Some uplifting thoughts from Burden Of Dreams:
Sign up for the Mockingbird Newsletter
COMMENTS
41 responses to “Werner Herzog on Natural Theology”
Leave a Reply
Some uplifting thoughts from Burden Of Dreams:
William Wordsworth he ain't. Maybe he should just chill out a little and read "Daffodils" 😉
Seriously, though, this is a profound little clip, DZ. The powerful confession that "I love it against my better judgment." raises many, many questions for those who reject the idea that 'God is love' based on the very valid and honest observations made by Herzog. Monty Pythons' version of "All Things Bright and Beautiful" would go perfectly with this! I actually much prefer it to the hymn.
The powerful confession that "I love it against my better judgment." raises many, many questions for those who reject the idea that 'God is love' based on the very valid and honest observations made by Herzog.
I don't understand what you mean.
Who is rejecting the idea that God is love?
It seems that is the only thing people can agree on today!
It seems that people could argue that nature on its own gives no indication that "God is Love"—is that what you mean?
Yes. Even with no rational basis for love, we love. Even with nothing but chaos surrounding us, we reason that it is chaos, not order. The human recognition of chaos as distinct from order may be the most troubling mystery to those who reject any claim of "ordering." But "Natural theology" does tell us one thing: we and all "creation" are both the beautiful and the damned.
Here's how I interpret Michael's statement: Some people look around them and see mostly chaos, randomness, suffering, and "dog-eat-dog." As a result, they find it impossible (or difficult) to believe that there even IS a Creator, much less one who actually LOVES his creation. But here is Herzog saying YES, the jungle is chaotic and disordered and violent – even murderous – but I love it anyway. I love it DEEPLY. If a mere man is capable of such unconditional love for the creation, in all its crazy, terrible imperfection, how could anyone believe that the Almighty Creator is NOT capable of such love… and infinitely so? For me, the jungle here represents the 'fallen" world… or "nature groaning." And Herzog's love feels like a reflection of the unlimited love God has for his creation, which has gone astray, and with which He suffers and grieves…
I've probably completely misinterpreted you, Michael. But that's layman's my take, anyway!
Sorry, Michael. I posted before seeing your post. I don't think we're THAT far apart, though 🙂
Michael, I never knew you were such a poet:)
You seem to have particular interlocutors in mind but I'm not sure what they are arguing. As you know, I find the whole question of God hidden vs. revealed very interesting, so forgive me if I seem to be somewhat contrarian:)
You said:
But "Natural theology" does tell us one thing: we and all "creation" are both the beautiful and the damned
I would agree, but "beautiful and the damned," is different than loved from beyond.
Does Natural Theology say anything about God's love? His power, majesty, awe, mystery, etc. . sure. But those are things–his "eternal power and divine nature"(Rm 1:20)– that have been revealed about God apart from his love.
Margaret, We are on basically the same page, I think.
Jady, I agree with you on the limits of natural theology. This is why Jesus, not a daffodil, is "the perfect image of the invisible God."
Germany needs a sense of humor. In a major fashion.
I love Werner Herzog. Just watch his documentary on the researchers in Antarctica and his 1979 remake of Nosferatu. Talented guy.
Nosferatu is an absolutely beautiful and fluid movie with very dark and sinister undertones. I wonder if the same idea is at work here.
I actually agree with Herzog on this. Watching a deep sea documentary, I found myself getting uneasy and it was because of how terrificly violent it was.
I think Peggy Noonan (a Roman Catholic, ironically) wrote that when a human life ends, there is a ripple on the surface of the water and then the surface looks as if that human life had never existed to begin with.
Chilling. The natural world is truly indifferent (at best) and hostile (at worst) to the human plight.
"Chilling. The natural world is truly indifferent (at best) and hostile (at worst) to the human plight."
Such a great comment, David. And so true. Which is why I'm continually perplexed that so many people I know literally seem to "worship" the natural world, attributing to it all sorts of warm, fuzzy qualities and a moral sensibility it simply doesn't possess.
I blame Walt Disney for a lot of "goofy" popular romanticism about the natural world 🙂
One of the reasons Darwinism was perceived as such a threat when _Origin of Species_ was published was because so much of Christianity at the time had been wedded to the idea of beauty, order, and benevolence in the natural world. I always get nervous when people talk about natural beauty as evidence of God's goodness. It may indicate something about God's character, but it's much more complex (and even dark) than simple "goodness." (By which we usually mean whatever we think goodness is, i.e., good for me.)
Yeah, you hear that a lot in the church today, Aaron. There are even preachers who say it from the pulpit. Amazing.
That's certainly not what I was thinking when I was lost in the woods in Montana once. Or when I was caught in a riptide in the Gulf.
But the fact that you love both of those places, David, says something as well 🙂
The other day, my husband, while watching news overage about the oil spill, remarked that "The earth is our mother. If we are good to her, she will be good to us. It's as simple as that." And I thought REALLY? Do you really believe "it's as simple as that"? I didn't SAY it, but I thought it. My husband is an agnostic, as was I when we married. My conversion was almost four years ago, and he has finally come through the "pure hostility and disappointment" phase and has now entered the "polite curiosity" stage. A big improvement. I try not to push it 🙂
Um, that's news COVERAGE, not overage.
Michael,
I'm glad that I'm with you regarding the limits of Natural Theology, but I'm still not sure what you meant by the many, many questions for those who reject the idea that 'God is love". . .
