Lewis and Authentic Apologetics
Chris Friel
about the value Lewis attached to apologetics. I was struck just now
by reading in De Futilitate that he regarded the atheism of Shelley as
holier than the theism of Paley. Might there be certain defenders of
the faith who would receive a similar censure - along with Job's
comforters? I once heard a man describe Swinburne as obscene – might
Lewis sympathise? I raise this question in an attempt at discovery
(recovery?) of what might be termed authentic apologetics. I have
some thoughts, but what do you think?
m...@mooreffoc.com
wrote:
Lewis's step-son, Doug Gresham, once posted something here to the effect
that 'apologetics' used to mean defending the faith against specific
attacks, not some sort of ... philosophical evangelism, did he say??
Something like that.
Mary
AJA
>I would be interested in hearing what members of this group think
>about the value Lewis attached to apologetics.
Lewis' apologetics were masterful and still convince many today.
He gave up apologetics, however. Whether he had no more to say in
defense of the faith, or whether he was interested in other writing
has been speculated.
> I was struck just now
>by reading in De Futilitate that he regarded the atheism of Shelley as
>holier than the theism of Paley.
Holier? I don't think Lewis said holier. But better defended, maybe.
I don't know what authentic apologetics is, as opposed to
non-authentic.
Certainly there is some perfectly awful stuff out there masquerading
as apologetics.
Please share your thoughts.
All the best,
Ann
Chris Friel
I agree, CSL would recommend the more modest task of defending
Christianity against misunderstandings and objections rather than
engaging in "philosophic evangelism" but didn't his actual practice
involve more than what his recommendations entail? There is his
argument from sehnsucht that he almost seems to have patented. And
this is bound up with a philosophical concern that might almost be
called philosophical evangelism. Speaking personally, isn't this what
makes Lewis attractive?
Yesterday I wondered to myself about the philosophical reasons that
led Lewis to Theism (after being an Idealist). So I reread the
Pilgrim's Regress and was surprised to find that he doesn't record
any! What happened was that for him reasons played a part in becoming
an Idealist, but that he found that this was something he didn't live
consistently, for he caught himself praying. Reasoning didn't make him
a theist, rather it told him that only Theism was consistent with the
Thou he had uttered.
So it occurred to me that we should be careful never to assume that
when Lewis does argue for God, he is arguing for Theism - simply on
the grounds that he was in fact a theist.
All the same, he really does engage in philosophy – philosophical
evangelism if you like, though it might be moral philosophy. In Mere
Christianity there is the moral argument. But again, we shouldn't
assume that Lewis thinks that this is sufficient for theism.
Is there wisdom here?
AJA
Friel) wrote:
>chrisse...@hotmail.com (Chris Friel) wrote in message news:<a07bfa05.0204...@posting.google.com>...
>
(snip)
> What happened was that for him reasons played a part in becoming
>an Idealist, but that he found that this was something he didn't live
>consistently, for he caught himself praying. Reasoning didn't make him
>a theist, rather it told him that only Theism was consistent with the
>Thou he had uttered.
Yes. CSL talks reason, argues from reason, and converts from a state
of sehnsucht, by grace, you might say. He said things like,
Christianity baptized my imagination. His wisdom is that he can argue
from reason with the very best. And that he's not shy about that
other side- the longing for joy. Sehnsucht, if you will. The pitfall
of that word is apparent in the multiple meaning of the word in
German. It can be ardent longing, or more to addiction and even
pathological addiction. He has said that Christianity saved him from
German romanticism gone wrong. Thus, it is understandable that Lewis
often said that Christianity baptized his imagination.
It occurs to me that all this is fine speculation by one who never
knew CSL. To me he has many sides, which makes him so very intriguing
and believable. There is, on the one hand, the fine mind and
constant and vast education. And on the other hand, there is a person
who has peered into realms one thinks typical of mystics. CSL's
wonderful balance of all the many facets of life, his wisdom, is
something one can aspire to all the rest of one's days, I find.
All the best,
Ann
"I walk in wonders beyond myself." --C. S. Lewis
Chris Friel
Thanks again,
I've started a few threads, and they are all interconnected (tied up?)
I'm interested in Lewis and his break from materialism. Of course
sehnsucht is highly relevant, so I started a thread on that. Maybe
members of this newsgroup will agree with CSL on courtly love or
squirrel nutkin but object to the modern example...Beatrix- Yes,
Beatrix Potter - Possibly, but Harry Potter?! :-)
There is a link. Because for CSL the shock was not simply joy, but the
intellectual insight that came with Alexander's distinction between
enjoyment and Contemplation. And I take it that this is relevant to a
long intellectual search on Lewis's part concerning the nature of the
self. It was really this (no doubt with some inspiration from
Barfield) that spurred him to explore joy seriously. He had not simply
caught a sight of the Golden Apples, but someone had lowered the bough
so that they came within reach.
Chris
AJA
Friel) wrote:
The lasting impression _Surprised by Joy_ is that element of utter
surprise that one experiences when the light (or Light) dawns. Lewis
said that my that light all things are illuminated. And for him there
was a tremendous lot of things- from Plato, and nature, on. Lewis
wrote that when Christian joy came into his life, joy ceased to be of
much interest to him- the hole in the soul having been filled by
Christ, you might say. In SBJ he says that there was no more of that
sickness of the desire of desire. He found that desire wasn't a
thing; desire was a Person.
Still there are flashes. Read the essay, 'Hedonics' published in the
collection _Present Concerns_. That seems so spot on to me. Lewis'
answer to what he calls the "sham realist" who "accuses all myth and
fantasy and romance of wishful thinking" is to be more realist than
the sham. He says that we must "lay our ears closer to the murmer of
life" to experience the "quivering and wonder and infinity".
Chris Friel
As to the question: what do I mean by intellectual conversion? The
theologian I'm following is someone called Bernard Lonergan. He
claims that essentially it's simple.
The infant (literally, one who can't talk) lives in a world of
immediate experience- not a world mediated by meaning; the young child
(typically before the age of seven) can understand, but basically
confuses fact from fiction; the older child (after seven) is capable
of judgement-moral responsibility comes in here. So there are
different senses of what's real: the world of immediacy and the world
mediated by meaning. But when we philosophise we can confuse all this.
Different senses of reality correspond to different philosophies:
naïve realism including materialism, idealism and then critical
realism. Intellectual conversion is the discovery of critical realism
having passed through idealism. But in practice it gets really
confusing, in fact he describes the transition "startling". So he
claims it took a great mind like Augustine years to become convinced
that the term ‘real' could mean anything else apart from ‘body'.
What interests me is how well these ideas fit Lewis's experience. I'm
not sure. His New Look was essentially materialistic. Russell was a
very brilliant man but his realism would be classified as "naïve" by
Lonergan. Lewis gradually moved away, into idealism –Plato's influence
via Barfield? But in the end Lewis must definitely be regarded as a
realist – his theism, indeed his Christianity, proves this. But how
the last step came, I don't know, and I'm not sure whether critical
realism describes CSL fairly. Maybe it was as a result of religious
conversion – Lonergan also analyses moral and religious conversion as
well and claims that one can cause the other.
Also of interest is what happens in us when we read CSL
sympathetically. Don't we recognize a certain inner growth? We might
say of him what he said of Spencer- to read Lewis is to grow in mental
health. Was it some type of conversion that was going forward? And are
there other writers who, however well-meaning, don't have this effect?
Is this linked to intellectual conversion?