Religion and Criticism

[Alexiev]

Algernon Swinburne once wrote (from memory), “I cannot imagine what should tempt a man to criticism except the pleasure of praising.” Why bother trashing bad art, if not for the hope that the art will be good?

Swinburne did trash George Eliot’s characters as “rag dolls”, but more memorable is his ecstatic plea to Walt Whitman:

“Send but over a song to us,
Heart of all hearts that are free.”

Why (my readers, if there are any)may wonder do I mention this in a thread about religion? In the Christian ethos, praise is noble, even sacred. The angels (with a few exceptions) delight in praising God.

Praise is not easy. The God of the Bible (or Jesus Himself) sometimes seem unworthy of praise, as the quote-mining of some atheists on these very pages suggest. Yet the very essence of Christianity is that God is not only worthy of praise and adulation, but that anyone with proper sensibilities will delight in praising God, as a hungry man delights in honey.

In the Old Testament, the responsibility of us humans to worship God sometimes seems based on His power. We worship Him because He is the King.

This doesn’t seem particularly honorable. The Norse, for example, worship and admire the Gods despite the fact that they are not the Kings – they are doomed to lose to the Giants in the end. This seems a manly creed.

Nonetheless, any sophisticated reading of the Bible cannot simply despise God for tormenting Job, or killing Firstborn Egyptians, or cursing a fig tree. Such an approach looks at the details of the story, and ignores the essence of it. The reader is (it seems to me, whether or not the reader is Christian) required to try to reconcile these seemingly contradictory things – the essential Goodness of God, and the seeming evil (as judged by human standards) He commits.

Christian apologists recognize this, and have written ream after ream of explanations. Some atheists (however) simply look at (or seek out) seemingly wicked behavior on the part of God, and suggest this invalidates the whole story. I suppose that’s reasonable, or would be if the story weren’t so widely accepted as one of the greatest and most influential ever told. Such an approach constitutes throwing out the baby with the bath water. Religion INVOLVES contradictions – death equals birth; humility leads to glory; unjustified belief leads to truth, the last shall be first. The story is a difficult one: God is omnibenevolent, but he floods the world. What’s that all about? Answering that question by saying, “God can’t be benevolent and flood the world” is to ignore the text.

One principle of criticism is that a book should not be criticized for failing to be a different book. The reader of the Noah story is required by the text to seek to reconcile the seeming contradictions. Ignoring one part of the text (the Goodness of God) while honing in on another (the flooding of the world) is an abrogation of responsibility on the part of the reader.

[Gary Childress]

Well, speaking for myself, I am an alien to Christianity. Growing up in a society rooted in Christianity, I never went to church as a kid, never had anything to do with it. I grew up an atheist, and only after studying philosophy in college did I come to my (so far) final position of agnosticism.

I guess I "bought into" the narrative of Carl Sagan to a large extent. But now I tend to find myself getting a little out of every religious tradition. However, I can't embrace one as an all-encompassing truth. I find many religious traditions nauseatingly cramped and intellectually constraining. So when people start suggesting going back to the "fundamentals" of religion, I can't do it. I would like to call myself "liberated," but maybe I'm just a "heathen," or "pagan," or misfit or something. I don't know.

It doesn't mean I don't observe what I would call ethical or moral considerations toward others. It just means I don't think any singular religion now in existence has the whole complete story 100% right. I'm not sure if I (or anyone else) will ever have the whole story. I mean, maybe religion is forever apart from the physical world, forever beyond our ability to know anything concretely about it.

[Alexiev]

Well, speaking for myself, I am an alien to Christianity. Growing up in a society rooted in Christianity, I never went to church as a kid, never had anything to do with it. I grew up an atheist, and only after studying philosophy in college did I come to my (so far) final position of agnosticism.

I guess I "bought into" the narrative of Carl Sagan to a large extent. But now I tend to find myself getting a little out of every religious tradition. However, I can't embrace one as an all-encompassing truth. I find many religious traditions nauseatingly cramped and intellectually constraining. So when people start suggesting going back to the "fundamentals" of religion, I can't do it. I would like to call myself "liberated," but maybe I'm just a "heathen," or "pagan," or misfit or something. I don't know.

It doesn't mean I don't observe what I would call ethical or moral considerations toward others. It just means I don't think any singular region now in existence has the whole complete story 100% right. I'm not sure if I (or anyone else) will ever have the whole story. I mean, maybe religion is forever apart from the physical world, forever beyond our ability to know anything concretely about it.

I'm more interested (in this thread , at least) in criticism than in religion. Why the emphasis on praise and worship? Does it suggest that morality is best addressed analogically rather than logically? Are "rules of behavior" less important than admiring the good and despising the evil?

Philosophy (and most other academic subjects) involve 90% criticism. Philosophy is a critique of ethics (how we should live), epistemology (how we should believe), etc. But finding fault is easier than finding out what it is we admire or love and expressing that (the job of the critic).

Of course the critic must also honestly examine the novel, or the film, or the philosophic theory and discover its flaws. But he should (like the angels) diligently seek that deserving of praise.

[Impenitent]

translations of translations of a dead language

examine the novel?

crowd control by divine means...

-Imp

[Alexiev]

translations of translations of a dead language

examine the novel?

crowd control by divine means...

-Imp

You don't seem to be "seek(ing) that deserving of praise".

Of course religion functions to "control" people (which is not necessarily a bad thing). So what? One could describe the same thing as "the social function of religion". Creating amity and community seem two such religious functions.

The critic, however, should look more deeply. How does religion serve a social control function? Is this function deleterious or beneficial? What techniques are employed? Also, why pooh-pooh "dead languages"? If people are still reading and translating them, they are not dead -- but "born again".

[Impenitent]

translations of translations of a dead language

examine the novel?

crowd control by divine means...

-Imp

You don't seem to be "seek(ing) that deserving of praise".

Of course religion functions to "control" people (which is not necessarily a bad thing). So what? One could describe the same thing as "the social function of religion". Creating amity and community seem two such religious functions.

The critic, however, should look more deeply. How does religion serve a social control function? Is this function deleterious or beneficial? What techniques are employed? Also, why pooh-pooh "dead languages"? If people are still reading and translating them, they are not dead -- but "born again".

from Born Again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPMYXeaKiEU

promises of paradise that never appear

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

The critic, however, should look more deeply. How does religion serve a social control function? Is this function deleterious or beneficial? What techniques are employed? Also, why pooh-pooh "dead languages"? If people are still reading and translating them, they are not dead -- but "born again".

So we shouldn't worry so much about whether a religion is "True". We should look at the results of its application to societies. Is that correct?

[Alexiev]

The critic, however, should look more deeply. How does religion serve a social control function? Is this function deleterious or beneficial? What techniques are employed? Also, why pooh-pooh "dead languages"? If people are still reading and translating them, they are not dead -- but "born again".

So we shouldn't worry so much about whether a religion is "True". We should look at the results of its application to societies. Is that correct?

Of course it's not correct. We "should" do both.

[Alexiev]

promises of paradise that never appear

-Imp

Or does it appear? When Jesus was asked about paradise He (acc. St. Luke) said, “God’s kingdom is coming, but not in a way that you will be able to see with your eyes. People will not say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ because God’s kingdom is within you.”

[godelian]

We should look at the results of its application to societies. Is that correct?

The connection cannot be experimentally tested. So, in absence of proper justification, people will try to justify by means of word salads.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

As a victim of grooming by religion in my formative years, I remotely brainwashed myself, just by reading, like modern lone wolf terrorists, in to praising the whole cloth God of the Bible in every detail. I didn't overlook His evil, I called it good. Relished it. Luxuriated in it. I praised Him 110% Which is normal of believers, and we're all believers to some degree. We all wrap ourselves in the flag. My 'country' right or wrong. All. It doesn't take much effort at all. Elijah setting a pack of bears on children did give me pause, and I met up with a Local Elder, after four years on remote, who impressed me in to praising God for that. The God who stopped off under the terebinth trees of Mamre, for lunch with Abraham before going on with the angelic guys to nuke the Cities of the Plain, He was awesome. Still is as a character. We do love a villain don't we? A son of a bitch. A bastard. Because He's our bastard, and we are His.

[Alexiev]

As a victim of grooming by religion in my formative years, I remotely brainwashed myself, just by reading, like modern lone wolf terrorists, in to praising the whole cloth God of the Bible in every detail. I didn't overlook His evil, I called it good. Relished it. Luxuriated in it. I praised Him 110% Which is normal of believers, and we're all believers to some degree. We all wrap ourselves in the flag. My 'country' right or wrong. All. It doesn't take much effort at all. Elijah setting a pack of bears on children did give me pause, and I met up with a Local Elder, after four years on remote, who impressed me in to praising God for that. The God who stopped off under the terebinth trees of Mamre, for lunch with Abraham before going on with the angelic guys to nuke the Cities of the Plain, He was awesome. Still is as a character. We do love a villain don't we? A son of a bitch. A bastard. Because He's our bastard, and we are His.

"Grooming"? Your parents made you brush your hair and put on a tie to go to Sunday School? No wonder you rebelled!

Of course one question is whether anything God does is "good" -- by definition. If so, "omnibenevolence" has little meaning.

Have you read "Paradise Lost"? I've been reading both the poem and the critiques. Satan is far more dynamic and interesting than Jesus or God (who are a bit vanilla). MIlton was an anti-Royalist, who narrowly escaped the axe during the restoration of the monarchy (he supported Cromwell). This may explain where his sympathies resided. William Blake wrote: " "Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of angels and God and at liberty when of Devils and Hell because he was a true poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it." Perhaps the author of "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" was on to something.

Adam also looks good in Milton's epic. He eats the fruit knowing it will lead him to death and exile from Eden. But he prefers to stay with Eve instead of living in a lonely paradise. Here are the magnificent last lines of Milton's epic:

Of Paradise, so late their happy seat,
Waved over by that flaming brand; the gate
With dreadful faces thronged, and fiery arms:
Some natural tears they dropt, but wiped them soon;
The world was all before them, where to choose
Their place of rest, and Providence their guide:
They, hand in hand, with wandering steps and slow,
Through Eden took their solitary way.

Was paradise lost, or gained? Is it a garden, is it the wide world, or is it (as Jesus said) "within you"?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

As a victim of grooming by religion in my formative years, I remotely brainwashed myself, just by reading, like modern lone wolf terrorists, in to praising the whole cloth God of the Bible in every detail. I didn't overlook His evil, I called it good. Relished it. Luxuriated in it. I praised Him 110% Which is normal of believers, and we're all believers to some degree. We all wrap ourselves in the flag. My 'country' right or wrong. All. It doesn't take much effort at all. Elijah setting a pack of bears on children did give me pause, and I met up with a Local Elder, after four years on remote, who impressed me in to praising God for that. The God who stopped off under the terebinth trees of Mamre, for lunch with Abraham before going on with the angelic guys to nuke the Cities of the Plain, He was awesome. Still is as a character. We do love a villain don't we? A son of a bitch. A bastard. Because He's our bastard, and we are His.

"Grooming"? Your parents made you brush your hair and put on a tie to go to Sunday School? No wonder you rebelled!

Of course one question is whether anything God does is "good" -- by definition. If so, "omnibenevolence" has little meaning.

Have you read "Paradise Lost"? I've been reading both the poem and the critiques. Satan is far more dynamic and interesting than Jesus or God (who are a bit vanilla). MIlton was an anti-Royalist, who narrowly escaped the axe during the restoration of the monarchy (he supported Cromwell). This may explain where his sympathies resided. William Blake wrote: " "Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of angels and God and at liberty when of Devils and Hell because he was a true poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it." Perhaps the author of "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" was on to something.

Adam also looks good in Milton's epic. He eats the fruit knowing it will lead him to death and exile from Eden. But he prefers to stay with Eve instead of living in a lonely paradise. Here are the magnificent last lines of Milton's epic:

Of Paradise, so late their happy seat,
Waved over by that flaming brand; the gate
With dreadful faces thronged, and fiery arms:
Some natural tears they dropt, but wiped them soon;
The world was all before them, where to choose
Their place of rest, and Providence their guide:
They, hand in hand, with wandering steps and slow,
Through Eden took their solitary way.

Was paradise lost, or gained? Is it a garden, is it the wide world, or is it (as Jesus said) "within you"?

I love Paradise Lost. I used to read it aloud at night to a wife. That Blake quote is perfect, thank you.

No, I was a child of the bomb, Auschwitz and the Doomsday Book (Gordon Rattray Taylor), groomed by Chilialists; sifted as wheat. They were perfectly disinterested in ones response. One had to beat a path to their door through the wreckage of ones life and camp on it. I brought what they needed to the party. Despair. And they told me that I had no idea how right I was. But there was a scintilla of hope. From 3,500 years ago. I really, really should write the novel.

My God. Those lines. Utterly spine tingling, eye stinging. Magnificent.

[Alexiev]

I love Paradise Lost. I used to read it aloud at night to a wife. That Blake quote is perfect, thank you.

No, I was a child of the bomb, Auschwitz and the Doomsday Book (Gordon Rattray Taylor), groomed by Chilialists; sifted as wheat. They were perfectly disinterested in ones response. One had to beat a path to their door through the wreckage of ones life and camp on it. I brought what they needed to the party. Despair. And they told me that I had no idea how right I was. But there was a scintilla of hope. From 3,500 years ago. I really, really should write the novel.

My God. Those lines. Utterly spine tingling, eye stinging. Magnificent.

Possibly the greatest ending in literature.

Other contenders include James Joyce for Ulysses and The Dead:

...and the sea the sea crimson sometimes like fire and the glorious sunsets and the figtrees in the Alameda gardens yes and all the queer little streets and pink and blue and yellow houses and the rosegardens and the jessamine and geraniums and cactuses and Gibraltar as a girl where I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.

“A few light taps upon the pane made him turn to the window. It had begun to snow again. He watched sleepily the flakes, silver and dark, falling obliquely against the lamplight. The time had come for him to set out on his journey westward. Yes, the newspapers were right: snow was general all over Ireland. It was falling on every part of the dark central plain, on the treeless hills, falling softly upon the Bog of Allen and, farther westward, softly falling into the dark mutinous Shannon waves. It was falling, too, upon every part of the lonely churchyard on the hill where Michael Furey lay buried. It lay thickly drifted on the crooked crosses and headstones, on the spears of the little gate, on the barren thorns. His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead.”

Or how about Emily Bronte:

“I lingered round them, under that benign sky; watched the moths fluttering among the heath, and hare-bells; listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass; and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth.”

Or Mark Twain:

“I got to light out for the Territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she’s going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can’t stand it. I been there before.”

Any further suggestions? (Of course lots of short poems have great endings, but I'm limiting to epics and novels.)

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I'm an ill-read plebeian and poseur Alexiev. You shame me. I've had Ulysses ready to go for some years. Two modern epics, but not their last lines; The Goldfinch, Donna Tartt and The Son, Phillipp Meyer. Both truly huge. The latter utterly devastating. Must read True Grit. Reading Henry Porter's Empire State which has aged well as early C21st spy fiction. An historical novel as it were.

Circa Regna Tonat

My spine tingled writing that.

Around the throne the thunder roars.

And again!

Thomas Wyatt on watching the beheading of Anne Boleyn. Pretty final. That's all he wrote!

And more!!