C. S. Lewis "Mere Christianity"

by rem 34 Replies latest jw friends

hillary_step

Rem,
I have to agree with your summation of C. Day Lewis', 'Mere Christianity'. It is a book which relies on a sympathetic reader and does not withstand the vigorous scrutiny of the contemporary atheist.
In his defence, the book was first published sixty years ago when the development of modern science was at a far less advanced level than today and the issues that he attempts to attend to have to be seen against this backdrop. It was a book of it's time.
He also makes it quite clear in his personal letters that it was a layman's attempt at bridging the gulf between the non-believer and the Christian and he fully acknowledged that it was more impressionistic than scientific. I think what has happened is that the book began to be used by Christians, who often amplify anything that defends Christianity beyond any reality, as a means of trying to assuage the rapid growth of atheism which took place from 30's onward. Perhaps it was not designed for this purpose. I always think that Lewis' writings show far more humility in prupose than have many of his defenders would like to admit to.
Anyway, anybody who can boast to passing on his blood to that consumate actor Daniel Day Lewis cannot be all bad!
Best regards - HS
LittleToe

Euph:
I'm more liberal and humanistic than fundamentalists, but I would claim none of those titles
REM:
I approached it as a philosophical work, rather than a scientific examination of the nature of belief.
IMHO (and without the author around to ask, any more), I believe the intent was to provoke thought. That is the essense of good literature, and as you rightly pointed out, that was his grounding. He's self-confessedly not a theologian, but just a lay-person, invited to express.
I'd like to take it point by point, if I may. As you stated it really is an easy read, and there's little excuse for anyone not to pick it up and finish it (I'm stating that more for those who've never attempted it). It's also quite revealing of the Christian "mentality", however I think the emphasis of understanding his viewpoint would have to be based on the word "faith". I may start a thread on that subject, to highlight what I mean.
Shall we begin with the Preface and Foreword?
He makes a few points of interest, to me. Firstly he highlights the pointlessness of arguing about denominational differences, and likens his position to that of a hall, which denominational rooms coming off of it.
On p.9 he states:
"There are questions at issue between Christians to which I do not think we have been told the answer. There are some to which I may never know the answer: if I asked them, even in a better world, I might (for all I know) be answered as a far greater questioner was answered: 'What is that to thee? Follow thou me.'"
Then on p.15 he states:
"The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable.It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at."
LOL - I couldn't help thinking of the Kingdom Hall, when reading that.
Moving on to the foreword (by Kathleen Norris), we find this statement on p.20:
"The longest way round is the shortest way home" is the logic of both fable and of faith."
And on p.21:
"The Christianity Lewis espouses is humane, but not easy: it asks us to recognize that the great religious struggle is not fought on a spectacular battleground, but within the ordinary human heart, when every morning we awake and feel the pressures of the day crowding in on us, and we must decide what sort of immortals we wish to be."
So, from the start it espouses a philosophy of tolerance, and puts all of mankind on the level footing of being immortal. He also acknowledges that he hasn't got all the answers. To my mind, that's some of the key messages of Christianity.
HS:I would agree with your comments.
It was never intended as a rigorous apologetic, but rather a presentation of a position.
The questions it raises are of more worth than the conclusions drawn, as the ethos of Christianity is ultimately to draw your own conclusions. This is the essense of "Christian Liberty".
It does reach into the depths of the human psyche, and to be honest there's a lot of primitive stuff in that.
Billygoat

It was never intended as a rigorous apologetic, but rather a presentation of a position.

Great point LT. Also...many Christians tout the validity of reading such a book because they've HEARD it's a great apologetic...not because they've read it themselves. There are many Christians out there by title...not because of example of their life. More often than not they state what they've heard versus something they've researched themselves and come to believe on their own.
LittleToe

BG:
So many do the same with Jesus, too. They accept a second or even third hand explanation of him, without trying to truly experience what has been written about him, far less meet with him first hand.
As best Lewis is giving an opportunity to taste what should be the best of Christianity, secondhand.
SixofNine

As you stated it really is an easy read, and there's little excuse for anyone not to pick it up and finish it

er.. well, in my defense, I don't find anything that I disagree with the basic premise of an easy read, in fact I find it almost impossible, unless it is fascinating otherwise. Mere Christianity covers concepts I'd already hashed out on my exit from the borg, so it was both boring and wrong to me. The Watchtower is not an easy read either, for me.
Now that I think about it, I just really can't tolerate reading anything, by anyone, wherein the author deigns to tell me all about God. That really is the sin of the WT, and it is no less a sin for anyone else; this idea that one person, or some persons, know something about God that others don't. It insults all other humans while at the same time intimating that God is either such a sucky communicator, or lousy bastard, that he can't or won't get His important message to all men equally.
LittleToe

Six:
What part of this statement did you not get?
So, from the start it espouses a philosophy of tolerance, and puts all of mankind on the level footing of being immortal. He also acknowledges that he hasn't got all the answers. To my mind, that's some of the key messages of Christianity.
SixofNine

So, from the start it espouses a philosophy of tolerance, and puts all of mankind on the level footing of being immortal.

Well, to be honest I think one of the worlds bigger problems is mankind in general focusing so much on the elusive immortal, when they could be spending time, effort, energy, and thought on being being better (and thereby happier) mortals. But beyond that, I don't think C.S. Lewis really did put all humankind on equal footing, at least not in Mere Christianity, even if he does think them all immortal. Admitedly, it's been a few years since I formed my opinion of the book, so I won't critisize him too much on this point till I look at it again. Then I'll trash him like a politician. .
But again, anyone who deigns to write a book wherein they state authoritatively what god wants or doesn't want out of humans, has not put all mankind on equal footing, they've elevated themselves very highly.
Now you may say, "but SixofNien, does that mean that no one should write about God, at all?" My answer would be "yes, zat ees preeecisly right. The world very much needs a 1000 year moratorium on spirtitual writings; a STFUAL* period, so that if God wanted to, he/she/it could get a freaking word in edgewise. How could something so reich be wrong?"
* and listen
LittleToe

Six:
Then I'll trash him like a politician.

Excellent
REM and Abaddon are going to, anyhow, so you might as well join the party - LOL.
It should be thought provoking, at the very least, for all sides.
lisaBObeesa

Rem and all on this thread,
May I please respond to some of the things you say about this book? I am very poor at debate and I am not looking for a debate, honestly! I just really am interested in these books and the author and his logic, etc. I found them more logical than some of you, and that worries me a bit. Perhaps I am being too easily persuaded.
I suppose I am arguing with you about some of your points, but only in the most friendly and open-minded way?My goal is to test my thinking?. Be easy with me if you respond because I am a sensitive soul, but I am trying to toughen up a bit.
Frankly I don't even know where to start... I guess at the beginning. The whole book - the whole entire argument - is based on the foundation that there is such a thing as a Universal Moral Law.

Yes..I agree?
It seems to me that Lewis just assumes this is true and does little to actually try and prove it.

Lewis spends no less than two chapters supporting his argument for this universal moral law. That is, two chapters supporting the idea with some logic (imo), not proof. I don't know how he could 'prove' there is a universal moral law any more than he could 'prove' there is a God, or you could 'prove' there is not a god.
At best he shot down some weak strawmen against his position.

Can you give me some examples here, so I can judge if I agree with you or not?
At worst he totally contradicted himself by claiming that some people don't know this Universal Moral Law and have to learn it.

I don't think so. Lewis does suggest that just because a law must be taught, does not mean that the law could not be a ?universal?, (not of human invention), law. In support of this idea, he used an analogy of the multiplication table. We learn the multiplication tables. If we do not learn the multiplication tables, that does not mean the universal multiplication laws do not exist. Whether someone taught you it or not, there is a universal law of multiplication.

*This analogy does not prove that there is a Universal Moral Law, but it does show that just because something is learned, doesn?t mean it can?t be a universal law. And that is all Lewis was trying to show.*
Other things he says are silly to me. He dismisses atheism because it's "too simple". He likens it to fish who don't know they are wet - atheism can't be true because if life really had no meaning then we wouldn't know it.

He did not say that atheism can?t be true because if life really had no meaning then we wouldn?t know it. Lewis said that his old argument for atheism did not explain why we have the Universal Moral Law, and so atheism didn?t answer his questions about the universe: it was ?too simple?. (and he had already explained why he believed there is a universal moral law)
Take it or leave it if you like, but he is laying out a line of reasoning that is possible. Not proven, Possible.

That is bizarre thinking to me... a non equeter if I've ever heard one. Then - no more discussion about atheism. That was the nail in the coffin for it.

This book was not intended to prove Christianity, or disprove atheism, imo. It is intended to ?explain and defend the belief that have been common to nearly all Christians at all times.? It is a good book to see what Christians as a whole believe, and how their beliefs are logically possible. If you are looking for proof of if there is a God or not, you are not going to find it here. Or, in my opinion, anywhere.
Then he goes on to talk about good and evil (dualism). He claims that nobody can do bad for the sake of doing bad - they have to be doing bad things to pursue what is actaully good (power, sexual pleasure, etc.). He never explains why power and sexual pleasure are "good" and not neutral.

?I am thinking I don?t understand this dualism thing?going back to read this part of the book?.brb?.
...Ok I am back, and I am still not sure what I think about this problem (?) of him not calling these things ?neutral? instead of ?good.? It seems to me that he is talking about dualism, and by definition there is no 'neutral' in dualism so why bring it up in a discussion about dualism?
He just assumes it's true. He also starts talking about a higher standard that would be beyond both the all good god and the all bad god. Well, doesn't that mean that the Christian god would also be held to a higher standard and doesn't actually "decide" what is good and bad? Then isn't god subbordinate to a higher law?

Ok I am gonna try to explain it anyway: If one god is good, and one god is bad, who says which is which? Don?t we need some outside rule to judge, to define good and bad? Otherwise, everything bad is good to the ?bad god?? and if that is so, then there is no real ?good? or ?bad? at all and the whole thing falls in on itself. (There is really much more to this, but I can?t express it here without simply typing out several paragraphs in chapter 2.) In contrast, the Christian idea is that of one God who is Good, period. All else in the universe is judged next to this measure. It is a totally different idea. That is all Lewis is saying at this point.
Thanks for talking about this subject and thanks for reading my long post,
-LisaBObeesa
LittleToe

Lisa:
I loved your post. I don't know what you mean about your inability to debate. I feel you presented yourself very well. Keep up the good show.
This book was not intended to prove Christianity, or disprove atheism, imo. It is intended to ?explain and defend the belief that have been common to nearly all Christians at all times.? It is a good book to see what Christians as a whole believe, and how their beliefs are logically possible. If you are looking for proof of if there is a God or not, you are not going to find it here. Or, in my opinion, anywhere.
I wholeheartedly agree.
The dualism debate looks interesting. I'm going to go and re-read that bit, myself

C. S. Lewis "Mere Christianity"

Share this