To understand this a little further we’ve got to go back to Plato. Yes, him. (In one way or another, everything philosophical goes back to him it seems.) I’ll keep it real brief, one-sentence brief. Plato taught that there are two planes of existence; in the one exists the abstract ideas of which the other holds concrete instances.

Lewis, in this way, sees myth as a “transposition” of an idea in the one plane to an instance in another. In other words, a myth is a concrete expression of an idea (in the Platonic sense). It is more real because the idea flows to the one experiencing the myth as reality without the need for an historical occurrence. In this way truth is communicated not as an abstract idea, but as concrete reality (in the experience of a myth).

So, that a myth is true is not dependent upon any historical occurrence; and at the same time it does not exclude the possibility of historical occurrence. Lewis is attempting to disconnect myth from historical fact, while at the same time connect myth with truth.

So What?

Again it boils down to this question. Why does this matter? Well, you may have begun to quickly perceive the connection that is here with regards to the Bible. Religious writings are always connected in one way or another to some notion of myth. And truth-seekers often consult various religious writings. Lewis’s notion of myth has implications for our understanding of the Bible. My next post will explore some of those implications.

This post is part of a series of posts on C.S. Lewis and his idea of Myth

• Part One – C.S. Lewis and Myth
• Part Two – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Historical Fact
• Part Three – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Scripture
• Part Four – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Truth
• Part Five – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Christ

Books I Directly Used (they go into more depth):

• In reading his work it’s important to have his understanding in mind.
• The use of “myth” has been used widely in discussions of theology and scriptures
• It has implications for our understanding of fact, truth, and even Christ.

Since we’re talking about C.S. Lewis’s idea, it should be clear that it is not what you would find in a dictionary under the word “myth” (although since he used that term it bears relation).  Lewis himself considered coining a new term for what he was suggesting, but felt that it would be better to use the term myth in a different sense.

So what does it mean?

We find some help in understanding what Lewis means from J.R.R. Tolkien.  In a discussion on the term, he suggested to Lewis that as speech is to objects, myth is to truth.  For instance, the word “tree” is not itself a tree, but rather something we use to refer to a tree.  Similarly, myth is something we use to refer to truth.  Lewis later suggested in his article, “Myth become Fact” that myths allow us to concretely experience that which is only otherwise known as an abstraction.  So, a great myth gives concrete expression to a truth that is an abstract concept.  But what comes to you in experiencing a great myth is not truth, but reality (because truth is about something of which is reality).

Myth is a story that allows one to experience as concrete reality that which when examined is only an abstraction.

Looking Forward

This idea is something that needs to be chewed on like a good meal – long, slowly, and carefully.  In the future, I’ll post some of my thoughts on how this connects with things such as Historical Fact, Scripture, Truth (the absolute kind), and Christ.

This post is part of a series of posts on C.S. Lewis and his idea of Myth

• Part One – C.S. Lewis and Myth
• Part Two – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Historical Fact
• Part Three – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Scripture
• Part Four – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Truth
• Part Five – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Christ

Books I Directly Used (they go into more depth):

Enough said.

Second, Christians should always remember that the truthfulness and authority of the Bible are not based upon any authority external to the Bible itself. There is no external evidence required to “prove” the Bible’s truthfulness. It stands on its own claim to be the Word of God. Archaeology may sell magazines and make for interesting reading, but it cannot prove nor disprove the Bible.
www.albertmohler.com

for the first two sentences I think to myself, well yeah, of course something’s truthfulness is not based on anything external. But when he says,

It stands on its own claim to be the Word of God

I think he’s got truth and argument mixed up (not that I believe he did this intentionally, perhaps it was an over-site). Just as something’s truth is not based on external arguments, neither is its truth based on internal arguments (i.e. in this case, it’s own claims). It’s truth or falsity simply is. Arguments are not the same as truth nor are they the basis for something’s truth, but that doesn’t mean arguments aren’t useful. On the contrary they are extremely useful because arguments persuade someone of the something’s truth.

