Okay, so maybe this is me getting all defensive and seeing things that aren't really there.
I've run across this same quote from C.S. Lewis a few times recently, and something about it bugs me.
"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creature with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."
I think what I'm reading in this quote is that the "meaning" being spoken of with relation to the universe is the kind of "meaning" synonymous with "purpose, intent, design". That is, the way I end up reading this quote is something like this:
"If the whole universe has no purpose, we should never have found out that is has no purpose"
If I'm wrong in this regard, then good on ya', Clive, and shame on me for being paranoid.
However, what remains to bug me about this argument is the linguistic ambiguity in the word "meaning". The word has two different, well, meanings. Or manifestations, rather. It can be either a concept in the abstract, or a singular definite thing. Put into the context of the original quote, it is essentially two different things to say:
"If the whole universe has no meaning"
"If the whole universe has no meaning in it"
The first seems to me to generally ascribe some singular "meaning" to the universe itself. The second means that the concept of meaning exists within the universe. The first says that universe has a purpose for being, while the second makes a parallel to the light analogy, and says that meaning exists within the universe, opposite of randomness and/or lack of meaning.
The universe can be full of light, without being light itself. It can be full of reason, without having a reason itself. It can be full of goodness, without being good itself. I suppose the opposite could also be true.
So I'm not really sure what Lewis was getting at with these sentences. Is he arguing the purpose of the universe itself, or the concept of meaning within the universe, such that individual things and actions may be ascribed meaning, or find meaning? Is meaning being understood as an independent or dependent idea? A created, emergent concept, or an eternal, discovered concept?
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Book of Mormon: Initial Impressions
So, I knew very little, if anything, about Mormonism. Unfortunately, after reading the Book and doing a bit of research, it appears that I still know little, if anything, about Mormonism.
In essence, what I have gathered is that judging any Mormon or most Mormon denominations today by only and completely the Book of Mormon would be akin to judging Lutheranism by reading only the Old Testament.
However, in sticking with that comparison, one conclusion that is drawn is that just as I, and probably others, are baffled and/or amused and/or disappointed that liberal Lutherans maintain even the OT as holy scripture, I am just as baffled and amused and disappointed that any Mormon could consider any speck of the Book of Mormon to be truth or divinely inspired in any way.
Poor internal logic, clear improvisation, hilarious word choice, and plain not-worthy-of-respect theology.
I was watching a lecture some time ago by a theology professor arguing for the validity and historicity of the Gospels. His argument that the books were written in or near the place where they are set, at (or around) the time that they were set is that they are so accurate. Too accurate to have been made-up by even the most devoted scholars in a another country in the next century. As an example he mentions a text written, in fact, by an individual who lived after and away from the events of Christianity's nativity, a text which attempts to establish a savior-like figure who traveled the land and performed miracle in the recent past (a counterpart to Jesus, essentially) However, the unfamiliarity of the author with the time, geography, and other such leads him to write his character as going to places and talking with people who existed far too long ago, or who have been destroyed or dead for years.
My point is that this latter example is, I think, almost exactly what we see in the Book of Mormon.
Though I'm still not sure exactly how (other the the scared plates being found in NY), Joe Smith's Mormons, or rather, people of Nephi, are a people of pre-Anglo America, having arrived these after traveling in an ark across a large body of water. And so some 90% of the book is set in North or Middle America. Joe then has numerous large cities, roads, various kinds of livestock, gems and metals, significant warfare technology (to the point of plate armor and scimitars), and large and fast-growing populations (apparently having 10 children was normal, though rarely mentioned). His characters talk to or about Christ before Christ was even supposed to have been born (and for this I like to refer to them as "Hipster Christians"), and they cite prophets who, as far as I know, never existed. And if someone could point me to where Moses supposedly prophesied about the coming fo Christ, that's be great.
Even the most basic survey of cultural and/or material archaeology in the Americas begets complete dissonance with the land Smith describes.
Of course there are a number of arguments in the other direction, attempting to show that the existence of God-blessed people in the America's is the only way to explain the internal consistency, turns of phase, and other such facets of the BoM. Interestingly, there is an argument in this direction by well-known author Orson Scott Card, which I plan to address in a more in-depth post later on.