What questions? If people deny that God is love, maybe they are just looking at Tennyson's nature "red in tooth and claw"?
I'm missing something, I'm sure:)
AZ… interesting observation about the theology of people around the time of Darwin. You almost certainly right. There were, however, notable exceptions to this chorus about the benevolence of Mother Nature — Hobbes (who described the life of a man in a state of Nature as "nasty, brutish and short"), Tennyson (nature is "red in tooth and claw"), William Blake ("Tyger, tyger, burning bright…"), and so on.
But you are right about the general tenor of the time, for sure.
Jady, It seems to me that the agonizing thing about the natural world is that we find it to be both beautiful and terrible. If it were just terrible, it would not be so terrible as it is. The fact that Herzog loves this terrible, murderous, beautiful chaos is something he cannot explain. Why, "against his better judgment" does he love the natural world that can seem totally indifferent and even cruel? This makes no sense to him within the context of his own understanding of the world, as he admits. This raises, for me anyway, the question of from whence comes this sense of love for nature, even in its cruel, and I would say, deformed, state? If God is somehow love, if God somehow created and somehow still loves all things, if we are somehow made in his image, however fractured, then this sense of tragic "love among the ruins" which Herzog has for the natural world is a faint hint at who we are and who God is. The whole creation "groans for its redemption…" and we share that groaning. Moltmann, with all his obvious "issues", is so powerfully right in his vision of the ultimate redemption of the natural world, for which even the most convinced evolutionary atheist secretly and lovingly longs.
And, while the Herzog piece is interesting regarding natural theology, it is also interesting regarding the doctrine of the Law "written on our hearts".
Herzog (and I'm not sure of his religious beliefs) actually laments the violence of nature. It would seem that someone who laments the violence of what seems to be natural is appealing to something that transcends creation.
Michael—now I see:) I like it–thanks for clarifying (for me, at least:)
For me, it is deep space that is terrifying. I mean, just the idea of a black hole…those immeasurable tidal forces…I simply do not want to be on the wrong side of a Being who could create such things.
Ticks scare me more than black holes, due to the proximity issue 🙂
Dylan… you are in good company. Pascal wrote: "The silence of these infinite spaces terrifies me."
Snakes. I almost stepped on Mr. No Shoulders a few days ago in the Congaree Swamp.
I didn't like the end of his "Nosferatu"/
Paul, it was pretty rough. The 1922 ending was much more hopeful (even if Max Schrek was a real vampire). I just wonder if Herzog's ending sort of coincided with the terror of nature that those old superstitions represented.
The 1979 ending, I believe, was atheistic. Even so, it was a really elegant movie (although in a very dark way).
Agreed, O Ordained Browder!
The 1922 original is touching, and 'the way it is' in real love.
The re-made ending, the one we both regret, had a sort of "Carrie"-like feel, as if the filmmakers were mischievously wanting to defeat the audience.
Murnau was great.
Nice Lutheran wedding-sequence in "Sunrise", too.
Michael, let's agree on this: a black hole filled with ticks–perhaps snakes too, Browder–is an infinitely terrifying prospect. Don't mess with Texas.
potter, Don't throw me in THAT hole!
I like good snakes (those that take care of rodents etc and are not poisonous– King, Corn, Black, etc.) but I hate bad snakes (copperhead, rattlers, other vipers). Do you know the difference between a water mocassin and cottonmouth? There is none– same snake different name. A really bad snake–known to be aggressive. What makes them so dangerous is that they are as deadly as a Diamonback Rattler, but they don't send out a warning sound if you get too close. The saying is "Don't be afraid of snakes, but do be aware of them." By the way, something like 95% of snakebites involve teenage boys, possibly under the influence, intentionally messing with Mr. No Shoulders. Play with fire/snakes and you get burned/bit.
I like good snakes (those that take care of rodents etc and are not poisonous– King, Corn, Black, etc.) but I hate bad snakes (copperhead, rattlers, other vipers). Do you know the difference between a water mocassin and cottonmouth? There is none– same snake different name. A really bad snake–known to be aggressive. What makes them so dangerous is that they are as deadly as a Diamonback Rattler, but they don't send out a warning sound if you get too close. The saying is "Don't be afraid of snakes, but do be aware of them." By the way, something like 95% of snakebites involve teenage boys, possibly under the influence, intentionally messing with Mr. No Shoulders. Play with fire/snakes and you get burned/bit.
2009 Alabama Crimson Tide football:
"We messed with Texas."
Let me note for the record, Stampdawg, that this post now has over 35 comments and there has yet to be any mention of either Hitler or Nazis… ooops.
The Nazis had a pantheon of Norse gods that originally represented Norse terror of nature.
but in Norse mythology, don't the good gods lose in the end? doesn't seem very Nazi-esque…oh well, at least they were blonde.
Godwin's Law is unassailable and inescapable, like the Law of God. No exceptions (as we have just seen).
Actually, Hammer, you're totally right. C.S. Lewis (who once said of himself "I loved Baldur before I loved Christ") made exactly that point in one of his essays.
That is, it would be impossible to more colossally misunderstand the whole Norse mythology than the Nazis did. The whole point of the Nordic story is that the Good Guys lose. The whole emotional and existential arc is to be on the side of the gods even though they are a lost cause. The whole Nazi enterprise of Triumphalism and Might Makes Right and so on is completely alien to the spirit of the Norse gods, who had the right but NOT the might.