Skip to main content

Sky Castles

The difference between thinking and imagining Today at Mass we recited the Nicene Creed, which is a longer and more complete summary of what Christianity is about than the shorter and much more common Apostles' Creed. The creeds are, like Christianity in general, a mixture of history and philosophy (maybe theology would be better). In them we hear things that are not much questioned, like He "suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried." That's pretty straightforward and even an atheist could consent to it without feeling compromised. But then there's stuff like this: "He descended into Hell; the third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty." It's on that second quotation that a lot of moderns falter, snickering that such a story might be acceptable in a time in which the earth is thought to be flat and most of the population was too poorly educated to think about it very critically. How are we to take it seriously, they ask, when we know that hell is not a few miles under the ground? Or heaven and the stars only a few miles up? Another might object that although it's possible for a clever person to explain away the difficulties by claiming an allegory here and a metaphor there, the creeds themselves would not exist to be explained away if people at the time did not really subscribe to a kind of superstitious, flat earth kind of thinking. Since that is so, the argument goes, no amount of cleverness can overcome that initial error. Some of them then go on to create things like Jesusland. How ducky for them. C.S. Lewis tackled this issue in an essay titled "Horrid Red Things" (which appears to have gone on to become a chapter in his book Miracles). He gives us as an example a little girl who thought that poison was poisonous because it contained "horrid red things." As she gets older and (hopefully) wiser, she comes to know that poison does not contain horrid red things. It would be wrong, however, if she then came to the conclusion that poison is not poisonous. Working from this example, Lewis writes:
In the same way an early peasant Christian might have thought that Christ's sitting at the right hand of the father really implied two chairs of state, in a certain spatial relation, inside a sky palace. But if the same man afterwards received a philosophical education and discovered that God has no body, parts, or passions, and therefore neither a right hand nor a palace, he would not have felt that the essentials of the belief had been altered. What had mattered to him, even in his simplicity, had not been the supposed details about celestial furniture. It had been assurance that the once crucified master was now the supreme Agent of the unimaginable power Power on whom the whole universe depends. And he would recognize that he had never been deceived. The critic may still ask us why the imagery - which we admit to be untrue - should be used at all. But he has not noticed that any language that we attempt to substitute is open to the same objections... On such matters we can make our language more pollysllabic and duller: we cannot make it more literal.
Lewis ends his essay with a caution: this method of thinking about religious images applies only to things that have never been sensed by anyone (assuming the mind is not a sense organ). It is advice about understanding theological relationships and how they may be expressed. It is not an attempt to do away with the miracles recorded in the Bible. I make the distinction by saying this sort of thinking applies to things metaphysical, not physical. Elsewhere Lewis wrote that the Old Testament contains many wild stories in which it may not be wise to treat every event as literal. He suggests that they do, however, prefigure the New Testament miracles, which have a different tone to them. Turning water into wine, for example, is something that happens everyday in vines and wine barrels. Bread (wheat) is multiplied by farmers working their fields. From these examples, compared with some of the older more far fetched sorts of story, Lewis observes two things about Gospel miracles and why he finds them credible. First, Christ sped up a process that he created and propagates every day. Secondly, and more importantly, the changes are not random and meaningless like bread from a stone would have been. Water into wine is easily understood, as are bread from loaves, as less of a change and more of a perfection of an existing thing. The Gospel miracles are, as is Christ himself, both sign and signifier. And what they are and signify is mercy and renewal.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi