Lots of great quotes from Charles M. Schulz on religion (and more) via Biblioklept reader JESCIE. Sample—
I don’t know the meaning of life. I don’t know why we are here. I think life is full of anxieties and fears and tears. It has a lot of grief in it, and it can be very grim. And I do not want to be the one who tries to tell somebody else what life is all about. To me it’s a complete mystery.”
All citations are from Charles M. Schulz: Conversations, which I now want to read.
Biblioklept 
I suspect the reason we have trouble with the “mystery of life” today is due to the nature of our discourse.
In the pre-modern world we had two forms of discourse: logos & mythos. Both were equally valid, but only applicable to two different realms — logos for the practical world, and mythos for the meaning of life. In order to cook something or make a tool, we employed logos, but in order to tell a story we used mythos. The pre-modern societies kept them both separate, and art was the appropriate means to bridge both.
Today, since the emergence of science, logos has grown dominant as the sole mode of discourse, and that caused mythos to fall into disrepute, hence the discredited nature of myth. Philosophy is a mere caricature of science, and any discipline that invokes the stories of myth such as psychology is borderline unscientific.
Religion has morphed too, as well, and tries to dispel the mystery with doctrine, mimic after science with creationism. Hence the abnormal growth of fundamentalism that knows only logos. Modernity is sick and rotten to the core with its fixation on logos.
Art may be our way back — or the way forward to a new healthier future of discourse.
LikeLike
I suspect the reason we have trouble with the “mystery of life” today is due to the nature of our discourse.
In the pre-modern world we had two forms of discourse: logos & mythos. Both were equally valid, but only applicable to two different realms — logos for the practical world, and mythos for the meaning of life. In order to cook something or make a tool, we employed logos, but in order to tell a story we used mythos. The pre-modern societies kept them both separate, and art was the appropriate means to bridge both.
Today, since the emergence of science, due to its authoritative role, logos has grown dominant as the sole mode of discourse, and that caused mythos to fall into disrepute, hence the discredited nature of myth. Philosophy is a mere caricature of science, and any discipline that invokes the stories of myth such as psychology is borderline unscientific.
Religion has morphed too, as well, and tries to dispel the mystery with doctrine, mimic after science with creationism. Hence the abnormal growth of fundamentalism that knows only logos. Modernity is sick and rotten to the core with its fixation on logos.
Art may be our way back — or the way forward to a new healthier future of discourse.
LikeLike