Friday, September 9, 2011
Dillard Chapters 5 and 6
At first when I read Dillard's work, I was really confused about what she was trying to say. She seems to jump around to seemingly random topics. However, as I read more I started to see patterns in her work. What patterns do you see? I found it helpful to read her book in sections instead of page by page. For example, I read "Birth" in chapters 5 and 6, then "Sand", and so on. It makes it easier to see patterns this way. One thing I noticed was that as the book goes on, Dillard seems to come to terms with the fact that she can doubt God but still believe in him. She writes, "Doubt and dedication often go hand and hand." Dillard seems to come to the conclusion that although she has all these questions, such as why evil exists, she won't ever be able to answer them, and that's okay. It does not mean that she has lost faith in religion. Do you guys have the same opinion? Is it possible to believe in something while still having significant doubts about it? Also, do you think Dillard's writing style helps the reader understand her doubts, or is it just confusing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
These are strangely some of the most profoundly spiritual excerpts I have ever read. I don't know if that's what Dillard intended, but that was the affect it had on me. I was just stunned with the breadth and the depth of it. I'm not a previous fan of Dillard's work – but I have to admit she writes of the hard things along with the beautiful, mystical feeling.
ReplyDeleteSo Dillard really explores the problem of evil in this part of the text. Again, as a whole she discusses such horrors as birth defects, torture, and mass murders, and she cries out to God, "What's with all the bird-headed dwarfs!" She's asking how does God allow such atrocities. Is there a God if this type of world exists? Why are we here? How is it we come into this world "trailing clouds of glory" as newborns, and then are churned under the earth to join the 80 billion or so dead before us?
Dillard then takes a series of disparate subjects and juxtaposes them throughout the book with little in the way of transition. Dillard dives right into exploring "things as they are" by guiding us through the standard manual of human birth defects--and just as you get involved with one particular child's story, Dillard whipsaws you back in the other direction with overwhelmingly large tragedies, such as the tidal wave that killed 138,000 in Bangladesh in 1991. Do you feel the same level of concern for these people? Or do you find yourself more in agreement with Stalin, who as Dillard notes, said "One death is a tragedy; a million deaths are a statistic." How can the personal, particular example of one deformed child move you more than the impersonal, numbingly large numbers of drowning victims? Were the drowned not also individuals with hopes, fears, dreams, and loves? By going back and forth between the two extremes of personal and impersonal, you realize the child is utterly tragic, and also utterly insignificant. How can this possibly be? What kind of God allows for any of this?
Besides exploring birth defects, Dillard also records the history of individual clouds at a particular moment in time. The notion at first seems absurd. What could be more ephemeral or less significant than the history of a cloud? Then you realize it's no less ridiculous to record your own individual thoughts, feelings, and experiences. Both clouds and you arise and pass away.
In chapters 5 and 6, "Numbers" really sparked my interest. Usually when I read statistics I dont really pay attention that much, because I really dont ever memorize a statistic. But these statistics caught my attention because of her presentation of them. She gave these very gloomy statistics that no one would ever really desire to know. She lists genocides, famines, disease, and war statistics, and then she says, "Do we blink?" That is interesting to me because not everything she mentioned is in the past. She mentioned things that are happening right now. So why dont we "blink"? Is it because of what Ernest Becker said? Reality fatigue? After a certain number of people do we just tune it out? I'm unsure of the answer to this but it is true. Its strange how she begins with just random statistics, but as you turn the page they just get more and more depressing. She gives her opinion of this in the end of "Numbers" in ch. 6. She says, "Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconeivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other." I absolutely agree with her on this reasoning. Anyone disagree?
ReplyDeleteI really love the idea of "reality fatigue." I think that it is the perfect way to describe what Dillard is saying about the world we live in. I totally agree with the fact that we as a society are desensitized to tragedy because it is all around us, both in our history and our present. How many times have we seen horrific pictures of violence and war on the news without batting an eye? Society has come to a point where we accept the level of tragedy in this world as normal, so it no longer affects us. How does this idea of "reality fatigue" affect Dillard's view of God?
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that Dillard tries to explain whether or not God is in control of our fates or not. She says that a Newtonian God is in control of our fate. She also says, "God is immanent and transcendent, God is discernible but unknowable, God is beside us and wholly alien. How this proves is mercy I don't understand." She is trying to understand if God is actually in control of everything that occurs or not. She ponders over the fact that if God does not cause illness and natural disasters, does God in fact cause anything that happens? She then says that God is personal and he shows himself to souls who seek him. She refers to Rabbi Isaac Luria's saying that God intervenes only "under certain conditions." I think the main theme throughout this book is whether or not God is in fact in control of everything that occurs or if he only intervenes in certain situations.
