<sigh> In peforming the unusual task of typing quotes from a book, I *erased* the nearly-done missive, and can't get those paragraghs back!!! I HATE it when that happens - so just imagine that my thoughts were much more brilliant than what I've tried to reconstruct below...
Having long ago enjoyed CS Lewis' _The Screwtape Letters_ , I checked out _God In The Dock_; while I found much of it thick-headed, some was quite relevent to current events. <snippage denoted by .... > > PAT MATHEWS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From: Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >I think whoever (Robert Chassell?) said that they > thought maybe people > >_need_ religion hit the nail on the head. When > gods and religion were > >invented, people needed a way to explain that which > there was no possible way for them to understand. They weren't so much 'invented' as 'grew out of' the terror and awe at raw Nature's power. The numinous surely existed before a human's command of fire. > >While we know much more about the universe > >around us now, there is still so much unexplained > >that just thinking about it can be frightening. > They also needed guidance on how to behave and > think. They needed a reason > to sacrifice their short-term good for the long-term > survival of the group. > Custom and taboo used to be the answer. As the size of human groups increased, the tight interpersonal network of the band diminished, and more compelling reasons for self-denial were required. "Because God sad thusly" is more forceful than "well, because we've always done it so." Custom became codified into law. > >I don't agree with those that think that religion > is evil, I can understand > >why people need it and on balance I think that it > has played a positive > >role in our civilization. I think that one of the > things that it probably > >did was allow intellectualism to compete with > physical prowess in terms of > >societal control....I think it's > >possible to look upon religion as a precursor to > science! > Agreed, and also, see above. > >It seems reasonable to conjecture that the shamans, > the priests, the > >medicine men were probably the first doctors, the > first astronomers, the > >first botanists and biologists the first that made > it their life's work > >to explain the world around them. > Not just reasonable to conjecture: 99% certain. Agreed. I also think that the chief/shaman/priest evolved into part of "the government" with its attendant beaurocracy (sp!), and power over others' lives became both less personal and more terrible. Lewis is chewing both ends of the stick here, because while he writes that a Christian society is more desirable than a non-Christian one, and that he personally would like to see more Christians involved in public life, he also notes: "I do not like the pretensions of Government - the grounds on which it demands my obedience - to be pitched too high. I don't like the medicine-man's magical pretensions not the Bourbon's Divine Right. This is not soley because I disbelieve in magic and in Bossuet's _Politique_. I believe in God, but I detest theocracy. For every Government consists of mere men and is, strictly viewed, a makeshift; if it adds to its commands 'Thus saith the Lord,' it lies, and lies dangerously." from 'Is Progress Possible/Willing Slaves of the Welfare State' - @ 1958 > In doing so, > >however, they must have found that for every > question that they answered > >they uncovered two new, baffling questions. > Questions they were only able > >to explain by inventing deities. > I doubt the professional priesthood invented > deities. I think the people > did, telling themselves just-so stories in the > night. Synchronicity and coincidence played a role in those stories, and the perceptions thereby gleaned. While largely fanciful, they did hide a kernal of at least one level of reality: Kronk paints a picture of himself killing a bison, and lo! his next hunt is indeed successful. It seems understandable to move from propitiating one animal, to the Herd Leader, to the One Who Leads All Prey, and so on. > >I do believe that religion has begun to outlive its > usefulness and that it > >is time for human civilization to move beyond the > idea that there is some > >mystical power controlling the universe. As I > mentioned before, > >established religions have a tendency to cling to > anachronisms > >(creationism, for instance) that are an impediment > to intellectual growth. > I notice what they cling to is archaic *science*. On > matters of (to > paraphrase the Pope's mandate) faith and morals, > they can be anything from > destructive to the best guidance going. In certain (usually extreme fundamentalist) segments of a religion, easy answers and absolute truths are to be had; if one wishes to ask questions and be challenged to one's very core, some sect of that same religion will hone one's humility to a fine edge, yet offer hope as well. > We can't solve problems by pretending that > >they don't exist or by insisting that the words > of an ancient text > >overrule our intellect. By the same token, > however, we can't just dump > >wholesale the institutions that insulate us from > our incomprehension. > Exactly. Or that stand between a good many people > and their barbarian tendencies.... Or nations/governments and their moral turpitude. There was brief discussion on-List of what constitutes a "just war," and for Lewis, writing during WWII, the "question is a very dark one." "It is plain that equally sincere people can differ to any extent and argue for ever as to whether a proposed war fulfils these conditions or not. The practical question, therefore, which faces us is one of authority. Who has the duty of deciding when the conditions are fulfilled, and the right of enforcing his* decision? Modern discussions tend to assume without arguement that the answer is 'The private conscience of the individual,' and that any other answer is totalitarian and immoral... "...I submit that the rules for determining what wars are just were originally rules for the guidance of princes, not subjects. This does not mean that private persons must obey governments commanding them to do what they know is sin; but perhaps it does mean (I write it with some reluctance) that the ultimate decision as to what the situation at a given moment is in the highly complex field of international affairs is one which must be delegated...A man is much more certain that he ought not to murder prisoners or bomb civilians than he ever can be about the justice of a war... "...Chrisendom has made two efforts to deal with the evil of war - chivalry and pacifism. Neither succeeded. But I doubt whether chivalry has such an unbroken record of failure as pacifism..." I wonder what he would have made of the massive increase in information and interconnection of today's world, and whether his "some reluctance" would be 'must disagree'? At any rate, he was honest about the dilemma -- and we have it still before us. *Lewis did not believe that women should be Anglican priests, and from what I've read of him viewed women much as Tolkien did - on the one hand, honorable and valuable, yet on the other not capable of fully participating in public or intellectual life. Naturally, I do not find this attitude endearing (and we won't go on WRT his views on animals and the justification of Pain, etc. <snarl>). However I do find droll his dismissal of magic yet belief in miracles, and the scoffing at Divine Right yet accepting at least some rules for princes, not ordinary folk. The distinction between common men and elites who know better is both real and important. Debbi Saved Throughout This Writing Maru __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
