Freethought & Rationalism Archive

luvluv · 03-08-2005, 05:46 PM

I had to type this out recently, thought you guys might be interested in reading it.

Quote:

It is possible (and it is to be hoped) that this chapter will be unnecessary for most people. Those who were never thick-headed enough to get into the difficulty it deals with may even find it funny. I have not the least objection to their laughing; a little comic relief in the discussion does no harm, however serious the topic may be. (In my own experience, the funniest things have occurred in the gravest and most sincere conversations).

When I first began to draw near to belief in God and even for some time after it had been given to me, I found a stumbling block in the demand so clamorously made by all religious people that we should "praise" God; still more in the suggestion that God Himself demanded it. We all despise the man who demands continued assurance of his own virtue, intelligence or delightfulness; we despise still more the crowd of people round every dictator, every millionaire, every celebrity, who gratify that demand. Thus a picture, at once ludicrous and horrible, both of God and of His worshippers threatened to appear in my mind. The Psalms were especially troublesome in this way - "Praise the Lord" "O praise the Lord with me," "Praise Him" (And why, incidentally, did praising God always consist in telling other people to praise Him? Even in telling whales, snowstorms, etc, to go on doing what they would certainly do whether we told them or not?) Worse still was the statement put into God's own mouth, :whoso offereth me thanks and praise, he honoreth me" (50, 23) It was hideously like saying, "What I most want is to be told that I am good and great." Worst of all was the suggestion of the very silliest Pagan bargaining, that of the savage who makes offerings to his idol when the fishing is good and beats it when he has caught nothing. More than once the Psalmist seemed to be saying, "You like praise. Do this for me, and you shall have some." Thus in 54 the poet begins "save me" (I), and in verse 6, adds an inducement, "An offering of a free heart will I give thee, and praise thy name." Again and again the speaker asks to be saved from death on the ground that if God lets His suppliants die HE will get no more praise from them, for the ghosts in Sheol cannot praise (30,10; 88,10; 119,175). And mere quantity of praise seemed to count; "seven times a day do I praise thee" (119,164). It was extremely distressing. It made one think what one least wanted to think. Gratitude to God, reverence to Him, obedience to Him, I thought I could understand; not this perpetual eulogy. Nor were matters mended by a modern author who talked of God's "right" to be praised.

I still think “right�? is a bad way of expressing it, but I believe I now see what that author meant. It is perhaps easiest to begin with inanimate objects which have no rights. What do we mean when we say that a picture is “admirable�?? We certainly don’t mean that it is admired (that’s as may be) for bad work is admired by thousands and good work may be ignored. Nor that it “deserves�? admiration in the sense in which a candidate “deserves�? a high mark from the examiners - i.e. that a human being will have suffered injustice if it is not awarded. The sense in which the picture “deserves�? or “demands�? admiration is rather this; that admiration is the correct, adequate, appropriate, response to it, that, if paid, admiration will not be “thrown away�?, and that if we do not admire we shall be stupid, insensible, and great losers, we shall have missed something. In that way many objects both h in Nature and in Art may be said to deserve, or merit, or demand, admiration. It was from this end, which will seem to some irreverent, that I found it best to approach the idea that God “demands�? praise. He is that Object to admire which (or, if you like, to appreciate which) is simply to be awake, to have entered the real world; not to appreciate which is to have lost the greatest experience, and in the end to have lost all. The incomplete and crippled lives of those who are tone deaf, have never been in love, never known true friendship, never cared for a good book, never enjoyed the feel of the morning air of their cheeks, never (I am one of these) enjoyed football, are faint images of it.

But of course this is not all. God does not only “demand�? praise as the supremely beautiful and all-satisfying Object. He does apparently command it as lawgiver. The Jews were told to sacrifice. We are under an obligation to go to church. But this was a difficulty only because I did not then understand any of what I have tried to say above in Chapter V. I did not see that it is in the process of being worshipped that God communicates His presence to men. It is not of course the only way. But for many people at many times the “fair beauty of the Lord�? is revealed chiefly or only while they worship Him together. Even in Judaism the essence of the sacrifice was not really that men gave bulls and goats to God, but that by their so doing God gave Himself to men; in the central act of our own worship of course this is far clearer - there it is manifestly, even physically, God who gives and we who receive. The miserable idea that God should in any sense need, or crave for, our worship like a vain woman wanting compliments, or a vain author presenting his new books to people who have never met or heard of him, is implicitly answered by the words “If I be hungry I will not tell thee�? (50,12). Even if such an absurd Deity could be conceived, He would hardly come to us, the lowest of rational creatures, to gratify His appetite. I don’t want my dog to bark approval of my books. Now that I come to think of it, there are some humans whose enthusiastically favorable criticism would not much gratify me.

But the most obvious fact about praise - whether of God or anything - strangely escaped me. I thought of it in terms of compliment, approval, or the giving of honor. I had never noticed that all enjoyment spontaneously overflows into praise unless (sometimes even if) shyness or the fear of boring others is deliberately brought in to check it. The world rings with praise - lovers praising their mistresses, readers their favorite poet, walkers praising the countryside, players praising their favorite game - praise of weather, wines, dishes, actors, motors, horses, colleges, countries, historical personages, children, flowers, mountains, rare stamps, rare beetles, even sometimes politicians or scholars. I had not noticed how the humblest, and at the same time most balanced and capacious minds, praised most, while the cranks, misfits, and malcontents praised least. the good critics found something to praise in many imperfect works; the bad ones continually narrowed the list of books we might be allowed to read. The healthy and unaffected man, even if luxuriously brought up and widely experienced in good cookery, could praise a very modest meal: the dyspeptic and the snob found fault with all. Except where intolerably adverse circumstances interfere, praise almost seems to be inner health made audible. Nor does it cease to be so when, through lack of skill, the forms of its expression are very uncouth or even ridiculous. heaven knows, many poems of praise addressed to an earthly beloved are as bad as our bad hymns, and an anthology of love poems for public and perpetual use would probably be as sore a trial to literary taste as Hymns Ancient and Modern. I had not noticed either that just as men spontaneously praise whatever they value, so they spontaneously urge us to join them in praising it: “Isn’t she lovely? Wasn’t it glorious? Don’t you think that magnificent�? The Psalmists in telling everyone to praise God are doing what all men do when they speak of what they care about. My whole, more general difficulty about the praise of God depended on my absurdly denying to us, as regards the supremely Valuable, what we delight to do, what we indeed cant’ help doing, about everything else we value.

I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation. It is not out of compliment that lovers keep on telling one another how beautiful they are; the delight is incomplete till it is expressed. It is frustrating to have discovered a new author and not to be able to tell anyone how good he is; to come suddenly at the turn of the road, upon some mountain valley of unexpected grandeur and then to have to keep silent because the people with you care for it no more than for a tin can in the ditch; to hear a good joke and find no one to share it with (the perfect hearer died a year ago). This is so even when our expressions are inadequate, as of course they usually are. But how if one could really and fully praise even such things to perfection - utterly "get out" in poetry or music of paint the upsurge of appreciation that almost bursts you? Then indeed object would be fully appreciated and our delight would have attained perfect development. The worthier the object, the more intense this delight would be. If it were possible for a created soul fully (I mean, up to the full measure conceivable in a finite being) to "appreciate", that is to love and delight in, the worthiest object of all, and simultaneously at every moment to give this delight perfect expression, then that soul would be in supreme beautitude. It is along these lines that I find it easiest to understand the Christian doctrine that "heaven" is a state in which angels now, and men hereafter, are perpetually employed in praising God. This does not mean, as it can so dismally suggest, that it is like "being in Church". For our "services" both in their conduct and in our power to participate, are merely attempts at worship; never fully successful, often 99.9 per cent failures, sometimes total failures. We are not riders but pupils in the riding school; for most of us the falls and bruises, the aching muscles and the severity of the exercise, far outweigh those few moments in which we were, to our own astonishment, actually galloping without terror and without disaster. To see what the doctrine means, we must suppose ourselves to be in perfect love with God - drunk with, drowned in, dissolved by, that delight which, far from remaining pent up within ourselves as incommunicable, hence hardly tolerable, bliss, flows out from us incessantly again in effortless and perfect expression, our joy no more separable from the praise in which it liberates and utters itself than the brightness a mirror receives is separable from the brightness it sheds. The Scotch catechism says that man's chief end is "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever". But we shall then know that these are the same thing. Fully to enjoy is to glorify. In commanding us to glorify Him, god is inviting us to enjoy Him.

Meanwhile, of course, we are merely, as Donne says, tuning our instruments. The tuning up of the orchestra can be itself delightful, but only to those who can in some measure, however little, anticipate the symphony. The Jewish sacrifices, and even our own most sacred rites, as they actually occur in human experience, are, like the tuning, promise, not performance. Hence, like the tuning, they many have in them much duty and little delight or none. But the duty exists for the delight. When we carry out our "religious duties" we are like people digging channels in a waterless land, in order that when at last the water comes, it may find them ready. I mean, for the most part. There are happy moments, even now, when a trickle creeps along the dry beds; and happy souls to whom this happens often.

As for the element of bargaining in the Psalms (Do this and I will praise you), that silly dash of Paganism certainly existed. The flame does not ascend pure from the altar. But the impurities are not its essence. And we are not all in a position to despise even the crudest Psalmist on this score. Of course we would not blunder in our words like them. But there is, for ill as well as for good, a wordless prayer. I have often, on my knees, been shocked to find what sort of thoughts I have, for a moment, been addressing to God; what infantile placations I was really offering, what claims I have really made, even what absurd adjustments or compromises I was, half-consciously, proposing. There is a Pagan, savage heart in me somewhere. For unfortunately the folly and idiot-cunning of Paganism seem to have far more power of surviving than its innocent or even beautiful elements. It is easy, once you have power, to silence the pipes, still the dances, disfigure the statues, and forget the stories; but not easy to kill the savage, the greedy, frightened creature now cringing, now blustering, in one's soul - the creature to whom God may well say "though thoughtest I am even such a one as thyself" (50,21)

But all this, as I have said, will be illuminating to only a few of my readers. To the others, such a comedy of errors, so circuitous a journey to reach the obvious, will furnish occasion or charitable laughter.

Toto · 03-08-2005, 06:59 PM

What a well written obfuscation of what we all know. The idea of the middle eastern god is based on the middle eastern despot, who demands constant flattery. All of CS Lewis's prose can't get away from that.

What disturbs me is this:

Quote:

For unfortunately the folly and idiot-cunning of Paganism seem to have far more power of surviving than its innocent or even beautiful elements. It is easy, once you have power, to silence the pipes, still the dances, disfigure the statues, and forget the stories; but not easy to kill the savage, the greedy, frightened creature now cringing, now blustering, in one's soul . . .

Does CS Lewis identify music, dance, statues, and stories with paganism that has to be banished? How much of human culture does he need to destroy for his religious beliefs?

Jade · 03-08-2005, 08:01 PM

Well, it's interesting, but it presupposes first that God exists, and second that God is actually praiseworthy even if he does exist. I am not convinced of either.

There is also this curious statement: "In commanding us to glorify Him, god is inviting us to enjoy Him." This strikes me as more than a little odd, whether it is a command or an invitation; but let's take the command angle first. Say there is something enjoyable by everyone and entirely praiseworthy -- let's call it 'X'. Does one really have to command people to enjoy X? Surely they will either enjoy it or they won't, and since we are assuming that everyone will enjoy X, all we really have to do to get everyone 'doing X' is to make sure they all know that X is enjoyable. If they are rational and want joy, then they will eventually 'do X' whether one commands them to or not.

If it's an invitation, a similar problem arises. A bare invitation, which does not impart knowledge that X is enjoyable, is not much use: It would be like a restaurant saying "Do you wanna come try our mystery food?". Of course most invitations do actually impart some information about the thing being offered, but that is simply fulfilling the purpose I laid out above -- imparting knowledge that the thing in question is enjoyable. You don't really need an invitation to do that; all you have to do is make sure that everyone knows X is great stuff and is generally available, and people will do X whether or not you have invited them to do it. There is also the odd result that this particular invitation comes in the form of a command, which just isn't very friendly or inviting: "Come to our store and purchase our food, NOW!!! You will enjoy it....or DIE IN FLAMES!!!"

So really, I don't see why God needs to command / invite people to praise/enjoy him. If he is praiseworthy/enjoyable, surely all he need do is make sure everyone is aware of that fact and the praise will roll in as a matter of course. Yet God does not make his praise-worthiness readily apparent (unless you already think he exists and is praiseworthy); instead he uses the medium of religious texts, suspiciously similar in form and content to many other competing religious texts; and in those texts he commands / invites people to praise him.
That seems a little odd to me.

Magazine · 03-08-2005, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jade

If they are rational and want joy, then they will eventually 'do X' whether one commands them to or not.

Well, that's just it. People aren't wholly rational, and don't wholly want joy. So they need commands that are addressed to the will. That's the Christian view.

Why do you think that relatively few people are joyous, after all?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Does C.S. Lewis identify music, dance, statues, and stories with paganism that needs to be banished?

No, I think he's saying that the fourth-century Christians wanted to get rid of both pagan art and pagan mercenary-ism, but the art was much easier to get rid of. That doesn't mean that it was more desirable, or even desirable at all.

Jade · 03-08-2005, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magazine

Well, that's just it. People aren't wholly rational, and don't wholly want joy. So they need commands that are addressed to the will. That's the Christian view.

Why do you think that relatively few people are joyous, after all?

If people are irrational, what good is commanding them to 'enjoy Him' going to do?

