Tag: literature

“The Willing Suspension of Disbelief”

It’s been nearly 45 years since I first heard this phrase, but it has resonated with me ever since.  Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote of it over 200 years ago, speaking of how readers interact with literature, especially when it contains fantastical or supernatural elements.  Our high school English teacher and drama coach, Mrs. Barr spoke of it not only in the context of literature but in the context of the theater.  In fact, in all art, the artist depends on at least some willing suspension of disbelief on the part of his/her audience. 

 In visual art, we must believe that a few strategic blobs of color, or carefully shaped pieces of marble or wood have captured something timeless and true about a single moment in time– that movement and emotion and life can be held immortal on a canvas or a statue or a tapestry.  We must suspend our disbelief that paint, or wood, marble or stone exists only as itself– in the artist’s capable hands, mere matter transcends its ordinary form to touch our very soul.   In music, we can hear, in the well-played notes of an instrument, the sounds of birds, the falling rain, the crashing of thunder, the marching of armies, or the buzzing of bees.  Music doesn’t just touch our ears, it can touch our souls. Shakespeare also alluded to this in a comical way: “Is it not strange that sheep’s guts should hale souls out of men’s bodies” (Much Ado About Nothing– Act II, Scene 3) We can listen to a symphony without being moved, but in the willing suspension of disbelief, we can be transformed and inspired by notes on a page and breath being blown into wood or brass or fingers or bows being drawn over “sheep’s guts”.

 In literature or in the movies, we must suspend our disbelief that mythical creatures, aliens, monsters, and talking animals live among us as a normal occurrence– for the duration of the story…Dragons must be vanquished, Fairy Godmothers must be allowed to help poor Cinderella to the ball, and The Raven must repeat his ominous line, “Nevermore.”  Frodo must hide from orcs and Nazgul in order to reach the Fires of Doom and destroy the One Ring. Charlotte must spin her wordy webs and Papa Bear must exclaim, “someone has been sitting in my chair.”  As children, we shed our disbelief readily and enter into the story, falling in love (or having nightmares about) imaginary characters. As adults we become cynical, and lose some of our ability to enter into imagination and other-wordly realms.

I was recently reminded of this concept of the willing suspension of disbelief in two different contexts– loss of Faith, and the deception of the internet– including “fact checking” and AI.  Very different experiences, but I think they both tie in.

First, in the loss of Faith.  I know so many people, family, friends, even strangers, who write passionately about their loss of Faith.  Oh, they don’t call it that.  They have other terms, other catchphrases– they talk about their “Deconversion” or their “Awakening”.  They are too smart, too savvy, too enlightened to give credence to Faith in Jesus, or in any “god” or divine being.  After all, they cannot see “Him” or “it”; they cannot prove His existence (they can’t prove His non-existence either, but that’s another story). Believing in God, they claim, is the same as believing in fairy tales.

And yet…Keats once posited, “Beauty is truth, truth beauty– That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know” (Ode on a Grecian Urn).  Earlier in his poem, he also says, “Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter;  therefore, ye soft pipes, play on; not to the sensual ear, but, more endear’d, pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone…”  There is an acknowledgement that we do not just exist in a physical plane, but in a world of metaphysical marvels– memory, hope, and yes, even “fairy tales”.

Of course, we know that there is no Cinderella– no “happily ever after” in this world.  Life is not a fairy tale story.  But our lives ARE stories– we have a beginning and an end.  We want to find a purpose, a reason for being who we are, where we are, and even when we are.  We search for our “true” identities.  We dream dreams and harbor hopes.  We battle evil forces– the demanding boss, the annoying neighbors, blizzards and tornadoes, cancer…And we believe very strongly in concepts of justice and injustice, fairness and unfairness, goodness and evil–metaphysical concepts.  We long to be understood, accepted, “seen,” and loved (ever after!).  And we must suspend our disbelief in the face of evil to search for the good.  We must suspend our disbelief in our own worth to make choices that preserve our health and develop our latent talents.  Indeed, we must believe and cherish what we do NOT see or have never experienced, or we will be crushed by our (often temporary) realities.  When cynicism and disbelief BECOME our belief system, we become the living dead.  Oh, we can continue doing “good” things without believing in God; we can espouse a code of “good living”, we can take care of our bodies and emotions within a framework of humanism and self-esteem.  But we will not experience the fullness of Truth, or Beauty, or majesty, that lives in Faith.

