Horrid Red Things

Horrid Red Things

This is an article from God in the Dock called Horrid Red Things. This article discusses the conflict between observable science and the supernatural aspects of Christianity. My thoughts on this article are given in italics at the end of my summary.

Lewis addresses the thought that the conflict between science and religion is over. He claims that if this is true, it is only with the very learned. The conflict is very real for the common man. According to Lewis, the people see a fundamental difference between Christianity and the picture of the universe they get from current scientific knowledge. Lewis says that when people hear that God has a “son”, they picture a physical son. When that son “came down” to Earth from Heaven, he dropped down like a skydiver, when he later descended to Hell, he went somewhere beneath the surface of Earth and later He ascended into the sky and sat down in a fancy throne next to His Father. This implies, according to Lewis, a material, local heaven, a flat earth, and many other misconceptions. Basically we put spatial, material, physical elements to these words and it can cause confusion. Most Christians know we need to interpret scripture differently and put aside those differences, but that doesn’t cut it for most people. They assume we can allegorize and spiritualize these metaphors and it works, but if the authors of scripture had current knowledge of science, they would have written the stories differently. This is the argument which Lewis is now going to discuss.

Lewis says that there are two things Christians can do to convince this modern man that there is no issue here. First, they must make it clear that even after any explanations and interpretations, the scriptures will still be completely supernatural and miraculous. No matter what, we have to believe in a spirit world which can invade the physical observable universe. What Christians cannot do is imply that they have their myths for ignorant listeners, but when we encounter an educated person, we can explain everything away through science and logic such that no one would ever deny your claims. Lewis warns that there are theologians who do this and we need to disassociate with them at all costs! If Christianity can be boiled down such that it is explainable through our logic without “Christian” language, then we should abandon Christianity altogether. The miraculous supernatural element of Christianity is very real and is crucial to our beliefs.

The second thing Lewis says Christians can do is teach about the difference of thinking and imagining. While it is inaccurate to say that early Christians all believed in a flat Earth or a physical heaven somewhere in the sky, some did. In fact, some would not be able to separate their faith from this imagery in their minds. Lewis attempts to distinguish the core of belief from this imagery. He gives an example of a child told not to take too much aspirin or she could die. The child replied, “But why? If you squash them you don’t find any horrid red things inside them.” Lewis says that this child has associated poison with “horrid red things”. This is obviously wrong! Not all red things are poison and not all poison is red. However, this error does not affect her thinking. She still understands that an overdose of aspirin would kill you. If this child warned you that something in her house you were about to drink was poison, you would be dumb not to listen to her because she has an incorrect view of poison. Later in life, when she learns that poison does not have to be red, her view of poison will not change. She will still know that if you drink poison, you will die. Her imagery of poison drops away but the thought remains unaffected. Say a Christian believes that there is a physical heaven at a certain altitude in the sky with two physical chairs on which the Father and Son sit. When He learns that this is not how heaven works, the essentials of his beliefs will remain unchanged. He would still know that Christ, who was once crucified, is living and is now the supreme ruler of the universe. The imagery does not change that thought and belief in his mind. Lewis discusses whether the imagery is even necessary in the first place. He points out that we cannot use words to describe God that do not imply spatial imagery. God is outside of our spatial universe and thus Lewis says we cannot find words to describe Him more literally than what we already have.

Lewis concludes by saying that the difference between explaining and explaining away is simple. Anything that concerns the unincarnate God, operating outside of our senses and universe, must be taken with the imagery which we have, even if it is not totally true. He basically argues that the imagery may not be literal, but it does not matter or affect things. In fact, we have no choice but to accept the imagery given us in scripture. However, we cannot use this with miracles. Miracles occur within our observable universe. They are recorded and can be described literally. When it comes to miracles, you must either take it or leave it literally.

This article confused me a little bit. It is hard for me to grasp not taking the imagery in the Bible literally and I immediately put up some walls when reading this. In reality though, any language used to describe God or Heaven involves wrapping a concept that transcends our senses and the laws of our universe and fitting into the framework of language which forces it to be described using those laws and observations which we can explain. We are forced to explain and describe the creator through His creation. When I thought about this, I realized that this is an imperfect way to describe God. The imagery in the Bible is most likely not able to be literal because we are limited by our universe in describing God. However, the imagery is inspired by God and therefore, while the imagery might not be literal, it is the correct imagery to use. God chose the words of scripture and that is what we must go with until we are with Him in glory and can understand more fully.