Sir Arthur, the Spiritualist?

Despite the apparently curious and fantastic dreams and claims of spiritual mediums and Spiritualists, many well-known writers embraced a level of truth in such beliefs. This may not seem so difficult to believe. Writers and artists have historically been associated with the esoteric. Their creative minds think -out-of-the-box' or go against the grain of the status quo.

Consider Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. He devised the logical and rational Sherlock Holmes detective. Holmes became a respected novelist and committed Spiritualist who believed in connections to "The Other Side." He participated in seances and incorporated his spiritual beliefs into some of his many best-selling books.  Doyle was adamant about focusing on concepts that redirect attention from materialism. The famous character Sherlock Holmes himself questions the existence of the soul.

At the base of all this is a fundamental question: why would we desire a religion we can prove if the point of religions appears to be to shroud human existence in perpetual mystery?

"The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible." -Oscar Wilde

"Without mysteries, life would be very dull indeed.  What would be left to strive for if everything were known?" -Charles de Lint

Comments

[Mark]

Maybe the answer lies in *why* Sir Doyle wanted to focus on concepts that redirect attention from materialism. What are the motives of those who desire a provable religion, and the motives of those who desire a mysterious religion?

I also think Mr. de Lint was getting a little ahead of himself in thinking that striving to understand everything is an attainable goal.

[Liara Covert]

Fascinating comment. The motives of historic thinkers who aimed to prove God exists seem to range from quests to obtain or support institutional power, to acts of socio-cultural rebellion. The motives of individuals who aim to downplay or disprove the validity of religion may include acting to incite debate and furthering self-interest. Another question worth asking would be what are the motives of those people who offer no position or defense one way or the other?

As for Mr. deLint's view, if everything that exists has a cause, and if all humans have life missions, consider it could be a collective goal to understand everything, rather than an individual pursuit. If this is indeed the case, then it would conceivably be an attainable goal, providing we all evolved to understand ourselves well-enough to complete what we were born to do.