5 ms·
And Jung refined it, 150 years later: “our age has a blindness without parallel. We think we have only to declare an acknowledged form of faith to be incorrect
by svnt 3y ago
And Jung refined it, 150 years later: “our age has a blindness without parallel. We think we have only to declare an acknowledged form of faith to be incorrect or invalid, to become psychologically free of all the traditional effects of the Christian or Judaic religion. We believe in enlightenment, as if an intellectual change of opinion had somehow a deeper influence on our emotional processes, or indeed upon the unconscious! We entirely forget that the religion of the last two thousand years is a psychological attitude, a definite form of adaptation to inner and outer experience, which moulds a definite form of civilization; it has thereby created an atmosphere which remains wholly uninfluenced by any intellectual disavowal. The intellectual change is, of course, symptomatically important as a hint of coming possibilities, but the deeper levels of the psyche continue for a long time to operate in the former attitude, in according with psychic inertia. In this way the unconscious has preserved paganism alive. The ease with which the classic spirit springs again into life can be observed in the Renaissance. The readiness with which the older primitive spirit reappears can be seen in our own time, even better perhaps than in any other historically known epoch.”
- jl6 3y agoProven, IMHO, by the ease with which many atheists have fallen into alternative faith-based belief systems. 21st century America is increasingly atheist, but no less religious.
- anthk 3y agoThat happened in Europe from the 60's. A lot of people replaced Christianism with Horoscopes, which is a similar irrational bullshit to feel yourself better. Or buying lottery tickets depending on where they bought it, as if the place were magical or so.
- pantalaimon 3y agoMagical Thinking is way older than that and may well be the source for many religions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking
- ecoquant 3y ago[flagged]
- mbivert 3y agoIt's deeper than that: the vast majority of people believe in science in the exact same way as the used to believe in Christianism. Try asking around for bulletproof proofs of the Earth's roundness. Or communicating the idea that time and space aren't really distinct entities. Side note, but horoscopes aren't fully to be thrown away[0]. IIRC the main idea was that the month of birth is/was related to seasonal human activities, or illnesses seasonality, which would have a tendency to affect newborns/newborns-to-be strongly. [0]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.041431898 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.041431898
- emblaegh 3y ago> It's deeper than that: the vast majority of people believe in science in the exact same way as the used to believe in Christianism. Try asking around for bulletproof proofs of the Earth's roundness. Or communicating the idea that time and space aren't really distinct entities. I'm not so sure. The common person definitely cannot give scientific explanations for most things, but between modern medicine, computers and all else, society is drowning in very hard proof that science is an effective and worthwhile endeavour, in a way that i don't think most religion is. Though admittedly that does not seem to completely stop people form breaking away from science the same way as they break away from religion (see flat earthers).
- mbivert 3y agoI think religions played a too often underestimated positive role in past societies, and I say that I someone who isn't particularly fond of what I would call the "religious mentality". For example in Buddhism there's the notion of karma: if you do something bad/good, you'll meet bad/good things in return. Now, there's the "fantasist" interpretation, with reincarnation & cie, but there's also a pragmatic approach: if you keep doing bad things, people will want to get back at you, you'll get a bad reputation, and others won't want to deal with you anymore. Or, frowning upon sodomy, considering that feces are a transmission route[0] for many common infections. Same thing with advanced promiscuity and STDs. Or the importance of sturdy couples (marriages, Confucianism) for kids's well-being (see e.g.[1]). What I mean to say is that, we may have a very hard proof that religions were effective to help societies, at least to persist. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal%E2%80%93oral_route https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal%E2%80%93oral_route [1]: https://ifstudies.org/blog/children-first-why-family-structure-and-stability-matter-for-children https://ifstudies.org/blog/children-first-why-family-structu...
- bazoom42 3y agoI dont think people into astrology would call themselves atheists. They would probabably identify as “spiritual”. “Atheist religion” is more like NPL, scientology, UFO cults, The Singularity, simulation universe etc.
- FrankyHollywood 3y agoIndeed, I was never aware of it, until Covid... millions of people believing in nano-bots raining from the clouds programmed by Bill Gates and many other unbelievable far fetched idea's, people just believed it like it was common knowledge. And the false believes have far reaching impact, like polarization in society and deaths. Just today I read that Dutch vaccination rates are lower than ever [1]. Diseases like polio are no longer a 3rd world problem, but could revive in Europe as well. [1] https://nos-nl.translate.goog/artikel/2512681-vaccinatiegraad-onder-kinderen-in-den-haag-nog-nooit-zo-gevaarlijk-laag?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true https://nos-nl.translate.goog/artikel/2512681-vaccinatiegraa...
- genman 3y agoNot proven, but illustrated, in number of cases.
- mdp2021 3y agoJung's fault is well betrayed by his use of '«we»': well, get out of the pond and climb. His idea ignores that clean eyes affect both the «intellectual» side and the «unconscious» one.
- bitsinthesky 3y agoFascinating quote. Definitely need to read more Jung! And so, instead of asking here for the source I pinged the esteemed GPT: “The passage you provided is indeed from Carl Jung. It is from his work "Psychological Aspects of the Modern Archetype" which is found in Volume 10 of his collected works, titled "Civilization in Transition." This work was published in 1964, after his death, and is a compilation of various essays and lectures by Jung.”
- seszett 3y ago> instead of asking here for the source I pinged the esteemed GPT Which gave you a wrong answer, as it is found in Volume 6, Psychological Types (pp. 268-267) published in 1971 (not sure about that date, maybe it's just the edition I found - looks like it might be 1921 which adds another layer of wrong to ChatGPT's answer). I really don't understand why people would ask ChatGPT for this kind of thing.
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoIt’s Faster than searching + thinking (especially now with all the spam) and gives you a single answer that people don’t feel the need to verify
- anthk 3y ago>150 Nietzche said that before.
- stereolambda 3y agoA problem with that is that it can be easy to make claims about unconscious, as you can be loose with how and if it can be observable. The main core of "our" (Western) philosophical, ethical, legal, artistic etc. concepts predates closer intercourse with Judaism and derived religions, whose ideas were later patched onto that system. (Modulo long term cultural diffusion in Mediterranean which was long somewhat undervalued in historiography.) Of course seeing Enlightenment as anti-Judeochristian in principle is a misunderstanding: Kant was one of the last great philosophers to sort-of rescue monotheism in his system. Most of 'philosophes' were Deists, Rousseau trolled them by being a Calvinist. What counts for Enlightenment is justification, not genealogical provenance of the idea. Later German post-Enlightenment philosophers were much happier to be godless. I think the main problem with Enlightenment is how it has been abandoned, and the main reason is that it is easier to organize and dominate people with a faith-based doctrine (be it a traditional religion, or mass ideology).[1] The main thing that Enlightenment has going for it is that eases the access to material truth and fruits of free inquiry and inventiveness. Can't say what will win, in the long term. It's an interesting question about human society folding into itself vis-a-vis physical world. I think you can be forgiven for thinking that Enlightenment is now in a path to being extinguished, but on the other hand, people are still aware of it. Seeing abuses of fundamentalists in power, they have where to turn to. I myself went through that transformation from oh-so clever "seeing the limits of reason wow" youth in the neoliberal era. [1] Auguste Comte's positivism was an... amusing? attempt at creating an rational-scientific religion. There were of course others.
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoThen popper came along and dealt the final blow, proving that you can’t prove any “truth“ and there’s no such thing as certainty - simply levels of ignorance about claims