The meaning of life engages the mental faculties of every sentient being at least once in his or her existence. Whether life is meaningful, an experience infused with purpose and conviction, or meaningless, an experience devoid of motivation and enthusiastic ambition, every human being formulates some type of judgment. It is amusing to observe the quandaries of human beings as they clash and strike one another over nothing more than endowed, colored paper and divine, deteriorating corpses; we are, remember, supposedly above the beasts of this world. Nonetheless, the beliefs and “non-beliefs” of men and women inhabit a truly notable place within their evolved, or divinely created, minds. It is these beliefs, or rather the need to spread them, however, that could very well lead to the early demise of the human race.
C.S. Lewis and Virginia Woolf, authors of “The Rival Conceptions of God” and “The Death of a Moth,” respectively, attempt to effectively penetrate the sheltered minds of his and her readers by picking away at the normal confines of human existential belief and discuss an extremely sensitive subject, the spiritual attributes of our physical life. Both authors attack this topic from varying religious or metaphysical standpoints that in no way, according to their doctrinal outlooks, agree with each other. However, Woolf's pantheistic perspective of an all-encompassing, impersonal life-force and Lewis's Christian perspective of an all-exclusive, biased evangelical-God are ironically united by both author's shared focus upon the incorporeal and dichotomous nature of life.
Reflecting upon the menial existence of a hybrid day-moth, Woolf concentrates on an all-encompassing and impersonal life force that inhabits all things. On the surface, it seems as if Woolf is simply dictating the life and sudden death of a moth. Intertwined within her craftily employed words, however, dwells a steady stream of philosophical musing about an omnipresent ethos inhabiting even the “pathetic” (20) wanderings of an insignificant day-moth. This ethos, Woolf's incorporeal bias, reflects that of pantheism, a spirituality defined by Lewis in his essay as, the belief that God exists as a universal, indifferent energy that interconnects all things. Not only does Woolf make reference to such an essence when she describes the moth as nothing but a “tiny bead of pure life decked with down and feathers” (21), but her metaphorical tactic of equating humans with moths and rooks with downs endows every word she uses with a similar “fibre of pure, enormous energy” (20). Although Woolf does not mention the word “God” in her entire essay, her readers are vividly aware of a similar force being given recognition as they sympathize with the dusty-wing, hay colored creature.
Choosing to dwell within a much more structured and defined paradigm as compared to Woolf's ethereal philosophies, Lewis clearly identifies his partiality towards an exclusive and biased evangelical-God. Although Lewis both compares and contrasts various theological and non-theological viewpoints of God and life, he expresses an obvious inclination towards a singular and omnipotent God - the “one-and-only” referred to exclusively by the Christian religion. Lewis discusses the dichotomy between just and unjust and offers his theological and philosophical reasoning to support his argument for the existence of a righteous and just creator, the “King of Kings.” He employs a Cartesian mode of thinking by implying the ideas of just and unjust as innate and required - the presence of one proves the existence of the other. Because, as an atheist, he believed the world to be universally unjust, it inevitably led him towards the belief in the one thing he tried so hard not to believe in - a just God. The bulk of his essay argues against atheism and for Christianity but amongst his discussion he mentions other religious beliefs that, although still completely wrong, “are closer to right than others,” such as pantheism. Lewis's comparing and contrasting writing style aligns with his religious affiliations as well. His readers get a sense of his fervent belief in good and evil as they digest one opposition after the other. For example, Lewis pits Christianity against atheism, pantheism, Hinduism, just against unjust and light against dark; he is clearly speaking from a doctrine-colored viewpoint.
Woolf and Lewis, although clearly speaking from incompatible, theological standpoints, both share a common thread as they express their reflective philosophies about the underlying, incorporeal nature of life. In spite of the fact that both authors discuss a “higher” or “expanded” life-force using different terms and doctrines, when read in light of the other, an intrinsic web of similarities reveals itself. Woolf and Lewis both acknowledge a spiritual substance that is somewhat responsible for or synonymous with life itself. Skipping the differing prologues altogether, both authors imply that the world as we know it was created and the divine force behind this spark of physical manifestation still exists and exerts its control upon us today, for example, the “great force” that brought morbid solitude to that of the hybrid day-moth. Best efforts aside, the common desire behind all living things to justify and defend their existence in this world cannot be overlooked. Be it Jesus, Buddha, Krishna or a universal life energy, the only difference between pantheism and Christianity, it seems, can be equated to Lewis preferring a cup of French Vanilla and Woolf preferring a dish of Neapolitan. Perhaps this sounds sacrilegious, but when viewed upon through the differing lenses of Woolf and Lewis, one can easily appreciate the validity of both theological rationales.