Loss of Faith represents, what I would call an “unwillingness” to suspend disbelief, or a tendency to cling to only that which can be experienced on a physical plane. But there is another danger– that of an “unwilling” suspension of disbelief–believing things that are deceptive, because they are presented as “truth.” This includes such things as “fake news” on the internet, “fact checkers” who tilt the truth and “throw shade” on inconvenient or uncomfortable truths, and AI-generated stories meant to “create” truth  where none exists.

I would like to say that I am immune to such things; that my knowledge and dependence on truth cannot be subjected to manipulation.  But that is not always true.  I see a touching story on Facebook about a young person who is missing– please spread the word– only to find out that the post is several months out of date.  I see a meme that accuses one political big-shot or a celebrity or even a corporation or business of being corrupt, unfair, evil, etc., and I am outraged– until I realize that the original post was generated by a person or group that is completely unknown to me.  I don’t know their true experience, or their motivation in spreading this information (or false information).  It MAY be true, it MAY be completely false, but it is most likely somewhere in between– not nearly as bad as portrayed, or as every bit as bad as other politicians, celebrities, or companies who aren’t mentioned in the meme or article.

Outrage— especially outrage that is deliberately and manipulatively generated– is the suspension of not just disbelief, but of discernment. We immediately judge.  We immediately feel our blood pressure rise, our cheeks flame, and our breathing accelerate.  We become passionately angry, but we also become instantly indignant and self-righteous.  I would never… I cannot tolerate… But what have we done on a smaller scale? Are we SO innocent? Do we have the authority to judge based on a single article or photo?

But it is not just outrage that can be deliberately and manipulatively generated.  AI and bad actors on the internet and other media sources can also manipulate our hopes, our disappointments, and our beliefs in what has happened and what is happening around us.  Stories appear online that sound authentic, narrated by well-modulated voices (many of which seem familiar), telling us that this event took place and changed someone’s life, or that this celebrity has finally “spilled the dirt” about beloved co-stars who died a couple of decades ago.  Others purport to give “wise words” from aging actors or writers or recently dead corporate gurus.  We suspend our disbelief, or our suspicions, because we trust the voice or the photoshopped picture.  We choose to believe the worst of people we already dislike.  We choose to believe only the best of people we like.  If a stranger came up to me on the street with a story like this, I would be suspicious.  Who are they? Why are they telling me this?  Why should I trust them?  But we suspend our disbelief if we see it in print with what looks like credible photos and when narrated by what we assume to be a credible voice.  If we bother to look at the source, even that seems credible– I may not have heard of this news service, but it has the word “news” in its heading…

We put our Faith in things seen– even if they are false, while we hold truth and beauty to be suspicious, because we have lost the ability to hope and trust in something beyond our own wisdom and personal perceptions.  

We need dreamers and artists and writers who see truth and beauty in the universal and metaphysical realities of faith and hope and majesty.  And we need people with the discernment to disbelieve what strangers claim to “show” and “tell” us with their clever manipulations.

Both Faith and “the willing suspension of disbelief” depend on the Will.  We have to make choices in what we are willing to believe and how far we are willing to search for the truth– both in what we can see, and in what we cannot.

0

The Chimp and the Typewriter

I’m really not sure at all how this post relates to prayer, but it is a subject that’s been stewing in my brain for awhile, so I thought I would “write out” my thoughts.

I have long been disgusted with a certain argument used by those who discount Creation (by a supreme God with intelligent design and purpose as put forth in Scripture). Their claim of a universe that is the result of a series of random accidents is compared to a chimpanzee with a typewriter. Supposedly, given enough time, there is a possibility that the chimp could “randomly” type a masterpiece– a Shakespearean play or the text of the New Testament.. It is a very tiny probability, but, the argument goes, enough of a probability to suggest that the universe came about in a similarly unexpectedly random way. The proponents of this argument always seem to leave their chimp typing away, convinced that their argument is unassailable– that they can drop the mic, walk off stage to the thunderous applause of their peers, and sit smugly back while creationists pick up their jaw from the floor and stammer in defeat. (To further explore how this analogy works, see https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/12/10/249726951/the-infinite-monkey-theorem-comes-to-life)

