Carl Jung on Truth

[creekster]

That is an awfully binary response. Of course you don't reject the enlightenment and empiricism.

See Samuel Brown quotes above. An approach to religion based on a literal worldview that is less concerned with meaning and relationships and is more concerned with compiling a convincing set of facts/evidence leads to dogmatic atheism or religious fundamentalism (apologetics being one manifestation). For example, one could view the bible as an infallible literal history or as an ancient record of various people/cultures and their unique experience with the divine. The first view is quite common but leads to all sorts of problems and it is not a particularly sustainable approach. The second view still finds tremendous meaning and power and beauty in scripture while at the same time recognizing it as a mixture of myth and fact.

It seems to me you are now talking about something altogether different than you were before. You are not urging that one back up from empiricism, but that one apply it to the correct facts. The first approach you describe cannot exist from an Enlightenment perspective becasue the bible is, on its face, NOT infallible. So one can only get to a conclusion that it might be a mixture of fact and myth if one concedes that some things, some facts, either are true or they are not true. What we like of what's left then becomes a myth that might have power in guiding us, but which we recognize is not factually true.

The real importance of this difference, it seems to me, is to help us understand that the inability to prove some aspect of our spiritual life, such as the 'fact' that we feel good when we do good things and thus we think it is 'right' to do them, does not invalidate that conclusion. Nonetheless, if we can factually prove that our actions do NOT do good things to other people, then the actions need to be modified. So maybe Borg is arguing that we incorporate non-fact based conclusions into our lives to allow us to live a richer existence. But that is not at all like saying we cant use an enlightenment approach to fact and reason as we decide what parts of our beliefs and actions we will keep and continue.

And, lest you think I am attacking you, I am not intending to do so. I am only trying to think this through and freely admit I have not read the authors nor do I understand much of this stuff.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It seems to me you are now talking about something altogether different than you were before. You are not urging that one back up from empiricism, but that one apply it to the correct facts. The first approach you describe cannot exist from an Enlightenment perspective becasue the bible is, on its face, NOT infallible. So one can only get to a conclusion that it might be a mixture of fact and myth if one concedes that some things, some facts, either are true or they are not true. What we like of what's left then becomes a myth that might have power in guiding us, but which we recognize is not factually true.

The real importance of this difference, it seems to me, is to help us understand that the inability to prove some aspect of our spiritual life, such as the 'fact' that we feel good when we do good things and thus we think it is 'right' to do them, does not invalidate that conclusion. Nonetheless, if we can factually prove that our actions do NOT do good things to other people, then the actions need to be modified. So maybe Borg is arguing that we incorporate non-fact based conclusions into our lives to allow us to live a richer existence. But that is not at all like saying we cant use an enlightenment approach to fact and reason as we decide what parts of our beliefs and actions we will keep and continue.

And, lest you think I am attacking you, I am not intending to do so. I am only trying to think this through and freely admit I have not read the authors nor do I understand much of this stuff.

If you really want to understand Borg, get his book. Highly recommended.

[SeattleUte]

If you really want to understand Borg, get his book. Highly recommended.

This is always JL's ultimate rejoinder: "Read the book." "Read the book." "Read the book." "Read the book." "Read the book." He's very abusive.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is always JL's ultimate rejoinder: "Read the book." "Read the book." "Read the book." "Read the book." "Read the book." He's very abusive.

Just doing my best to support the publishing industry.

[Bo Diddley]

My problem is I don't have the time or attention span to read anymore. But back when I did read, I loved Jung, Adler, and Freud.