"The Veledan Alternative" also refers to my speculation about the possibility of a world religion differing as much from Christianity and Buddhism as they do from each other. Veleda's vision, if developed fully, might have realized that possibility:
first, feminine instead of masculine;
secondly, neither pure monotheism nor pure atheism but popular polytheism merging into a mystical monism.
Philosophers would have been able to say that the Goddess was a personification of the sea which is the source of life.
Although this religion is prevented in the Time Patrol timeline, it might exist in one of the alternative histories visited in "Eutopia" or having access to the Old Phoenix.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I don't believe such a "Veledan alternative" would ever have been realistic--too vague and amorphous to appeal to many.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the popular level would be all the rich stories and myths which fascinated those who heard Veleda in her childhood and later.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, because most people will not be satisfied with mere "stories and myths." They'll want to believe in a Being or beings who are real.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No.
Some of them will believe that those myths are real. Then their understanding will deepen as they learn more.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't this makes sense. First you say adherents of the cult of Niaerdh will believe in the myths about that "goddess" as literal facts. Then you say something vague about "...their understanding will deepen as they learn more."
How will that understanding deepen? About what? And what will they learn?
If you mean such adherents will no longer believe Niaerdh is a real being, the most likely result will be people no longer taking Veleda's new religion seriously. It will just fade away to nothing. People will only take a religion seriously unless it teaches believers have to literally believe in God or "gods."
I don't think you want human beings to believe in an actual divine Being or "beings." Some kind of vague philosophy is not going to satisfy the vast majority of mankind who will not, rightly, be satisfied with that.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that this makes perfect sense. Learning and understanding are vague?
The question is whether a divine being or beings DO exist, not what I want people to believe. "Some kind of vague philosophy"? You mean some understanding of reality based on science and reflection. That satisfies people.
If you start on the basis not of trying to find out what is true but of encouraging people to continue to believe in what they want to believe whether or not it is true, then we really are on different wavelengths.
Paul.
Kaor Paul!
You are still unclear. First people will believe in Niaerdh as a real goddess and then no longer believe in that as their understanding deepens and they learn more? The only end result I can see is faith in Niaerdh fading away to nothing. Nor do I believe some knowledge of science, of how a sun forms or a planet takes shape, will satisfy the deepest longings and questions many people will have.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am still clear. Some people will lose faith in Niaerdh. Others will reinterpret their understanding of her role and will see her as a personification instead of as a real being. That is the kind of thing that does happen in our version of history. Did I say that scientific knowledge alone will furnish everyone with what they want and need? No. They need to lead lives that they experience as of value: fulfilling activity, whether paid work or something else; fulfilling personal and social relationships; the opportunity to seek truth and meaning. For many people, as we know, that last item involves the freedom to practice theistic religion of one kind or another.
Paul.
Kaor. Paul!
Mere personification or practice is not enough belief is what matters.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not accept that people need to believe in supernatural beings. And, even if people did need to do that, it would be a separate matter to demonstrate that such beings do in fact exist.
You see your belief as giving value to your life. Therefore, you think that people who do not share your belief do not have any value in their lives. (At least I think that that is what is going on here.)
Paul.
Paul: people don't absolutely need to believe in supernatural beings. I don't, for example. But -most- people have an -inclination- to believe in supernatural beings. Eg., the government of the USSR was officially atheist for a long time -- but religion persisted, and is now becoming more prominent there.
Not to mention that faith in Marxism acquired strong 'religious' elements in the USSR, too.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I remember seeing pictures of those parades or "processions" during the Soviet era with people holding images of the Marxist "saints": Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin (till he was "de-canonized"). They reminded me of the icons of the saints Russian Orthodox believers carried during the Tsarist era.
The works of these men were, of course, treated like the Scriptures.
Unfortunately, however, the Russian Orthodox Church has a long, long history of being far too submissive to the State, any state (Tsarist, Soviet, post-Soviet). Putin has again made the ROC an obedient servant of the gov't. My view is that goes back to the ROC refusing to accept the primacy of the pope and being in communion with Rome. And thus not sharing in the long history of the Catholic Church being resistant to or defiant of the many states which tried to control her.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment