What do you think?
Rate this book
Symbolism and Belief
The lectures contained in this volume were given for the University of Edinburgh on Lord Gifford's foundation in the years 1933 and 1934. I have delayed their publication in the hope that with process of time I might, by further reading and thought, be able to expand and modify them, so as to make them more worthy of presentation to the public in the form of a book. This hope has been so meagrely realized that it now seems best to let them go forth, with all their imperfections on their head, hardly at all altered from the form in which they were delivered. Some changes in arrangement have been made in the order of the two on Time now follow immediately the two on the spatial symbol of Height. Four lectures have been omitted altogether from the present volume, those on image-worship and doctrines condemning the manufacture of images in antiquity and in the Christian Church. Since in the rest of the lectures the symbolism of material objects in worship was not the kind of symbolism under consideration, these four lectures seemed somewhat of a digression from the main line of argument. I hope later on to issue them as a small book by themselves.
392 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1962
11 people are currently reading
312 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
September 2, 2009
I learned of this book, based on Bevyn's Gifford lectures in 1933-34, from C.S. Lewis, who cites it as an influence on his thought. Bevan discusses the major symbols and metaphors of religion, e.g., height, time, light and spirit, and demonstrates why figurative language is necessary to religious discourse, while less poetic, more precise philosophical terminology is actually further removed from the truth.
The latter part of the book gradually develops into a defense of the view that the Ground of the universe is a conscious spirit. (Bevyn is clearly a Christian, but carefully avoids Christian apologetics.) Neither theism nor atheism, he argues, can furnish proof for their views since they are metaphysical in nature, and therefore outside the patterns of reality we know empirically. To quote the last sentence of the book, "what actually causes anyone to believe in God is direct perception of the Divine." As to the epistemology of that direct perception of God he has nothing to offer, but the book is nonetheless full of worthwhile insight regarding the justification of religious belief.
The latter part of the book gradually develops into a defense of the view that the Ground of the universe is a conscious spirit. (Bevyn is clearly a Christian, but carefully avoids Christian apologetics.) Neither theism nor atheism, he argues, can furnish proof for their views since they are metaphysical in nature, and therefore outside the patterns of reality we know empirically. To quote the last sentence of the book, "what actually causes anyone to believe in God is direct perception of the Divine." As to the epistemology of that direct perception of God he has nothing to offer, but the book is nonetheless full of worthwhile insight regarding the justification of religious belief.
March 24, 2025
4.5 starts
“It is only, I think, in the sense of giving rational comfort to people who already believe in God that the standard arguments can be regarded as demonstrating the existence of God. What actually causes anyone to believe in God is direct perception of the Divine.”
S/O to CS Lewis for this recommendation in his book, Miracles. This book is a series of lectures by Prof Edwyn Bevan and, after reading, it feels like he and Lewis shared many cups of tea over the ideas in book. It’s obvious that Edwyn was an expert for his time and well read in basically anything that has to do with world religions, Greek and Roman philosophy, and ancient history.
Due to the structure and limitations of the lectures, Edwyn wasn’t allowed to ask his audience to believe something based on special revelation - like the authority of the Church or the Scriptures. While I didn’t realize this until halfway through his lectures, I found it made his lectures on Height, Light, Wrath of God, Rationalism and Mysticism, etc even more fascinating. Even though Edwyn is a Christian, this is not a cookie cutter Christian apologetic book. Edwyn uses his knowledge and good critical analysis of symbols in religion to ask the audience this question: “what ground have we for believing?”
Having read some C.S. Lewis, it is often easy to say about another author’s work: “this sounds like something Lewis would say”. That might be too simple of a conclusion. Maybe it should more often be: “this sounds like something Edwyn Bevan would say”
“It is only, I think, in the sense of giving rational comfort to people who already believe in God that the standard arguments can be regarded as demonstrating the existence of God. What actually causes anyone to believe in God is direct perception of the Divine.”