Furthermore, can one really say that a command / invitation will really be more effective than making sure that everyone knows for a fact that God is praiseworthy/enjoyable? I mean, 'knows' like they know that gravity is a fact, or that clean water will quench their thirst? Yes, people are irrational, but there are far more people who drink water (or something containing water) when they are thirsty than there are people who drink sand when they are thirsty -- surely the widespread knowledge that water will quench thirst is largely responsible for that fact. I mean, perhaps the invitations of Vittel and Dasani to drink their product, or the commands of their doctors and parents to drink water also have something to do with that fact -- but more than the certain and widespread knowledge that water is thirst-quenching? I doubt it.

Eldarion Lathria · 03-08-2005, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magazine

No, I think he's saying that the fourth-century Christians wanted to get rid of both pagan art and pagan mercenary-ism, but the art was much easier to get rid of. That doesn't mean that it was more desirable, or even desirable at all.

What do you mean by pagan mercenary-ism ? Pagans serving as hired soldiers? If you mean that pagans expect concrete benefits from their gods, and withhold their worship when they are denied, you (and C.S. Lewis) know little of paganism.

I have little respect for someone who must be surrounded by yes-men and constantly flattered. Everyone needs someone who will tell them the truth, who can be brutally honest with them and can say "You are fucking up and if you keep on there will be disaster." Or "Your treatment of that person was despicable, go and apologize immediately." For me, it's my wife. For a prince or president, it must be a trusted adviser.

Eldarion Lathria

Cobalt · 03-08-2005, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jade

There is also this curious statement: "In commanding us to glorify Him, god is inviting us to enjoy Him." This strikes me as more than a little odd, whether it is a command or an invitation; but let's take the command angle first.

It seems fairly obvious that what he's saying is simply false. If praising god is so fantastically enjoyable, why don't I enjoy it? I've certainly tried it enough...

Jade · 03-09-2005, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobalt

It seems fairly obvious that what he's saying is simply false. If praising god is so fantastically enjoyable, why don't I enjoy it? I've certainly tried it enough...

Yeah, though I imagine a Christian response is that an atheist praising God is sort of like some one 'looking' at a beautiful painting with their eyes closed; you're just not going to get the same experience and pleasure out of it as someone with open eyes.

Daggah · 03-09-2005, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jade

Yeah, though I imagine a Christian response is that an atheist praising God is sort of like some one 'looking' at a beautiful painting with their eyes closed; you're just not going to get the same experience and pleasure out of it as someone with open eyes.

So I guess he would say that I was actually an atheist when I *thought* I was a church-going Baptist?

luvluv · 03-09-2005, 04:56 AM

Lewis does not say praising God is supremely enjoyable all the time. In fact, in the article, he expressly states the opposite.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2005, 08:01 PM	#3
Jade Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Virginia Posts: 2,949	Well, it's interesting, but it presupposes first that God exists, and second that God is actually praiseworthy even if he does exist. I am not convinced of either. There is also this curious statement: "In commanding us to glorify Him, god is inviting us to enjoy Him." This strikes me as more than a little odd, whether it is a command or an invitation; but let's take the command angle first. Say there is something enjoyable by everyone and entirely praiseworthy -- let's call it 'X'. Does one really have to command people to enjoy X? Surely they will either enjoy it or they won't, and since we are assuming that everyone will enjoy X, all we really have to do to get everyone 'doing X' is to make sure they all know that X is enjoyable. If they are rational and want joy, then they will eventually 'do X' whether one commands them to or not. If it's an invitation, a similar problem arises. A bare invitation, which does not impart knowledge that X is enjoyable, is not much use: It would be like a restaurant saying "Do you wanna come try our mystery food?". Of course most invitations do actually impart some information about the thing being offered, but that is simply fulfilling the purpose I laid out above -- imparting knowledge that the thing in question is enjoyable. You don't really need an invitation to do that; all you have to do is make sure that everyone knows X is great stuff and is generally available, and people will do X whether or not you have invited them to do it. There is also the odd result that this particular invitation comes in the form of a command, which just isn't very friendly or inviting: "Come to our store and purchase our food, NOW!!! You will enjoy it....or DIE IN FLAMES!!!" So really, I don't see why God needs to command / invite people to praise/enjoy him. If he is praiseworthy/enjoyable, surely all he need do is make sure everyone is aware of that fact and the praise will roll in as a matter of course. Yet God does not make his praise-worthiness readily apparent (unless you already think he exists and is praiseworthy); instead he uses the medium of religious texts, suspiciously similar in form and content to many other competing religious texts; and in those texts he commands / invites people to praise him. That seems a little odd to me.

03-09-2005, 04:56 AM	#10
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Lewis does not say praising God is supremely enjoyable all the time. In fact, in the article, he expressly states the opposite.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.