Evangelical participation has declined dramatically. The Southern Baptist Convention recognized the decline as a crisis some time back. You mention the Catholic Church several times -- they recognize a significant shortage in the number of priests. In the U.S., their shortage is quite dire but they're having trouble importing enough from the rest of the world because of declines around the globe.

In the rest of Western society, the decline of religious influence has been more dramatic. In Western Europe, the churches have a long and substantial influence. Evidence of their former glory is all around. But few people pay them much attention today, other than as cultural or historical landmarks and oddities. They're having a hard time finding enough money and other resources to preserve the buildings, along with their artistic and cultural treasures.

It's impossible to see just how things will play out. We may see a resurgence of religious influence, just as we've seen a resurgence of xenophobia and tribalism in other aspects. Interestingly, though, religion does not seem to have strengthened as these other tribal aspects have. Rather it has continued it's decline. There is substantial evidence that this has actually hastened its decline among many people, particularly the younger generations.

[oliver_denom]

It's impossible to see just how things will play out. We may see a resurgence of religious influence, just as we've seen a resurgence of xenophobia and tribalism in other aspects. Interestingly, though, religion does not seem to have strengthened as these other tribal aspects have. Rather it has continued it's decline. There is substantial evidence that this has actually hastened its decline among many people, particularly the younger generations.

I wonder if the politicization of religion has played a large role in this. A few years ago I picked up a book called "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power" by Jeff Sharlet. It's an expose on an evangelical ministry in Washington D.C. that exclusively caters to elected officials and others in powerful positions. At the beginning of the book he traced some of the history of the group and talked about how their idea was generally shunned by American religious leaders in the 50's and 60's. At the time, Roosevelt era programs and ideas were considered synonymous with what it meant to be a Christian. It took quite a bit of effort and time to eventually convince religious believers that those social programs were actually backdoor communism, and to create a movement which ultimately culminated in the formation of the Moral Majority coalition and the election of Ronald Reagan. In the 30+ years since, the religious brand has grown almost inseparable with conservative politics, wherein the past, religious was mostly a non-partisan affair. There were exceptions, of course.

But it's hard not to see the influx of politics, money, and influence not playing some sort of role in people deciding to disaffiliate.

[Brent]

Say I wanted to be a follower of Odin. Would I have to have a firm and abiding testimony of the truthfulness of Norse mythology? Would the Prose and Poetic Eddas become my all-encompassing guidebooks for living life?

Or could I simply hope that Odin's thunder son Thor would come to my rescue with his mighty hammer Mjolnir when I need him? I mean, the thought being carried by winged Valkyries from our Midgard to beyond the Rainbow Bridge of the fabled Valhalla in Asgard sounds nice, does it not? Would I need to embrace 13th Century author Snorri Sturluson as the last soothsayer of this age of Men in order to make it past the guarding Valkyries at Glaðsheimr, or could I just view him as a good Icelandic storyteller? I mean, mythology is fun as long as it enriches rather than rules you.

What sayest thou?

I'm sure the All Father would send the Hammer of the Gods to help you find your keys.

(Says the guy with the Mjolnir tatto on his back.)

[dogbite]

It seems to believe in something, Odin, that you have to accept it as a reality to start off. That seems to require some literalness at least at it's core.

[moksha]

If the modern world has made the old religious model useless, then the old model is bound to receive an upgrade.

Wow. That is an inciteful prognostication!

It made me think of a religion in the form of an open-world, non-linear, role-playing video game. Perhaps like Skyrim, but with wearable communications devices like in Fallout. A good storyline to help make the players into better people. Of course, we would need to wait for a better generation of processors with a more advanced artificial intelligence than is currently available. Something that is capable of making new parables off the cuff (if the program had cuffs).

[moksha]

It seems to believe in something, Odin, that you have to accept it as a reality to start off.

Wonder if it would be possible to use the Society for Creative Anachronism, ComiCon, or the Dr. Who Fan Club as examples of a mythological system that gives enjoyment to the participants, but does not encourage participants to literally believe the myth to be true. For those who do go over the edge, the main group would urge them to seek mental health counseling.

Imagine a convention that encouraged participants to come as their favorite Book of Mormon character. Wonder if we could piece together a Roman toga with one of those little green aprons like Julia Child used to wear on her cooking show? Ah, who cares?! I would want to come as Dr. Stephen Strange, Sorcerer Extraordinaire.

[Corsair]

Wonder if it would be possible to use the Society for Creative Anachronism, ComiCon, or the Dr. Who Fan Club as examples of a mythological system that gives enjoyment to the participants, but does not encourage participants to literally believe the myth to be true. For those who do go over the edge, the main group would urge them to seek mental health counseling.