S/O to CS Lewis for this recommendation in his book, Miracles. This book is a series of lectures by Prof Edwyn Bevan and, after reading, it feels like he and Lewis shared many cups of tea over the ideas in book. It’s obvious that Edwyn was an expert for his time and well read in basically anything that has to do with world religions, Greek and Roman philosophy, and ancient history.
Due to the structure and limitations of the lectures, Edwyn wasn’t allowed to ask his audience to believe something based on special revelation - like the authority of the Church or the Scriptures. While I didn’t realize this until halfway through his lectures, I found it made his lectures on Height, Light, Wrath of God, Rationalism and Mysticism, etc even more fascinating. Even though Edwyn is a Christian, this is not a cookie cutter Christian apologetic book. Edwyn uses his knowledge and good critical analysis of symbols in religion to ask the audience this question: “what ground have we for believing?”
Having read some C.S. Lewis, it is often easy to say about another author’s work: “this sounds like something Lewis would say”. That might be too simple of a conclusion. Maybe it should more often be: “this sounds like something Edwyn Bevan would say”
July 11, 2022
I finished this book.
That in itself was an achievement.
I decided to read this book after reading C.S. Lewis' collection of letters. He recommended it to one of the people that he was corresponding with and I thought if C.S. Lewis recommended it, it had to be good. Off I went to read it.
...
...
Let's just say that I lack the philosophical grounding and training in logic to understand this book.
You probably need to have a classical education in German, Greek, and Latin to understand half of what this guy talks about. A healthy smattering of knowledge of 19th century literary criticism and familiarity with the Greek philosophers and Church fathers would also be very helpful.
I didn't understand half of what he was talking about, and of the part that I did comprehend couldn't understand why on earth anyone would want to talk about it. I will never understand why so many intellectuals think that the ancient Jews or any other ancient people group believed in an actual human who lived up in the sky...I don't get why people seem to think that people in the past were somehow more primitive than us today. I mean, yeah, they didn't have computers and stuff, but they were hardly incapable of abstract thought. It was like, have you actually read Aristotle?!?! The dude was by no means a simpleton. Philosophy hasn't particularly advanced beyond him all that much. We keep going back to him. Or we can just go with Job that was written sometime in the 6-7 century BC. It's a great piece of philosophical literature, even if you don't think it's inspired scripture, and it hardly a simplistic view of God as a human living in the sky. So why on earth do modern intelligentsia people keep going back to this idea that people were primitive and believed in a primitive anthropomorphic god up in the sky? It's like people want to view themselves as somehow better than the people of the past, but our brains haven't changed all that much in the 5000 years of written history, so why on earth would you think that we modern humans are capable of metaphor and the ones of the measly 5000 year past weren't? I just don't get that.
I was reading this journal article on games and they talked about this sheep trading game the ancient Hittites played, and that the pieces could only represent sheep because that's the only thing the Hittites would have understood as they were incapable of abstracting. I was like...huh? Obviously they were capable of abstraction, they had a game...with round pieces...like checkers, that represented sheep for this one particular game...obviously they could abstract. Also, why on earth would you assume that just because only this sheep game survived to be dug up today that it was the only game that ever existed??! Or that other variations of the game where the pieces represented gourds didn't exist!? That's like saying that some archaeologist finds a chess game 400 years in the future and assumes that we all only played chess. You only have to glance around for half a second to see humanity's creativity and then realize that there is no way an entire culture played only one game for its whole existence.
Anyway, I did quite like the chapter on time. It made me consider what time is in a whole new way. Time is such a matter-of-course part of our existence that I just assumed it was simple...It's not. This book made me realize that and made me reconsider what I mean when I say 'eternity', so I suppose that reading this was not a total loss.
That in itself was an achievement.
I decided to read this book after reading C.S. Lewis' collection of letters. He recommended it to one of the people that he was corresponding with and I thought if C.S. Lewis recommended it, it had to be good. Off I went to read it.
