What do you think?
Rate this book
Shepherd's Notes
Mere Christianity
In the classic Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis, the most important writer of the 20th century, explores the common ground upon which all of those of Christian faith stand together. Bringing together Lewis’ legendary broadcast talks during World War Two from his three previous books The Case for Christianity, Christian Behavior, and Beyond Personality, Mere Christianity provides an unequaled opportunity for believers and nonbelievers alike to hear this powerful apologetic for the Christian faith.
191 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1952
About the author
C.S. Lewis
1,165 books44.2k followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Clive Staples Lewis was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably one of the most influential writers of his day. He was a Fellow and Tutor in English Literature at Oxford University until 1954. He was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include Mere Christianity, Out of the Silent Planet, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters, and the universally acknowledged classics The Chronicles of Narnia. To date, the Narnia books have sold over 100 million copies and been transformed into three major motion pictures.
Lewis was married to poet Joy Davidman.
W.H. Lewis was his elder brother]
Clive Staples Lewis was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably one of the most influential writers of his day. He was a Fellow and Tutor in English Literature at Oxford University until 1954. He was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include Mere Christianity, Out of the Silent Planet, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters, and the universally acknowledged classics The Chronicles of Narnia. To date, the Narnia books have sold over 100 million copies and been transformed into three major motion pictures.
Lewis was married to poet Joy Davidman.
W.H. Lewis was his elder brother]
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 13,365 reviews
January 18, 2013
I had to stop reading this, it was making me ill. It may be that every single sentence in this book is either wrong or offensive or inane or all three. Here's a passage from page 45 - CS is talking about what he calls Dualism (i.e. Manichaeism) whereby the existence of evil is explained by there being two equal forces in the Universe which are in perpetual contention, the Good one and the Bad one. CS says:
"If Dualism is true then the Bad Power must be a being who likes badness for its own sake. But in reality we have no experience of anyone liking badness just because it is bad. The nearest we can get to it is in cruelty. But in real life people are cruel for one of two reasons - either because they are sadists, that is, because they have a sexual perversion which makes cruelty a cause of sensual pleasure to them, or else for the sake of something they are going to get out of it - money, or power, or safety. But pleasure, money, power and safety are all, as far as they go, good things. The badness consists in pursuing them by the wrong method, or in the wrong way, or too much. i do not mean, of course, that the people who do this are not desperately wicked. I do mean that wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in the wrong way. You can be good for the mere sake of goodness : you cannot be bad for the mere sake of badness."
I was never that well versed in the subtleties of philosophical debate, and it is true that my brain has been progressively enfeebled by a constant dripfeed of Old Peculiar, chicken tikka masala and Italian exploitation movies, yet even I can see that this adds up to a pile of shit of Brobdingnagian proportions. Dualism is wrong because it is impossible to “like” badness for its own sake, huh? Because when you do bad things you’re really trying to achieve ends which are really good, but you’re going about it the wrong way, huh? Well now, let’s take our old devilish no-friend-of-mine Adolf Hitler. He was quite convinced that he was doing a GOOD THING by ridding Germany of all Jews. The idea was to eradicate every last one of them. The ultimate idea (though he recognised this was something for later generations and he would not live to see the glad day) was to murder every single Jew throughout the world, because in the very depths of his racist insanity he thought the Jews were Evil. So getting rid of them was Doing the World a Favour. As in – eventually, they will thank me for this gruelling but essential task. Okay, C S Lewis – ANALYSE THAT! How in whatever grotesque rhetorical contortion could that be construed as pursuing a GOOD thing in the wrong way?? There was a classic multiple murderer in 1972 in California called Herbert Mullin – he was a schizophrenic who was obsessed with the impending Big Earthquake and went around randomly beating 13 people to death because his brain told him THAT WAS THE WAY TO STOP THE EARTHQUAKE! I get it, CS, he was trying to do a GOOD thing in a BAD way. So he’s your example. But uh-oh, what about Josef Fritzl and the family in the basement? He knew what he was doing was Very Bad and it gave him a big thrill. He would go to friends' barbecues and fry steaks and chuckle to himself "if only they knew about my incest family in the basement!" Or anyway, take the case of any common or garden wife beater – what GOOD are they trying to achieve in the “wrong way”? Oh, wait – CS says that “power” is as far as it goes a good thing. So it must be that the violent man’s partner is preventing him feeling adequately powerful and so he wishes to restore his power over her – which CS thinks is good – but “in the wrong way”. My brain is reeling from the Grand Canyon of wrongness of all of this. I’m a little shocked.
This was written in 1952 and CS comes across as a wise old buffer in a cardigan speaking to an earnest younger man. Both their wives are rustling up something to eat in the kitchen and talking about whatever mysterious things women find so interesting. Meanwhile the men thrash out the deep questions. Here’s a pearl I think we all ought to cherish:
“there are situations in which it is the duty of a married man to encourage his sexual impulse” (p.25)
Here’s another:
“the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did… surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did?” (p.24)
Surely we would, us avuncular old shitbags in cardigans puffing on our pipes and living in the real world as we do.
I think a copy of Mere Christianity should be provided free to every impressionable schoolchild in the country. It’d put them off for life.
******
WHY I THOUGHT OF READING THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE
Originally Pink Floyd was Syd Barrett's band - he was the lead guitarist, lead singer and only songwriter. Then he drank 5000 gallons of LSD and fried his brains. The other boys in the band were disturbed by his weird behaviour but he was still the golden goose for them. They would go round his house and he would teach them his new songs. One day, just before they decided he was too crazy and chucked him out, they went round and he taught them a new song with lots and lots of chords in it. Syd told them it was called "Have You Got It Yet?". He played it again and gleefully sang the chorus (have you got it yet, have you got it yet). They were baffled. he played it again. They still couldn't figure it out. Then they realised that every time he played it he was changing the chords around completely. "Have you got it yet?" - good one, Syd. Very funny.
For me, Christians are Syd barrett and I am one of the the duller Pink Floyd members. Every time the Christians play me their song they change the chords. So I still can't figure out what they mean when they speak these simple phrases with those little big words - "God", "saved", "life", "sin" - that kind of thing. Are the Christians deliberately vague and terminally woolly or are they subtle and insightful? Are they serious or do they just want to be in a big club? So I thought I would go back to C S Lewis and try to figure it out again.
"If Dualism is true then the Bad Power must be a being who likes badness for its own sake. But in reality we have no experience of anyone liking badness just because it is bad. The nearest we can get to it is in cruelty. But in real life people are cruel for one of two reasons - either because they are sadists, that is, because they have a sexual perversion which makes cruelty a cause of sensual pleasure to them, or else for the sake of something they are going to get out of it - money, or power, or safety. But pleasure, money, power and safety are all, as far as they go, good things. The badness consists in pursuing them by the wrong method, or in the wrong way, or too much. i do not mean, of course, that the people who do this are not desperately wicked. I do mean that wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in the wrong way. You can be good for the mere sake of goodness : you cannot be bad for the mere sake of badness."
I was never that well versed in the subtleties of philosophical debate, and it is true that my brain has been progressively enfeebled by a constant dripfeed of Old Peculiar, chicken tikka masala and Italian exploitation movies, yet even I can see that this adds up to a pile of shit of Brobdingnagian proportions. Dualism is wrong because it is impossible to “like” badness for its own sake, huh? Because when you do bad things you’re really trying to achieve ends which are really good, but you’re going about it the wrong way, huh? Well now, let’s take our old devilish no-friend-of-mine Adolf Hitler. He was quite convinced that he was doing a GOOD THING by ridding Germany of all Jews. The idea was to eradicate every last one of them. The ultimate idea (though he recognised this was something for later generations and he would not live to see the glad day) was to murder every single Jew throughout the world, because in the very depths of his racist insanity he thought the Jews were Evil. So getting rid of them was Doing the World a Favour. As in – eventually, they will thank me for this gruelling but essential task. Okay, C S Lewis – ANALYSE THAT! How in whatever grotesque rhetorical contortion could that be construed as pursuing a GOOD thing in the wrong way?? There was a classic multiple murderer in 1972 in California called Herbert Mullin – he was a schizophrenic who was obsessed with the impending Big Earthquake and went around randomly beating 13 people to death because his brain told him THAT WAS THE WAY TO STOP THE EARTHQUAKE! I get it, CS, he was trying to do a GOOD thing in a BAD way. So he’s your example. But uh-oh, what about Josef Fritzl and the family in the basement? He knew what he was doing was Very Bad and it gave him a big thrill. He would go to friends' barbecues and fry steaks and chuckle to himself "if only they knew about my incest family in the basement!" Or anyway, take the case of any common or garden wife beater – what GOOD are they trying to achieve in the “wrong way”? Oh, wait – CS says that “power” is as far as it goes a good thing. So it must be that the violent man’s partner is preventing him feeling adequately powerful and so he wishes to restore his power over her – which CS thinks is good – but “in the wrong way”. My brain is reeling from the Grand Canyon of wrongness of all of this. I’m a little shocked.
This was written in 1952 and CS comes across as a wise old buffer in a cardigan speaking to an earnest younger man. Both their wives are rustling up something to eat in the kitchen and talking about whatever mysterious things women find so interesting. Meanwhile the men thrash out the deep questions. Here’s a pearl I think we all ought to cherish:
“there are situations in which it is the duty of a married man to encourage his sexual impulse” (p.25)
Here’s another:
“the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did… surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did?” (p.24)
Surely we would, us avuncular old shitbags in cardigans puffing on our pipes and living in the real world as we do.
I think a copy of Mere Christianity should be provided free to every impressionable schoolchild in the country. It’d put them off for life.
******
WHY I THOUGHT OF READING THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE
Originally Pink Floyd was Syd Barrett's band - he was the lead guitarist, lead singer and only songwriter. Then he drank 5000 gallons of LSD and fried his brains. The other boys in the band were disturbed by his weird behaviour but he was still the golden goose for them. They would go round his house and he would teach them his new songs. One day, just before they decided he was too crazy and chucked him out, they went round and he taught them a new song with lots and lots of chords in it. Syd told them it was called "Have You Got It Yet?". He played it again and gleefully sang the chorus (have you got it yet, have you got it yet). They were baffled. he played it again. They still couldn't figure it out. Then they realised that every time he played it he was changing the chords around completely. "Have you got it yet?" - good one, Syd. Very funny.
For me, Christians are Syd barrett and I am one of the the duller Pink Floyd members. Every time the Christians play me their song they change the chords. So I still can't figure out what they mean when they speak these simple phrases with those little big words - "God", "saved", "life", "sin" - that kind of thing. Are the Christians deliberately vague and terminally woolly or are they subtle and insightful? Are they serious or do they just want to be in a big club? So I thought I would go back to C S Lewis and try to figure it out again.
September 16, 2012
I finished listening to this book early this morning, a little before seven. I could not sleep, and as I lay in the darkness in need of some comfort and company, I thought that I should go ahead and finish it. I am glad I did.
I am perhaps a bit biased. I have always liked Lewis, ever since I read The Chronicles of Narnia in high school. My liking deepened for him when I saw the movie Shadowlands. Something about his life called to me. I have since done research on him and his journey from atheism to fervent Christian belief. I cannot deny how inspiring I find his life.
I started this book years ago, and put it down, not out of disinterest, but because of other priorities at the time. As far as I got, which was not far, I appreciated his methodical, clear approach. I always intended to finish it. I actually own two copies, one on my Kindle, and one paperback copy. When I saw this at the library on audiobook, I decided to listen to it. That was a good decision.
Mere Christianity is a book on the fundamentals of Christian belief. Its audience is not just Christians, but also non-believers, folks who would like to investigate the faith of Christianity, what it entails, and what it doesn’t. Although the Bible is the foundation of our beliefs, I think this book does an exceptional job of condensing, or explaining, if you will what Christians espouse.
I respect Mr. Lewis that he does not pretend to have all the answers. That he does not deny that there are some things he had not figured out. Nor does he deny that he struggled with some aspects of being a Christian at times. That is a strong testament to the life of a Christian. We admit that we are flawed folks in need of saving. We admit that we strive to know God and to have God work in us to make us more like him. That takes a fundamental humility, one that is rewarded time and time again. By breaking down and admitting our brokenness, we become whole by our acceptance of him who made all things.
There were parts of this book that spoke so intimately to my spirit, that I lifted my hand to praise God. For Mr. Lewis had indeed through the power of the Holy Spirit, put on paper that feeling that I believe all people who are born again in Christ feel and experience. For that alone, I could easily give this book five stars. However, it has yet more to offer.
I appreciate just as much, how logical Mr. Lewis is in his discussion of Christianity. While many feel that Christians are fools who believe in fairy tales, he shows just how much sense Christianity makes to those who choose to follow it. While atheism might have appeal for some, there is more appeal to those who choose to follow Christ than deciding to reject God in any form. He takes it a bit further to explain why some point in between atheism and Christianity (including other belief systems) won’t work for those who choose to follow Christ. We freely admit we have nothing to lose, looking at the facts, and yes, there are inescapable facts about Jesus Christ, not just found in the Bible, in human history recorded by those who have absolutely no stake in affirming or confirming that miracle of God begotten man who came and died and rose again for the sins of humanity. He also speaks into the facts about the nature of humanity and what makes us uniquely created to love and to interact with a Creator who became man so that we could have an intimate and real relationship with him. If we are fools to seek Christ, then why do the laws of human morality and that essential need inside ourselves point to the need for a savior, for fellowship with God?
I won’t say I didn’t struggle with some aspects. And Lewis does not in any way excuse the fact that he is saying things that are hard to face. I like that brutal honesty. Brutal honesty is as much a part of the Christian faith as the comfort is in knowing that while the walk in following Christ is a tough road, we do it not alone, but through the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, who lives in us and empowers us to follow him.
This book comes highly recommended by this reader. It’s not overly long, certainly not bogged down in theological doctrines that won’t make any sense to a person who does not belong to a specific Christian denomination or who isn’t even a Christian. In fact, Mr. Lewis works very hard to use concrete examples that illustrate his points. His analytical approach makes this profound spiritual message that much more powerful, because he does not seek to play on the reader’s emotional heartstrings or sentimentalities. As a lover of Christ, he does not seek to turn his message into another one of manipulation (as many view Christianity and the followers of this faith), for it’s far too important for that. I know that I will read this book again, probably more than once. I would like to come back to it and explore some of the thoughts here. They speak to me, and perhaps will speak to others, regardless of how they currently feel about Christianity.
I am perhaps a bit biased. I have always liked Lewis, ever since I read The Chronicles of Narnia in high school. My liking deepened for him when I saw the movie Shadowlands. Something about his life called to me. I have since done research on him and his journey from atheism to fervent Christian belief. I cannot deny how inspiring I find his life.
I started this book years ago, and put it down, not out of disinterest, but because of other priorities at the time. As far as I got, which was not far, I appreciated his methodical, clear approach. I always intended to finish it. I actually own two copies, one on my Kindle, and one paperback copy. When I saw this at the library on audiobook, I decided to listen to it. That was a good decision.
Mere Christianity is a book on the fundamentals of Christian belief. Its audience is not just Christians, but also non-believers, folks who would like to investigate the faith of Christianity, what it entails, and what it doesn’t. Although the Bible is the foundation of our beliefs, I think this book does an exceptional job of condensing, or explaining, if you will what Christians espouse.
I respect Mr. Lewis that he does not pretend to have all the answers. That he does not deny that there are some things he had not figured out. Nor does he deny that he struggled with some aspects of being a Christian at times. That is a strong testament to the life of a Christian. We admit that we are flawed folks in need of saving. We admit that we strive to know God and to have God work in us to make us more like him. That takes a fundamental humility, one that is rewarded time and time again. By breaking down and admitting our brokenness, we become whole by our acceptance of him who made all things.
There were parts of this book that spoke so intimately to my spirit, that I lifted my hand to praise God. For Mr. Lewis had indeed through the power of the Holy Spirit, put on paper that feeling that I believe all people who are born again in Christ feel and experience. For that alone, I could easily give this book five stars. However, it has yet more to offer.
I appreciate just as much, how logical Mr. Lewis is in his discussion of Christianity. While many feel that Christians are fools who believe in fairy tales, he shows just how much sense Christianity makes to those who choose to follow it. While atheism might have appeal for some, there is more appeal to those who choose to follow Christ than deciding to reject God in any form. He takes it a bit further to explain why some point in between atheism and Christianity (including other belief systems) won’t work for those who choose to follow Christ. We freely admit we have nothing to lose, looking at the facts, and yes, there are inescapable facts about Jesus Christ, not just found in the Bible, in human history recorded by those who have absolutely no stake in affirming or confirming that miracle of God begotten man who came and died and rose again for the sins of humanity. He also speaks into the facts about the nature of humanity and what makes us uniquely created to love and to interact with a Creator who became man so that we could have an intimate and real relationship with him. If we are fools to seek Christ, then why do the laws of human morality and that essential need inside ourselves point to the need for a savior, for fellowship with God?
I won’t say I didn’t struggle with some aspects. And Lewis does not in any way excuse the fact that he is saying things that are hard to face. I like that brutal honesty. Brutal honesty is as much a part of the Christian faith as the comfort is in knowing that while the walk in following Christ is a tough road, we do it not alone, but through the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, who lives in us and empowers us to follow him.
This book comes highly recommended by this reader. It’s not overly long, certainly not bogged down in theological doctrines that won’t make any sense to a person who does not belong to a specific Christian denomination or who isn’t even a Christian. In fact, Mr. Lewis works very hard to use concrete examples that illustrate his points. His analytical approach makes this profound spiritual message that much more powerful, because he does not seek to play on the reader’s emotional heartstrings or sentimentalities. As a lover of Christ, he does not seek to turn his message into another one of manipulation (as many view Christianity and the followers of this faith), for it’s far too important for that. I know that I will read this book again, probably more than once. I would like to come back to it and explore some of the thoughts here. They speak to me, and perhaps will speak to others, regardless of how they currently feel about Christianity.
October 21, 2007
Read it, even for the last chapter alone!
Most people have no idea about what Christianity is. That is the reason that CS Lewis' book exists.
If you are looking for a book that will convince you to take the leap of faith and become a Christian (like so many 1-star reviewers who said they were unconvinced) then don't waste your time. No book will convince you. However, if you are looking for the facts about real Christianity (not as a religion, but as a relationship) then you can't do much better than Lewis. Although his voice is rather formal (read: evidently British), seekers will give him some latitude on this. If you want the egg, get past the shell.
As an aside, I personally did not become a Christian because of the 'scientific facts,' although I did assure myself that I wasn't committing intellectual suicide by doing so. I used to be very fond of evolution. If you want this same validation, you can either talk to a Christian who knows the facts (as I did), or read something like what Lewis has presented. Simple.
If everybody read this book, I can imagine at least a few of the following would happen:
1. Most people in Western culture would stop calling themselves Christians, and would either become one or become a real athiest. They would at least be standing for something instead of falling for anything.
2. Other cultures would stop saying ignorant things like "America (or wherever) is a Christian nation." The facts in Lewis' work speak against this. They would stop saying that they have a holy war against these so-called Christians (who are in fact not Christians at all.)
3. Heaven forbid, some people might realize the inheritance and gift they could receive and actually choose to find out about God by taking an Alpha course or reading that "Bible" thing ;)
If you like reading novels, you'll probably find the book dry until the last chapter. But don't miss this book on that account. Even if you read only the last chapter (about the next evolution of humanity), you'll have captured a significant (and inspiring) picture of real (er, Mere) Christianity. When you do, you might just be tempted to go back and read the book and see what all the fuss is about (and how he could possibly make such an outrageous statement.)
Well , that was long and rant-ish. But I love you all and I hope you read this book.
Look at my Listmania for some ideas about other crucial books like Sacred Marriage by Gary Thomas.
Feel free to contact me.
Cheers,
Danny
Most people have no idea about what Christianity is. That is the reason that CS Lewis' book exists.
If you are looking for a book that will convince you to take the leap of faith and become a Christian (like so many 1-star reviewers who said they were unconvinced) then don't waste your time. No book will convince you. However, if you are looking for the facts about real Christianity (not as a religion, but as a relationship) then you can't do much better than Lewis. Although his voice is rather formal (read: evidently British), seekers will give him some latitude on this. If you want the egg, get past the shell.
As an aside, I personally did not become a Christian because of the 'scientific facts,' although I did assure myself that I wasn't committing intellectual suicide by doing so. I used to be very fond of evolution. If you want this same validation, you can either talk to a Christian who knows the facts (as I did), or read something like what Lewis has presented. Simple.
If everybody read this book, I can imagine at least a few of the following would happen:
1. Most people in Western culture would stop calling themselves Christians, and would either become one or become a real athiest. They would at least be standing for something instead of falling for anything.
2. Other cultures would stop saying ignorant things like "America (or wherever) is a Christian nation." The facts in Lewis' work speak against this. They would stop saying that they have a holy war against these so-called Christians (who are in fact not Christians at all.)
3. Heaven forbid, some people might realize the inheritance and gift they could receive and actually choose to find out about God by taking an Alpha course or reading that "Bible" thing ;)
If you like reading novels, you'll probably find the book dry until the last chapter. But don't miss this book on that account. Even if you read only the last chapter (about the next evolution of humanity), you'll have captured a significant (and inspiring) picture of real (er, Mere) Christianity. When you do, you might just be tempted to go back and read the book and see what all the fuss is about (and how he could possibly make such an outrageous statement.)
Well , that was long and rant-ish. But I love you all and I hope you read this book.
Look at my Listmania for some ideas about other crucial books like Sacred Marriage by Gary Thomas.
Feel free to contact me.
Cheers,
Danny
March 14, 2008
Lewis is brilliant! Here's a quote from the book that's never left my head:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, The MacMillan Company, 1960, pp. 40-41.)
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, The MacMillan Company, 1960, pp. 40-41.)
May 1, 2008
It is no wonder that Christians should revere a miracle-working carpenter: I think one must be the son of a god to build an attic before the rest of the house.
There is no fundamental basis for Lewis' arguments. I was hoping to find something thought-provoking and convincing, but it just felt like the same old ideas Aquinas and Descartes bandied around. These are no longer sufficient in a world of thermodynamics and evolution.
Lewis has some skill and intellect, but the way he meanders about duality, truth, social darwinism, pathetic fallacy, comparative anthropology, and scientific process tends more towards self-justification than any profundity.
Lewis clearly wants to believe, and wants to bolster and justify those beliefs, but he never overcomes a reasonable burden of proof. He puts together the best indications he can find, but they don't add up to much.
Every time Lewis embarked on a thought, it would grow and blossom in intriguing ways until he would simply bunch together the whole bundle, tie it with a bow, label it 'god's handiwork' with a reverent nod, and move on, never reaching an insight. It made me think the allegory in Onan has been widely misread.
The righteousness of his belief contrasts hypocritically with the way he blithely writes off any other belief. To portray everyone else as faulty but still think yourself infallible is not only insulting, but a black mark on any otherwise reasonable mind.
I like Lewis, both his tone and his mind. I wanted to find something compelling in him. I wanted to find something that tied his observations together. I sense Lewis also wanted to find something he could attach himself to. After being alone and afraid in a grand world ripped by World Wars, who wouldn't feel a desperate need for meaning?
And he found one. He found a meaning he could cling to, but only with a tentative grasp. Since it is not a meaning he can communicate, it is not one I can share. He does not find tenacity in reason, but in romanticism, in idealism, in fear, and in a blindness to his own faults, even as he seeks out those of others.
There is no fundamental basis for Lewis' arguments. I was hoping to find something thought-provoking and convincing, but it just felt like the same old ideas Aquinas and Descartes bandied around. These are no longer sufficient in a world of thermodynamics and evolution.
Lewis has some skill and intellect, but the way he meanders about duality, truth, social darwinism, pathetic fallacy, comparative anthropology, and scientific process tends more towards self-justification than any profundity.
Lewis clearly wants to believe, and wants to bolster and justify those beliefs, but he never overcomes a reasonable burden of proof. He puts together the best indications he can find, but they don't add up to much.
Every time Lewis embarked on a thought, it would grow and blossom in intriguing ways until he would simply bunch together the whole bundle, tie it with a bow, label it 'god's handiwork' with a reverent nod, and move on, never reaching an insight. It made me think the allegory in Onan has been widely misread.
The righteousness of his belief contrasts hypocritically with the way he blithely writes off any other belief. To portray everyone else as faulty but still think yourself infallible is not only insulting, but a black mark on any otherwise reasonable mind.
I like Lewis, both his tone and his mind. I wanted to find something compelling in him. I wanted to find something that tied his observations together. I sense Lewis also wanted to find something he could attach himself to. After being alone and afraid in a grand world ripped by World Wars, who wouldn't feel a desperate need for meaning?
And he found one. He found a meaning he could cling to, but only with a tentative grasp. Since it is not a meaning he can communicate, it is not one I can share. He does not find tenacity in reason, but in romanticism, in idealism, in fear, and in a blindness to his own faults, even as he seeks out those of others.
Currently reading
November 12, 2009I've been into spirituality and meditation for a long time now--I've been practicing a meditation technique called Deep Meditation daily for a year and a half now--but recently a good friend of mine (my best friend), who is one of the strongest believers I know, has introduced me to Christianity as a faith and the teachings of Jesus, the Word, the Bible, and church. At first I was very confused about some things, there was a clash in my beliefs--what is sin, confusion surrounding sex, and what God exactly is. I really wanted to delve into Christianity, but I didn't want to "identify" myself with a religion. I didn't want the baggage and the conditioning that could come with Christianity. Mere Christianity has helped me in so many ways. CS Lewis is very logical, and he was once an atheist, so it's easier to listen to his arguments. He talks about a moral standard that we all feel inside, and how Christianity is about living an ideal without taking personal pride in our performance. I'm half way through the book, but so far I'm further convinced that Jesus is my savior and that Christianity is right for me. I feel God's presence in my life. I feel that my future on this path is fulfilling, and I hope that anybody who is confused about their spiritual beliefs, or anyone who wants to take a peak at Christianity and see if it is right for them, should check this book out.
December 18, 2007
I read this for the first time a long while ago, and then again in December of 2007. Each time I read it I find something new. It's fairly amazing to be able to point to a page and say, "That was me a year ago, a month ago, a day ago!"
This is not a new set of instructions on how to be a Christian—it's a very straightforward explanation of the roots of the Christian faith, a naked package of easy to understand information which builds logically from the very beginning. It starts off with an appeal to every man's human nature, then goes about covering every base as to why man's nature is the way it is. Lewis is careful to present each alternative path of question and then refute it using logic and reason which should appease the skeptic and the doubtful.
The book is full of good humor and amiable narrative, but Lewis doesn't compromise or sugar-coat the cornerstones of the Christian faith. It is what it is, and by the time one is through with the book, whether he decides it is something he wants to make the central part of his life or not, there is no question as to what is actually is. The lines of choice are quite cleanly cut, and there's no room left to meander in the middle without a good deal of trying to convince oneself that he/she didn't just read what he thinks he did.
It's a fairly short and easy read, considering the subject matter, though not for those who are looking for an easy way out. I'd recommend it to anyone, really. Christianity is so often misunderstood, mostly due to media coverage and misconceptions about the people in the Church themselves. I think that a lot of people, Christian and non-Christian, have the idea that when someone becomes a follower of Christ the whole of their behavior and attitude changes overnight; then when they foul up, it seems like everyone enjoys talking about it and seeing it. This book talks about matters of the heart like this business of being happy to find others in the wrong, or becoming proud with one's own "successes" in Christianity. Lewis talks about Christianity being a process of producing a particular kind of new man, instead of a group of people who follow a set of rules. Interestingly enough, it is also these actions created in us by God's Spirit, saying "yes" to His prompting and the way He wants us to live, which miraculously turn us into these new sons and daughters of God. Lewis also talks about how this process is worked through us, so that we have no room to be proud or think that it's of our own doing. His illustrations are useful and easy to understand, but he warns us not to substitute them for the Real Thing. Likewise, his book is not the Bible itself—it is merely here to help and to give a defense of what he calls "Mere Christianity", the beliefs which are common to all Christians, the things on which we do not differ. Where one is confused about what it means to be a Christian, how one is saved and changed, and what it demands of the individual, Lewis explains what it means to become a son or daughter of God.
I think that this book is useful for anyone who is a Christian, who is deliberating on whether or not to become one, or who has a Christian friend. Or, if one is interested in studying Christianity for personal enrichment, he's most likely to gain more understanding from this book than any humanities or civilization textbook. It's one of my favorites, because the misrepresentation of Christianity in the media and by people who hardly understand it has been a source of frustration for me throughout the majority of my life.
This is not a new set of instructions on how to be a Christian—it's a very straightforward explanation of the roots of the Christian faith, a naked package of easy to understand information which builds logically from the very beginning. It starts off with an appeal to every man's human nature, then goes about covering every base as to why man's nature is the way it is. Lewis is careful to present each alternative path of question and then refute it using logic and reason which should appease the skeptic and the doubtful.
The book is full of good humor and amiable narrative, but Lewis doesn't compromise or sugar-coat the cornerstones of the Christian faith. It is what it is, and by the time one is through with the book, whether he decides it is something he wants to make the central part of his life or not, there is no question as to what is actually is. The lines of choice are quite cleanly cut, and there's no room left to meander in the middle without a good deal of trying to convince oneself that he/she didn't just read what he thinks he did.
It's a fairly short and easy read, considering the subject matter, though not for those who are looking for an easy way out. I'd recommend it to anyone, really. Christianity is so often misunderstood, mostly due to media coverage and misconceptions about the people in the Church themselves. I think that a lot of people, Christian and non-Christian, have the idea that when someone becomes a follower of Christ the whole of their behavior and attitude changes overnight; then when they foul up, it seems like everyone enjoys talking about it and seeing it. This book talks about matters of the heart like this business of being happy to find others in the wrong, or becoming proud with one's own "successes" in Christianity. Lewis talks about Christianity being a process of producing a particular kind of new man, instead of a group of people who follow a set of rules. Interestingly enough, it is also these actions created in us by God's Spirit, saying "yes" to His prompting and the way He wants us to live, which miraculously turn us into these new sons and daughters of God. Lewis also talks about how this process is worked through us, so that we have no room to be proud or think that it's of our own doing. His illustrations are useful and easy to understand, but he warns us not to substitute them for the Real Thing. Likewise, his book is not the Bible itself—it is merely here to help and to give a defense of what he calls "Mere Christianity", the beliefs which are common to all Christians, the things on which we do not differ. Where one is confused about what it means to be a Christian, how one is saved and changed, and what it demands of the individual, Lewis explains what it means to become a son or daughter of God.
I think that this book is useful for anyone who is a Christian, who is deliberating on whether or not to become one, or who has a Christian friend. Or, if one is interested in studying Christianity for personal enrichment, he's most likely to gain more understanding from this book than any humanities or civilization textbook. It's one of my favorites, because the misrepresentation of Christianity in the media and by people who hardly understand it has been a source of frustration for me throughout the majority of my life.
February 6, 2008
What an astounding, impressive, fulfilling read. I am not normally a non-fiction reader unless it is a good historical piece or biography ... those I will lap up. But a book on religion? As a pretty dedicated church goer myself, I must candidly say that unless the book is actual scripture itself, it might as well be one of those desperately snobbish self-help books full of zippy motivation quotes and the same principles you find in all other books of the same genre, just worded slightly differently. Yet in Mere Christianity, I found none of the superficiality I've previously experienced with other books that delve into philosophic explorations of religion. This is a real study, a deep probe. There is nothing artificial about it. Thank goodness my wife is a huge C.S. Lewis fan or I might not have picked it up at all. But she recommended it to me, and I had it on a trip, and for hours and hours I read, mesmerized in a way that few thrillers can even achieve. What did I find? I found that in this work C.S. Lewis single-handedly legitimizes religion as a belief, lifestyle, and philosophy. And what makes Lewis most credible is that Mere Christianity is not designed to make any reader comfortable, from agnostic to new age believer to hard core Christian. His ideas and reasoning are solid and unavoidable. His ability to address concerns is acute and thorough. He is not pompous, but he is confident. Where he is unsure of something, he admits it, though I'd be careful to deviate from such a sound philosopher. Probably his greatest talent is his use of applicable examples and parallel images. Where a concept is vague, he has the ability to nail it down, to apply it to the known. C.S. Lewis rings of truth throughout. And probably the most important thing in his book, or in any book for that matter, is that when I put it down, I was determined to be a better person, to fix up deficiencies in my life. Mere Christianity is not "merely" another book on religion or Sunday School manual; it is a call to arms for every person who picks it up, regardless of their faith. Go to it with an open mind, and be prepared to act afterwards.
December 10, 2020
C. S. Lewis wove doctrines and lessons regarding the Christian faith throughout his other works, notably the Chronicles of Narnia. Ergo, I was surprised when reading this novel that to learn that he used to be an atheist.
A religious book, written by an ex-atheist? I was alight with curiosity.
What caused the switch? By studying the faith (as an effort to become better at atheism) he found religion. A strange, roundabout way to go by things but nonetheless thoroughly interesting.
Lewis slowly, but surely explains the hows and whys he found himself converted. He starts with a long (and slightly difficult to follow) discussion regarding the reasoning behind there being a God (opposed to many or none).
From there he narrows slightly, circling closer and closer until he reaches Christian doctrine (i.e. the holy trinity). However, he never pinpoints on the differences between Catholics or Lutherans (etc). He does not preach only one denomination rather he expounds on core truths and beliefs of Christianity as a whole.
His explanations put to rest several questions I had and answered ones that I hadn't known to ask.
As admirable as this novel is, he does preach a few beliefs and interpretations were common back then but are not shared with as many nowadays.
For example, there are a few anti-gay statements and a few about women belonging in their places. A clear example of that, is when he touches on the subject of men being the heads of households:
So, taken with a grain of salt - this book does provide an fascinating look into the core beliefs of the Christian religion.
YouTube | Blog | Instagram | Twitter | Facebook | Snapchat @miranda_reads
A religious book, written by an ex-atheist? I was alight with curiosity.
What caused the switch? By studying the faith (as an effort to become better at atheism) he found religion. A strange, roundabout way to go by things but nonetheless thoroughly interesting.
Lewis slowly, but surely explains the hows and whys he found himself converted. He starts with a long (and slightly difficult to follow) discussion regarding the reasoning behind there being a God (opposed to many or none).
From there he narrows slightly, circling closer and closer until he reaches Christian doctrine (i.e. the holy trinity). However, he never pinpoints on the differences between Catholics or Lutherans (etc). He does not preach only one denomination rather he expounds on core truths and beliefs of Christianity as a whole.
His explanations put to rest several questions I had and answered ones that I hadn't known to ask.
Everyone thinks forgiveness is a lovely idea until he has something to forgive.
When you argue against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on.
As admirable as this novel is, he does preach a few beliefs and interpretations were common back then but are not shared with as many nowadays.
For example, there are a few anti-gay statements and a few about women belonging in their places. A clear example of that, is when he touches on the subject of men being the heads of households:
why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman?
There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule.
So, taken with a grain of salt - this book does provide an fascinating look into the core beliefs of the Christian religion.
YouTube | Blog | Instagram | Twitter | Facebook | Snapchat @miranda_reads
September 19, 2021
Wow! What does one say when reading pure genius? Whether one chooses to agree or disagree with C.S. Lewis, his incredible mind, reasoning skills, and power of deduction are absolutely astounding.
In this book, he chronicles his journey from devout atheist to committed Christian, recounting each step with his original assumption, then recording his intellectual journey through each idea to it's end result. With each conclusion he includes understandable and often masterful examples. For instance: After starting the journey from his original question of where the ideas of "right" and "wrong" actually come from (He began this during the upheaval of WWII amid the question afforded the Allied Forces as opposed to the Nazis, which adds a unique understanding of his purpose) Lewis comes to accept that there must be an overall "good" force and "bad" force fighting for supremacy. He then equates the human struggle with "living behind enemy lines" or in the enemy camp - after aiding and abeding that enemy if one realizes he/she is on the wrong side what does one have to do? They must surrender to the other side. Not just walk across the line to be accepted but literally lay down his weapons, beg asylum and put oneself at the mercy of the opposing force. A better example of accepting God, I have not found. Of course, this simplified paraphrase does not come close to the overall thought process that Lewis employs. This same thought process carries through with every single point encountered defining Christian teachings.
A word of warning, however. This book really can't be read quickly. It is one that must be digested slowly. Each point must be presented, pondered, then either ingested or thrown out. It takes time and thought or it's a waste of the money and time invested in obtaining the book in the first place.
In this book, he chronicles his journey from devout atheist to committed Christian, recounting each step with his original assumption, then recording his intellectual journey through each idea to it's end result. With each conclusion he includes understandable and often masterful examples. For instance: After starting the journey from his original question of where the ideas of "right" and "wrong" actually come from (He began this during the upheaval of WWII amid the question afforded the Allied Forces as opposed to the Nazis, which adds a unique understanding of his purpose) Lewis comes to accept that there must be an overall "good" force and "bad" force fighting for supremacy. He then equates the human struggle with "living behind enemy lines" or in the enemy camp - after aiding and abeding that enemy if one realizes he/she is on the wrong side what does one have to do? They must surrender to the other side. Not just walk across the line to be accepted but literally lay down his weapons, beg asylum and put oneself at the mercy of the opposing force. A better example of accepting God, I have not found. Of course, this simplified paraphrase does not come close to the overall thought process that Lewis employs. This same thought process carries through with every single point encountered defining Christian teachings.
A word of warning, however. This book really can't be read quickly. It is one that must be digested slowly. Each point must be presented, pondered, then either ingested or thrown out. It takes time and thought or it's a waste of the money and time invested in obtaining the book in the first place.
March 10, 2024
2024 Review
To my surprise and delight, much of what I have come to love about the Anglican church over the last year I find I must have first discovered here in Lewis.
This is such a convicting yet practical book.
2020 Review
I need to speed up my re-reads of Lewis. Been a decade since I last read this one and that is too long.
To my surprise and delight, much of what I have come to love about the Anglican church over the last year I find I must have first discovered here in Lewis.
This is such a convicting yet practical book.
2020 Review
I need to speed up my re-reads of Lewis. Been a decade since I last read this one and that is too long.
May 11, 2017
After years of putting this book off, I finally picked it up. The amount of stars I have assigned it says enough about how well it was received.
Lewis spends the first section using rhetorical devices and logic to try to prove that religion is better than atheism. Then he jettisons all of that rhetoric and logic, takes the tennets of Christianity as given fact, and proceeds to deliver a mind-numbingly naïve justification for the reasons behind the religion of the Nazarene.
I'm disappointed that this is seen as such a stellar achievement of Christian thought. It was terribly weak, even for its time, and offers little to nothing besides pontifications about the already mystical—without the benefit of calling it so.
Overall, worth reading just to see how little has to be offered to be heralded as powerful amongst the religious. 1 star.
Lewis spends the first section using rhetorical devices and logic to try to prove that religion is better than atheism. Then he jettisons all of that rhetoric and logic, takes the tennets of Christianity as given fact, and proceeds to deliver a mind-numbingly naïve justification for the reasons behind the religion of the Nazarene.
I'm disappointed that this is seen as such a stellar achievement of Christian thought. It was terribly weak, even for its time, and offers little to nothing besides pontifications about the already mystical—without the benefit of calling it so.
Overall, worth reading just to see how little has to be offered to be heralded as powerful amongst the religious. 1 star.
January 26, 2015
I was aware of this book in my childhood but never read it until now, because I'm working with two C.S. Lewis classes and wanted to get a better sense of his theology. I know some people still use this book as a way to explain the tenets of the Christian faith, but I think that is unwise for several reasons:
-Most of the book is based on church (not Biblical) teachings, which are only really emphasized inside certain denominations. The virtue/vice lists and the trinity concept - these are frameworks that have been placed on the practice of religion, more of a way of talking about morality than anything else. While they have a longstanding tradition within one end of the spectrum, they are absent in others. Lewis claims to defend the main concepts, but I'm not sure what he picked is what I would have picked, having come from a different background within the same religion.
-The narrow view of Christianity continues in his pronouncement that "anyone who professes to teach Christian doctrine" will tell you to use all three - baptism, belief, and "Holy Communion." In practice only belief seems to be central to all denominations.
-Lewis is a product of his time. He claims refusing to fight in war is a sin, calls homosexuality a perversion, and jokes about why anyone would ever want a woman as a decision maker.
-Lewis has a meandering way towards most of his conclusions. One minute he's talking about letters in envelopes and then he's saying, "See, this proves God exists." Some of the time I followed him and others I felt he was being deliberately obtuse.
-Several times Lewis says "you might think x but let me explain to you why you are incorrect." I should have just stopped there. The great irony is that he will go on to show why he thinks pride is the worst sin. :)
-Most of the book is based on church (not Biblical) teachings, which are only really emphasized inside certain denominations. The virtue/vice lists and the trinity concept - these are frameworks that have been placed on the practice of religion, more of a way of talking about morality than anything else. While they have a longstanding tradition within one end of the spectrum, they are absent in others. Lewis claims to defend the main concepts, but I'm not sure what he picked is what I would have picked, having come from a different background within the same religion.
-The narrow view of Christianity continues in his pronouncement that "anyone who professes to teach Christian doctrine" will tell you to use all three - baptism, belief, and "Holy Communion." In practice only belief seems to be central to all denominations.
-Lewis is a product of his time. He claims refusing to fight in war is a sin, calls homosexuality a perversion, and jokes about why anyone would ever want a woman as a decision maker.
-Lewis has a meandering way towards most of his conclusions. One minute he's talking about letters in envelopes and then he's saying, "See, this proves God exists." Some of the time I followed him and others I felt he was being deliberately obtuse.
-Several times Lewis says "you might think x but let me explain to you why you are incorrect." I should have just stopped there. The great irony is that he will go on to show why he thinks pride is the worst sin. :)
June 18, 2014
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
I am somewhat confused about some of the reasoning behind those giving this work one or two stars. From what I have seen it appears to be that C.S. Lewis does not justify his explanations well enough - that there is not enough of a burden of proof that he has fulfilled. Or that his writing, his work, is far too offensive.
For the first, I believe that those who read this work expecting to see some kind of justification for belief will be disappointed. Lewis himself explains that what Mere Christianity is about is more of an explanation of what all Christian denominations hold to be truth - it is not so much an argument for why these are held to be true. As for Lewis being offensive - yes, yes he is. For that matter, so is Christianity. Christianity should be so offensive to modern thinking so as to be near inconceivable - but that does not make it any less truthful. Nor does it mean that Christians need to be offensive.
Lewis is of course far more readable (and likeable) than Friedrich Nietzsche, yet I feel they are two sides of the one coin. Both view the issues in their modern societies and reflect critically upon them. However, where Nietzsche always asserts his views in first person as if they are fact (where they are opinion), Lewis works his way through his reasoning in the third person - questioning rather than asserting. They are both equally aggressive (and depending on your values as I said, offensive) but one sees Christianity as all that is wrong in this world and the other sees the world as all that is wrong in this world.
I was talking to my father the other day when I said that "I think the funny thing to me about most academics at University, is that they so completely misunderstand Christianity. They think it's about becoming 'good enough' to get into Heaven." To which my Dad turned around and agreed saying, "That is because most churches don't understand Christianity well enough and keep preaching works-based repentance."
For anyone not understanding what I mean by 'works-based repentance', it should be the assertion of every believe that is is by faith that you are saved. However, far too often Churches end up preaching a confused gospel that states something like 'it's a little bit of faith and the rest is you doing stuff to make you good enough'. No. It's all meant to be faith - with anything else stemming from faith.
As Lewis says here in Mere Christianity: "For mere improvement is not redemption, though redemption always improves people even here and now and will, in the end, improve them to a degree we cannot yet imagine. God became man to turn creatures into sons: not simply to produce better men of the old kind but to produce a new kind of man."
Lewis is full of these kinds of quotable statements throughout the book as he explains not why he believes, but what he believes. G.K. Chesterton is a much better source (in Heretics and Orthodoxy for looking into 'why' someone believes - but at the core of it all is of course pure faith - based upon the rational but appearing irrational).
"The Christian way is different: harder and easier. Christ says 'Give me all. I don't want so much of your money and so much of your work: I want You. I have not come to torment your natural self, but to kill it...'"
It is statements like these that show the confronting nature of Christianity. As Lewis says elsewhere in the book, Christianity is a fighting religion. And in a world that tries to destroy its held truths, it needs to be. As Lewis explains, merely because something is offensive does not make it any less true - and relegating it down to the 'nice moral principles' is no way to go either.
Lewis begins his book by first addressing the concept of 'fairness' and 'foul-play'. He explains that we all have within us, a notion of good and evil, a notion that he calls the Law of Human Nature. He combines this with other ideas to explain the concept that humanity is essentially flawed - that something is not right. By stating this he therefore continues to explain that there is a need within all of humanity for spiritual help. A need that he continues to expand upon throughout the rest of the work, explaining that Christianity serves to address and answer that need.
There is even an address about morality and Christianity, whereby Lewis explains that Christianity is not merely a moral religion, but that there are morals that are connected to being a Christian. He discusses things like: prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude - the 'Cardinal Virtues' and the great sin of pride (establishing yourself above others). He explains that prudence means common sense - the idea that Christians should not be unintelligent by any means (though so many appear to be - judging by all the 'you will burn in hell for this' comments you can find on Facebook or instagram) and that temperance is not about complete abstinence. After all, alcohol and sex were created by God. The issues come when, as Lewis so clearly explains, you depend upon such things as a crutch to get you through life, where you have an unhealthy interest in them - that is temperance. Justice and fortitude mean respectively fairness and courage.
Essentially this is a book of complexity and simplicity - much like Christianity itself. Anyone looking for a resource to affirm faith and to help you consider the questions which Christianity attempts to address should think about reading this work. It's one of the better works I have read by any Christian author and definitely a classic of faith. Lewis makes Christianity open and easier to understand - he truly shows mere Christianity as it should be, most denominational and individual beliefs aside.
August 30, 2024
During World War II, British literary scholar and Anglican lay theologian C. S. Lewis, a former atheist who converted to Christianity as an adult in 1931, was invited by the BBC to deliver a series of radio talks about the Christian faith. These were delivered in 1941-43, and were well received by the British public as a whole; Lewis subsequently published the content of the broadcasts in book form, in three parts: Broadcast Talks, or, The Case for Christianity (1942), Christian Behaviour (1943), and Beyond Personality (1944). First published in 1952, the present book brings together the texts of these three, with a bit more editing to adapt to the different format, and some added material responding to reader feedback. (There's also a Preface by Lewis explaining the origin of the book and the purposes behind it, and this edition has a short but perceptive Foreword by Christian poet Kathleen Norris.) Like the broadcasts, the book is directed primarily towards ordinary non-Christians; but it's also well worth reading for Christians who want to better understand the case for, and the content of, their own faith.
The three component books here determine the structure of this book (except that the first one is broken down into two numbered "books," while the next two are each incorporated in one). I've shelved this as both "Christian apologetics" and "theology," but only the first "book" deals directly with Christian evidences. And strictly speaking, this part only deals with one evidence (though for Lewis it's the most conclusive), the fact that the human race both a.) has an intrinsic moral sense which is remarkably consistent across cultures and which cannot be convincingly explained as a product of materialistic evolution, and b.) universally falls short of living up to the behavior demanded by this moral sense. From this, he deduces the existence of an intelligent and moral Creator, who created the material universe but stands outside of it, to whom we are morally responsible and before whom we are all guilty of our moral shortcomings. This problem of guilt in relation to our moral Creator is precisely the central problem which Christianity purports both to explain and to resolve.
In the second "book," Lewis explains the basic beliefs he sees as common to all Christians, regardless of denomination. This is the titular "mere Christianity," that is, Christianity unmixed with any sectarian additions, a phrase he borrowed from some of the writings of the 17th-century British nondenominational Christian thinker Richard Baxter (https://www.discovery.org/a/460/ ), although Baxter spelled it as "meer." Lewis also distinguishes this from what he calls "Christianity-and-water," that is, a watered-down theism that discards classical Christian doctrines about sin, judgement, and redemption. The basic beliefs of mere Christianity, as Lewis defines it, are a God with definite moral ideas, against which the world in general is in rebellion; the incarnation of Christ as the invasion of this world by God in human form, and the death of Christ as an act which reconciles humans to God; Christian salvation as incorporation of the life of Christ into our life through belief, baptism, and the Lord's Supper (though without dogmatism as to the means of how these things work); final judgment and a tangible afterlife.
"Christian Behaviour" explains Christian moral principles in terms of three factors: formation of our inner character in such a way as to fit us for the eternal life of a redeemed community in heaven, in fellowship with a holy God; guidance of our external relations with other people in such a way as to avoid harming them; and conforming our actions to the furthering of what God is doing in the world. (So Christian morality is not, as many people imagine, conformity to a list to purposeless taboos, nor opposition to anything that brings about human pleasure.) Lewis discusses these principles in the context of the traditional teaching about the four "cardinal" and the three "theological" virtues. He devotes a chapter to sexual morality, which confines sexual expression to male-female marriage, and to Christian marriage, which is intended as a commitment for life. In that context, he defends the idea of male headship in marriage as a biblical command; IMO, there he fails to take seriously enough the possibility of mutual submission, which I see as the biblical command.) The last "book," which has the alternate title "First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity," consists of reflections attempting to flesh out and make sense of the classical Nicene understanding of the Trinity, and to relate it to themes expressed in the previous three "books."
There are nits that could be picked here. Personally, I have a few disagreements with particular positions he takes (including male headship in marriage). In one place, in an example illustrating a particular point, he appears to take for granted a stereotypical racial view (that blacks necessarily have better and brighter teeth than whites), though I don't believe he harbored any prejudice against blacks, nor intended anything pejorative in the comment. He doesn't entirely succeed in setting forth an exposition of Christianity that would satisfy all denominations; Quakers would reject his references to baptism and the Lord's Supper, biblical Unitarians would not completely accept his Trinitarianism, and since his exposition of Christian belief takes a solidly free will position in explaining human response to God (and God's response to humans), no Calvinist would accept it at those points. (But since I agree with him at those points, I don't view that as a fault!). In the main, though, this is a very substantial, insightful treatment of Christian belief, written in simple lay language, but with considerable intellectual rigor. Much more could be said; but I'll be content with noting that I've now read it twice, taken much from it that shaped my own outlook, and rate it more highly now on a second reading than I did decades ago after the first one!
The three component books here determine the structure of this book (except that the first one is broken down into two numbered "books," while the next two are each incorporated in one). I've shelved this as both "Christian apologetics" and "theology," but only the first "book" deals directly with Christian evidences. And strictly speaking, this part only deals with one evidence (though for Lewis it's the most conclusive), the fact that the human race both a.) has an intrinsic moral sense which is remarkably consistent across cultures and which cannot be convincingly explained as a product of materialistic evolution, and b.) universally falls short of living up to the behavior demanded by this moral sense. From this, he deduces the existence of an intelligent and moral Creator, who created the material universe but stands outside of it, to whom we are morally responsible and before whom we are all guilty of our moral shortcomings. This problem of guilt in relation to our moral Creator is precisely the central problem which Christianity purports both to explain and to resolve.
In the second "book," Lewis explains the basic beliefs he sees as common to all Christians, regardless of denomination. This is the titular "mere Christianity," that is, Christianity unmixed with any sectarian additions, a phrase he borrowed from some of the writings of the 17th-century British nondenominational Christian thinker Richard Baxter (https://www.discovery.org/a/460/ ), although Baxter spelled it as "meer." Lewis also distinguishes this from what he calls "Christianity-and-water," that is, a watered-down theism that discards classical Christian doctrines about sin, judgement, and redemption. The basic beliefs of mere Christianity, as Lewis defines it, are a God with definite moral ideas, against which the world in general is in rebellion; the incarnation of Christ as the invasion of this world by God in human form, and the death of Christ as an act which reconciles humans to God; Christian salvation as incorporation of the life of Christ into our life through belief, baptism, and the Lord's Supper (though without dogmatism as to the means of how these things work); final judgment and a tangible afterlife.
"Christian Behaviour" explains Christian moral principles in terms of three factors: formation of our inner character in such a way as to fit us for the eternal life of a redeemed community in heaven, in fellowship with a holy God; guidance of our external relations with other people in such a way as to avoid harming them; and conforming our actions to the furthering of what God is doing in the world. (So Christian morality is not, as many people imagine, conformity to a list to purposeless taboos, nor opposition to anything that brings about human pleasure.) Lewis discusses these principles in the context of the traditional teaching about the four "cardinal" and the three "theological" virtues. He devotes a chapter to sexual morality, which confines sexual expression to male-female marriage, and to Christian marriage, which is intended as a commitment for life. In that context, he defends the idea of male headship in marriage as a biblical command; IMO, there he fails to take seriously enough the possibility of mutual submission, which I see as the biblical command.) The last "book," which has the alternate title "First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity," consists of reflections attempting to flesh out and make sense of the classical Nicene understanding of the Trinity, and to relate it to themes expressed in the previous three "books."
There are nits that could be picked here. Personally, I have a few disagreements with particular positions he takes (including male headship in marriage). In one place, in an example illustrating a particular point, he appears to take for granted a stereotypical racial view (that blacks necessarily have better and brighter teeth than whites), though I don't believe he harbored any prejudice against blacks, nor intended anything pejorative in the comment. He doesn't entirely succeed in setting forth an exposition of Christianity that would satisfy all denominations; Quakers would reject his references to baptism and the Lord's Supper, biblical Unitarians would not completely accept his Trinitarianism, and since his exposition of Christian belief takes a solidly free will position in explaining human response to God (and God's response to humans), no Calvinist would accept it at those points. (But since I agree with him at those points, I don't view that as a fault!). In the main, though, this is a very substantial, insightful treatment of Christian belief, written in simple lay language, but with considerable intellectual rigor. Much more could be said; but I'll be content with noting that I've now read it twice, taken much from it that shaped my own outlook, and rate it more highly now on a second reading than I did decades ago after the first one!
April 12, 2008
Mere Christianity is such a classic work, and having been read by millions over the past sixty years plus years, it is difficult to say anything new about it. As the years have rolled on though, a different society, with different needs and expectations has arisen that sees the world a little different than the British society, in the midst of all the moral and spiritual challenges that happened in the World War II years.
Lewis' is more of a classic apologetic. He speaks of universal laws, the differences between longstanding morality and modern psychology, and the logic of why the Christian Gospel, of the invasion of humanity by the God/man Jesus and how theology is constantly practical in every area of the individual, personal lives of moder people. Mere Christianity answers quite well the challenges of its, and still to a large extent, our age.
What the reader is struck with again, upon reading the Oxford professor and Christian lay leader, is just how understanding he is of the typical struggles that the believer faces. The strains of applying mere Christianity to sex, marriage, the life of real faith and social morality remain real and if anything the tensions have increased since the 1940's.
This remains a valuable book, and one that large numbers of people have used to understand just how practical an adult and real a faith in Christ is. For many today, there is doubt about the effectiveness of family, real social interaction, the reality of history and the possibility of real power being humble. Yet to some degree, these strains have always existed, even back to the time of the first Christians. For this, Lewis as a very practical laymen, has done a wonderful job of showing that mere Christianity is a lot more than a whole mass of systems and ideologies, and that in comparison, they are worldly and ultimately worthless next to the Saviour/ carpenter from Nazareth.
Lewis' is more of a classic apologetic. He speaks of universal laws, the differences between longstanding morality and modern psychology, and the logic of why the Christian Gospel, of the invasion of humanity by the God/man Jesus and how theology is constantly practical in every area of the individual, personal lives of moder people. Mere Christianity answers quite well the challenges of its, and still to a large extent, our age.
What the reader is struck with again, upon reading the Oxford professor and Christian lay leader, is just how understanding he is of the typical struggles that the believer faces. The strains of applying mere Christianity to sex, marriage, the life of real faith and social morality remain real and if anything the tensions have increased since the 1940's.
This remains a valuable book, and one that large numbers of people have used to understand just how practical an adult and real a faith in Christ is. For many today, there is doubt about the effectiveness of family, real social interaction, the reality of history and the possibility of real power being humble. Yet to some degree, these strains have always existed, even back to the time of the first Christians. For this, Lewis as a very practical laymen, has done a wonderful job of showing that mere Christianity is a lot more than a whole mass of systems and ideologies, and that in comparison, they are worldly and ultimately worthless next to the Saviour/ carpenter from Nazareth.
May 18, 2012
My second non-fiction book by C.S.Lewis (1898-1963) and, although I liked A Grief Observed more, I also liked this one.
This book Mere Christianity (published in 1953) was based on the transcript of the BBC radio broadcast that Lewis gave at Oxford during World War II (1941-1944). It was a hit because at that point, Lewis had already published a number of fiction and non-fiction books including Out of the Silent Planet (1938), The Problem of Pain (1940) and The Screwtape Letter (1942). What added to the appeal was that Lewis was an agnostic professor and was only converted back to Christianity (Anglican) at the age of 32 through the influence of the literary group called the "Inklings" where he and fellow Oxford professor and friend, J.R.R.Tolkien were members of.
I found Lewis' narration here a bit wordy and he tended to repeat himself and he used big, vague, inexact words and phrases. Maybe this was because of the fact that this was based on the radio broadcast's transcripts. Being a popular moralist, I also detected some arrogance in his pronouncements as if he knew everything about Christian Faith. An example of this was when he quoted phrases in his book and claimed that those are said by Jesus Christ. I am not a Bible scholar or something but recently I've finished the Holy Bible (Revised Standard Edition) from cover to cover. However, I did not encounter some of the passages that he enclosed in quotation marks ("___") in this book. Those were in quotes so Lewis gave me an impression that those were uttered by Jesus Christ himself. To give you an example, go to Book IV, Chapter 8, Paragraph 3 and this was what he wrote:
The other two minor points that I also saw (and I am sorry if these appear as nitpicking) were the instance when Lewis referred to homosexuals as perverts and at one point he used the "n" word. I know that these could be acceptable during his time but I just got a bit annoyed when I was reading the book.
However, it is hard to dislike this book or to discount its significance. Lewis made a lot of good points in this essays. For example, he was on-the-dot when he said that most Christians do not need to be taught how to tell whether a thing is right or wrong because they already know. What most Christians need is to be reminded. This book's main purpose seems to be that and in my opinion, it achieved that objective. He also admitted that since he was a bachelor, he felt not in the right position to advice about marriage. So, for me, there were still humility and sincerity in him.
He also gave beautiful examples to illustrate his main points and there were many quotable quotes that you can collect from this book. In fact, as I am fond of dogearing pages with beautiful passages, I think a quarter of the pages are now dogeared and there were those pages that I could not decide whether the dogear should be to the left or to the right because both sides have beautiful passages so I just marked those with a pen. I normally don't mark my books with pen because writing on the book is a discourteous act for me.
My only advice for those who are considering on reading this? Read the Bible first because you might be misled when Lewis talks as if he gets his words directly from the scriptures. A small friendly suggestion.
Thank you to Cary, Kwesi, J.L., Tina and Dante for being my book buddies!
This book Mere Christianity (published in 1953) was based on the transcript of the BBC radio broadcast that Lewis gave at Oxford during World War II (1941-1944). It was a hit because at that point, Lewis had already published a number of fiction and non-fiction books including Out of the Silent Planet (1938), The Problem of Pain (1940) and The Screwtape Letter (1942). What added to the appeal was that Lewis was an agnostic professor and was only converted back to Christianity (Anglican) at the age of 32 through the influence of the literary group called the "Inklings" where he and fellow Oxford professor and friend, J.R.R.Tolkien were members of.
I found Lewis' narration here a bit wordy and he tended to repeat himself and he used big, vague, inexact words and phrases. Maybe this was because of the fact that this was based on the radio broadcast's transcripts. Being a popular moralist, I also detected some arrogance in his pronouncements as if he knew everything about Christian Faith. An example of this was when he quoted phrases in his book and claimed that those are said by Jesus Christ. I am not a Bible scholar or something but recently I've finished the Holy Bible (Revised Standard Edition) from cover to cover. However, I did not encounter some of the passages that he enclosed in quotation marks ("___") in this book. Those were in quotes so Lewis gave me an impression that those were uttered by Jesus Christ himself. To give you an example, go to Book IV, Chapter 8, Paragraph 3 and this was what he wrote:
The Christian way is different: harder, and easier. Christ says "Give me All. I don't want so much of your time and so much of your money and so much of your work: I want You. I have not come to torment your natural self, but to kill it. No half-measures are any good. I don't want to cut off a tree down. I don't want to drill the tooth, or crown it, or stop it, but to have it out. Hand over the whole natural self, all the desires which you think innocent as well as the ones you think is wicked - the whole outfit. I will give you a new self instead. In fact, I will give you Myself: my own will shall become yours."Although Lewis meant well, quoting Jesus as if his thoughts were His, was like blasphemy to me. This is one problem I have with evangelists who are so popular that fame has already gone up to their blown-up heads. I am not saying that Lewis was swell-headed. All I am saying is that I see those evangelists around (including those in television) who speak like they are the kings of the world or they have special personal covenant with God.
The other two minor points that I also saw (and I am sorry if these appear as nitpicking) were the instance when Lewis referred to homosexuals as perverts and at one point he used the "n" word. I know that these could be acceptable during his time but I just got a bit annoyed when I was reading the book.
However, it is hard to dislike this book or to discount its significance. Lewis made a lot of good points in this essays. For example, he was on-the-dot when he said that most Christians do not need to be taught how to tell whether a thing is right or wrong because they already know. What most Christians need is to be reminded. This book's main purpose seems to be that and in my opinion, it achieved that objective. He also admitted that since he was a bachelor, he felt not in the right position to advice about marriage. So, for me, there were still humility and sincerity in him.
He also gave beautiful examples to illustrate his main points and there were many quotable quotes that you can collect from this book. In fact, as I am fond of dogearing pages with beautiful passages, I think a quarter of the pages are now dogeared and there were those pages that I could not decide whether the dogear should be to the left or to the right because both sides have beautiful passages so I just marked those with a pen. I normally don't mark my books with pen because writing on the book is a discourteous act for me.
My only advice for those who are considering on reading this? Read the Bible first because you might be misled when Lewis talks as if he gets his words directly from the scriptures. A small friendly suggestion.
Thank you to Cary, Kwesi, J.L., Tina and Dante for being my book buddies!
June 4, 2008
As a now more mature Christian, this book does not impress me as deeply as it once did, because I don't see its arguments as being objectively persuasive to the non-Christian. (Some of them, which seemed to me compelling at the time, now seem too simplistic, admitting of only a few possible arguments.) Yet when I read it as a teenager, I had just read the Gospels for the first time in my life, and I had been deeply struck by Christ's words and sense of authority. I WANTED to be a Christian at that moment in my life, and possibly I would have become one even if I had never read Mere Christianity on the heels of the Gospels. But I did read Mere Christianity on the heels of the Gospels, and at the time it sufficiently satisfied my intellect, which made it possible for my mind to join my heart in conversion. I give it five stars primarily because of its influence on me. It did not persuade me to convert, certainly (Christ's preaching did that), but it played a significant role in my journey, and I have yet to encounter another modern apologetic quite as simultaneously accessible and "clever." It was Mere Christianity that really introduced me to basic Christian theology. It may not be a persuasive book for the agnostic or the atheist, but it is a superb book for the new convert or almost-convert. Mere Christianity helped to draw me in; Screwtape Letters helped to keep me aware of where I really was (and wasn't).
September 12, 2021
Millennials Are Leaving Christianity And Not Coming Back
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...
===========
Here's the full quote that never appears on the back of the book....
“C.S. Lewis is the ideal persuader for the half convinced, for the good man who would like to be a Christian but finds his intellect getting in the way.”
― Anthony Burgess
Critique of this book. The Lewis appeal is rhetorical and emotional, not logical.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/C...
==========
C.S. Lewis is not the evangelical fundamentalist that Americans like to believe.
On the Second Coming...
"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." (Matthew 24:34)
“Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.....
....It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible".
============
This is a thorough refutation of Lewis's arguments which he himself abandoned late in life because it convinced none of his friends....
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
==========
Interesting article on Lewis from The New Yorker....