ReplyDeleteI agree with that opinion that you can believe in something while still having significant doubts about it. This can literally be applied to anything. Especially with religion this is a very normal viewpoint to hold. Most of the people on the earth are not extremely religious or knowledgeable about religion as those who spend their lives devoted to learning religion. Religion in itself has so many unknowns and everyday the people who believe in religion live with questions unanswered but have firm faith in God and the idea that God will handle those things that are unexplainable. She mentioned all of these opinions she has of God but in the end says "I don't know. I don't know beans about God" portraying her belief but uncertainty at the same time. I think that the idea of Dillard’s writing style is interesting and at first does portray her confusion and doubts about religion but the actual application of the style is very confusing and distracts the reader from trying to understand the actual message that is trying to be conveyed.
ReplyDeleteI think Dillard’s writing is particularly notable because she describes a number of different approaches people use in trying to understand God, not just her own. Though she definitely makes her position and opinions clear, she also acknowledges the views of others and explains them so well that it almost seems as if she were convinced of those views herself. Some of these beliefs were those we learned about in class. In “Evil” in chapter 5 she states, “This God does not direct the universe, he underlies it,” an idea that parallels with deism. She brings up this concept again when she writes that God may be “out of the loop.” Then, in “Evil” in chapter 6, she presents the interventionism point of view by portraying God as the One who “dishes out human fates, in the form of cancer or cash…”
ReplyDeleteSo do individuals matter at all? What's the big difference between life and death? What kind of God allows for beauty and horror to coexist in this world? Is He involved/responsible?
ReplyDeleteWhen I read through "For the Time Being", I can't help but feel that Annie Dillard has a profound respect for the beauty in our world. Although she may not agree with every opinion or view, she recognizes the different aspects to each culture. To answer the question if individuals matter at all, I think that Dillard sees the long-lasting impacts that an individual can make as things of importance. She finds such fascination in the enduring Chinese statues of the Emperor's men compared to the actual Emperor himself. The fact that Dillard sees the archeological dig as a brief moment in history convinces me that she has a somewhat harsh view of God. The author continues to point out tragedy after tragedy almost as if to criticize those who believe in a benevolent God. However, I am a staunch believer in the idea that without suffering, one would never know happiness. Although I may not view God in the same light as Dillard, I feel that our opinions of God as the "watchmaker" God coincide slightly. She says on page 140 that "God is- for the most part- out of the physical loop of the fallen world he created." From what I understand, Dillard does not view natural disasters and human suffering as punishment from God, but views them instead as results of a "fallen world." Overall, Annie Dillard seems to have her opinions, even though she doubts and questions.
ReplyDeleteAn essential issue many individuals encounter with religion is the existence of evil. Dillard does an excellent job explaining this existence: "God is spirit, spirit expressed infinitely in the universe, who does not give as the world gives." Put simply, God is shaped by faith and "In the coils of absence we meet him..." In order to avoid the evils that are present in Dillard's view of the world, we must evoke the "spark of goodness" that is in those evil tendencies. This provides incite into her own interpretation of faith, especially her understanding of the Baal Shem Tov's words that with full faith "people could mark, shift, and ultimately unify heaven."
ReplyDeleteTo answer Aparna's question of the difference between life and death, I think people value life as their ability to evoke those sparks of goodness in the evil that exists. Granted, one individual or even an entire religious community may not be able to rid the world of evil, their collective faith is what gives them hope of unifying heaven, according to the Baal Shem Tov. God, as the watchmaker, relies on humans to use their faith as a means of overcoming evil.
Annie Dillard really seems to concentrate on death and questioning aspects around it in these two chapters. Towards the beginning of chapter 5, Dillard talks about how history is wiped away over time with debris and dust that coat the earth. Almost like small pieces of history died like Peking man and Emperor Qin. Dillard brings up many religions and how they can be applicable to so many people based on their circumstances (see any numbers section). The question of mortality goes hand in hand with religion. After she tells a small anecdote about how it was customary to skin people alive for certain offenses, she quotes Rabbi Yehuda Aryeh Lieb Alter who asked, "How can evil exist in a world created by God, the Beneficent One? It can exist, because entrapped deep inside the force of evil there is a spark of goodness." Queue the paradox. Is this implying that there is good in skinning people alive??? Dillard continues on this confusing rant by later asking about "acts of God," "Then what, if anything, does he do?... Is God completely out of the loop?" My head is spinning from the amount of information she is able to cover in only 60 pages of writing (with those huge margins)
ReplyDeleteAlong with Andrew the section that really caught my attention was Numbers. In this section I think Dillard makes an important point. While terrible things happen everyday if an individual is not directly affected then in most instances he or she will not notice. As the section continues the numbers grow exponentially but she fails to distinguish the people that make up the groups she speaks of and instead like Teilhard says they get grouped together like “a whole vast anonymous army of living humanity.” This thought, while depressing, I also find provocative. In Chapter 6, Dillard explains how in China in 1954, because of overpopulation Mao thought the loss of ten or twenty million people would be no big deal or “nothing to be afraid of.” Later she explains that he also boasted that the country was “willing to lose 300 million people.” I would like to believe that most humans don’t have the same views but often times I feel that sometimes if we are not part of a specific group being hurt, persecuted, or in need, then we fail to care or take action at all.
ReplyDeleteI think the question of doubt is really interesting. In response to the question if it is possible to believe in something yet have significant doubts, I think a quote on page 146 has a sufficient answer: "Doubt and dedication often go hand in hand." I definitely don't that maintaining a faith or faith in something is ever easy. I actually think it is impossible to have complete faith in anything. I like how Dillard described dedication and maintaining faith. She called it "a sort of anaerobic capacity to batten and thrive on paradox."
ReplyDeleteThese chapters also talked God's creation of good and evil. I think it makes sense that there bad things to make us appreciate the good things. If there was no evil, how would we appreciate compassion and love? But the most interesting part of the reading for me was when they theorized that God endures all our horrors with us. I'm not sure what to think about that.
If doubt is such an essential part of the religious experience, why do many modern religions (Christianity in particular) view doubting God as blasphemous? Whenever I would question anything in my CCD classes, the teacher would always say, "That's just God's plan." That answer was never satisfying to me. I love the idea that Dillard proposes about how faith and doubt can exist together.
ReplyDeleteI think that Dillard's style of writing is confusing, but appropriate for what she is trying to portray. She clearly jumps around and discusses random things but I think that paints a clear portrait of what is going on in her mind. She's confused and she's looking for meaning in life, looking for God, and looking for the answer to the problem of evil. Her writing shows her confusion and her quest for knowledge through facts and anecdotes. So while to writing is absolutely confusing, I do think it helps the reader understand her point of view. I also wanted to touch on the 'birth' section and the beginning of every chapter. This usually stands out the most to me because Dillard seems particularly disturbed by birth defects. If God is all powerful, all loving, and all knowing, then why are there so many bird headed dwarfs born, who are unable to live full and rich lives like anybody else? This is where I see her struggle with the problem of evil. I understand when she says she has doubts in God but still believes in Him. This makes sense to me because I see how one could hold the belief in a greater power or something larger than life, but still have doubts. WHy do bad things happen to good people? It's a question no one will probably ever be able to answer. A lot of people need to have faith in something to simply go about their day and sleep at night, and when it comes to Annie Dillard I feel that she believes in a God because she feels spiritually connected to something larger than life, but doubts him because she cannot answer the questions surrounding God's existence and religion in general.
ReplyDeleteEvery time I read this work, I appreciate it even more and more. As this is our second reading of the work, it was easier to catch on to her train of thought. However, the first theme of birth was really confusing, and I still dont completley understand how some of it was revelant. A theme throughout this chapter was burial or the movement of time. As seen in the sand and China sections, she spoke of uncovering and discovering. I think this ties in very well with her search for religious truth.
ReplyDeleteI think that she begins to confirm her belief in religion as she mentions the heart of evil itself contains goodness. Saying that, Dillard also tantalizes with the idea of a God that may or may not take a part in our everyday lives. I think her criticisms of human interactions and response to religion back an underlying argument for a god that accepts evil and accepts imperfections. While her writing style sometimes throws me off, I think it is imperative to her claims because it displays the complexity of religion.
The first two chapters of Annie Dillard's book "For the Time Being", I was very confused by the style in which she choose to write. However, with these two chapters, the connections she made between her different topics started to intertwine and connect on a deeper level. The connections she made brought me to think about Descartes' book "Bones". Dillard discussed how the earth keeps on covering up its history by blowing particles and spores on top of the Earth's surface. It also grossed me out a little bit, thinking about all of the particles we breath in and the dirt that falls upon us. My question is similar to Dillard's: Why do we ever stop dusting?
ReplyDeleteI also looked at her story about the woman being de-fleshed as another connection to bones. She was stripped of her flesh, either to be unrecognizable or just as a truly evil act against humanity. All that was left were her bones, to be discarded in the streets, and to have even more dust accumulate on top of it. That is all that we have left in the end, our bones. This point is made by Dillard, but she also looks at how our history will be buried for future generations to see. All they will have to do is uncover the past. Our world will eventually be one gigantic time capsule, waiting for someone to discover its secrets. So not only are we left with our bones, we leave behind traces of ourselves in the particles in the air, and dirt, and eventually in the history buried within the soil.
I really like how Dillard starts off each chapter with the section "Birth". In each chapter I think that this section opened the chapter really well. Personally, it put everything in perspective for me and kind of got me thinking about different things. It made me realize that there are so many different people in the world from different walks of life and each person has a different way of looking at religion and spirituality. Also, in chapter five it talks about how many people die each day and for some people dying is a major part in their spiritual journey. While the section "Birth" does not really directly speak about, or touch on religion, after reading the full chapter I really think that it makes you realize that life is just an ongoing cycle and religion and spirituality is part of that cycle.
ReplyDeleteLike many others on this blog I found the section numbers to be an interesting one from chapters 5 and 6. I really liked how she went from being specific with her statistics of the number of people who died like the 138,000 people who drowned in Bangladesh. And then she became more broad with the three who walked together and left footprints in the rain and the men whose bones bulk the Great Wall. She just went on and on about terrible things that have happened in the past. I had to read the section a couple of times before I could sink in what she was trying to say. I agree with how the other people felt about this section. So many terrible things happen and unless we are linked to it in some sort of personal way, we go through life not even noticing them.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is possible to believe in something, all the while holding certain doubts, uncertainties, and insecurities about the thing or notion that you believe in. Take, for example, a relationship between two married partners. Before deciding to tie the knot, both of these people probably shared a significant amount of time together. They ate with each other; watched movies together; traveled; explored the world; fell in love. By the time they were about ready to exchange vows, both persons undoubtedly believed that they were experiencing true love. Although the notion of love may have not manifested itself materially, both partners recognized that there was "something in the air": they both believed that they cared for each other, and were willing to take a leap of faith, all because they trusted in each others' love and expected to live happily with one another. Naturally, there will come a point in time when both partners will cross a road of doubt. Oftentimes, partners will question whether or not the other person still loves them, or whether or not they have been faithful all throughout their marriage. This is where the notion of doubt comes in. Many of us who have/have had relationships with significant others can even attest to the fact that doubts and uncertainties are normal, to a healthy extent. While healthy relationships are bound by both partners' belief that they love each other (the belief aspect), both persons will always doubt whether their partner is being faithful and true to them. This notion may sound a tad absurd, but it is a consequence of taking a leap of faith of sorts, by entrusting yourself wholeheartedly to another person. That's the way I see it. Who hasn't had doubts or uncertainties about God? How do we know what's really going on out there? How did we even get here? Who made God? Who made what made God? Just because one asks these questions doesn't mean that one hasn't placed his/her trust and belief in something, in this case God.
ReplyDelete"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."- Voltaire
The more I’ve read of Dillard’s novel, the more I’ve noticed that she reflects a lot on odd pairings. She says that “doubt and dedication often go hand and hand.” I think that this could mean that if someone has the slightest bit of doubt in something, the more likely they are to become dedicated to ridding their doubt, which ties back into a discussion we had a few classes ago about how challenges can actually strengthen a religion. She also ties beauty and horror together within the birth sections. The birth of a new baby should be beautiful but when the baby isn’t physically perfect, she makes it out to be a horrific tragedy. Keeping with the pairings, I like that she incorporates thoughts and quotes from so many religions and religious figures rather than just focusing on a single religion. The variety of insight at the end of each section correlates well with each varying subject.
ReplyDeleteI thought that as Dillard’s text evolved the different sections would become a little more coherent and conclusive, but they didn’t. In an interesting way her writing style continued, and continued to fill my mind with random and disconnected thoughts on religion. It seems as if everyone liked the numbers sections, which I found to be really interesting, especially when compared the China section’s historically careless and wasteful regard of life. In the end though, the section that resonated the most with me was the now section, and moreover a certain quote. Dillard says, “We live in all we seek,” and to me that is the very essence of the multitude of ideas she presents. That society and religion is a continuum that evolves as we do in a never ending and seemingly never calm manner. It is constant chaos and salvation, a thing called life.
ReplyDeleteAnnie Dillard’s writing, although a difficult undertaking at first, proves to be an extremely insightful read. In chapters 5 and 6, I found the section “Numbers” extremely eye opening. Prior to my reading this, statistics were only statistics to me. Perhaps it is Dillard’s tone that I found so gripping, but, the data she provides is just jaw dropping. But what truly hits home for me is how she links these seemingly random pieces of data to our very own lives. It is normal to simply just brush off these numbers and statistics because they do not impact us. However, not until now do I realize how relevant these numbers actually are. The point that I am making is that we are all so unaware of the world that surrounds and engulfs us. When Dillard describes this sort of “reality fatigue” and questions, “Do you suffer this? At what number do other individuals blur for me? Vanish? , I felt a sickening feeling in my stomach. In a sense, this section made me feel insignificant as an individual. Are we all just simply “lots and lots of dots”? Maybe, what Dillard is getting at, is that we all are somehow insignificant. And, in saying that, can one conclude that God too sees us merely as lots and lots of dots? As I continue to read more of this book, Dillard’s argument becomes more prominent and, quite frankly, somewhat convincing. The broad topics she discusses are all linked some way or another which is extremely fascinating to me.
ReplyDeleteI think it is possible to be dedicated to something even despite having doubts about it as well. I think part of dedication is the fact that even with the doubts, one is still willing to believe or follow through with an idea or a thought.
ReplyDeleteAnnie Dillard's "relationship" with God almost reminds me of Darwin's relationship with God, his personal inner struggle with his faith and beliefs. Both have so many questions and angst regarding a higher being, religion, truth, and the meaning of mankind/life that is reflected in their experiences with suffering and pain. I think Dillard's reflection of odd pairings and honest confessions such as "I don't know beans about God" reveals her authentic thought process and self exploration of religion. She ponders about the significance and power of prayer at St. Anne's Basilica in Jerusalem. She brings up fundamental inquiries about God such as: "If God does not cause everything that happens, does God cause anything that happens?" (167) I don't know if anyone knows a finite answer to any of the questions she asks, but if anything her scattered thoughts have made me question what I consider to be "truth" as well.
Also, I agree fully with what Jessica said and think it was very well said: "When I read through "For the Time Being", I can't help but feel that Annie Dillard has a profound respect for the beauty in our world."
ReplyDeleteChapters five and six gave great insight into Annie Dillard's thoughts and questions on faith. Her seemingly random sections add great depth to what she is trying to portray. It is not belief in the doctrine that is important, it is the preservation of faith. Her numerous quotes by scholars and theologians demonstrate that doctrine is written, altered, interpreted and reinterpreted by man. Despite our great and expanding knowledge of the universe and its workings, we can't know the mind of God. A being (or not being) whose intelligence spans the breadth of space and time is behind our comprehension and indescribable in meager human terms. Perhaps it's faith that can free the divine from the shards of the natural world and make the soul of the universe whole and maybe our own consciousness is a shard of God left behind after he drew into himself and left space for the natural world. Even if God created man on a whim, and did create man in His image, humans would still carry the spark of divine spark that gives us a sense of self. Annie Dillard brings up numerous tragedies and atrocities to emphasize the point that we might not matter. 138,000 people were killed in a tsunami, 750,000 in an earthquake and thirty million killed by their leader. If there is a piece of God in everyone, then the unity created by great tragedy brings God as close to man as is possible in life.
ReplyDeleteWhether I just needed to be in a more "focused mood" or I'm starting to understand Dillard's writing style (or both), I have come to really enjoy this book. I hated the first two chapters, but as Andrew mentioned, Numbers 5 & 6 REALLY got me interested, as well as Sand 5. There's something about the raw facts, yet still having Dillard voice her opinion the entire time, that is incredibly refreshing. She really wants the reader to not only acknowledge religion and God, but Earth and life in general. She seems to be begging for people to finally appreciate what was created - regardless of who or what brought us to where we are today. She is SCREAMING out. This is her rally-cry. She wants the world to wake up. She says that "doubt and dedication [and faith] go hand in hand". She wants everyone to realize that it's okay to question your faith or your God or your life, that's what it means to be a dedicated person.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading this, especially Numbers and Sand, I couldn't help thinking over and over again of the tragedies that occurred on American soil ten years ago. Why has that become such a statistic? Why, at todays 9/11 Vigil on U-Yard, did a speaker list out the number of casualties in the Twin Towers, at the Pentagon - has this become just another statistic to join the 138,000 dead in Bangladesh or the 12,000,000 who fish for a living? WHY do we humans have such reality fatigue? WHY do we or don't we blink? WHY do we sit around and question why there is evil in the world or whether or not my God is your God or if her/her God exists??? Annie Dillard is TRYING to have everyone realize that debates over a God shouldn't be what is important, but enjoying the beautiful life we live, or saving others from the horrible life they live, or just making yourself and others around you better people.
I admit. At first, not only was I confused by Dillard's text, but I hated it. I couldn't understand a single thing she said. But as I sit here typing this incredibly long blog post that I doubt more than 3 or 4 people will actually read due to its length or unimportance to the potential readers life, I've realized that I have become active. Annie Dillard has sparked an unexpected flame in me.
Chapters 5 and 6 really helped me to better understand what Annie Dillard was attempting to convey through her work. As many have stated, the Numbers portion was very eye opening, and brings up the question as to how important are we, a single dot among “lots and lots of dots, in blue water.” Although we obviously value our own lives, it can be frightening to think that we may simply be just a statistic that, in the next century, will be interred into the ground. This is also brought up in the China section, where Dillard delivers the idea of “Time: You can’t chock the wheels” (153). No matter how much we are against it, we as humans are bound by space and time and cannot stop it, and are therefore subject to its rules.
ReplyDeleteThe previous statement then leads into the Evil section, where Dillard contemplates whether or not God, who is not bound by space or time, can intervene in our world. By explaining that God does not the one who is giving people cancer and killing children, but rather using divine creativity to slightly mold our world, one can get a better feeling for who God is and what he can truly do. It is impossible for anyone to fully understand God and his relationship with us as individuals and the world, so doubt will come naturally. There is not necessarily one way for us to “find” God, as Dillard hints in the Now section; through our experiences, however, we can receive clues as to how to understand him to the best of our human ability.
Although while reading the first two chapters I was really confused, I think Dillard’s writing style makes a lot more since now. I think each of the sections by themselves wouldn’t be anywhere near as meaningful as they are pieced together in this book. I think that placing all these different stories randomly and intermixed is half the point. It is showing you that all of these anecdotes are each a small part of the same world. Each seems so important and meaningful in itself, but when you look at the big picture they are each so insignificant. If you took all of the birth sections in these two chapters and put them together, and did this for each section, you would receive a completely different message than reading them how they are intended.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that you can doubt something and still believe in it. I agree with Dillard that doubt and dedication do indeed go hand in hand. A non dedicated person would not use the word doubt. They wouldn’t think about it so much; they just wouldn’t believe in God. By doubting something, it shows that you are fighting against your dedicated self to decide. Neither her dedication nor doubts could ever be confirmed, so she will never be able to decide.
Philip Tateyama
ReplyDeleteI find Annie Dillard's style of writing to be useful in describing her understanding/belief in religion. Her style is very sporadic as her thoughts jump from one to the next covering many different types of situations in life as she tries to find a meaning to each one. Through reading chapter 5 and 6 it does not seem Annie Dillard has lost faith in religion, she just has doubts and questions. However it is safe to say that she does seem to find beauty in all aspects of the world. Sand in chapter 5 was really interesting to me as it described how the world is being buried and I thought that was just and interesting thought.
Personally, I've been learning the most from Dillard's Numbers chapters. Having the world be put into this kind of perspective is, for me, very enlightening and very eye-opening. Now, I'm not going to investigate any of these statistics, so I'll take her word for them, but I think the statistics do a very good job of accenting her point about God and religion--kind of what's been touched on above, how we can doubt God but still believe in him, the statistics kind of cement that. Dillard offers us factual basis and truth for our belief in Earthly things, but also procures chapters like Birth, Israel, etc, to offer us a more spiritual perspective.
ReplyDelete