For those who feel as Ms Oldfield expressed it in Merv’s quote,
I kind of feel the same way about pinning so much importance on giving the mythos a specific historical grounding in the crucifixion. Go ahead, if it supports your faith and allows you to feel the tug of the sacred by all means do that! I don’t at all mean that in a tit for tat way but sincerely I am pro faith. Any faith that enables people to channel the sacred in the world is good for all of us and smiled on by God as conceived by me. Viva la difference. There is no intrinsic superiority in a faith divorced from a tradition but if it is the best one can do in a culture which has failed to keep alive the value of the sacred in the public sphere, it is still better than having us join the derisive chorus of angry atheists.
Another key block in McGilchrist’s pro sacred argument involves the legitimacy of the view which motivates material naturalism. What works so well for boring down to the physical laws of nature is no standard for how we should understand ourselves, our place in the world or our experience generally - and science is in no position to provide that context. This quote from Kindle pages 1730-1731 captures that idea but is still not the entire argument.
Wisdom has many facets that distinguish it from our common conception of knowledge in the modern West, and one of these is that true understanding requires a certain disposition of the mind towards its object. While it is decidedly not one of excessive attachment, it cannot be that of complete indifference, either. There is a sense in which an open affection for its object is as much a requirement for a deep understanding, as it is a product of it. Emerson reflected that ‘love is fabled to be blind, but to me it seems that kindness is necessary to perception’.
True understanding in other words already presupposes a connexion, rather than being the prerequisite of such a connexion. … Knowledge cannot be confirmed by some external criterion that is not itself already an object of knowledge: we can know ‘from the inside’ only, not ‘from the outside’. A hermeneutic circle* is involved, which means access to knowledge cannot be made certain and definite, but requires a step of faith to get going at all. I say ‘step’, because the normal expression ‘leap of faith’ makes it sound potentially random, whereas random is the last thing it is. It is no more random than one’s willingness to trust an outstretched hand that enables one to cross a stream.
The incoherent attempt to see things from the outside means that there is something excessively cold and alien about the Western idea of knowledge.
- @Christy - does this usage of “hermeneutic” square with your understanding of linguistics?
** Also @Rob_Brewer does my application of this TMWT quote seem to fit the purpose I put it to by your understanding?