Barefoot in the wilderness
in search of understanding

John,
You have mentioned modernism a lot lately, and what you feel is its effects upon faith. Clearly you do not think modernism a positive influencer when relied upon in matters of faith – but you do in other areas, such as evolutionary science, where you and others think it is the only way to address the truth. Why is one truth acceptable only in modernist terms and another is not? I think you have answers for this, but I am interested in hearing them, for I’m not sure what they are (only what they may be!)

Hammertime () (URL)
9:05pm on 26 July 2006

Hammer,
The thing with modernism as a mode of thought is that (as with any other mode) it is limited in certain ways. It so happens that the limitations of modernism fit well with the needs of science – the emphasis on empirical, fact-based knowledge, for example. (Unsurprising, given that the two share roots.) This makes them a good match in terms of structure and logic. Thus, when addressing questions of science (“how does the world work?”), the methods of science work well. For many other matters, though, the limitations of Modernism matter a lot more. In particular, the elevation by Modernism of facts above all other forms of truth can be a problem for matters concerning people (for whom facts can be the smallest part of the problem) and, even more, theology. In these circumstances, wisdom matters more than facts, and a sound understanding of the structure and influence of myth can be crucial (among other things).

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
08:15am on 27 July 2006

OK – perhaps science was a bad example. What aspects of life are not well addressed by Modernism? That is, if “myth” (and you know I shudder at that!) is important in personal beliefs, where else is it important? I don’t think I’d really disagree that facts without wisdom is as useless as wisdom without facts, but I don’t see any conflict between them, nor do I know of anyone advocating the advance of facts above the wisdom to apply them!

To focus – who is advocating that wisdom is unimportant in the arena of personal beliefs, and where is “myth” useful besides the arena of personal beliefs?

Hammertime () (URL)
1:54pm on 28 July 2006

Hammer,
Myth isn’t just about beliefs (in the religious sense). Myths tell us our place in society and even what our society actually is (myth is often popular history – Queen Elizabeth I and the Battle of Britain over here, perhaps the American Civil War and the Wild West over there). They also deal with wider issues of the person – how should we behave, why should we do so and what are the consequences? And issues of the world – what’s it for, where did it come from, where’s it going? Modernism doesn’t address these questions well, particularly those relating to the person and society. When it does address society, it tends towards absolute, categorical answers like “workers unite” or “greed is good”. Myth is more subtle and more powerful.

As for contrasting wisdom with facts, I think that the problem is more that some people actually equate the two – they assume that, the more knowledge someone has, the wiser they are. This gets particularly obvious among techno-utopians (the folks who think that the Internet will bring world peace and universal love) but creeps in all over the place. It’s generally less common in Christian circles, but can be seen quite often.

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
2:19pm on 28 July 2006

Ah, I see the wisdom/facts point now. No wonder I thought it wasn’t really a challenge!

As far as myths, aren’t all of the examples you relate really just examples of personal morality, even if they are on a group level? Your examples of “Workers unite” and “greed is good” also seem to be in the arena.

I am asking questions like this because I, too, see a problem with the application of modernism – but I think I see the problem differently. I am trying to determine if you see it along the same lines as I or in a different way that I should consider.

Probably our greatest US historical myths would be in regards to the American Revolution!

Hammertime () (URL)
7:07pm on 03 August 2006

Hammer,
I’m not quite sure of your point about myth as personal morality on the group level – if it’s on the group level, it’s not purely personal any more. But the larger point is that myths aren’t about morality, at least not primarily. They’re about identity. The story of the Spanish Armada (or the American Revolution) doesn’t tell us what’s moral – they tell us the standard of courage expected of an Englishman (or an American). They assume the virtue and contextualise and reify it – for example, they don’t tell us to be brave, they tell us how to be brave. And they enable us to be brave by placing us in a tradition of bravery.

The thing is that myth doesn’t care about “personal beliefs”. The very phrase drips modernism – it assumes that the individual exists in isolation from anything else, and that one’s “beliefs” can be dissected and laid out as a series of propositions. Myth, however, says that no man is an island, and gives us stories that defy and surpass dissection. The American Revolution, for example, cannot be reduced to a series of propositions – even the Declaration of Independence contains only the merest sniff of the spirit of the times. The myth keeps that spirit alive and accessible.

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
8:03pm on 03 August 2006