Alright, full confession time. I would much rather be showering than blogging right now. Stupid greasy hair...BUT! The blog is due soon, and it must be done. :) And as it's late and I'm slightly temperamental, this is not going to be nicely organized! It's going to be my reflections of two passages from Lewis' Miracles, the book we're reading this week. No promises of common threads, anywhere.
Passage One! Throughout this book (or at least the beginning of it), Lewis is pitting Naturalism (the belief that that which is in the world/universe is all there is) against Supernaturalism (the belief that things exist that are apart from the world as we perceive it). As is characteristic of Lewis' style, in chapter one of Miracles Lewis anticipates the arguments made against Supernaturalism. One such argument is that Supernaturalism, being a more monarchical structure than Naturalism (one supreme being, subjects, that sort of thing) is really just a holdover from a monarchical age. He counters that, however, the same thing can be said about Naturalism in regards to democracy, that it is a more democratic idea (all being roughly equal in Naturalism), and has been more widely accepted in democratic societies. However, this is the part I really like:
In regards to the societal sources of Supernaturalism and Naturalism, "The do indeed remind us that Supernaturalism is the characteristic philosophy of a monarchical age and Naturalism of a democratic, in the sense that Supernaturalism, even if false, would have been believed by the great mass of unthinking people four hundred years ago, just as Naturalism, even if false will be believed by the great mass of unthinking people today" (10).
I thought that this was really cool, and made a lot of sense. Ideologies do find more popularity depending on the social climate of the time. However, as Lewis so brilliantly explains here, the popularity of an idea is not relevant to an idea's actual truthfulness. Naturalists wouldn't want us believing Supernaturalist dogma just because it was popular in the monarchical age, and similarly, we shouldn't be expected or to believe Naturalism just because it's the ideology currently in vogue. Real understanding of truth must not come from what those around us expect us to believe, or even what modern thinkers are pushing as truth. A better understanding comes in Lewis' challenge to not be swayed by your environment, but partake from all sources and reason it out for yourself.
Now quickly, my second quote. In chapter 5, Lewis discusses what sacrifices you have to make if you truly believe the Naturalist's philosophy that man's mind is a random byproduct of natural process. Lewis insists that you cannot sacrifice Rationalism, for then goes the entire basis of your argument. He does say, however that "you (the Naturalist) can if you wish regard all human ideals as illusions and all human loves as biological by-products"(54). He then continues, "Whether you can do so without extreme unplausibility--without accepting a picture of things which no one really believes--is another matter."
The need for a shower is getting more and more desperate, so with this one I'll be brief. I've contemplated a view where life has no purpose, where dreams and people mean nothing, and all will one day go to dust, where ideals are simply past-times until we expire, where we die and forget that we ever wanted to be remembered for the progresses we made on earth. I've thought about it, I've considered it even, but have found that any flirtation with accepting it deadens me. It removes all passions, all charitable thoughts, all loves, robs me of hope and saps my motivation. Considering biological process to be the base of all around me tempts me towards a smartly cynical two-dimensional view of the world that brings me no joy or reason to continue. Why work at all if nothing matters? Why help when the helpee is just going to dissipate into ash someday anyway? Lewis is right that hardly anyone really takes this view very seriously, at least as far as carrying it out in their day to day life. However, for those who do (and there are some), I salute your search for meaning in what to me was a meaningless pursuit.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
Lewis' Zion Society
Ooo...I am liking Mere Christianity far more than I thought I would. Especially the 3rd book, Christian Behavior. LOVE it. It's like the perfect intersect of Religion, Psychology and Logic that becomes just fuel to my fire. Yum! But to focus on a part that I've particularly enjoyed and keep coming back to...
*Confession*...before I begin. I do particularly enjoy when people I respect (CS Lewis, Book of Mormon Prophets, etc.) back up certain elements of my political views. CS Lewis' view in Chapter 3 of Book Three (Social Morality) was particularly delicious to me. In it he lays out a few aspects of a truly Christian Society (or Zion Society, as we would call it).
Firstly, everyone is to work. As Lewis says "if a man does not work, he does not eat" (84). This is an ideal that we are pushing for in the church, providing Welfare Resources when need is present, but avoiding a society of "passengers or parasites" by encouraging people to find meaningful employment (84).
Further, there are to be "no manufacture of silly luxuries"; everyone is to do that which is meaningful, productive, and needed in the community. Along with the dismantling of our indulgent society, "there is to be no 'swank'...no putting on airs" (84). People are to be equal to each other, to be cooperative and looking out for another's welfare as well as their own. In this way, Lewis says that "a Christian society would be what we now call Leftist" (84).