So while the truth that the Bible is the Word of God is not dependent on external claims, neither is it dependent on its own internal claims. But we are persuaded of the truth of this claim both by external and internal arguments. I tend to think that to an outsider an internal claim of truth is circular, which is to say that it is valid (logically) but not persuasive. This leaves external claims (valid ones that is) for persuasion.

How the specific claim that the Bible is the Word of God connects with external arguments for or against it’s truth (i.e. from science, history, archaeology, etc) is an import topic, but one for a different post.

Explaining Emergent Churches – Inner Compass from Calvin College on Vimeo.

The Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg argues that torture is never acceptable, citing the former Israeli Supreme Court justice Aharon Barak. She stated that she is persuaded by the argument that to torture is to give our enemies the victory by becoming like them. The New York Times article discusses her reasons for allowing foreign courts affect her reasoning in decision-making. Should the United States allow foreign court decisions to have an impact on its own decisions. How one answers this question is most likely determined by their system of ethics.

Is there a right answer to the question we have here raised? A ethical relativist would argue that each society determines whether or not it is right to torture for the greater good. If this is true, then what basis does judge Ginsburg have for listening to an Israeli court? If each society determines its ethics, then Ginsburg is completely out of line in listening to someone outside the United States. That leaves Ginsburg with only her own society to determine what is right or wrong. But to what society does Ginsburg belong? The United States? Washington D.C.? The legal system? The Supreme Court bench? If we were to poll those who watch 24 (society?) what answer would we get? What if we asked the former society of those at Guantanamo Bay? My guess is we would get different answers… which constitutes the society in which Ginsburg makes her decision? Further, what basis is there for anyone to reform our notion of torture if reformation is necessary? In other words, if what we are currently doing is wrong, how would we ever know?

Should Ginsburg listen to others? She argues that if we want to be listened to ourselves, then we must first start to listen to others. She is correct here, but if each society decides for themselves what is right or wrong, then why do we want to be listened to? Why do we think we are right and worthy of being considered by other societies?

I suggest that maybe there is some larger notion of right and wrong that transcends (did I use that word?) all societal beliefs. Maybe we can make an absolute claim about torturing. I would not want to live in a world where torture can be considered ethically right for the greater good when it is considered the greater good to eliminate my particular race, color, or creed, do you?

First, my experience has been that just because something has already been said, doesn’t mean that the people reading (or listening) haven’t heard it before. Second, it seems that just because something has been said, doesn’t mean that it has been understood. So, sometimes we need to say it again, in a different sounding way, so that the reader (or listener) can understand. Further, it seems that just because something has been said, doesn’t mean that it was correct. True, if everything has already been said then the truth has already been spoken to correct what was wrongly spoken. However, that doesn’t mean that the people listening have heard what is correct. In fact, many readers (or listeners) may be subscribing to a incorrect idea simply because they have not heard (point 1) or have not understood (point 2) what the truth is. So it seems that writing (and speaking) is necessary, even if the content has been said before.

Augustine seemed to argue that indeed there was such a common ground. This common ground is our shared experience of frustration with the world. Things ought not to be as they are. We cannot put our finger directly on it, but we know there is something missing. This is summed up with his famous quote, (speaking to God) “You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”

Karl Barth, similarly ,points to conscience as that shared experience among all men which brings us to knowledge of the righteousness of God. He argues in the opening of his work The Word of God and The Word of Man that such knowledge cannot come through our reasoning alone, nor can it come by communication from one man to another, but instead it is found seated in the depths of man’s conscience. All men have the experience of conscience, thus it appears (at face value at least) that this experience is common among men and able to give us knowledge of God.

Yet Ludwig Feuerbach’s critique of such an idea of shared experience challenges well this notion. Is this idea of conscience, or frustration and longing for fulfillment simply human awareness of itself and nothing more? Has anyone really spoken about God, or was it simply a projection of our own thoughts and fears?

So does shared experience lead to any common ground upon which we can find knowledge of God? Is this the right starting point for knowledge of God, the wrong starting point, do we need a starting point or can we obtain a starting point? What do you think?