The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they?

[Lalwendë]

alatar is right to say that quantum physics is a very strange area of science, bordering at times on the issues which religion also tries to approach; and it takes a great 'leap of faith' to attempt to understand some of the concepts involved. The language used by quantum physicists is in itself mystical; the Walls of the Universe is a phrase I particularly like. Theoretical science is probably best expressed in the language of maths, which brings the circle back around to mystical concepts in belief involving numbers and combinations of letters. The two, science and religion, are man's attempt to explain what is around us (and what is behind and before us...and what is not around us). I do not separate the two, as I do not think they always negate each other.

To look at a well known example, scientific theories such as Darwin's are not necessarily compatible with religious theories of creationism, but they have caused us to re-examine religious texts; in this case, the six days of creation are interpreted as six ages of creation. To some, it may be wrong to re-examine a religious text, but consider the amount of scholarship over the 2000 years of Christianity, and it is impossible that re-examination could not have happened many times in those years. The Christianity we have today is a result of 2000 years of thought and without that scholarship it is likely that the religion would have become stilted and eventually died out.

What I am trying to say is that religions do not stand still, just as science does not stand still. Both have much in common, and we need both. Even the atheist has a belief.

My take on this comes from my own viewpoint as someone who never could accept the rules, regulations and dogmas of one particular religion, and who finds all religions equal.

I think that despite the seeming worship of pragmatism in the world today, we all know or hope that there is more to life. We can find that through science and exploring the far reaches of the universe, and equally we can find it through prayer.

[alatar]

Thanks all for the replies.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Sorry, can't help you there, since the soul and spirit are immaterial, outside of the whole evidence thing. Do you doubt the existence of love? mercy? justice? These also are immaterial, and the "evidence" for them can be explained by other factors every bit as easily as with soul and spirit.

I do not doubt that they exist, but each can be reduced to biology.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

To take this slightly away from its religious mysteries overtones, has it occurred to you, Alatar, that even if science solves some of today's mysteries, that this will only open up new questions?

Agree - as I had previously stated. And if they ever 'wrap it all up,' there still remains the question regarding balrog wings...

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Isn't that the nature of mysteries? You solve one, and discover three more? Science will NEVER be done explaining away the mysteries of this universe because every new discovery will reveal more mysteries.

And as far as spiritual matters go though, I doubt that science can ever be brought to bear on them. Some things are a matter of faith and NOT a matter of matter. "Logic", that is the scientific process, may possibly be applicable, but I rather suspect that the central core of religion will retain many of its mysteries

Agree. Religion can hold to its mysteries as long as it likes. Recently I've read that 'belief' and 'faith' actually impart a survival advantage, and so what's not to like about that?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The two, science and religion, are man's attempt to explain what is around us (and what is behind and before us...and what is not around us). I do not separate the two, as I do not think they always negate each other.

One of the big differences between the two is that one can be used to predict the future with some degree of certainty. If you or I perform an experiment under the same conditions, we will obtain the same results with a probabilty that is more than chance. If we perform the experiment 100 times, we have an idea how many times the experiment would behave as expected.

However, if you and I were to perform the same ritual (or pray, or whatever the equivalent would be), we have no reason to believe that we can get the same result. Also, multiple attempts do not increase the possibility of success more than random chance would indicate.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

To look at a well known example, scientific theories such as Darwin's are not necessarily compatible with religious theories of creationism, but they have caused us to re-examine religious texts; in this case, the six days of creation are interpreted as six ages of creation. To some, it may be wrong to re-examine a religious text, but consider the amount of scholarship over the 2000 years of Christianity, and it is impossible that re-examination could not have happened many times in those years. The Christianity we have today is a result of 2000 years of thought and without that scholarship it is likely that the religion would have become stilted and eventually died out.

Changing inspired scriptures/beliefs derived from the same could be a slippery slope - where do you stop? And how do you 'test' revelations? Evolution would be thrown out if the data indicated - surely it would take some large evidence, but eventually it would be done. For religion, what evidence would be used to convince those who require none?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

What I am trying to say is that religions do not stand still, just as science does not stand still. Both have much in common, and we need both. Even the atheist has a belief.