However...views currently embraced by the Right Wing make their debut as well! In this Zion society, obedience is expected and insisted upon. There is organization, and willing compliance to righteous authority.
Lewis summarizes his view of Zion by saying that it's "economic life [would be] very socialistic and, in that sense, 'advanced', but that its family life and its code of manners [would be] rather old fashioned" (84). His view of old fashioned, I would take it, would amount to people living in family units, within an authority system that they were obedient to. Much as the main body of the church exists today. ;)
In a final act of Moderate fist-pumping, I would just say that I concur strongly with Lewis' vision of a Christian Society. I love the equal distribution of goods, the unselfish 'Law of Consecration' type atmosphere that already exists in many of our stakes and will one day exist much more broadly. I wish we could live more in accordance with that today, and sheath off our Capitalist drives for ever-increasing wealth and prestige. Leaning a little more left than right, I am slightly less triumphant at the more traditional living patterns that would be adopted in this Christian Society...but not really. I know that at the end of the day, when all is resolved, that our most exultant state will be in our family units, lead by inspired and careful authorities. When this comes to pass, all will have a place, a job, a means of meaningful employment. Competition will die, and all will contribute as much as they can to community well-being. Families will live in security, and free from attack, under the direction of loving leaders. It may be highly idealistic, and nearly impossible by modern-day prediction, but I hope for that day all the same.
*Confession*...before I begin. I do particularly enjoy when people I respect (CS Lewis, Book of Mormon Prophets, etc.) back up certain elements of my political views. CS Lewis' view in Chapter 3 of Book Three (Social Morality) was particularly delicious to me. In it he lays out a few aspects of a truly Christian Society (or Zion Society, as we would call it).
Firstly, everyone is to work. As Lewis says "if a man does not work, he does not eat" (84). This is an ideal that we are pushing for in the church, providing Welfare Resources when need is present, but avoiding a society of "passengers or parasites" by encouraging people to find meaningful employment (84).
Further, there are to be "no manufacture of silly luxuries"; everyone is to do that which is meaningful, productive, and needed in the community. Along with the dismantling of our indulgent society, "there is to be no 'swank'...no putting on airs" (84). People are to be equal to each other, to be cooperative and looking out for another's welfare as well as their own. In this way, Lewis says that "a Christian society would be what we now call Leftist" (84).
However...views currently embraced by the Right Wing make their debut as well! In this Zion society, obedience is expected and insisted upon. There is organization, and willing compliance to righteous authority.
Lewis summarizes his view of Zion by saying that it's "economic life [would be] very socialistic and, in that sense, 'advanced', but that its family life and its code of manners [would be] rather old fashioned" (84). His view of old fashioned, I would take it, would amount to people living in family units, within an authority system that they were obedient to. Much as the main body of the church exists today. ;)
In a final act of Moderate fist-pumping, I would just say that I concur strongly with Lewis' vision of a Christian Society. I love the equal distribution of goods, the unselfish 'Law of Consecration' type atmosphere that already exists in many of our stakes and will one day exist much more broadly. I wish we could live more in accordance with that today, and sheath off our Capitalist drives for ever-increasing wealth and prestige. Leaning a little more left than right, I am slightly less triumphant at the more traditional living patterns that would be adopted in this Christian Society...but not really. I know that at the end of the day, when all is resolved, that our most exultant state will be in our family units, lead by inspired and careful authorities. When this comes to pass, all will have a place, a job, a means of meaningful employment. Competition will die, and all will contribute as much as they can to community well-being. Families will live in security, and free from attack, under the direction of loving leaders. It may be highly idealistic, and nearly impossible by modern-day prediction, but I hope for that day all the same.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Physical Birth as a Type of Spiritual Birth
I'm in a New Testament class this semester that requires me to read the four Gospels in 2 weeks. Reading that while reading the first books of Mere Christianity has been most instructive. A connection I came across just today was particularly cool, and it is that connection I will relate to you now.
In Chapter 5 of Book Two, Lewis makes the case (both vaguely and respectfully) for physical birth (conception and delivery) sharing patterns with spiritual birth (baptism, belief and communion). He argues that a proof for something being true is that you never would've guessed it, never could've sorted it out in your own head. In relation to physical birth, he says that he would've "never seen any connection between a particular physical pleasure (sex) and the appearance of a new human being in the world" (61). This is an interesting perspective. In a similar pattern of not being able to guess the causes and effects, Lewis says that the process of 'baptism, belief and communion' equal a spiritual birth that can get you into heaven is similarly odd to him. But, he counters, this is reality (as sex is a reality to conceive a child), and we should take it as it is (61).
Christ argues the case of spiritual vs physical birth to Nicodemus in John 3: 3-7. He tells Nicodemus that it is necessary to "be born again" in order to enter the kingdom of God. He then says that "except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"(vs 5). So, just as certain things need to happen for a baby to come into this world, we must be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost (a difference from CS Lewis' opinion, unless Communion equals the receiving of the Holy Ghost) before we can enter the new realm of life with Heavenly Father. It does seem interesting to me, however, that Lewis points out that these steps (baptism, 'belief and the Communion') are both necessary and in some way arbitrary. Arbitrary in that we don't understand them at least, or see exactly why the physical practicing of ordinances is necessary to our reconciliation with God.
Alright. I'm exhausted, and that was all way too academic. But it's long enough, right? :P To close with a couple of my feelings, I think this idea of spiritual birth, a rebirth into a second life, is fascinating. However, it is crucial (and Lewis acknowledges this as well) that we maintain the quality of our spiritual life so as to not suffer spiritual death and distance ourselves from God. CS Lewis suggests that we do that by continuing to repent and begin over again each time we stumble. I agree, and would add that this process is most crucial in the upkeep of our attitudes, especially those of true humility and charity. These attitudes, most typical of a disciple of Christ, are easy to lose, and require prayer and real desire to maintain. Still, when these qualities are maintained we can reach the highest throes of spiritual life, and truly live as a branch off the One True Vine.
In Chapter 5 of Book Two, Lewis makes the case (both vaguely and respectfully) for physical birth (conception and delivery) sharing patterns with spiritual birth (baptism, belief and communion). He argues that a proof for something being true is that you never would've guessed it, never could've sorted it out in your own head. In relation to physical birth, he says that he would've "never seen any connection between a particular physical pleasure (sex) and the appearance of a new human being in the world" (61). This is an interesting perspective. In a similar pattern of not being able to guess the causes and effects, Lewis says that the process of 'baptism, belief and communion' equal a spiritual birth that can get you into heaven is similarly odd to him. But, he counters, this is reality (as sex is a reality to conceive a child), and we should take it as it is (61).
Christ argues the case of spiritual vs physical birth to Nicodemus in John 3: 3-7. He tells Nicodemus that it is necessary to "be born again" in order to enter the kingdom of God. He then says that "except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"(vs 5). So, just as certain things need to happen for a baby to come into this world, we must be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost (a difference from CS Lewis' opinion, unless Communion equals the receiving of the Holy Ghost) before we can enter the new realm of life with Heavenly Father. It does seem interesting to me, however, that Lewis points out that these steps (baptism, 'belief and the Communion') are both necessary and in some way arbitrary. Arbitrary in that we don't understand them at least, or see exactly why the physical practicing of ordinances is necessary to our reconciliation with God.
Alright. I'm exhausted, and that was all way too academic. But it's long enough, right? :P To close with a couple of my feelings, I think this idea of spiritual birth, a rebirth into a second life, is fascinating. However, it is crucial (and Lewis acknowledges this as well) that we maintain the quality of our spiritual life so as to not suffer spiritual death and distance ourselves from God. CS Lewis suggests that we do that by continuing to repent and begin over again each time we stumble. I agree, and would add that this process is most crucial in the upkeep of our attitudes, especially those of true humility and charity. These attitudes, most typical of a disciple of Christ, are easy to lose, and require prayer and real desire to maintain. Still, when these qualities are maintained we can reach the highest throes of spiritual life, and truly live as a branch off the One True Vine.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Alright. So this is it. My first post on CS Lewis! And not only that, my first blog post in general. WOO! But, as the audience of these posts will likely consist solely of Professor Young and my Mother, I'm not too worried about casting my thoughts to the intellectual swirl of the blogosphere. So! Here goes.
Through interchanges between Divine Spirit and Ghost, Lewis paints in two instances the importance of keeping our childlike quest for beauty and knowledge. In the first instance, a Spirit converses with a Ghost-artist, recently arisen from Hell. As the ghost looks around at the radient expanse of Heaven, he desires to paint it. The Spirit insists that this is unnecessary, as Heaven is the epoch of beauty, with the need only to be seen, not reproduced and communicated. As the communicate, it becomes clear that this Ghost, instead of painting as a means to access heaven, has converted painting from a means to an end. He is now wrapped up in his role as a painter, unable to see that he started in that profession in the first place because "light itself was [his] first love" (pg 84). In response to the Spirit's accusation that he's lost his sense of priority, the Ghost replies "Oh, that's ages ago...one grows out of that." He's compromised his child-like thirst for light and beauty for reputation and social status.
A similar instance occurs in chapter five, where a different Spirit confronts an intellectual Ghost about his insistence on questioning and intellectualizing everything. This Ghost insists on the value of "inquiry", "honest opinions fearlessly followed", and hopes by coming to heaven that he will find "a wider sphere of usefulness--a scope for the talents that God has given [him]" (pgs 39-40). The Spirit, however, asserts that there is no longer a need for fierce questioning, for liberal theology, for inquiry and doubt. Instead, he promises that his "thirst will be quenched" (40). The ghost, however, rejects this alternative, doesn't seem to even recognize the promise he's refusing, and chooses instead to go back to Hell where he is the head of a Theological Society. This interchange was fascinating to me--the reassurance that our questions, concerns, thoughts--these inquires we have are "made for truth" (41). The promise that one day there will be no doubt, no theories...only certainty. Light, darkness and a perfect judge. The ghost's resistance was also compelling to me--the fact that his inquiry was not really sincere. That he didn't really want answers, just the pompous position of posing the questions.
Both of these examples speak to the loss of innocence we experience as we grow. It takes so much humility to remain as a child when you are the famous author, you are the renown professor, when you are the one who's supposed to have all the answers. But through these examples in The Great Divorce, Lewis encourages us to cast aside poise and position, to do away with what we thought was the end purpose of our lives and admit our innocence and helplessness before him. These ghost-men did not even have the faith or interest to follow the angels a little further into the mountain, to the fount of all joy and sustenance. I just hope that when this decision is placed before me, I will be able to cast off my paltry solutions and yield to the center of complete truth.
Through interchanges between Divine Spirit and Ghost, Lewis paints in two instances the importance of keeping our childlike quest for beauty and knowledge. In the first instance, a Spirit converses with a Ghost-artist, recently arisen from Hell. As the ghost looks around at the radient expanse of Heaven, he desires to paint it. The Spirit insists that this is unnecessary, as Heaven is the epoch of beauty, with the need only to be seen, not reproduced and communicated. As the communicate, it becomes clear that this Ghost, instead of painting as a means to access heaven, has converted painting from a means to an end. He is now wrapped up in his role as a painter, unable to see that he started in that profession in the first place because "light itself was [his] first love" (pg 84). In response to the Spirit's accusation that he's lost his sense of priority, the Ghost replies "Oh, that's ages ago...one grows out of that." He's compromised his child-like thirst for light and beauty for reputation and social status.
A similar instance occurs in chapter five, where a different Spirit confronts an intellectual Ghost about his insistence on questioning and intellectualizing everything. This Ghost insists on the value of "inquiry", "honest opinions fearlessly followed", and hopes by coming to heaven that he will find "a wider sphere of usefulness--a scope for the talents that God has given [him]" (pgs 39-40). The Spirit, however, asserts that there is no longer a need for fierce questioning, for liberal theology, for inquiry and doubt. Instead, he promises that his "thirst will be quenched" (40). The ghost, however, rejects this alternative, doesn't seem to even recognize the promise he's refusing, and chooses instead to go back to Hell where he is the head of a Theological Society. This interchange was fascinating to me--the reassurance that our questions, concerns, thoughts--these inquires we have are "made for truth" (41). The promise that one day there will be no doubt, no theories...only certainty. Light, darkness and a perfect judge. The ghost's resistance was also compelling to me--the fact that his inquiry was not really sincere. That he didn't really want answers, just the pompous position of posing the questions.
Both of these examples speak to the loss of innocence we experience as we grow. It takes so much humility to remain as a child when you are the famous author, you are the renown professor, when you are the one who's supposed to have all the answers. But through these examples in The Great Divorce, Lewis encourages us to cast aside poise and position, to do away with what we thought was the end purpose of our lives and admit our innocence and helplessness before him. These ghost-men did not even have the faith or interest to follow the angels a little further into the mountain, to the fount of all joy and sustenance. I just hope that when this decision is placed before me, I will be able to cast off my paltry solutions and yield to the center of complete truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)