I’m flabbergasted that this argument still gets any credence. It is laughable in its illogical assumptions and disregard for the complexity and wonder of Creation. AND it refutes its own basic assumption– that of randomness. Let me break it down:

Photo by lil artsy on Pexels.com
  • First their example is NOT random at all. And, once true randomness is introduced, the idiocy of the argument is obvious. What if we replace the chimpanzee with any other random animal? A hedgehog. A butterfly. A hippopotamus. A fish. What is the probability of any of THEM typing a masterpiece? None. The theory hangs on the mathematical principle of probability theory, but probability rests, not on random unknowns, but on specific factors and specified outcomes, i.e. an agent (such as a chimpanzee) with the ability to use a specific type of tool (such as a keyboard) to produce a certain outcome (such as a specific phrase or work of literature).
  • The same thing applies if we replace the typewriter. Oh, modern arguments have replaced the typewriter with a computer keyboard– in fact computer models have even been tasked with trying to figure up the most likely probability percentage of this “random” event. But what if we take away the keyboard filled with letters, and give the chimp a crayon of a ball point pen. What chance then of the simian “creating” a work of fiction or a sacred book? As soon as it becomes apparent that the “probability” of such random factors producing a specific outcome is not just tiny, but non-existent, the analogy becomes ludicrous.
  • Finally, we don’t have random literature. Generally, we have “Hamlet.” But barring that, we have “random” works by Shakespeare, or Milton, or the King James Bible. The chimpanzee doesn’t have an Arabic keyboard. It never seems to type out classic works in Chinese literature (though it “could” in theory, I suppose). What we have is a very specific example of a single creative act that “might” statistically be “produced” (see the discussion on this below) given an infinite amount of time. And it is a visual image that our brains are tricked into thinking of as a “possible” outcome of random chance.
  • But it is not just the absence of true randomness, but the absence of reality that distresses me. The proponents of this argument not only want us to assume that the chimpanzee CAN type out a masterpiece, but that it WILL type out a masterpiece. On what theoretical plane is it logical to assume that the average (or even above-average) chimpanzee will spend any length of time pounding away at a keyboard to produce literature? To what purpose? Why should it? Or that the typewriter will never “jam” or run out of ribbon; or that a word processor will never experience a “glitch” or lose power, or have enough memory to store all the “failed” attempts. Will “auto correct” kick in? At what point does reality suggest that this “random” event is not only not probable, but not logical? As one wit suggested, “A million chimps at a million typewriters will never write Hamlet, but they will break the typewriters and fling their poop.”(I found this on the internet– I have no attribution for the “quote” as it was simply included with an image of a chimp at the typewriter.)
  • And how long will this take? You can’t realistically have a single, immortal chimpanzee in this scenario. You need infinite generations of chimps (supplied with typewriters) with nothing better to do than prove an illogical “random” theory. How many humans will it take to “witness” this process? How do they determine that the outcome has been reached successfully? And they all–chimps, machinery, witnesses– have to work toward this single goal; NOT of their own free will (and not “randomly”), but enslaved to a very human need to suggest what can only be theorized.
  • This brings me to another failing of the argument. One of the reasons we still use the word “theory” when speaking of Evolution or the “Big Bang” is that they can be theorized, but never demonstrated. No one can demonstrate how a universe can be formed out of nothing, because the universe and all its materials are already here. The most one could ever do is “re-create” or “simulate” what happened “In the beginning.” Similarly, the theoretical chimpanzee (or aardvark, or whatever) will never “create” Hamlet or the book of Matthew, or Paradise Lost. At most, it might create a reproduction–by “accident” rather than earnest intent–of an already existing masterpiece. This is not Creation. It is not even imitation, in the way that “West Side Story” re-creates “Romeo and Juliet” or a new translation of St. Matthew “modernizes” the King James Version of the same gospel. If a chimpanzee successfully photocopies a page of Shakespeare, we would never suggest that it was a literary “creation.”
  • And this brings me to my last baffling observation– that the Creation of the Universe would be compared to the creation of a single artistic product, and that Art and Literature would be dismissed as mere random “occurrences,” the likes of which any monkey could produce.
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The Apostle Paul warned of this kind of futile thinking in his letter to the Romans:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Romans 1:18-25 (NIV)

