[61] Literalism^a deprives God^b of His ultimacy^c; religiously speaking, of His majesty. It draws Him down to the level of that which is, by its very nature, not ultimate: the finite, the unconditional [sic.]. In the last analysis, it is not rational criticism of the myth^d which is decisive--it never was, in the history of religion--but it is the inner-religious criticism. Faith^e, if it takes its symbols^f literally, becomes idolatrous^g. This is what has been felt by the classic leaders of the great religions (which became great by this very fact) as the shortcoming, the danger, of all symbolism and mythology in the religious realm. Literalism^h calls "ultimate" something which is less than ultimate. Faithⁱ, conscious of the symbolic character of its symbols^j, gives God^k the honor which is due to Him. Therefore one should distinguish two stages of literalism: the natural stage and the reactive stage. The natural stage is the stage in which the mythical and the literal are undistinguishable for human consciousness. The primitive period of human groups and of individuals in all periods consists in the inability to separate the creations of symbolic imagination from the facts which can be verified through observation and experiment. This stage of the human mind is FULLY JUSTIFIED, and should not be disturbed artificially, if somebody lives in it. It should not be disturbed, either in individuals or groups, up to the decisive moment in which man's questioning mind breaks the natural acceptance of the mythological visions as literal in their meaning. If this moment has appeared in the development of an individual--all those of you who have to deal with children, as parents or teachers, know that this is one of the most critical moments-- then two ways can be taken. The one way is that one replaces the unbroken by the broken myth, not that one removes the myth--one cannot--but that one is aware of the symbolic character of the mythological^l symbols. This is the way which is objectively demanded, although it is impossible for many people who prefer the repression of their questions to any kind of unsafety which appears with the breaking of the myth. People who WANT to remain safe, they are forced into the second stage of literalism--the conscious one--in which they repress the questions which have come up in their minds. And this is the wrong way, the way of repression^m. The tool of repression is usually an acknowledged authority--the sacred qualities (like Church or Bibleⁿ) to which one owes unconditional surrender.