I think you are spot on. "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Chronicles of Narnia" are two more fandoms that attract philosophical adherents even with "a priori" knowledge that it's a myth. Enough people declare their official religion as "Jedi" on their national census to make it official in some countries.

It appears that belief does not necessarily imply literalism. Literalism make require a certain level of belief, but it's clearly nuanced by a host of factors.

[Jeffret]

Or consider a wide variety of paganism, pantheism, Wicca, or any number of individualized spiritual practices. Many of these people don't have any literal beliefs.

From a little more traditional perspective there are the Unitarian Universalists. Their members tolerate a wide range of beliefs, but in general they don't adhere to a literal belief. The local congregation is very involved and active, as a group and individually. As a congregation they provide social opportunities and support for their members. The congregation is involved in civic engagement -- they're providing sanctuary to a woman and child who are concerned about deportation. Individually, I was surprised to learn just how actively engaged their members are in local politics, civics, and service.

Unity Church is another example of a pretty non-literal organization. They have no set creeds, dogma, or ritual. I attended a couple of their services some years ago. They seemed to have a pretty vibrant and engaged community, if somewhat small.

Many Eastern religions are not necessarily literal. Taoism is probably the best example here. I'm not aware of any sort of literalism in Taoism, or how that could even be constructed. (Though I'm not an expert.) Buddhism is generally another good example. Much of Buddhism is an attempt to lead one away from the literal. The koans of Zen Buddhism are a great example, as they attempt to create paradoxes that defy literalism. Buddhism is so vast and varied that I wouldn't be surprised if some corners of it have some degree of literalism. Certainly there are segments of Buddhism that inspire intense devotion and loyalty. For a number of people, Hinduism is more of a historical and cultural practice than a religion requiring literal belief. Hinduism is so old that many of its core forms and beliefs don't fit well in a modern society. The same is also true of the Bible in many ways, but the disconnect can be more jarring in Hinduism. As the Wikipedia article on Hinduism begins, "Hinduism is an Indian religion, or a way of life".

In some ways literalism seems to be more a feature of the Abrahamic religions, though even there it varies. There are certainly important factions of Judaism that are extremely literal, but there are other portions that retain some Jewish identity and even practice but in a very non-literal approach.

[oliver_denom]

Wonder if it would be possible to use the Society for Creative Anachronism, ComiCon, or the Dr. Who Fan Club as examples of a mythological system that gives enjoyment to the participants, but does not encourage participants to literally believe the myth to be true. For those who do go over the edge, the main group would urge them to seek mental health counseling.

I think you are spot on. "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Chronicles of Narnia" are two more fandoms that attract philosophical adherents even with "a priori" knowledge that it's a myth. Enough people declare their official religion as "Jedi" on their national census to make it official in some countries.

It appears that belief does not necessarily imply literalism. Literalism make require a certain level of belief, but it's clearly nuanced by a host of factors.

I think fandom is a good example of modern religion. I'd even go so far to say that christian fundamentalist religion is better described as a bible fandom. If you look at any of the longer running mythologies like Dr. Who or Star Trek, then you'll find that there is an accepted canon, disputed canon, and mystical speculation. The canon is mined for its moral lessons and is often referenced elsewhere in the popular culture, like the character Sheldon Cooper using Spock as a role model. There are fan clubs with regular meetings, and even an accepted orthodoxy within individual groups. The similarities to religion are treated as tongue in cheek, but that's the main point here. They know it isn't real, but they are treating it as if it has value.

If we were in the burned over district of Joseph Smith's time, then a lot of this religious discontent and frustration would probably funnel into a new batch of religious movements. As it is in the 21st century, that particular cycle is being broken. That's what's so exciting and terrifying about living in revolutionary times, moments where the traditional rules and values go from immovably solid to a liquid in flux, anything seems possible. But it's also stressful, and no society can continue with so much upheaval for very long until it either settles back into a new conservatism, or erupts into war. Either way, a new status quo is coming. My hope is that it will be some sort of progress.

[dogbite]

If you're pursuing life philosophy from fiction, that doesn't seem to be belief in the same category as the OP. Indeed fiction is meant to be used as a tool to generate interpretations according to Umberto Eco. This different than belief. Sort of like the separation between philosophy and religion. Both address living the proper life, but religion takes some specific source considered real as the authority on what is the proper life.

But in paganism there is a belief that something is real that is not generally recognized as real. You might practice aspects of Buddhism but if you don't accept that Siddartha's explanation of the metaphysical universe is real then I would argue your aren't a believing buddhist. Perhaps just a practicing Buddhist.

So with the Tao, to me at least, that falls more into the realm of philosophy than religion

[moksha]

Wouldn't it be peachy if belief could come in both true blue and shades of gray?