As I think about Miss Brill, I pity her more and more. I also wonder how many people we meet in our lives feel the same way. Among non-Christians, I imagine the feeling of alienation or isolation can be very strong at times.
Another story that deals with the theme of alienation is Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis. This story is less wistful than Miss Brill, but far more horrifying. Like Miss Brill, it's incredibly sad. Christians never have to feel alone, but existentialists and naturalists are utterly alone. They're just pointless specks in an infinite universe, and the only meaning in their lives is what they can create themselves. It's tragic.
In How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie makes the point that people want to feel important. The way to win friends and influence people is to show others that you think they are important - not by flattery, but by honest interest and attention. That's a big part of evangelism, too - showing that you care. The minute evangelism becomes a way to flaunt our intellectual or emotional superiority, it also becomes unspeakably cruel (in the words of Francis Schaeffer) and dead, as well.
…Just a couple thoughts.
13 comments:
KK:
In "How to Win Friends..." Carnegie also says that you should never tell anyone that the or she is wrong. Granted, this should be done sparingly and graciously, but consider Jesus many correcting comments, such as "You are very wrong!" The very idea of repentance (see Matthew 4:17) requires we show that we are all in the wrong before God and must accept Jesus Christ on his terms.
Best,
Doug Groothuis
Absolutely, Mr. Groothius. I think Karen's point was that, yes, we do need to criticize (folks are important enough to know the truth) but we need to have the right attitude in so doing. The point of criticism needs to be not that we are important for we understand much, but that others are important and it's a shame they understand little.
I had to read this story in my community college english class fall '04.
Here's what I wrote/said about it then...
(1) Our own perceptions of ourselves can and often do differ from those of other people.
(2) We may view ourselves in a glorified state but it's only when someone speaks the truth that we come to our senses - and that is painful.
(3) Things change and when we refuse to accept change, continue to live in that condition, etc., we are forced to make a painful transition to the new status quo.
__________
The main point of the teacher's assignment where those notes came from was instinct response. When we read a story, what is the first thing that comes to mind, etc.
Good posts of Miss Brill. :)
Dr. Groothius,
That's very true. When defending Christianity, striking the balance between humility and boldness is difficult, at least in my limited experience. "In the world and not of it..."
Christians never have to feel alone, but existentialists and naturalists are utterly alone.
Because we don't believe in a Sky Dad, we no longer have family, friends, country, loved ones...etc.?
They're just pointless specks in an infinite universe, and the only meaning in their lives is what they can create themselves. It's tragic.
Tragic, indeed, that you are so blind. Your "meaning" that you somehow see as "created for you [or at least extraneous to you]" is something you choose to believe. It is not forced on you. Not infused into you. It is a choice you make to see the world and universe as a created product, and your own life as one, and that creation itself implies "meaning".
Regardless of the veracity of your faith, you choose to give this meaning to yourself by believing it.
You admit as much by saying that people of different philosophical persuasions not only think that they are utterly alone...but "are utterly alone", which of course implies that the meaning is a function of your worldview, which, I suspect you'll admit, is something we all decide/create for ourselves". [even if we just regurgitate that which was spoon-fed to us from childbirth, it is a function of our choice]
What's truly tragic is that you have to unfairly equivocate your worldview with "true meaning" and my worldview with "no meaning" and being "utterly alone".
It's a defense mechanism to reinforce the "rightness" of your own position, I'm sure. Personally, I think all people decide the value of their own lives with every day and decision they make. Call me a Humanist, because I am one. Call me a secular godless moderate, because I am one of those as well. But call me utterly alone? You'll have to notify my lovely and wonderful wife, and my family and friends. Tell me that my "meaning" is but "speck" [whereas yours is a mote, apparently], and that my life is "pointless"? You are truly blind, lost, and tragically insecure.
I don't try to come in and assess the value of your life, based on your worldview, it's quite liberating. You ought to try it some time.
It's ironic (perhaps purposely so?) that to show me why I am not justified in describing non-Christians as lost and without meaning you imply the same thing about me (a Christian) by writing, "You are truly blind, lost, and tragically insecure." You're using the same methods I used to discredit my methods, so to speak.
It seems to me that you just did "come in and try to assess the value of my life" by implying I'm narrow-minded and bigoted. That's inconsistency. If by calling me blind and lost you did not mean to assess the value of my life, then I'm left to assume that there's nothing wrong with my approach and that your anger at my post is unfounded. Either way, you’re inconsistent.
See, according to my worldview, all men know God's law, but most suppress their knowledge (Romans 1). Also, in my worldview all things find their meaning in God alone (Colossians 1). Denying God is foolishness, and only by accepting him and his truth is understanding possible (Proverbs 1 and 1 Corinthians 1-2). I am also justified in making truth claims about other worldviews (2 Timothy 2).
I don’t believe because I have arbitrarily chosen to, but because the existence of my God is a philosophical necessity (and because he has regenerated my heart). The Christian worldview is the only one which can answer the important questions without inconsistency. It’s the only one that does not end in contradiction. (I know you disagree with this…I’m planning to defend this thoroughly, but not for a couple weeks.)