...
...
Let's just say that I lack the philosophical grounding and training in logic to understand this book.
You probably need to have a classical education in German, Greek, and Latin to understand half of what this guy talks about. A healthy smattering of knowledge of 19th century literary criticism and familiarity with the Greek philosophers and Church fathers would also be very helpful.
I didn't understand half of what he was talking about, and of the part that I did comprehend couldn't understand why on earth anyone would want to talk about it. I will never understand why so many intellectuals think that the ancient Jews or any other ancient people group believed in an actual human who lived up in the sky...I don't get why people seem to think that people in the past were somehow more primitive than us today. I mean, yeah, they didn't have computers and stuff, but they were hardly incapable of abstract thought. It was like, have you actually read Aristotle?!?! The dude was by no means a simpleton. Philosophy hasn't particularly advanced beyond him all that much. We keep going back to him. Or we can just go with Job that was written sometime in the 6-7 century BC. It's a great piece of philosophical literature, even if you don't think it's inspired scripture, and it hardly a simplistic view of God as a human living in the sky. So why on earth do modern intelligentsia people keep going back to this idea that people were primitive and believed in a primitive anthropomorphic god up in the sky? It's like people want to view themselves as somehow better than the people of the past, but our brains haven't changed all that much in the 5000 years of written history, so why on earth would you think that we modern humans are capable of metaphor and the ones of the measly 5000 year past weren't? I just don't get that.
I was reading this journal article on games and they talked about this sheep trading game the ancient Hittites played, and that the pieces could only represent sheep because that's the only thing the Hittites would have understood as they were incapable of abstracting. I was like...huh? Obviously they were capable of abstraction, they had a game...with round pieces...like checkers, that represented sheep for this one particular game...obviously they could abstract. Also, why on earth would you assume that just because only this sheep game survived to be dug up today that it was the only game that ever existed??! Or that other variations of the game where the pieces represented gourds didn't exist!? That's like saying that some archaeologist finds a chess game 400 years in the future and assumes that we all only played chess. You only have to glance around for half a second to see humanity's creativity and then realize that there is no way an entire culture played only one game for its whole existence.
Anyway, I did quite like the chapter on time. It made me consider what time is in a whole new way. Time is such a matter-of-course part of our existence that I just assumed it was simple...It's not. This book made me realize that and made me reconsider what I mean when I say 'eternity', so I suppose that reading this was not a total loss.
July 4, 2025
"Symbolism and Belief" is a work composed of 16 scholarly lectures delivered in 1933-34 by Edwyn Bevan at the University of Edinburgh on Lord Gifford's foundation. "As is generally known, Lord Gifford's will prescribes that lecturers on his foundation are not to ask their audience to believe any statement on the ground of any special revelation, whether contained in scripture or the dogma of a Church, but to rest what they affirm solely upon grounds of reason." The result is a series of complex, philosophic arguments, some of which I regard as enlightening; many of which seem to veer towards agnosticism.
But as the title would suggest, symbols are frequently employed in religious belief to give some understanding of the nature of God. If God creates the universe and everything in it, He is immeasurably greater than us. Symbols may give understanding of matters otherwise incomprehensible to us. "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" Jn.3:12
In lectures 2-10 of 16, Bevan discusses the symbols of height, time, light, spirit, and the wrath of God. The last six lectures deal with the relation of symbolism to truth and belief.
If God is a Hebraic-Christian God, transcendent, not one we discover within ourselves, then the symbol of height points to His infinite supremacy. He is "the high and lofty one who inhabits eternity". Is.57:15
Bevan asserts that no definitive statements can be made about the kind of time God inhabits. But timefulness, not timelessness may be a better description. Much more is said about the nature of time, difficult to contemplate, but worth the effort. C.S.Lewis agrees in "The Problem of Pain".
By light we obtain knowledge of the surrounding world. Also, "In Thy light do we see light". Ps.36:9. As light requires no other agent to make itself known, so it is God himself who makes himself known.
From ancient times, breath and spirit have been closely associated, since the cessation of breath in men is associated with death, the departure of the spirit. Since New Testament times, new life is given to men through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Bevan argues from various standpoints that righteous anger against evil is justified. A wrathful God hates evil, but forgives the man who turns from his evil.
Laying aside Lord Gifford's restrictions upon the lines of argumentation allowable to Bevan, how knowable is a God infinitely greater than the men He creates? Perhaps we can derive some hope from Genesis 1:27. "So God created man in His own image." In Charles Dickens' great work, "A Tale of Two Cities", a man sacrifices his life in the place of another, echoing Christ's sacrificial death for us.
But whatever likeness to God is granted to us, since Adam's fall, the search for God within ourselves has yielded much more confusion and darkness than light.
Bevan concludes that what is needed is an "apprehension of God so powerful and direct that the question of proof cannot even be raised". But what he means by this is left mostly undefined, I think. But there is a fairly detailed discussion of mysticism. A hundred years before Bevan, Dean Mansel discusses the "diseased ecstasies of mysticism. We cannot be directly conscious of the Absolute or the Infinite, as such."
I know of men who say that they have seen, or otherwise have had an unmistakable sense of the presence of Jesus. I find some, if not most of them credible. But these instances are rare, and I do not think that God confines Himself to such extravagant means of revelation. Bevan himself says that, "Attention to rational argument may certainly modify a man's beliefs to a very large extent".
Likewise Mansel cites miracles and fulfilled prophecy as grounds for accepting the Scriptures which give in "anthropomorphic imagery the best conception of the Divine Reality which it is possible for men to have".
God makes Himself known through symbols, analogy, and direct statements in His Word. He makes Himself known in prayers answered, sometimes in very startling ways, as I have seen. In recent decades, science bears witness to a living God, much to the chagrin of those who complain of a god of the gaps. The gaps are not being filled to their liking.
The Rationalistic thinking that predominates in this work is not easily understood, perhaps because it is largely incomprehensible. As Mansel has said, "We dishonour God far more by identifying Him with the feeble and negative impotence of thought which we are pleased to style the Infinite than by remaining content with those limits which He for His own good purposes has imposed upon us".
Caveat emptor. Nevertheless, there are important questions raised here which the intelligent, persistent reader should consider.
But as the title would suggest, symbols are frequently employed in religious belief to give some understanding of the nature of God. If God creates the universe and everything in it, He is immeasurably greater than us. Symbols may give understanding of matters otherwise incomprehensible to us. "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" Jn.3:12
In lectures 2-10 of 16, Bevan discusses the symbols of height, time, light, spirit, and the wrath of God. The last six lectures deal with the relation of symbolism to truth and belief.
If God is a Hebraic-Christian God, transcendent, not one we discover within ourselves, then the symbol of height points to His infinite supremacy. He is "the high and lofty one who inhabits eternity". Is.57:15
Bevan asserts that no definitive statements can be made about the kind of time God inhabits. But timefulness, not timelessness may be a better description. Much more is said about the nature of time, difficult to contemplate, but worth the effort. C.S.Lewis agrees in "The Problem of Pain".
By light we obtain knowledge of the surrounding world. Also, "In Thy light do we see light". Ps.36:9. As light requires no other agent to make itself known, so it is God himself who makes himself known.
From ancient times, breath and spirit have been closely associated, since the cessation of breath in men is associated with death, the departure of the spirit. Since New Testament times, new life is given to men through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Bevan argues from various standpoints that righteous anger against evil is justified. A wrathful God hates evil, but forgives the man who turns from his evil.
Laying aside Lord Gifford's restrictions upon the lines of argumentation allowable to Bevan, how knowable is a God infinitely greater than the men He creates? Perhaps we can derive some hope from Genesis 1:27. "So God created man in His own image." In Charles Dickens' great work, "A Tale of Two Cities", a man sacrifices his life in the place of another, echoing Christ's sacrificial death for us.
But whatever likeness to God is granted to us, since Adam's fall, the search for God within ourselves has yielded much more confusion and darkness than light.
Bevan concludes that what is needed is an "apprehension of God so powerful and direct that the question of proof cannot even be raised". But what he means by this is left mostly undefined, I think. But there is a fairly detailed discussion of mysticism. A hundred years before Bevan, Dean Mansel discusses the "diseased ecstasies of mysticism. We cannot be directly conscious of the Absolute or the Infinite, as such."
I know of men who say that they have seen, or otherwise have had an unmistakable sense of the presence of Jesus. I find some, if not most of them credible. But these instances are rare, and I do not think that God confines Himself to such extravagant means of revelation. Bevan himself says that, "Attention to rational argument may certainly modify a man's beliefs to a very large extent".
Likewise Mansel cites miracles and fulfilled prophecy as grounds for accepting the Scriptures which give in "anthropomorphic imagery the best conception of the Divine Reality which it is possible for men to have".
God makes Himself known through symbols, analogy, and direct statements in His Word. He makes Himself known in prayers answered, sometimes in very startling ways, as I have seen. In recent decades, science bears witness to a living God, much to the chagrin of those who complain of a god of the gaps. The gaps are not being filled to their liking.
The Rationalistic thinking that predominates in this work is not easily understood, perhaps because it is largely incomprehensible. As Mansel has said, "We dishonour God far more by identifying Him with the feeble and negative impotence of thought which we are pleased to style the Infinite than by remaining content with those limits which He for His own good purposes has imposed upon us".
Caveat emptor. Nevertheless, there are important questions raised here which the intelligent, persistent reader should consider.
July 6, 2024
I picked this book up on C.S. Lewis' recommendation. I believe he recommended it in Miracles. It was a remarkable read. There is little doubt the ideas are quite powerful and masterful, yet they are hard to grasp due to the conversational style as I believe the book is a collection of lectures. Perhaps, there are diagrams, pictures or some other type of learning aids to go along with the lectures. If not, someone should make them as it would be a shame that such a powerful work would lie in such an obscure form.
There are 2 main ideas.
1. Because any depiction of supra-human existence must by definition only be approximation, ancient anthropomorphic depiction is on par with modern linguistic depiction.
2. Man can only be convinced of the truth of spiritual and/ or divine existence by direct experience.
Bevan brings these ideas to his audience extremely convincingly. His use of logic, propositions, debate, example, etc. is masterful. He captures nearly all common objections and/or stray lines of thought to keep his audience on target. The title of his lectures captures his first main idea exactly.
For anyone sincerely grappling with belief and/or existentialism, this is the perfect work to humble and guide your quest. I hope to remember that for the future as I have grappled with God many times, and I believe it is an eternal gift if one chooses to accept it. Bevan's work is an excellent foundation to support such effort.
There are 2 main ideas.
1. Because any depiction of supra-human existence must by definition only be approximation, ancient anthropomorphic depiction is on par with modern linguistic depiction.
2. Man can only be convinced of the truth of spiritual and/ or divine existence by direct experience.
Bevan brings these ideas to his audience extremely convincingly. His use of logic, propositions, debate, example, etc. is masterful. He captures nearly all common objections and/or stray lines of thought to keep his audience on target. The title of his lectures captures his first main idea exactly.
For anyone sincerely grappling with belief and/or existentialism, this is the perfect work to humble and guide your quest. I hope to remember that for the future as I have grappled with God many times, and I believe it is an eternal gift if one chooses to accept it. Bevan's work is an excellent foundation to support such effort.
