Summary Of The Language Of Religion Lewis

For this paper, I was chosen to write on the topic of, The Language of Religion. This is a short essay written by Lewis in the book, “Christian Reflections.” In this essay, Lewis opens by telling what he has been asked to talk about. His first statement is to say that in his opinion, there is no specific religious language. A statement in the first paragraph shows that Lewis believes the language of religion (distinguished from theology) is the same as ordinary language or even that of the language of poetry. However, it could also be between the two. In order to make this clearer, Lewis begins this essay by turning away from the topic and begin by talking purely on language. Lewis begins by giving three statements. (1) “It was very cold.”
(2) “There were 13 degrees of frost.” (3) “Ah, a bitter chill it was! The owl, for all his feathers was a-cold; the hare limped trembling through the frozen grass. And silent was the flock in Wooly fold: Numb’d were the Beadsman’s fingers.” He describes the first as being Ordinary language, the second as Scientific language, and the third as Poetic language. He states that Scientific and Poetic are two artificial perfections of Ordinary and because they depend on skills this makes them artificial. Ordinary can lean towards either Poetic or Scientific, which depends on how you phrase your words. For example, Lewis demonstrates for ‘very cold’ you could substitute ‘freezing hard’ and, for ‘freezing hard’, ‘freezing harder than last night’. This he says would be getting closer to Scientific language. Lewis doesn’t just show you how it could learn towards Scientific but also Poetic as well. By saying ‘bitterly cold’ you would be getting nearer to Poetic. Lewis then gives a more in depth look into the superiority of the Scientific description. If the cold night is tested then the test ends all disputes; if the statement survives the test than you can draw certain and various conclusions. However, this doesn’t give us the quality or what we should be feeling if we were to enter into the cold night. Ordinary language, even though ordinary, would give you a clearer picture of what you could possibly be feeling in a cold night. For example, ‘your ear will ache’, ‘you’ll lose the feeling in your fingers, etc… can be used to show how you most likely would be feeling. He then turns to the most important and the most troublesome; Poetic language.
For Lewis, Poetic language doesn’t consist of discharging or arousing more emotion; it could but it doesn’t really matter. For this language, it is more about the invitation of senses. From here pages 4 and 5 of the manuscript are missing which makes it hard to know what he talks about on page 6. However, I can pick up that Lewis seems to think there is a difference between understanding another person’s fear by expressing it well and being actually infected by his fear. However, the really important point he wants us to come away with is even if emotions are aroused, emotions may not be is sole or chief function; dealing with Poetic language. The best way of describing something is by getting what reactions are provoked in us. This quote by Lewis explains it best, “To say that things were blue, or heard, or cool, or foul smelling, or noisy, is to tell how they affected our senses. To say that someone is a bore, or a decent chap, or revolting is to tell how he affected our emotions.” Poetic language should inform us about the object; the object which aroused the
emotion. The last point Lewis makes about Poetic language is the fact that sometimes it can express an experience that the poet himself imagined. This Lewis says is the, “most remarkable of the powers of Poetic language.” It can convey the quality of an experience that we have not had. We can use our experience and the factors in them to point to something outside our experience. He ends the topic of Poetic language by stating, “…such language is by no means merely an expression, nor a stimulant, of emotion, by a real medium of information.” This information can be true or false. Lewis finally addresses the language of religion.
For him this language is not a special language, but rather something that ranges between the Ordinary and the Poetical. It begins by being Ordinary and from there can either go into Theological or Poetical language. “I believe in God” is an Ordinary statement. However, when asked what we mean by “God” we can move in either two directions. The first would response could be either Theological by saying, “I believe in incorporeal (having no physical body or form) entity…” This can also be taken in the Poetic direction. Instead of answering ‘incorporeal entity’ to the question, you could possibly say ‘God is love’ or ‘the Father of lights’ and so
on. In conclusion, I would like to end by quoting Lewis. “If I have made myself at all clear (but I probably have not) you see what, for me, it adds up to. The very essence of our life as conscious beings, all day and every day, consists of something which cannot be communicated expect by hints, similes, metaphors, and the use of those emotions (themselves not very important) which are pointers to it.” Lewis states at the end he is aware of his doubts about the subject and says all is tentative.