You, however, “think all people decide the value of their own lives with every day and decision they make.” Value and meaning are completely subjective in your worldview, which means you’ve no standard by which to judge me, yet you still do. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but doesn’t this imply you believe value and meaning are more than just personal decisions? Yet, you can’t justify that belief. That is why I said non-Christians worldviews are meaningless – they are inconsistent and can’t justify the claims they make.
Mr. Morgan,
I deleted your last comment because it was an angry and offensive tirade. Discussing this is fine, and I'm more than happy to do so, but only if we can be respectful to one another.
As I noted in my last comment, I'm planning to set forth a more complete philosophical statement of Christian presuppositionalism. Since my blog is geared toward Christian readers, I don't feel the need to re-cover familiar ground in my posts. The post on which you've commented was not meant to be a detailed defense of Christianity, nor a comprehensive analysis of atheism. You're calling me narrow-minded based on things I have written for people who believe like I do; correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you've assumed I can't defend my worldview without actually seeing my defense. (One is coming...)
In the mean time, I'll just respond quickly to two things you've said.
First, it seems to me you're eager to deride people who hold presuppositions and are not ashamed to reason on the basis of them. (If I misinterpreted you, I apologize.) But, don't you have presuppositions as well? I'm assuming you believe other people have minds, but can you prove it?
Second, answering the deductive problem of evil is not difficult. All the Christian must do is add a statement to the ones you've presented (regarding divine omnipotence and omni-benevolence) that removes the implied contradiction you mentioned. That statement would be that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. You may not like that answer, but it does remove the supposed contradiction. (I don’t have time to go into the inductive form of the argument.)
I’m leaving Saturday for 9-10 days, so I will be unable to respond to any additional comments you may make. However, I am working on an essay/post that will address many of the issues you’ve raised.
It doesn't surprise me that you deleted the comment. There was very little anger in the post, and it certainly wasn't a tirade. It was, instead, a clear and thorough debunking of you points.
First, it seems to me you're eager to deride people who hold presuppositions and are not ashamed to reason on the basis of them.
You are quite incorrect:
Everyone has axioms, Karen, whether they admit them or not. But, my axioms are "existence exists, consciousness exists, matter exists, i can trust my senses" and just a couple of peripherals. Quite different axioms than "the Bible [name version/autograph here] is inerrant" and "God exists".
Second, answering the deductive problem of evil is not difficult
The refutation of your "answer" is that any powerful God could accomplish God's means and purposes without needing to employ evil, whether there is a "morally sufficient cause" or not. Think here of a choice between two routes to the same destination. You're saying God's choice of either path (evil or no evil) is justified morally (which is self-refuting -- if it is "evil" then it isn't morally justifiable, but I digress). Now, if God can choose equally, since God is all-powerful, between a route which includes evil (eg the decision to create angels that would fall, a devil that would tell the first lie [first sin? funny you folks never address that issue--that the universe itself must've been "fallen" before the "fall of man" for the devil to lie in the Garden], and a number of other evil choices) and a route which does not, then an all good GOd would choose the path with no evil.
Don't bother replying. You're not responsible for it. I've read the best and brightest on the problem of evil (esp Swinburne) and they all admit in the end that it is the bedrock of atheism [most powerful argument against god(s)]. You're a high schooler, thus there is really no need to feel the burden of answering an age-old philosophical problem.
You obviously don't want to engage openly, which you showed with your deletion of my last comment. YOu will probably delete this one as well. The question I have for is this: does your deletion of the comments reinforce that you are narrow-minded, or refute it?
I go to Christian blogs and read their material. How much time do you spend reading the real arguments of atheists, rather than the strawmen/scarecrow representations of them spoon-fed to you by apologists? Do you really want to know truth, or do you want to hold premisses [presuppositions] which can be demonstrated as illogical [in that their conclusions refute themselves] despite your assertions that you want to know the truth?
I'm done here. Have a nice life. You'll be in college soon, and exposed to a world of ideas. Perhaps your arrogance will be cured in time. Perhaps not. A smart fellow once said:
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Hi, I just wanted to say that although I share Karen's religious beliefs, I agree with everything that Daniel has been posting. Amen!
haha...anyways, I'd add more to the conversation but I don't have an ease with words as Daniel seems to have. You are very thoughtful and smart! So, instead, I'll just continue reading your posts.
Btw, I was originally here searching for information on Miss Brill...and the theme alienation...for a class assignment. e-mail theturning2@msn.com
Laterz!
Mimi
PS:I'd like to read the deleted comment.lol. to see how "bad" it was.
XOXO
Mimi
Wow, you really have a nice blog here. I'll be back to visit again.
For the most funny videos on the web please visit my blog!
Happy double oooh seven to you, and all your visitors.
I agree with Karen's responses; very thought out and clear. Her whole tone is also a lot less judgmental and full of rage than some other people on here, which is icing on the cake.
Keep doing what you're doing, Karen! May God bless you even more.
Post a Comment