RSS
Religion Under the Lens
- Philosophy of Religion (7)
- Criticism and Defense (17) : Criticism of Religion
- Afterlife (31) : Heaven, Hell, Immortality
- Pluralism (8) : One Way or Many
- Prayer (2) : Speaking with God?
"Truth Commissions and Judicial Trials" in The Provocations of Amnesty (New Africa Books: 2003) p. 69-70.
The agents of atrocities have a self-interest in keeping their acts invisible, buried, and publicly forgotten. The Nazis meant to plough under every death camp, and Himmler once consoled his SS cohorts that, while the German public would never know the full scope of their service to racial cleansing of the nation, they should always take pride in their work. In South African torture cells, the torturers taunted their victims with the prediction that, just as no one could hear their present screams, no one would remember them in the future either. The moral damages of amnesia are multiple: to victims, whose final indignity in survival or in death is to have their suffering forgotten; to perpetrators, whose moral health cannot be restored without confrontation of their immorality; and — not least — to a public that has every prudent self-interest in knowing enough about an evil past to be put on alert against its repetition.
Carol Zaleski on Dualism said...
First Things 105 (August/September 2000): 36-42.
As for dualism, much has been said of the violence it does to our unity as psycho-physical creatures, but this is questionable. Multiplicity and disunity are as strong a feature of our existence as psychosomatic unity. We are legion, as the demons say. It is a marvel that all our different parts work together. At best, we are a symphony; but the second violins have quarreled with the wind section, and as we age these quarrels increase. Why should it surprise us if at death the soul separates from the body? Separating is the order of our lives as we tend toward death. If a man's jowls can sink down while his brow stays up, why can't his soul rise up when his body sinks down? All of our flesh is being pulled downward by the gravity of the grave; every day our skin is sloughing off cell by cell; at each stage of life we slough off the skin of a previous stage; and at death we lose what was left of those skins. Perhaps that will be the chance to emerge as the person one was meant to be.
Carol Zaleski on the Afterlife said...
First Things 105 (August/September 2000): 36-42.
Although social surveys indicate that roughly 80 percent of Americans believe in life after death, it is a belief cherished against the grain of perceived official skepticism; and among academically trained religious thinkers, one finds a greater measure of skepticism than in the population at large. For many, immortality is not a matter for reasoned debate, but is simply ruled out of play, along with guardian angels and statues that weep. It is taken for granted, as if it were a premise accepted by all reasonable people, that no one seriously believes in Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory, in the life of the soul, the resurrection of the body, or the personality of God as the concrete realities they were once imagined to be.
Confessions, VII, xxi
For it is one thing to see the land of peace from a wooded ridge... and another to tread the road that leads to it.
What Can We Reasonably Hope For? A Millennium Symposium. First Things 99 (Januray 2000): 31-33
I suppose that God Himself is doing just fine, but His earthly defenders are on the ropes, and it's our own fault. Religion deservedly comes in for more criticism in its failures than does science, because genuine religion claims for itself the ability to know what's true, whereas genuine science claims for itself only the ability to quantify the probability of a thing being wrong. (Bad science and bad religion simply swap roles, the former proclaiming Truth, the latter worshiping Doubt.) Religion's bête noire is the fact that a genuine truth arrogantly asserted — that is, without so much as a moment's consideration that it might be false — is a most pernicious kind of falsehood, far worse in its effects on the humane than a flat mistake. It's a matter of modesty. It never uses the term, but science itself is a method to insure modesty of claims (however arrogant its practitioners). Religion, on the other hand, speaks constantly of the virtues, and then, on the whole, displays them with no greater consistency than does any other human institution.
Philip Yancey on Hell said...
"The Encyclopedia of Theological Ignorance" in Christianity Today (September 6, 1999), pg. 120
Still, I must insist that the most important question about heaven and
hell — who goes where, whether there are second chances, what form the
judgments and rewards take, intermediate states after death — are
opaque at best. Increasingly, I am grateful for that ignorance and
grateful that the God who revealed himself in Jesus is the one who
knows the answers.
Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion (Oxford University Press: 1996), p. 178.
'But if oxen (and horses) and lions.... could draw with hands and create works of art like those made by men, horses would draw pictures of gods like horses, and oxen of gods like oxen.... Aethiopians have gods with snub noses and black hair, Thracians have gods with grey eyes and red hair.' Like many later critics of anthropomorphism, Xenophanes evidently did not question the gods themselves but only their human attributes. Later Western writers think the Greek gods especially anthropomorphic, but gods in many other religions are equally so.
The Ragamuffin Gospel (Questar Publishers, 1993).
Because salvation is by grace through faith, I believe that among the
countless number of people standing in front of the throne and in front
of the Lamb, dressed in white robes and holding palms in their hands
(Revelation 7:9), I shall see the prostitute from the Kit-Kat Ranch in
Carson City, Nevada, who tearfully told me she could find no other
employment to support her two-year-old son. I shall see the woman who
had an abortion and is haunted by guilt and remorse but did the best
she could faced with grueling alternatives; the businessman besieged
with debt who sold his integrity in a series of desperate transactions;
the insecure clergyman addicted to being liked, who never challenged
his people from the pulpit and longed for unconditional love; the
sexually-abused teen molested by his father and now selling his body on
the street, who, as he falls asleep each night after his last "trick" whispers the name of the unknown God he learned about in
Sunday school; the death-bed convert who for decades had his cake and
ate it, broke every law of God and man, wallowed in lust and raped the
earth. "But how?" we ask. Then the voice says, "They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." There
they are. There we are — the multitude who so wanted to be faithful,
who at times got defeated, soiled by life, and bested by trials,
wearing the bloodied garments of life's tribulations, but through it
all clung to the faith.
Cosmos (Random House, Inc.: 1985), pp. 198-9.
We are, in the most profound sense, children of the Cosmos. Think of the Sun's heat on your upturned face on a cloudless summer's day; think how dangerous it is to gaze at the Sun directly. From 150 million kilometers away, we recognize its power. What would we feel on its seething self-luminous surface, or immersed in its hear of nuclear fire. The sun warms us and feeds us and permits us to see. It fecundated the Earth. It is powerful beyond human experience. Birds greet the sunrise with and audible ecstasy. Even some one-celled organisms know to swim to the light. Our ancestors worshiped the Sun, and they were far from foolish. And yet the Sun is an ordinary, even a mediocre star. If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars? Hidden within every astronomical investigation, sometimes so deeply buried that the researcher himself is unaware of its presence, lies a kernel of awe.
Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Heaven (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982), 3.
If a thing makes no difference, it is a waste of time to think about
it. We should begin, then, with the question, What difference does
Heaven make to earth, to now, to our lives? Only the difference between
hope and despair in the end, between two totally different visions of
life, between "chance or the dance." At death we find out which vision
is true: does it all go down the drain in the end, or are all the loose
threads finally tied together into a gloriously perfect tapestry? Do
the tangled paths through the forest of life lead to the golden castle
or over the cliff and into the abyss? Is death a door or a hole?
