- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In this book C.S. Lewis focuses on some of the most common objections people have to the idea of miracles and Christianity in general. According to him, many of these objections are irrational and based on misunderstandings, false assumptions, emotional arguments, etc. rather than valid logic. He talks a lot about “naturalism” which in this case basically refers to the assumption that our current perception and understanding of the universe is a fairly accurate representation of all that there is and all that we should ever expect to find even when looking back in time throughout history. For example, one common “naturalistic” objection to miracles mentioned in the book is that they often defy the normally observed “laws of nature” and if not then they could have just happened anyway as a coincidence and are not necessarily miraculous at all. So the idea of something radically unusual and unexpected happening just doesn’t sit well with many people and even if they believe in God some of them still have a hard time accepting the idea that God would really do something like this to contradict the expected order of things.
One specific critic of miracles this book talks about was Hume who basically claimed that no amount of testimony would be sufficient to establish any miracle as a trusted fact because it is always more likely that supposed witnesses would lie or be deceived than that something so unusual would actually happen in real life. Also related to this kind of “naturalism” is the explanation that primitive people were more likely to believe in fantastic stories or attribute supernatural causes to natural events because they were relatively superstitious and ignorant. So the assumption is that we have inherited all these old stories about miracles but we should supposedly know better by now than to continue believing in them.
In countering these arguments C.S. Lewis concedes that miracles are improbable by definition but suggests that this doesn’t really mean they are impossible in special cases. He also claims that miracles don’t really violate the laws of nature because these laws are really just a pattern typically observed under normal unaltered conditions rather than the direct cause of events and miracles already assume a supernatural force acting as an external cause to manipulate the results within the natural system similar to a coin toss using a loaded coin to cheat and rig the outcome.
Even though I don’t agree with some of his ideas what I like about C.S. Lewis is that he gives the impression that he honestly considered almost every possibility imaginable before settling on his own beliefs. For example, when looking at different Bible stories he openly considers the possibility that some of them could easily be myths, legends, or outright lies rather than just assuming that they all need to be accurate historical facts or else the whole Jesus story is worthless. He tries to separate what he considers essential beliefs (I.E. the divinity of Jesus) from what is not (Jonah surviving 3 days in the belly of a whale). Unlike some apologists he doesn’t really try to rationalize and deny any credible scientific or historical evidence that doesn’t agree with the Bible. Also he seems to be fully aware of some of the most popular ideas of various atheists, pantheists, Buddhists, etc. and seems to understand their point-of-view before rejecting their claims when they go too far.
I love this book. It was given to me by some dear friends before I went on a long trip, way before i joined the LDS, and when I was in another church. I even enjoyed reading it during my years of agnosticism. I treasure my crumpled copy to this day. C.S. Lewis is the always living 16th member of the Q12. Just saying. 
Old-Timer wrote:C.S. Lewis is the always living 16th member of the Q12. Just saying.
I found some articles that express surprise about the relative popularity of CS Lewis among Mormons and Evangelical Christian fundamentalists. This love of CS Lewis seems odd to some because of the fact that he thought that many Bible stories were myths and readily accepted the theory of evolution and also believed in some essentially Catholic, Universalist, and ecumenical ideas that are very much at odds with many of these conservative churches’ doctrines and had the following to say about Mormonism in particular:
Quote:“I have always in my books been concerned simply to put forward “mere” Christianity, and am no guide on these (most regrettable) “interdenominational” questions. I do however strongly object to the tyrannic and unscriptural insolence of anything that calls itself a Church and makes teetotalism a condition of membership.”
I guess it’s almost like the way many Christians want to adopt Einstein as a fellow believer in God even though he specifically said that he didn’t believe in a “personal god” or afterlife and that he thought the Bible stories were “childish.” So when Einstein talked about God he probably meant something more like some kind of vague pantheist/deist notion of an intelligent higher power that helps explain the apparent order in the universe to some extent.
The average rank-and-file member of some of these conservative churches that like to quote CS Lewis or Einstein couldn’t get away with saying many of the things they said without being ostracized and condemned as a heretic but I guess independent scholars get more leeway with their opinions as long as they aren’t belligerent religion-hating atheists. Actually, CS Lewis went through an atheist phase himself early in life before later changing his mind and embracing Christianity and I think this is part of the reason why some of his ideas appealed to others that followed a similar path to Christianity like M. Scott Peck and Francis Collins.
Actually I see no contradiction here. You can like a lot of what someone says without agreeing with all of it. How could we deal with our friends and loved ones otherwise?
I certainly feel this way about CS Lewis.
At his best he puts great ideas into the language of ordinary people, at worst, he comes across as a condescending middle class git.
SamBee wrote:Actually I see no contradiction here.
You can like a lot of what someone says without agreeing with all of it. How could we deal with our friends and loved ones otherwise?
I certainly feel this way about CS Lewis…
Right, I’m not trying to say that Mormons should only listen to other Mormons or that fundamentalist Christians should only listen to other fundamentalist Christians; in fact I believe just the opposite that these groups would typically be better off in the long run if they paid more attention to outside sources of information and ideas rather than just picking out a few quotes they like and completely ignoring any ideas they don’t like.
Personally, I think trying to ignore or deny convincing evidence and logic is mostly pointless and counterproductive over the long run if the leaders of these churches really care about the long-term well-being of their flock. You can try to hide from the evidence and pretend it does not exist all you want but it is still there for everyone to see as soon as they want to be honest with themselves and recognize it for what it is (Luke 8:16-17). Sure there are plenty of individuals that can be perfectly content to believe in a fantasy their entire life but when you expect entire families to do the same from one generation to the next you are basically setting people up for disappointment for no good reason.
The fact that Mormons think in terms of quotes is as much the fault of a shallow consumerist society as the institution that they belong to. Of course the greedy amongst us want short attention spans, fashions shift product.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.