PizzaButtAndTacoHell

  • 1 Post
  • 30 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 24th, 2023
  • PizzaButtAndTacoHell@lemmy.worldtoPhilosophy@lemmy.world•Understanding The Apologist’s Evening Prayer by C.S.LewisEnglish
    4·
    2 months ago

    Christian prayers for a specific profession or personal inclination are designed to highlight “besetting sins” (meaning, basically, bad habits) that such a person is likely to encounter in their regular activities, and the apologist’s is no different.

    In discussing this, I’m going to use he/him to refer to the speaker/writer of the poem, for ease. I would use ungendered pronouns, but then I’d be assuming that Christian apology is not a male-dominated field.

    In his efforts to rebut criticism of Christianity, the apologist asks for relief:

    From all my lame defeats and oh! much more

    From all the victories that I seemed to score;

    This expresses a desire to be free of the embarassment and frustration of a poor debate performance, and also especially of pride (the first of all sins) in a (perceived, at least) rhetorical victory. It can also express wanting to avoid dwelling on a tally of wins and losses, and to focus instead on his true goal of showing his faith.

    From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf

    At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;

    The pray-er wants to win audiences’ hearts, minds, and souls with earnest and honest Christian expression, not “trick” them with clever wordplay or rhetorical sleight-of-hand, and asks that the temptation to indulge in (or “shoot forth” i.e. impulsively throw out) such be removed.

    From all my proofs of Thy divinity,

    Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me.

    In a similar vein, the apologist is asking to resist arguing in empirical (scientific or logical) terms (i.e. “proofs”), because he believes that an earnest faith is more valuable than sense-evidence that might undermine it.

    Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead

    Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.

    Here the speaker analogizes his distracting thoughts to currency. He sees potential idolatry (temptation to pursue a thing rather than the meaning behind the thing) and a reductive image of his faith on the coin’s eroded face, which he rejects in favor of a divine ideal.

    From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee,

    O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.

    Similar to the last couplet, the speaker is asking that thoughts that might inflict some diversion be removed. Like sense-data in the third couplet the apologist is doubtful of his own thinking, and doesn’t trust his wayward mind to convey his message well.

    Lord of the narrow gate and the needle’s eye,

    Take from me all my trumpery lest I die.

    The “narrow gate” references The Gospel of Matthew 7:13-14 (KJV) –

    13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

    The needle’s eye is a metaphor that Jesus employs in The Gospel of Luke 18:25 (KJV) –

    25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

    In referring to these two passages, the speaker is admitting that the pursuit of Christian faith is difficult (in the sense of frustrating, arduous), and asks for conviction and strength to follow his desired narrow path towards heaven. In pursuit of that goal, and of pointing others towards it, he asks that “all my trumpery” be taken away. ‘Trumpery’ has many senses, but all of them connote worthlessness, referring variably to that which is fraudulent, gaudy, showy, meaningless, nonsensical. The speaker is wishing away any pretense, any subconscious desire to deal dishonestly with his audience.

    To sum up, the poem is a request from the speaker that he remain honest and focused on his goal of spreading “the good word”. He wishes to be free of all deceit, including self-deceit. One can absolutely identify a deep insecurity in this, but that would be going beyond the text.

  • PizzaButtAndTacoHell@lemmy.worldtoAtheism@lemmy.world•Based RazorEnglish
    51·
    11 months ago

    Yes, one can assert that a principle is useful, but that is not the same as asserting a specific claim. The point being made is about buttressing claims with supporting reason and evidence, not that making an uncomplex statement can be casually thrown out.

    A different expression of the same idea is the (relatively new, but still not as recent as the 20th century) Latin phrase “Quod gratis asceritur, gratis negatur” – loosely “That which can be easily asserted can be easily negated”. The criticism is again of the support for the specific claim being made.

    The point that unifies these two statements is that it takes effort to produce a robust, defensible, truth claim. What the Latin describes as an “easy” assertion, Hitchens can be read to imply as being lazy i.e. that gathering evidence and clear reason takes time and energy.

    As to this principle itself, I would have difficulty arguing that it is easy to produce a valid truth claim without at least some effort. Brandolini’s Law is an observation that it is easy to produce false or misleading information and difficult to refute the same. This is, again, just a distilled observation of a pattern, and the argument supporting it regresses to gathering as much bad information as possible, pointing at it, and saying:

    “All of that wasn’t checked and because we now have to unlearn these falsehoods, it takes that effort as well as the effort of learning the truth to improve our knowledge from this point.”