June 24, 2024
I. Introductory
II. Height
III. Height (continued)
IV. Time
V. Time (continued)
VI. Light
VII. Spirit
VIII. Spirit (continued)
IX. The Wrath of God
X. The Wrath of God (continued)
XI. Distinction of Literal and Symbolical
XII. Symbols Without Conceptual Meaning
XIII. Pragmatism and Analogy
XIV. Mansel and Pragmatism
We see that, even if all ideas of God are symbolical, there is a scope for criticism and purgation. Some factors in men's conceptions of God have had to be discarded altogether as simply misrepresenting the Reality, such as the conception that God has corporeal magnitude; other factors, once taken as precisely true, have had to be recognized as symbols standing for something unimaginable. And to say that a conception has symbolical truth does not only mean that it promotes a certain kind of emotion and will; it implies a belief that God, although unimaginable, is really such that a response of that kind is the appropriate response to Him. It means that the symbolic expression is the best possible way the truth could be expressed in terms of human ideas.
XV. Rationalism and Mysticism
No cogent rational inference can be made from the world to what is outside it. If this is so, when the Rationalist asks for a rational proof of the existence of God, he is asking for something which in the nature of the case it is impossible to have. A rational proof would draw God into the world and make Him a part of the pattern He is alleged to create.
XVI. The Justification of Belief
It is unquestionable that those human Figures who are generally recognized to be the most spiritually impressive, to begin with Jesus himself, do not show the heroism of despair, but a serenity of absolute confidence in the centre of their activity, a quiet and joy which is their commanding strength.
II. Height
III. Height (continued)
IV. Time
V. Time (continued)
VI. Light
VII. Spirit
VIII. Spirit (continued)
IX. The Wrath of God
X. The Wrath of God (continued)
XI. Distinction of Literal and Symbolical
XII. Symbols Without Conceptual Meaning
XIII. Pragmatism and Analogy
XIV. Mansel and Pragmatism
We see that, even if all ideas of God are symbolical, there is a scope for criticism and purgation. Some factors in men's conceptions of God have had to be discarded altogether as simply misrepresenting the Reality, such as the conception that God has corporeal magnitude; other factors, once taken as precisely true, have had to be recognized as symbols standing for something unimaginable. And to say that a conception has symbolical truth does not only mean that it promotes a certain kind of emotion and will; it implies a belief that God, although unimaginable, is really such that a response of that kind is the appropriate response to Him. It means that the symbolic expression is the best possible way the truth could be expressed in terms of human ideas.
XV. Rationalism and Mysticism
No cogent rational inference can be made from the world to what is outside it. If this is so, when the Rationalist asks for a rational proof of the existence of God, he is asking for something which in the nature of the case it is impossible to have. A rational proof would draw God into the world and make Him a part of the pattern He is alleged to create.
XVI. The Justification of Belief
It is unquestionable that those human Figures who are generally recognized to be the most spiritually impressive, to begin with Jesus himself, do not show the heroism of despair, but a serenity of absolute confidence in the centre of their activity, a quiet and joy which is their commanding strength.
June 4, 2017
If you are interested in a logical framework for ( mostly Western) religious thought, and if you are willing to follow along through a pretty exhaustive series of classical Latin and Greek references, and assuming you are willing to make certain leaps along with the author, then you may enjoy this book.
Though the author's Christianity is evident from his paradigm it is not his focus, due to the nature of the seminar that produced this work. I found it useful for reflection and examination of religious concepts I often overlook.
Though the author's Christianity is evident from his paradigm it is not his focus, due to the nature of the seminar that produced this work. I found it useful for reflection and examination of religious concepts I often overlook.
February 18, 2024
I particularly liked the lectures on Time and Wrath, both of which made me look at things from a new angle. Justification of Belief was also very good. No beef with the other lectures; they just weren't my angle of interest.
May 21, 2020
Simply fantastic account of the various symbolisms of religious belief, much like James' varieties of religious experience.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews