Café Taoism, the high C of faith
Arr, flamewar! PZ Myers at the epicenter, almost as a matter of course. A familiar argument in the reaction from Mark Kleiman of samefacts.com seems instructive:
Religious thought, writing, and speech, at its adult level, is always metaphorical. "Humans are created in the Image of God," taken literally, is nonsense, if you remember that it is a part of a religious tradition that says that God is an infinite, omniscient, beneficent, immortal being "without parts or passions," which is the opposite of finite, finitely rational, ethically challenged mortal beings with physical bodies and emotional drives. It makes no more sense as a proposition in comparative primatology than "My love is like a red, red rose" makes sense as a proposition in botany. But it's a very powerful metaphor for the ethical proposition "Human beings are not to be damaged or degraded." (Of course religious writers don't generally assert that "God" names a metaphor rather than an entity, any more than the actor playing Hamlet looks at the audience and says, "I'm not really the Prince of Denmark" or any more than a Pynchon novel carries a disclaimer on the title page, "None of this stuff really happened.")
[...] But if, like anyone who has thought deeply about these matters, you think of God as an especially potent metaphor (or, to put in more flowery terms, "a mystery to be understood only in part, and then by faith") — if you think that, then the whole debate is pointless. Both Gerson and Meyers are just being silly: it's two blind men debating the nature of the elephant while groping around different parts of a Land Rover.
Like anyone who has thought deeply about these matters. Anyone truly reasonable couldn't possibly disagree with me, after all, because I am the very epitome of reason. I like the comparison with fiction, though.
At its adult level. What is this adult level? Well, from his redux, fresh today:
[...] So, for me, "that which alone is wise and good" does not allow itself to be called "Zeus," or by any other name. ("The name that can be named is not the Eternal Name," says Lao-tse.)
Ah, so
the adult levelof religion is a kind of café Taoism. Thanks for clearing that up.
How would we know when someone is on this adult level, though? After all, labels for belief merrily conflate the "childish" and "adult" versions. The adult version being the "properly understood" one, by Kleimannic decree, you'd think it'd be the highest priority of churches to make sure their followers are believing properly. Maybe it'd make for a lot less grief if believers could wear little badges saying
I am not a literalist; you may address me like an adult.
I see now it's a "criticism of his theological tone-deafness." Clearly that means café taoism is like the highest overtones of the basic belief that carries the chord, and I'm mistaken for focusing on the bass that resounds every way I turn.
