Prof Porter on Religion in Literature.

CL201, April 3rd, 2008

Spring is late and Easter came early, now lingering in the current theme of our colloquium. Prof. Abraham made announcements about the impending climax of the semester for us. In preparation, we are to read the introduction to "Creationists" and its first essay, "Genesis", and Professor Porter will be speaking on Religion in Literature today.

Purely by chance the stage had been set up for a play, presumably for an unrelated performance scheduled for later. On one side was a scene of a green garden, evoking Eden in the context of the current topic, and on the other side was a scene bathed in a fiery light, of a path leading out of a glade, fitting in with the theme of expulsion from paradise into a hellish world. Complementing the picture a headstone inscribed "R.I.P. Mom" stood in front of the garden scene, and a well-head sat toward center stage. Without reaching too far we can assign meanings: The well is symbolic of deep thought, imagination and contemplation. Its water sustains the tree whose fruit is the knowledge of good and evil. The tombstone might signify the passage of Matriarchal society with the rise of a Patriarchal Judeo-Christian tradition.

Prof. Porter prepared us for E.L.D.'s announced theme of Religion in Literature but was careful not to anticipate the particular subject of next week's lecture too closely. Instead we were given a look at the particular problem of Evil in religion, focusing on evil in Nature, stopping short of Man's inhumanity to Man. Why should we suffer from natural causes like storms, earthquakes, diseases and old age, if there is an all-powerful, all-loving God?. It is a sticking point in the medieval writings on the proofs of existence of God, by writers such as Anselm, Aquinas and Augustine. We were then presented with the distilled essences of a number of classic works, occupying distinct positions in a grand debate.

Thus Milton's "Paradise Lost" justifies the ways of God to Man and the world is hellish to be a just punishment for Man's transgressions. From Leibnitz, Shaftsbury and Pope we pluck, "Good and Evil in perfect proportions", "All nature is but Art", and, "Whatever is, is right". Prof Porter followed up his descriptions with the appropriate questions of principles of justice and logical consistency raised by the conservative orthodox opinion.

In contrast, the modern examples confront the contradictions and seek meaning within the ambiguities as it applies to our current existence. The story of Job is thematic in Archibald Macleish's play, "J.B.", where the contemporary protagonist struggles with his sufferings and feelings about enjoying the bounty of life. Eventually the play rejects the idea of Evil being due punishment. Instead, the debate between characters representing archetypes of God and Satan sees suffering as a way to realization. This viewpoint also raises troubling questions on the nature of faith and logical consistency.

Voltaire's "Candide" is a secular humanist confrontation of the conservative orthodoxy. Candide, the son of a nobleman, is kicked out of the castle by his father for kissing one of the maids, a parallel to the story of Adam and Eve. Candide then undergoes various experiences with war and suffering, and he questions the given faith in discussions with the character Pangloss, his tutor who takes the orthodox line, "All is for the best". Candide's eventual rejection of Pangloss is suggested by the caricature contained in the name of Pangloss: "Pan" means "all" and "gloss" means "to shine up", so it implies that the orthodoxy is apologist. Candide's conclusion is a retreat to a dissociation from discourse, limiting oneself to ones own world.

Voltaire is a pen name, adopted because the Church defended its orthodoxy by persecuting any challenge to it, and Voltaire also took care to cover his trail by publishing from countries other than his native France. Even so, he had to be circumspect, and I think Candide's conclusion understates Voltaire's true opinion, whatever it may have been. Surely we can be bolder, free to choose between Believer, Doubter, Agnostic and Atheist.

Someone said that God did not create Man, it was the other way around! Reading the intro to "Creationists" we find the suggestion supported: Writing is creation and Writers are engaged with, as well as being estranged from, their texts beyond the material construction of "revelatory structures of fact". I just need to quibble with the last sentence of the intro, "All creationists are mortal": Not as long as there is a Reader, an aspect that is not touched on in the intro, but does abut the language issue that begins the essay "Genesis".

From the chapter on Genesis, God's words begin in the stories told by humans about the human condition, emerging from barbarism into an articulated civilization. Writers continue that tradition, and the character of God that develops in the scriptures is so much like Man it seems persuasive that they are, all three now, Writer, God and Man, one and the same, just as the Creationist is indistinguishable from the Creation and its Re-creation, the writer from the text and the reading of it.