Now, I don't deny the possiblity of an afterlife, of God, or even that Christianity is 'True'. I'm merely saying that there is no proof for any of them. My position is difficult to defend, admittedly, as I have had what could be called 'mystical' experiences. What I try to avoid is constructing complex theories to account for them.
Look, I've used tarot in the past & I know it has worked. There are various theories as to why. The 'traditional' theory is the 'Angel of the Tarot' - ie an Angel communicates the truth about the future through the cards. A jungian would call it synchronicity. A fundamentalist Christian would say it was demons attempting to lead me away from God. All I actually know is that for me Tarot worked.
As to the six 'days' of creation. It is possible to take 'days' figuratively. Except that in the Ten Commandments we are told to rest on the seventh day because God made the world in six days & rested on the seventh, so clearly God was referring there to actual days as we understand the term.
I don't take Bethberry's point on miracles. A 'miracle' must be something that cannot be accounted for by natural, scientific 'laws' - ie walking on water, dead bodies coming back to life, virgin births, etc (Occam's Razor should be applied here.
I also have to say that this is in no way off-Tolkien & I suspect that Tolkien would be joining in here with gusto. Certainly it is off Middle-earth, but I'm sure Tolkien considered God more important than Middle-earth. I'm pretty sure what we've been discussing here would be very close to the discussions the Inklings had pre-Lewis' conversion. And I have to add that if Tolkien had felt the same way as Legolas Lewis would never have converted, there would have been no Narnia, no Mere Christianity, no Screwtape Letters, Great Divorce, etc, etc.
It seems important to LMP that I & others adopt their worldview, as though that would in some way confirm its 'Truth'. I don't see this at all. There was a time when all our ancestors believed the earth was flat, but it wasn't. Certainly, I accept that reality is a certain way & not a whole lot of different ways all at once - in Chesterton's words:
4)
Quote:
|
Don't say, "There is no true creed; for each creed believes itself right and the others wrong." Probably one of the creeds is right and the others are wrong. Diversity does show that most of the views must be wrong. It does not by the faintest logic show that they all must be wrong. I suppose there is no subject on which opinions differ with more desperate sincerity than about which horse will win the Derby. These are certainly solemn convictions; men risk ruin for them. The man who puts his shirt on Potosi must believe in that animal, and each of the other men putting their last garments upon other quadrupeds must believe in them quite as sincerely. They are all serious, and most of them are wrong. But one of them is right. One of the faiths is justified; one of the horses does win; not always even the dark horse which might stand for Agnosticism, but often the obvious and popular horse of Orthodoxy. Democracy has its occasional victories; and even the Favourite has been known to come in first. But the point here is that something comes in first. That there were many beliefs does not destroy the fact that there was one well-founded belief. I believe (merely upon authority) that the world is round. That there may be tribes who believe it to be triangular or oblong does not alter the fact that it is certainly some shape, and therefore not any other shape. Therefore I repeat, with the wail of imprecation, don't say that the variety of creeds prevents you from accepting any creed. It is an unintelligent remark. (see http://www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/gkc13038.htm
|
All I'm saying is that I've seen no proof that one weltanshauung is truer than any other. Certainly there is one 'Truth' about Reality, but there are multiple attempts to explain it. One of those attempts may actually be True - its possible. But I'd say that to adopt one of those based purely on 'belief' is to live in a delusion. As another fantasy writer, Gene Wolf, put it: 'Belief insults the mind - a thing is either true or it is not.'
I see little difference between saying Middle-earth is 'Christian' & saying Christianity is 'Middle-earthian'. Christianity is a 'secondary world' which only (as far as scientific proof goes) exists only in the mind (whether that was the intention or not) of believers. I've read of people who believe Middle-earth was really this world in some ancient period of history. If we all believed that the 'secondary' world would suddenly become the Primary, secondary belief would become primary belief. At the end of the movie The Time Machine (the 60's version) the main character returns to the distant future permanently, taking three books with him to a world that has none. Its not stated which books. Suppose he had taken LotR, TH & The Sil & told no-one they were fiction. Would they not likely be taken as historical accounts?
For all I know Christianity may have been the invention of a bunch of drunken Greek philosophers who were a bit bored one night. Certainly the Gospels were not written as 'reportage' - John even states 'These things were written so that you might believe' - in other words he's not simply stating facts objectively so that people might think for themselves. (Robert Anton Wilson in Illuminatus depicts a painting of Moses coming down from the Mountain holding stone tablets on which were inscribed the words: 'Think for yourself, schmuck!)