The world is filled with awesome and majestic reminders of God’s Power, His Character, His Faithfulness, His Wonder, and His Glory. God created the chimpanzee– and the kangaroo, the pineapple, the ostrich, the Milky Way, and YOU! And He created individuals with the creative capacity to invent typewriters, write sonnets, paint murals, and compose sonatas. He is a God of infinite variety, and amazing consistency. Many of those who study the origins of life on Earth– really study it, rather than trying to “figure it out,” have concluded that the factors necessary to “create” and sustain life– and more amazingly, to sustain the life we see around us in its beauty, power, and complexity–require such exquisite precision and timing that the “probability” of life on Earth (and the probability of “Earth” itself) without a supreme and purposeful Creator is beyond human calculation– and even beyond computer calculation!

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

So I guess this does bring me back to prayer– We don’t pray to a theoretical “god,” but the God of Creation, and Wonder, and Majesty! Let’s remember to Praise Him today!

0

The Genie in the Bottle

Among the stories of the Arabian Nights, there is the tale of Aladdin and his Magic Lamp. A young man named Aladdin finds himself in possession of a lamp which contains a powerful Genie (Djinn), a magical spirit who can grant fantastic wishes. Aladdin makes use of this magic to rise to power and win the hand of a beautiful sultan’s daughter, and defeat an evil sorcerer.

Photo by YEu015e on Pexels.com

In the Walt Disney movie version, Aladdin expresses his desire to be as powerful as the Genie. But the Genie sums up his situation in bleaker terms. “Phenomenal, cosmic powers–itty, bitty living space!” The Genie has great power, but no freedom. He can act only on behalf of whoever is “master” of the lamp; he has no power to act on his own or for his own benefit.

Photo by Marcelo Chagas on Pexels.com

There is a perception among some people in our culture that God is a myth; that He is merely a figment of the imagination, and that those who pray to Him are like those who would seek to command a Genie in a bottle. Just pray to God for the things you want, and “Hey, Presto!” God will provide. There are even some who preach such a gospel– that God wants whatever you want– God wants His followers to be happy, healthy, wealthy, and popular, and belief in Him will magically transform our circumstances.

Photo by HASSAN YAR JANJUA on Pexels.com

But God is no Genie in a bottle. Yes, He has phenomenal cosmic powers–of course, He does! He created the cosmos! But He also inhabits the cosmos, and He acts in His own sovereignty, according to His will. He does not respond to our command, nor is He confined by any limitations. The only “itty bitty living space” for God is when He takes up residence in the heart of a believer.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, 21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

Ephesians 3:20-21 (KJV)

God’s power isn’t limited to what we ask or think or imagine. It’s not even limited to something a little more than all that. God is able to do “exceeding abundantly above ALL that we ask or think” (emphasis added). And that power isn’t working “for” us or at our whim…it is working IN us! God does not primarily want to change our circumstances, remove our obstacles, or improve our situation. God wants to transform us from the inside!

In the story of Aladdin, there is no spiritual growth, no personal transformation. Aladdin defeats the evil sorcerer, and lives (we assume) happily ever after with great wealth and power. In the movie version, he experiences some personal growth, learning to “be himself.” And he uses his “last wish” selflessly to grant the Genie his “freedom.” The lamp becomes just an ordinary lamp, the genie just an ordinary spirit, and Aladdin just an ordinary guy. (except for being married to the sultan’s daughter). But God wants so much more for His children! He is not content with having us defeat a single enemy, and retire into the world of history, mythology or children’s fairy tales. He is not content with us learning a simple life lesson and making a few good decisions in this life.

Photo by Lukas on Pexels.com

God is sovereign over the entire Universe! He has eternal power and glory! And He lavishes His love on you and me– using that awesome power in and through us to transform and reconcile a broken world back to Him. He reveals His glory to us, through us, and for us throughout this life, and the life to come.

Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

Today, let’s ask God, not to give us what we can ask or think for ourselves, but to work His will in and around and through us. The results will be beyond our imagination! Exceeding abundantly above our imagination! We don’t possess a genie in a bottle. Instead we belong to the Lord of all creation. Phenomenal cosmic power– infinite and eternal living space!

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