Agreed - though some may not admit that a particular religion has changed, or should I say 'evolved?'

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think that despite the seeming worship of pragmatism in the world today, we all know or hope that there is more to life. We can find that through science and exploring the far reaches of the universe, and equally we can find it through prayer.

Nice thought. Wish I could get as wild about science as some seem to be about their religion.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by alatar

Nice thought. Wish I could get as wild about science as some seem to be about their religion.

Try a little astronomy - if that doesn't blow your mind, I don't know what will ... and it is still a field where and enthusiastic amateur can make a difference, and you could put the elvish names on your star chart

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Try a little astronomy - if that doesn't blow your mind, I don't know what will ... and it is still a field where and enthusiastic amateur can make a difference, and you could put the elvish names on your star chart

Nice suggestion - and my son just got a telescope. My children awe me, as to them everything is new and magical. However, sometimes their behavior has me reconsidering the doctrine of 'original sin'...

[littlemanpoet]

It has been said (I forget who by) that the doctrine of "original sin" is the most empirically supported: observe your children; read the daily paper; etc.

[littlemanpoet]

So, I see two reasons for Tolkien being right here. One, that (as has been stated) overt use of the emblems of any current or known religious tradition would pull us out of the secondary world into the primary one & 'break the spell',

- davem

But would it necessarily break the spell? ....as in an if-then cause and effect? It seems to me it would depend on how the things was brought off. Say, for example that one is reading or writing a "transitional" fantasy; that is, one that starts in the primary world (at least as evoked in the feigned reality) and moves into a secondary world. Let us suppose that emblems of religion are explored as they funciton both in the primary and secondary worlds. Does this break the spell? Or rather, does it weave a different kind of enchantment? I think it may do the latter, if brought off well. Now, this does not account for reader taste. If, say, a christian emblem is used, and an atheist simply cannot abide it, then it's not going to work for that atheist. But what if the chrisitan emblem is brought off well and the atheist is open minded enough to appreciate the art as presented, to see where it leads? Am I dreaming up impossibilities, or is it not a matter of expertise in terms of the art?

& two, that such overt usage would turn the 'emblems' used from symbols to signs, & make the work into an obvious allegory, rather than a 'parable'.

- davem

Now, this one seems a little easier to answer than the former. Assuming an expertly done work of fiction,, it seems to me that the use of religious emblems from the primary world is no more (and no less) prone to mis-allegorization than is LotR. I have read much of Stephen Lawhead, especially his Arthurian series. It is, I admit, hit or miss in terms of craft, but the better crafted the work is, the more it seems to me that Lawhead has done admirably. I am more convinced of this after having read Leonard Tolstoy's In Search of Merlin, the knowledge of which Lawhead has apparently made great use of in his Merlin, which I think may be the best of the series. Lawhead's Albion series is better than his Arthur series, and it is even more clearly theist (if not christian) than his Arthur series. It is, by the way, a "transitional" fantasy, whereas the Arthur series is "in the deeps of time" as it were, and is thus an "over there" fantasy (there's a better word but I can't think of it right now).

I don't for a minute believe that I've proven anything with the above "devil's advocate" answers, but I wanted to raise the remonstrations since everybody seems to be agreed that primary world religious emblems don't belong in fantasy.

[Lalwendë]

Something just occurred to me about religion and fantasy. What about Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials? This is obviously full of religious elements, and features major figures from Christianity, including archangels and God. There is even a representation of the papacy in the form of the magisterium. The one aspect I cannot recall, is any use of the symbol of Christianity, the cross. So, he makes great use of religious icons, but not of the most important symbol of that religion.

I'm not sure if I can think of what this means, but I thought it was worth bringing into the discussion. Of course, some might argue that HDM is not even fantasy (I would argue that it is). But taking the position that it is fantasy, does the inclusion of so many icons actually work? And does the omission of overt use of the symbol of the cross make it work?