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.

Woolf and Lewis also discuss his and her own interpretation of a divine dichotomy: light and dark, life and death, just and unjust. While these opposite circumstances are often referred to as separate and antagonistic, both authors reveal their actual, codependent nature. In Lewis’s essay, he discusses the existence of both just and unjust circumstances and, although the presence of unjustness is often used as an argument against the existence of a loving and righteous God, explains how both terms and situations can and must exist as a divine, dichotomous pair. The dichotomy Woolf focuses upon is obviously life and death as she queerly ponders the significance of such a menial and neutral creature and then shifts, as abruptly as the moth’s life does, to a struggle to understand death’s true purpose. When asked to compare such terms, one might be at a loss for words to counter the stark difference between “alive-and-well” and “dead-as-a-door-knob;” however, Woolf overcomes this difficulty by subtly or perhaps even unconsciously revealing the powerful meaning death actually contributes to life itself, even to that of a “frail and diminutive” (20) insect.

The distinct but somewhat hidden connections between both authors’ perspectives on the spiritual and dichotomous nature of life ironically unites and weaves together an immense, emotionally-charged and epic debate between various spiritual beliefs and claims about the truth of life itself. Religious beliefs, the notorious irritants involved in most brutal disputes, represent a different and often opposing perspective in followers of theological denominations and thus are usually regarded as mutually exclusive. Millions have perished defending what they thought to be the true answer to life’s quandaries as communicated by their God or gods. Most political disputes between countries are the result of initial religious differences and fueled by desires to proselytize “lost sheep.” Although society is able to unite and compromise on a myriad of differing stances, if not the evolution of our species would be severely hindered, religious ideologies remain steadfast and immensely guarded. According to Lewis and the core dogmas of various major religions, all differing spiritual beliefs are misguided, blasphemous and, as Lewis so tactfully states during his arithmetic metaphor, wrong. Examples of these core dogmas are the countless biblical quotations stating Jesus Christ as being the “only son of God” and the savior of mankind. One of the Ten Commandments as transcribed by Moses states, “thou shalt not worship false idols.” The majority of religions are built around the assumption that they hold the only true key to the meaning of life and the well being of human kind, hence the punishment of eternal damnation promised to all blasphemers of the Christian God. If God Himself threatens to punish in such a way, the extremist followers of many religions feel they have the right to punish, or at least condemn, those of differing faiths as well. Even cupid with all his love-inspired wisdom and “magic arrows” could not entrance and unify two opposing religions – in this case, opposites certainly do not attract.

Despite the plethora of evidence supporting the incompatibility of differing religious beliefs, Woolf and Lewis inconspicuously and, most likely, unknowingly offer a counter argument. Regardless of his strong stand upon the pages of the New Testament, Lewis’s underlying intention and spiritual viewpoints align conveniently with that of the “damned” (97) opposite, the pantheistic viewpoint of Woolf. He does this during his discussion on just and unjust circumstances. Lewis briefly describes his personal journey and spiritual awakening from atheism to Christianity. As mentioned previously, he states that his belief in the unjustness of the world led him to ultimately question his rigid atheistic loyalties and eventually acknowledge the existence of the Christian deity because in order to experience unjust circumstances one must experience, or be somewhat aware of, just circumstances – these being God. It is safe then to extrapolate Lewis’s consequent belief that just and unjust, good and evil, light and dark are necessary. If they are necessary then one can say they are indeed codependent and connected; one cannot exist without the other. Bridging both author’s together, Woolf’s necessary, or inherent, dichotomy of life and death and her belief that these two forces are in some way connected or even one in the same, parallels greatly with the necessary existence of good and evil according to Lewis’s perspective. When all is said and done, the stark differences between pantheism and Christianity seem to be a result of simple misunderstandings, a differing in vocabulary. Lewis chooses to draw a thick dividing line between good and evil personifying both with names such as God and the Devil; he thus refers to two ends of the same stick separately. Woolf, on the other hand, remains content with the vagueness of existence acknowledging only the “massed, indifferent energy” that flows through all things; she thus refers to the entire stick itself as one object. Both, however, are discussing the same stick – the backbone of human existential belief.

Both Woolf’s and Lewis’s delivery of their spiritual perspectives on life prove effective in many ways. However, it is Woolf who surpasses the other by reaching through the pages of literature and invading the often-distracted minds of aimless beings. Differing from Lewis, Woolf engages the creative tendencies in her readers and, at the same time, stimulates complex thought as she ponders the significance and morality of death. Woolf’s readers are entertained and captured by her imaginative prose and descriptive genius especially as she describes the world beyond the “windowpane” (20). Woolf romanticizes the simplicities of daily life to such a degree that here readers truly feel guilty of often rejecting such an amazing opportunity for joy and pleasure. Her comparison between human beings and the pitiful happenings of a hybrid day-moth and then her ultimate transcendence of the moth placing it high above humans as it nobly and tenaciously battles for its menial existence against the quintessential super power, death, leaves her readers screaming for a second chance to appreciate each and every second from now on. The possibility of an interconnecting stream of energy that is the fundamental component of all things and both the inspiration for birth and catalyst for death seems not only possible but probable as Woolf metaphorically employs the rooks, ploughs and downs as symbols to represent this amazing and universal power. Whether or not she actually changes the beliefs of her readers depends solely upon each individual’s openness to let fresh outlooks affect them. However, Woolf undoubtedly plants the seeds endowing them with the same energy she speaks of within the diminutive body of the moth and intricate pathways within her own brain – her readers are convincingly left with a choice: to live life unaware of the multitude of meaningful possibilities and pass on with feet in the air or take charge, experience life to the outermost edges of human possibility and leave this world kicking and screaming, defending an existence that truly gleamed with purpose.