I'll say this much: Card's argument is coming partial from an authorial perspective. As a scholar and writer of fiction, he knows something of what it's like to write a piece of fiction; the work that goes into the setting, establishing a sense of realism in a fictional setting, and how to spot hints, clues, and mannerisms that tend to slip into an author's work which betray the earthly era in which they were written and the nature of the individual writing the book. Part of his argument, then, is that in reading the BoM one comes across few, if any, indicators that book was written in the 1800's by a person such as Smith. And because of this lack of "bias", we should consider the possibility of pre-Christian American authors.
What struck me most about this is that I felt almost exactly the opposite while reading the text. Perhaps unfortunately, I do not say that from a scholarly historical or archaeological point of view. Rather, the feeling arises from a more basic, visceral part of me, which also happens to be something of a writer.
Backing up a bit; I kind of knew, before setting out how to read the book, how it was written. Something about transcription. Possibly I suspected that it was dictated. However, when I started the book, I pictured Smith writing it, so I must not have had an entirely clear idea of how it came to be. However, somewhere over halfway or more of the way through, I began to clearly imagine the text being dictated to a third party as Smith "translated" it. It could not have been more clear to me. It was as though the Book of Mormon inserted a video into my head, crystal clear, of some guy bullshitting while somebody else wrote it down. (Look up how Smith did his translating, and see if you disagree) And I daresay it was more than that. Not only could I envision the scene, the feeling was so strong that I could feel myself in Smith's shoes as the improvisation continued.
I've written fiction stories (not exactly good, mind), most set in some fictional past. I've been doing this since I was a child. Reading the Book of Mormon, seeing Smith improvise in my mind's eye, it was like watching a video of myself as an adolescent, pacing in my room, making up a fictional history. I get this uncanny feeling that, were I raised in similar context as Smith, and went about telling a religious history like the BoM is, it would come out in almost exactly the same style. The repetitive phrasing, the word choices, the manner and timing of information revelation, particular phrases used or chapter arrangement; it all reads perfectly like somebody making something up on the spot. It's not just that the setting seems fictional and the miracles magical, but the text itself reveals improvisation. And not just any kind of improvisation, but spoken improvisation. It begins to read like a transcript. Keep in mind that the supposed ancient authors were writing on plates of brass. Improved speech is very free-form; writing on something permanent and limited is deliberate and conservative. It seems to me that one does not write, sometimes on multiple occasions, "And here I was about to write more of [this-and-that], but the Lord has come to me and deemed that I write no more on this issue" (Not exact quote) or "Behold, I was about to write the names of those who were never to taste of death, but the Lord forbade; therefore I write them not, for they are hid from the world" (3 Nephi 28:25). Those are not written phrases. Those are spoken phrases, backpedaling phrases, spoken by Smith as he was thinking "Crap, I don't know what else to say...umm, I'll just say that it was really awesome and then that's all Lord let me write" or "Crap, I can't think of anymore names. I'll just say the Lord forbade me write them". Agree? Disagree? Maybe some actual texts do have phrases like that. But it seems to me an unlikely, jarring, and somewhat humorous occurrence.
In initial summation, the Book seems to me to have poor internal logic, definite improvision, hilarious word choice, and plain not-worthy-of-respect theology. More on most of those later. And, while I was reading as an atheist, let me be clear that I came to the Book without any intent to disdain. Certainly I knew I would disagree with some of the core ideas, but I was excited to learn about this religion and see what interesting secrets and stories and thoughts would be revealed through the text. I thought I would be reading a serious tome, but all I got was long periods of alternating agonizing dullness and gut-busting humor, culminating in the extreme souring of my desire to ever pick up another religious text.
In essence, what I have gathered is that judging any Mormon or most Mormon denominations today by only and completely the Book of Mormon would be akin to judging Lutheranism by reading only the Old Testament.
However, in sticking with that comparison, one conclusion that is drawn is that just as I, and probably others, are baffled and/or amused and/or disappointed that liberal Lutherans maintain even the OT as holy scripture, I am just as baffled and amused and disappointed that any Mormon could consider any speck of the Book of Mormon to be truth or divinely inspired in any way.
Poor internal logic, clear improvisation, hilarious word choice, and plain not-worthy-of-respect theology.
I was watching a lecture some time ago by a theology professor arguing for the validity and historicity of the Gospels. His argument that the books were written in or near the place where they are set, at (or around) the time that they were set is that they are so accurate. Too accurate to have been made-up by even the most devoted scholars in a another country in the next century. As an example he mentions a text written, in fact, by an individual who lived after and away from the events of Christianity's nativity, a text which attempts to establish a savior-like figure who traveled the land and performed miracle in the recent past (a counterpart to Jesus, essentially) However, the unfamiliarity of the author with the time, geography, and other such leads him to write his character as going to places and talking with people who existed far too long ago, or who have been destroyed or dead for years.
My point is that this latter example is, I think, almost exactly what we see in the Book of Mormon.
Though I'm still not sure exactly how (other the the scared plates being found in NY), Joe Smith's Mormons, or rather, people of Nephi, are a people of pre-Anglo America, having arrived these after traveling in an ark across a large body of water. And so some 90% of the book is set in North or Middle America. Joe then has numerous large cities, roads, various kinds of livestock, gems and metals, significant warfare technology (to the point of plate armor and scimitars), and large and fast-growing populations (apparently having 10 children was normal, though rarely mentioned). His characters talk to or about Christ before Christ was even supposed to have been born (and for this I like to refer to them as "Hipster Christians"), and they cite prophets who, as far as I know, never existed. And if someone could point me to where Moses supposedly prophesied about the coming fo Christ, that's be great.
Even the most basic survey of cultural and/or material archaeology in the Americas begets complete dissonance with the land Smith describes.
Of course there are a number of arguments in the other direction, attempting to show that the existence of God-blessed people in the America's is the only way to explain the internal consistency, turns of phase, and other such facets of the BoM. Interestingly, there is an argument in this direction by well-known author Orson Scott Card, which I plan to address in a more in-depth post later on.
I'll say this much: Card's argument is coming partial from an authorial perspective. As a scholar and writer of fiction, he knows something of what it's like to write a piece of fiction; the work that goes into the setting, establishing a sense of realism in a fictional setting, and how to spot hints, clues, and mannerisms that tend to slip into an author's work which betray the earthly era in which they were written and the nature of the individual writing the book. Part of his argument, then, is that in reading the BoM one comes across few, if any, indicators that book was written in the 1800's by a person such as Smith. And because of this lack of "bias", we should consider the possibility of pre-Christian American authors.
What struck me most about this is that I felt almost exactly the opposite while reading the text. Perhaps unfortunately, I do not say that from a scholarly historical or archaeological point of view. Rather, the feeling arises from a more basic, visceral part of me, which also happens to be something of a writer.
Backing up a bit; I kind of knew, before setting out how to read the book, how it was written. Something about transcription. Possibly I suspected that it was dictated. However, when I started the book, I pictured Smith writing it, so I must not have had an entirely clear idea of how it came to be. However, somewhere over halfway or more of the way through, I began to clearly imagine the text being dictated to a third party as Smith "translated" it. It could not have been more clear to me. It was as though the Book of Mormon inserted a video into my head, crystal clear, of some guy bullshitting while somebody else wrote it down. (Look up how Smith did his translating, and see if you disagree) And I daresay it was more than that. Not only could I envision the scene, the feeling was so strong that I could feel myself in Smith's shoes as the improvisation continued.
I've written fiction stories (not exactly good, mind), most set in some fictional past. I've been doing this since I was a child. Reading the Book of Mormon, seeing Smith improvise in my mind's eye, it was like watching a video of myself as an adolescent, pacing in my room, making up a fictional history. I get this uncanny feeling that, were I raised in similar context as Smith, and went about telling a religious history like the BoM is, it would come out in almost exactly the same style. The repetitive phrasing, the word choices, the manner and timing of information revelation, particular phrases used or chapter arrangement; it all reads perfectly like somebody making something up on the spot. It's not just that the setting seems fictional and the miracles magical, but the text itself reveals improvisation. And not just any kind of improvisation, but spoken improvisation. It begins to read like a transcript. Keep in mind that the supposed ancient authors were writing on plates of brass. Improved speech is very free-form; writing on something permanent and limited is deliberate and conservative. It seems to me that one does not write, sometimes on multiple occasions, "And here I was about to write more of [this-and-that], but the Lord has come to me and deemed that I write no more on this issue" (Not exact quote) or "Behold, I was about to write the names of those who were never to taste of death, but the Lord forbade; therefore I write them not, for they are hid from the world" (3 Nephi 28:25). Those are not written phrases. Those are spoken phrases, backpedaling phrases, spoken by Smith as he was thinking "Crap, I don't know what else to say...umm, I'll just say that it was really awesome and then that's all Lord let me write" or "Crap, I can't think of anymore names. I'll just say the Lord forbade me write them". Agree? Disagree? Maybe some actual texts do have phrases like that. But it seems to me an unlikely, jarring, and somewhat humorous occurrence.
In initial summation, the Book seems to me to have poor internal logic, definite improvision, hilarious word choice, and plain not-worthy-of-respect theology. More on most of those later. And, while I was reading as an atheist, let me be clear that I came to the Book without any intent to disdain. Certainly I knew I would disagree with some of the core ideas, but I was excited to learn about this religion and see what interesting secrets and stories and thoughts would be revealed through the text. I thought I would be reading a serious tome, but all I got was long periods of alternating agonizing dullness and gut-busting humor, culminating in the extreme souring of my desire to ever pick up another religious text.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Questions for Breakfast: Ground Rules, pt. 2
In which I attempt to nail down some the elusive concepts I see in religion; I am aware that these things probably vary by denomination, and maybe even by person. Any feedback on general consensus is welcome.
On origins:
One of the few earnest questions I remember receiving at the "Ask an Atheist" table was "Where do you think you come from?". It's a common enough question, and incredibly vague. Did they mean personally, or with more regard to ancestry? Were they talking more about the soul or the ego, or the body? When I asked for clarification, the response was "well, I believe God put me on this earth for such-and-such purpose..."
You often hear "God made me how I am" or"It was God who made/sustains us, let us give him thanks". But the biology of birth and the biology of living is well-understood, as far as I know. What part does god actually play in all of this? Is his involvement necessary or just for kicks? Does he only manipulate the probabilities? Is he perceived as a creative force or one of guidance?
Extending further, what is his involvement in the human species? Or, perhaps more properly, the human genus? Did homo sapiens arrive on earth fully made? Then what of erectus and neaderthalis and hablis? Perhaps a theistic evolution route? Why the trouble? I know I am only human, and yet the creation of a human "kind", only to have one survive, seems unnecessary compared to just creating that one species from the get-go.
Is god the type of god with an eternal plan; one set perfectly in motion so many eons ago, that even from the genesis he set all atoms perfectly in motion so as to realize Newton and Ghandi and Ham and Hitler at their appropriate times? Or is he more free-form, did he create the universe and then let it go its own way, popping in now and again to make sure he wasn't forgotten and nudging genetics in favor of certain individuals? Are his interventions planned or unplanned? Did he really have no other option than to flood the earth? Was the Holocaust really necessary? Or is the temptation of the devil or "its a lesson" used to explain such things?
On prayer:
What is it? I enjoy the quote "Two hands working accomplish more than a thousand clasped in prayer", but some will come back against this stating that it exhibits a misunderstanding of prayer; that prayer is not a magic trick, it is a meditative action, something which is internally refreshing and empower, thus being a form of productivity. However, does not Jesus, for example, promise that, to the faithful, whatever they ask of Lord shall be done, even be it the moving of a mountain or walking over water? I know there are likely responses to that line of though as well, likely a symbolic answer, but it seems that prayer is not intended entirely to be meditative. It can reaffirmation, praise, inquiry, or requests. Heck, the Lord's Prayer is two or three of those. The last, of course, is the most troublesome. How does it fit into "eternal plan" or "free will" or "lessons of faith"?
Is there a correct method of praying? Did not Jesus say to repeat the Lord's Prayer in the secret and solitude of your own home?
On salvation:
Good works? Faith? Is it God who damns, or do we damn ourselves? Is the concept of mercy compatible with perfect justice? What goes on in heaven, anyway? What happened before the death of Christ, with regards to salvation? What about those who have not heard the Word; the virtuous pagans?
I've slowly been making my way through the book of Mormon; it mirrors Lutheranism in that good works are a primary if not the way of getting into heaven, but good works can only come from those who first accept Christ as their savior. I thought it then got a little fuzzy insofar as to the damnation system: we can picture damnation is being there; as though Xianity is the one path and anything else is, by amoral default, the road to hell. Other times it describes Satan as coming up and claiming individuals (although this might be in a purely spiritual sense; perhaps Satan only claims them after God pours out his wrath on them); and often it describes the wrath of God coming down and striking the unbelievers, as though God is actively angry. Now, regardless of how it actually works, it is emphasis that the choice and ensuing result is all up to the individual, because that's apparently free will. So while it may be God who smites the wicked into the arms of Satan, technically, we asked for it, and so we cannot be angry with God. Now, we still get into the thorn-brush of His eternal love, as certainly he or the Son are said weep and are filled with sorrow because of the inequity of the wicked, and yet is was ordained (and probably foreseen) from the beginning that those who broke the rules would get the divine banhammer, and god cannot change his ways.
On the Bible:
Why the whole Bible? Why just the Bible?
Also, and this is something that's I've not gotten for a while, and would gladly welcome more clarification. The whole "Jesus has not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it"-- what does it mean? And, more specifically, what does it mean for the old law?
On origins:
One of the few earnest questions I remember receiving at the "Ask an Atheist" table was "Where do you think you come from?". It's a common enough question, and incredibly vague. Did they mean personally, or with more regard to ancestry? Were they talking more about the soul or the ego, or the body? When I asked for clarification, the response was "well, I believe God put me on this earth for such-and-such purpose..."
You often hear "God made me how I am" or"It was God who made/sustains us, let us give him thanks". But the biology of birth and the biology of living is well-understood, as far as I know. What part does god actually play in all of this? Is his involvement necessary or just for kicks? Does he only manipulate the probabilities? Is he perceived as a creative force or one of guidance?
Extending further, what is his involvement in the human species? Or, perhaps more properly, the human genus? Did homo sapiens arrive on earth fully made? Then what of erectus and neaderthalis and hablis? Perhaps a theistic evolution route? Why the trouble? I know I am only human, and yet the creation of a human "kind", only to have one survive, seems unnecessary compared to just creating that one species from the get-go.
Is god the type of god with an eternal plan; one set perfectly in motion so many eons ago, that even from the genesis he set all atoms perfectly in motion so as to realize Newton and Ghandi and Ham and Hitler at their appropriate times? Or is he more free-form, did he create the universe and then let it go its own way, popping in now and again to make sure he wasn't forgotten and nudging genetics in favor of certain individuals? Are his interventions planned or unplanned? Did he really have no other option than to flood the earth? Was the Holocaust really necessary? Or is the temptation of the devil or "its a lesson" used to explain such things?
On prayer:
What is it? I enjoy the quote "Two hands working accomplish more than a thousand clasped in prayer", but some will come back against this stating that it exhibits a misunderstanding of prayer; that prayer is not a magic trick, it is a meditative action, something which is internally refreshing and empower, thus being a form of productivity. However, does not Jesus, for example, promise that, to the faithful, whatever they ask of Lord shall be done, even be it the moving of a mountain or walking over water? I know there are likely responses to that line of though as well, likely a symbolic answer, but it seems that prayer is not intended entirely to be meditative. It can reaffirmation, praise, inquiry, or requests. Heck, the Lord's Prayer is two or three of those. The last, of course, is the most troublesome. How does it fit into "eternal plan" or "free will" or "lessons of faith"?
Is there a correct method of praying? Did not Jesus say to repeat the Lord's Prayer in the secret and solitude of your own home?
On salvation:
Good works? Faith? Is it God who damns, or do we damn ourselves? Is the concept of mercy compatible with perfect justice? What goes on in heaven, anyway? What happened before the death of Christ, with regards to salvation? What about those who have not heard the Word; the virtuous pagans?
I've slowly been making my way through the book of Mormon; it mirrors Lutheranism in that good works are a primary if not the way of getting into heaven, but good works can only come from those who first accept Christ as their savior. I thought it then got a little fuzzy insofar as to the damnation system: we can picture damnation is being there; as though Xianity is the one path and anything else is, by amoral default, the road to hell. Other times it describes Satan as coming up and claiming individuals (although this might be in a purely spiritual sense; perhaps Satan only claims them after God pours out his wrath on them); and often it describes the wrath of God coming down and striking the unbelievers, as though God is actively angry. Now, regardless of how it actually works, it is emphasis that the choice and ensuing result is all up to the individual, because that's apparently free will. So while it may be God who smites the wicked into the arms of Satan, technically, we asked for it, and so we cannot be angry with God. Now, we still get into the thorn-brush of His eternal love, as certainly he or the Son are said weep and are filled with sorrow because of the inequity of the wicked, and yet is was ordained (and probably foreseen) from the beginning that those who broke the rules would get the divine banhammer, and god cannot change his ways.
On the Bible:
Why the whole Bible? Why just the Bible?
Also, and this is something that's I've not gotten for a while, and would gladly welcome more clarification. The whole "Jesus has not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it"-- what does it mean? And, more specifically, what does it mean for the old law?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)