tgamble

I was in a second hand book store and I saw Mere Christianity by C.S. lewis. Here's the interesting part. It was in the fantasy/sci-fi section.

diana

Amusing. Of course, this only proves that people had heard of C.S. Lewis and knew he was a fantasy/sci-fi writer, and didn't look real close to see what this particular book was about.

I'm still reading that book. It isn't nearly as gripping a read as I'd hoped it would be. And it's annoying to not be able to respond to flawed premises when I see them. He can continue building an argument on something he thinks he's already established, but that I don't buy based on his criteria.

This board has me spoiled.

d

Jobar

My favorite Lewis was "The Screwtape Letters"- I never read MC, and I believe the man himself admitted that the arguments he used in it did not hold up under serious scrutiny.

Despite luvluv's infatuation with Lewis, AFAIK he is not considered among the best Christian thinkers. He was very popular in his day, though.

diana

Intriguing. I'd be interested in a reference, if you have one.

Yes. I've noticed that the very best thinkers are not the well-read ones, as a matter of course.

Lewis' MC is still popular among Xns. The vast majority of them don't have the capacity to think critically about anything they're told, and Lewis purports to be critical of his own beliefs in the book, but isn't--but his ideas are most accessible, via the "argumentative" vehicle of Analogy, Ad Nauseum.

d

Odemus

Try 'The Abolition of Man' or 'Miracles', I think you would be forced to retract some of those negative assertions.

Fiach

Actually Lewis' Christian writing is his very best fantasy. It is fabulous, quite incredulous, and humourous. It is worth the £2.50 for the entertainment value.

Of course if you are into the horror genre, the two best recommendations are H. P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu series and the Christian Bible.

Fiach

Tercel

I second Odemus,
I think "Miracles" is Lewis' best book as far as quality of argumentation is concerned. I also enjoyed "The Abolition of Man" and "The Great Divorce".

Vorkosigan

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nicholas_tattersall/miracles.html" target="_blank">Critique at Infidels</a>

It's clearly another pompous, vain, poorly-researched, philosophically bankrupt piece of writing from the past master of puffery. His fiction is so much better (in fact I am introducing it this week on my radio show); it's a shame he wasted so much time writing apologetics.

Vorkosigan

AbbyNormal

I just finished reading MC and was equally disappointed. I found the references to a "common moral code" to be weak. And the notion that we should believe Jesus is the son of god just because it would be silly to believe otherwise.....?? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> After that brilliance, the rest of the book is really irrelevant. It is very accessible, and I can understand its appeal to the x-ian masses....but the logic is deeply flawed.
Okay, my rant is done.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: AbbyNormal ]</p>

luvluv

Jobar:

Well, in fairness, Mere Christianity is the composite of three different works, only the first of which is apologetic in nature. The 2nd and 3rd parts are theological sketches, and relatively decent ones.

I think the popularity of Lewis is spawned from the intelligence in his writings (above average level for laymen Christian literature), his humour, and the obvious love and devotion he has for God. The latter may escape some of you purely emotional Vulcans on this board ( ) and may cause you to be perplexed at his popularity. I rarely feel closer to God than I do when reading a C.S. Lewis book, and it's this aspect, probably moreso than his arguments, which always infatuated me with his work. His best work, in my opinion, is not in Mere Christianity but in some of his essay collections: Reflections on the Psalms has one of the best explanations of the function of worship and praise that I've ever read, and the World's Last Night also has some good stuff about the difference between how Christians believe and how non-Christians believe.

I think it is fair to say that C.S. Lewis is much smarter than most of his books will reveal because he conciously wrote for the laymen. I've read excerpts from his more scholarly works (he was a fairly respected professor of medieval literature) and that stuff is a little more challenging. I wouldn't go overboard patting myself on the back for being able to decipher his arguments which he purposely dumbed down for the general public.

I don't think the argument he produced in Mere Christianity is at all sound, but it is convincing. I find it more convincing than the evolutionary hypothesis for the origin of morality, which I consider to be somewhat absurd. No, the argument is not a sound, formal, airtight affair. I don't think it was ever meant to rigorously prove anything to anyone beyond dispute. There are definitnely holes in it and I think C.S. was smart enough to see them. My opinion is that he was presenting an argument which the general public would find challenging and thought provoking. C.S. knew full well that in philopsophical writings he was a layman, and he generally opened his books making that admission. Mere Christianity is more something that he would have given to the average person on the street thinking about God and morality than a book he would have presented to a specialized philosophical publication for review. I think it does what it intends to do rather well.

I think it's a category mistake to compare C.S. with folks like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga. They have different audiences and different intentions.

For the record, Till We Have Faces is, in my opinion, Lewis' best book. If you haven't read that one, pick it up.

I've also always wondered what atheists get out of Screwtape, which they must consider to be a pack of lies. I've always found it insightful as to the nature of God, the nature of demonic forces, and the nature of humanity. But I don't see what an atheist would get out of it, it's main appeal to me is that much of it seems to be so true.