|
Penni, since you seem to be unusually good at getting the point, I will use you for continuing the thought: When we deal with religious subjects, regardless of whether real or imagined, we are dealing with matters that are very far removed from common experience. Naturally, such topics put a particular strain on language. It is not unusual for religious language to seem either banal or bizarre, as the case may be. Usually, the more banal sorts of religious expression seem to belong to those with a dearth of linguistic resources. Frequently, we feel as if the expressions are inappropriate to the dignity and mystery of the subject, even when we do not presume to know that they are wrong. A classic example is the expression: "I am a jealous God", which seems petty. However, even if God were not subject to the emotion of jealousy, it may be that it is an apt, and even vigorous expression of the truth, which is the categorical demand that the Creator not be confused with lesser beings. On the other hand, some expressions seem so rococo as to be paradoxical, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity, the idea that God is both three persons and one essence, and that the persons are "of the essence". Whatever idea the Trinity is meant to convey, clearly it doesn't quite make sense. And yet, it may be the closest expression of the matter available, since the situation is beyond experience. In philosophy, Plato contemplates a similar problem in the analogy of the cave. Those trapped in the cave see only flickering shadows of the way things really are. What if someone were unchained, and taken outside the cave, to gaze on things as they really are? Returning to the cave, how would he convey his experience to the others, who knew only the shadows? We need not take Plato's scheme of things literally to see that the great philosophers have offered us deep insights into the nature of things, such as would not be an immediate product of common sense, and that they would inherently have difficulty conveying these thoughts to others, to whom they were novel. Again, it is not unusual to find writing on philosophy obscure, or, in some instances, deceptively naive, as they struggle with the difficulty of expression. We need to understand the problem better, to appreciate the success and limitations of speech about the most important things, and to develop patience with the more demanding authors..... |
