This post is about the responses to your in-class writing assignment on October 9th, for which many of you invoked the ghost of Charles Darwin, opining that his theories are what would rescue us from the older ideas or founding myths that are sometimes reflected in religious belief systems. Please note that this is not Joseph Campbell’s conclusion in “The Impact of Science and Myth,” and perhaps you learned this after the group exercise since your written responses differed from those articulated later in the class discussion. I thought it would be helpful to note some of your responses, which reflect a “close reading” of Campbell’s chapter. First, I ask you to consider the following quote from a section of the chapter which appears to smack of Eurocentrism.
In speaking of the claims of superiority which appear in some adherents of monotheistic religions, Joseph Campbell wrote: “. . . today, such claims can no longer be taken seriously by anyone with even a kindergarten education. And in this there is a serious danger. For not only has it always been the way of multitudes to interpret their own symbols literally, but such literally read symbolic forms have always been—and still are, in fact—the supports of their civilizations, the supports of their moral orders, their cohesion, vitality and creative powers. With the loss of them there follows uncertainty . . .” So, is Campbell supporting religious extremism, or is he advocating for a more symbolic reading of religious beliefs, or the resolution of these ideas along with scientific evidence of their “falsehood”?
While I realize that you are busy writing your papers this weekend, please take a moment to research (on the library website and if you wish at “.org” websites) the meaning of “biological determinism.” It lies at the core of Darwin’s idea of species development, and is relevant to our discussion of myth and of Campbell’s resolution to the Apollonian-Dionysian conflict. What does “biological determinism” portend for women? And for men? Jot down your thoughts afterward, as we will need to tackle this conflict, as identified by Campbell, in class on Tuesday, and as represented in our discussion of the Daniel Ogden reading, “Perseus.” (The text assigned for Tuesday’s class.)
Here are some of your classmates’ responses to the first question of the writing assignment concerning the main idea of Joseph Campbell’s “The Impact of Science and Myth.” F.G. wrote: “. . . myths can’t be scientifically proven. Myths are incorporated into everyday lives and are based on your culture.” J.S. wrote that Campbell states that, “religion and science don’t provide definite answers.” M.M. wrote: “The main idea is that young children are taught to conform to old ways (regardless of credibility and accuracy).” A.L. wrote: “Although science is able to refute many claims of religious texts and beliefs, myths still have their values despite being unsupported by facts.” D.R. thought Campbell was concerned with “the question of whether students/children are being taught the ‘truths’ of science or the myths of our civilization.”
For answers to the second question of a quotation to support the main idea of the chapter, D.R. cited this quote from page 11: “Is the conscientious teacher—concerned for the moral character as well as for the book learning of students—to be loyal first to the supporting myths of our civilization or to the ‘factualized’ truths of his science?” A.L. cited this one from page 12: “. . . although false and to be rejected accounts of physical history, such universally cherished figures of the mythic imagination must represent facts of the mind.” And M.M. pointed to page 7: “In the year 1616 Galileo was condemned by the Office of the Inquisition—like the boy beside me at the lunch counter, by his mother—for holding and teaching a doctrine contrary to Holy Scripture.” And F.G. cited page 9: “. . . similar mythic tales are to be found in every quarter of this earth.”
As for the third question, how your generation might resolve the conflict of religion and myth, for many of you science comes to the rescue, but read what CFH wrote: “The 21st century is so much about acceptance and tolerance for each other.” C.R. concluded that: “I don’t think it’s really being resolved as seen from my experience and from the text. Since people are still clinging tight to religion and schools don’t try to work with the two—though the younger generation seems to be able to deal with the two, which could [result in] in less confusion . . .” And A.C. answered by pointing to Campbell’s ideas on the science of psychology: “This resolution is very important for the future of my generation because we have become increasingly less religious; but in place of that, we need something to sustain ethics and virtues, which can no longer be reliant on something as universally inconsistent as parenting.”