What does it mean to ‘believe’ in myth and metaphor?

In my previous piece, I laid out key arguments, asserting that myth and metaphor embody truths distinct from the literal language used in scientific discourse. Our insistence on the latter as the exclusive form of knowledge has led to linguistic errors that create barriers in reconciling subjectivity with objectivity. This disconnect results in scientific quandaries like the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ and societal debates, such as those regarding gender identity.

Now, we must delve into how we associate myth and metaphor with belief. If religion primarily communicates through metaphorical language, we must consider how we can interpret its truths in an age marked by skepticism.

Science inherently focuses on detail. Precision requires a literal language that offers clear definitions and relationships. Metaphors, in contrast, are less applicable where exactitude is necessary. As we strive for precision, particularly in fields like physics, language becomes increasingly abstract and broad in its application. This has led to assertions like Ernest Rutherford’s that “all science is either physics or stamp collecting.” Above the most fundamental levels of inquiry, we merely name phenomena that can be distilled into smaller elements, moving from history through biology to chemistry and physics. Conversely, moving towards abstraction means engaging with metaphors and broader ideas.

In contemporary society, this scientific framework has morphed into a dominant epistemological perspective. Truth is often perceived as requiring validation through this structure; if not, it is dismissed as meaningless or deemed false. This has contributed to a decline in religious language structures.

How can myth and religion hold ‘truth’?

The ancient texts of the Bible have transcended generations, outlasting individuals and cultures. Although many now regard these texts as outdated scientific theories, their language transcends literal interpretation. Their truths are not merely provable but instead convey deeper meanings that can include historical or metaphysical elements. To treat Genesis as a scientific statement is to misinterpret its role within our epistemological confusion.

However, a critical aspect of these texts is that they require a kind of belief for their meanings to be fully realized. Our contemporary detachment from such belief systems contributes to their decline. While not all critics of religion represent a complete perspective, many have acknowledged our reliance on these linguistic structures for meaning. This recognition does not, however, resolve issues of literalism or disbelief.

T.S. Eliot once stated that the superficial reading of poetry is akin to “meat thrown to a guard dog by a burglar,” highlighting that metaphorical language often operates beyond our conscious understanding. The meanings derived from metaphors cannot simply be articulated; they depend on the arrangement of words and the evocation of interpretations. For instance, the phrase “Life is a journey” conjures a range of meanings that are both subjective and objective, resisting reduction to a single interpretation.

To illustrate this further, consider a traffic reporter who describes traffic flow as “moving like a river after rain.” This metaphor requires imaginative engagement from the listener, who must connect the metaphor to the reality of traffic. Although the literal report may provide clearer, undeniable information, the metaphor invites subjective interpretation. While certain interpretations are impossible, such as suggesting it refers to political events, the metaphor nevertheless implies concepts of flow and change.

Misunderstanding biblical texts as strictly literal undermines their rich historical usage. The language of the Bible has inspired countless artistic and literary works, from Chartres Cathedral to T.S. Eliot’s Four Quartets. Preachers interpret these texts not as scientific documents but as sources of personal and communal meaning, inviting exploration of their evolving significance.

The tension between literal and metaphorical interpretations has long existed within religious traditions. On one end, fundamentalists advocate for strict, objective readings, while others embrace personal interpretations that can vary widely. This dynamic can deter rational individuals from engaging with religious communities, particularly when texts are deemed to mean anything, rendering them devoid of substance.

This dichotomy also reflects a broader societal crisis of meaning. Why does poetry struggle for relevance? One major reason is our inability to reconcile the objective and subjective aspects of its language. We either reduce it to a single meaning or allow it to become entirely subjective, mirroring the general absence of meaning in society. Meaning is often viewed as either a personal phenomenon or as an objective reality, such as an evolutionary principle.

Consider contemporary debates around gender and abortion. Gender identity can be perceived as either a subjective experience or an objective biological fact, leading to vehement conflicts. Similarly, discussions on abortion often oscillate between viewing fetal life as an objective reality or as a subjective consideration of choice.

These examples illustrate the broader conflict between subjective and objective frameworks in our understanding of meaning. Political and religious divides, alongside the struggle to unify these perspectives, have intensified as meaning becomes more elusive.

The pressing question is how to harmonize these elements. Take the concept of America: it is not merely a physical location but embodies a set of values and identities. America exists not only as a geographical entity but as a collection of symbols and narratives that represent collective identity. Just as religious systems require belief in their symbols and stories, so too does the concept of America demand a shared understanding of its principles.

Principle Metaphors

Political divisions reveal how deeply these symbols resonate within American lives. Republican ideologies often align with fundamental constitutional values, while the political left increasingly critiques these symbols, framing American history as a narrative of oppression.

The unity between these opposing views does not lie in the symbols themselves but in a collective sentiment that sustains a moral center. Even amidst its flaws, the essence of America can be seen in its moral principles, which are articulated through movements for civil rights. Those advocating for equality appeal not to a flawed identity but to the principles that America claims to uphold.

However, the moral center that animates these principles cannot be overlooked. Stories that feature a moral God offer insight into the chaos of human existence, bridging the material world with a moral reality. This connection between language and identity suggests that our self-concept is intricately linked to our language use, as self-identity is fundamentally a linguistic construct.

Neuroscientific insights reveal how our brain's hemispheres influence our perception of reality. In her TED Talk, Jill Bolte Taylor recounts her experience during a stroke, describing a transcendent state of egoless awareness she termed “Nirvana.” This notion aligns with Dr. Iain McGilchrist’s assertion that modern society has become overly dominated by the analytical left hemisphere, often neglecting broader meanings and creativity.

What we seek is not a swing towards one extreme but rather a mediation that allows us to engage with the broader dimensions of experience. The notion of God serves as a representation of moral reality, with Jesus’ life encapsulating the convergence of myth and truth. While collective identities can be moral, the highest moral self transcends these identities and connects us to something greater.

In conclusion, the interplay between myth, metaphor, and belief is crucial for navigating our meaning crisis. Our collective and individual identities are shaped by these metaphors, which require belief to thrive. Only through recognizing and embracing these complexities can we aspire to find our place within the larger narrative of existence.