mmoa_writes

It's interesting how things have changed over the past 2000 years.

I was wondering this when I opened the newspaper and read a piece in the 'Comment' section by one journalist in the Telegraph, concerning the latest bit from the current Archbishop of Canterbury which included little titbits such as calling the traditional December date of Jesus' birth as 'highly unlikely' and the details of Wise men and Shepherds as 'legend'.



It was only interesting because in an age where biblical literacy is often canted but rarely in action (how many theologically informed members of the Christian Church was actually surprised by the Archbishop's statement? In fact, forget theologically informed, how many members of the Christian Church were surprised or shocked full stop?), there were some people like said journalist who were left asking what 'it' was 'all for' if it wasn't literally true.

Of course, there's no real answer to that, but what is clear is that the purpose of religion and thus, religious mythology and all the literary techniques and codes thus employed, have changed. What is now clear is that if it isn't literally true, in today's world, then it isn't necessary. If it isn't necessary, then there's no need to make a 'big deal' over it, whether on the part of the so-called 'New Atheists' or religious fundamentalists.

It helps that we now have now gained an incredible insight into how the world actually works thanks to science, in which the question of metaphors and allegories cannot arise. They are truly irrelevant, not even 'anti-scientific' as some would like to cry; words like 'meaning' and 'truth' don't really apply - science is ultimately about fact.

I think this also relates to what some might describe as today's 'moral' climate. Questions of rights and idealism have never been more apparent or important, but when we're busy trying to establish an entirely materialistic worldview, it becomes difficult to ally the 'big lies', metaphors such as justice and mercy and to really take them seriously. I certainly feel rather foolish defending certain ideas because they are simply 'known' to be right, as often, the basis of such claims never seems to hold up to rigorous argument (but perhaps this is simply the problem of the nature of what is 'right' - if we simply say, as with justice, that an action is right for it's own sake, then those like me feel it's a slight cop out. Circular reasoning always leaves my stomach turning. However, providing a 'reason' for right, seems to reduce the virtue of right by entering an apparently selfish motive into the equation. I suppose one can then argue why the motive being selfish makes the action any the less right - I'd like to say it doesn't, but that one still feels like it's not as right as it would be if it were purely illogical, which would be intellectually unsatisfying. Damned if you do, it seems, damned if you don't)

In the latest 'Philosophy Today' issue, most of the featured philosophers mentioned that the now desperate need of an ethical system that can reconcile our emerging materialistic worldview is finally being addressed. It goes without saying that this is a 'good thing' but I wonder if we are brave and mature enough to go forward down the route of intellectual and moral consistency or whether we will simply have to deal with the hodge-podge of feeling, mental rigour and traditional modes of belief. If it's the latter, I feel attitudes towards the last relics of the old, allegorical understanding of man and the world such as those of the wondering journalist will have to cease.