"A startling thing in Lewis’s letters to other believers is how much energy and practical advice is dispensed about how to keep your belief going: they are constantly writing to each other about the state of their beliefs, as chronic sinus sufferers might write to each other about the state of their noses. Keep your belief going, no matter what it takes—the thought not occurring that a belief that needs this much work to believe in isn’t really a belief but a very strong desire to believe."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...
======
so what is the Bible anyway? From BlackOxford.....
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...
===========
Here's the full quote that never appears on the back of the book....
“C.S. Lewis is the ideal persuader for the half convinced, for the good man who would like to be a Christian but finds his intellect getting in the way.”
― Anthony Burgess
Critique of this book. The Lewis appeal is rhetorical and emotional, not logical.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/C...
==========
C.S. Lewis is not the evangelical fundamentalist that Americans like to believe.
On the Second Coming...
"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." (Matthew 24:34)
“Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.....
....It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible".
============
This is a thorough refutation of Lewis's arguments which he himself abandoned late in life because it convinced none of his friends....
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
==========
Interesting article on Lewis from The New Yorker....
"A startling thing in Lewis’s letters to other believers is how much energy and practical advice is dispensed about how to keep your belief going: they are constantly writing to each other about the state of their beliefs, as chronic sinus sufferers might write to each other about the state of their noses. Keep your belief going, no matter what it takes—the thought not occurring that a belief that needs this much work to believe in isn’t really a belief but a very strong desire to believe."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...
======
so what is the Bible anyway? From BlackOxford.....
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
August 31, 2021
4 stars
I love C.S. Lewis (Narnia is one of my favorites) and I’ve always been curious about reading this book. I found his perspective about Christianity interesting and overall enjoyed listening to this one. The narrator wasn’t my favorite, but the book itself was great.
I love C.S. Lewis (Narnia is one of my favorites) and I’ve always been curious about reading this book. I found his perspective about Christianity interesting and overall enjoyed listening to this one. The narrator wasn’t my favorite, but the book itself was great.
Audio book source: Audible Plus
Story Rating: 4 stars
Narrators: Geoffrey Howard
Narration Rating: 3 stars
Genre: Non-fiction
Length: 5h 52m
August 21, 2007
This book quite literally changed my life. This is a dramatic, vivid account of a former atheist's realization that God is real and that you can know Him in a personal way. Reading this book with an open mind certainly helps to understand Lewis' perspective. It was originally given as a radio address therefore, it is relatively easy to follow. The language is a bit archaic, and some of the chapters may need to be re-read several times before finally grasping the content. It is completely worth the effort.
February 10, 2017
دوستانِ گرانقدر، این کتاب یکی از آن دسته از کتابهایی میباشد که محبوبِ ترسایان یا همان مسیحیان میباشد. چراکه در این کتاب <سی، اس. لوییس> که مسیحی متعصبی نیز میباشد، همه چیز را به نوعی به مسیح مربوط دانسته است، حتی نکات اخلاقی و آدابی که از ایرانیان و نیاکانِ ما وام گرفته شده است
در این ریویو به برخی از نظراتِ <لوییس> اشاره میکنم
---------------------------------------------
عزیزانم، <لوييس> ميگوید شادی و خوبیِ ناب از گردن نهادن برایِ خدا و فرمانبرداری بی چون و چرا از خدا بدست مي آید. او مينويسد: خوبیِ شايسته برایِ یک آفريده، تسليم نمودنِ خودش به آفريدگار خود میباشد. و تنها زمانی كه چنين كند، شاد و خوب است
************************
لوييس از "دگرگوني تند" حالتهایِ روانی سخن گفته و باور دينی را بر پايهٔ اين كه وابستگیِ شخص به عوامل بيرون از مهار وی، به ويژه آب و هوا و شكم... را كاهش ميدهد، ستايش ميكند و پای خرد را در میان میکشد که از نظر طبیعت گراها و خردگرایان و اندیشمندانی همچون زنده یاد <راسل> اینکار اشتباه است، چرا که در مسائلِ مربوط به دین و مذهب، خرد جایی ندارد و انسانِ خردمند با دلاوری و توانایی بالا، خود را از بندِ موهومات رها کرده و نجات میابد و در مسائل دینی به جای خرد، احساسات و ترس از خدا بر انسان چیره میشود، پس خرد در دین و مذهب بی معنی میباشد
در این رابطه <لوییس> مطالبی را مینویسد که اصلاً مشخص نیست سر و ته دارد یا خیر!! اینگونه مینویسد که
باور دينی . . . هنر نگه داشتن آن چيزی است كه خرد شما، با وجود دگرگونی حالتهایِ روحیِ شما، آن را پذيرفته است. چون حالتهایِ روحی، به پایهٔ ديدگاهی كه خرد شما راهنمايی ميكند، دگرگون خواهند شد. . . . اكنون كه من یک ترسایی و مسیحی واقعی هستم من حالت روحی دارم كه كل هستی باوركردنی به نظر ميرسد: ولی زمانی كه بيخدا بودم، مسيحيت به نظرم به سختی باوركردنی مينمود. دگرديسیِ تند حالتهایِ روحیِ شما بر پاد خود راستين شما دور خواهد شد. اين فرنودی برایِ اين است كه چرا باور دينی یک خوبیِ مورد نياز است.. مگر آنكه شما به حالتهایِ روحیِ خود بياموزيد 'كجا شما را رها نمايند' ... شما نميتوانيد یک مسیحیِ خوب يا حتی یک بيخدایِ خوب باشيد، تنها یک انسان دودل، با باورهايی كه در واقع وابسته به آب و هوا و شكم ميباشد، و در جا ميزند، هستيد
***********************
لوييس ميپندارد به ما گفته شده كه دربارهٔ ويژگیِ ديگران داوری نكنيم چون ما شايستگیِ انجام چنين كاری را نداريم. و از عنوانی با نامِ "موادِ خام" برای انسان استفاده میکند که معلوم نیست، از کجا آن را یافته است و اینگونه مینویسد که: ارزيابی درخور ويژگيهایِ اخلاقیِ كسی نياز به داشتن دانش كاملی از روان شناسی درونی، ارث، و پرورش وی و "مواد خام" دارد. امّا ما تنها پيامدِ آنچه انسان بر پايهٔ "مواد خام" ميسازد، را ميبينيم . . . . خدا انسان را به هيچ وجه بر پايهٔ "مواد خام" داوری نميكند، بلكه بر پايهٔ آن چه انسان با آن انجام داده داوری ميشود
**********************
درکل عزیزانم، نیاکانِ ما نیز گفته اند که در مورد دیگران تا زمانی که شناخت کامل ندارید داوری نکنید.. ولی این دلیل نمیشود که داوری را بر عهدهٔ موجودی بگذاریم که نه دیده میشود و نه اثری از آن پیداست ... لذا بنا به خواستهٔ مذهبی ها اینگونه داوری بر عهدهٔ کلاش های دروغگویی می افتد که میگویند ما طبق احکام الهی باید داوری کنیم . زمانیکه داوری ها بر عهدهٔ کلیسا بود، تاریخ نشان داده که چه کثافتی به انسانیت وارد کردند و چه اندازه بیگناهان و خردمندان و اندیشمندانی را که با بیرحمی تمام و بخاطر مسیح اعدام کردند و شکنجه دادند و سوزاندند
عزیزانم، هیچگاه داوری را بر عهدهٔ موهومات نگذارید که این کارِ ابلهان و بیخردان است و بس
میبینید که در سرزمین خودمان چه حکم های ناجوانمردانه و بر خلافِ انسانیت را با نامِ الله اجرا میکنند و چه بیگناهانی که با عنوانِ محاربه با خدا اعدام شده اند و میشوند
موجوداتی همچون <لوییس> عقل و خرد خویش را به دین و مذهب فروخته اند و توان اندیشیدن به حقیقت و راستی و درستی را ندارند
----------------------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو برای شما خردگرایان مفید بوده باشه
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
در این ریویو به برخی از نظراتِ <لوییس> اشاره میکنم
---------------------------------------------
عزیزانم، <لوييس> ميگوید شادی و خوبیِ ناب از گردن نهادن برایِ خدا و فرمانبرداری بی چون و چرا از خدا بدست مي آید. او مينويسد: خوبیِ شايسته برایِ یک آفريده، تسليم نمودنِ خودش به آفريدگار خود میباشد. و تنها زمانی كه چنين كند، شاد و خوب است
************************
لوييس از "دگرگوني تند" حالتهایِ روانی سخن گفته و باور دينی را بر پايهٔ اين كه وابستگیِ شخص به عوامل بيرون از مهار وی، به ويژه آب و هوا و شكم... را كاهش ميدهد، ستايش ميكند و پای خرد را در میان میکشد که از نظر طبیعت گراها و خردگرایان و اندیشمندانی همچون زنده یاد <راسل> اینکار اشتباه است، چرا که در مسائلِ مربوط به دین و مذهب، خرد جایی ندارد و انسانِ خردمند با دلاوری و توانایی بالا، خود را از بندِ موهومات رها کرده و نجات میابد و در مسائل دینی به جای خرد، احساسات و ترس از خدا بر انسان چیره میشود، پس خرد در دین و مذهب بی معنی میباشد
در این رابطه <لوییس> مطالبی را مینویسد که اصلاً مشخص نیست سر و ته دارد یا خیر!! اینگونه مینویسد که
باور دينی . . . هنر نگه داشتن آن چيزی است كه خرد شما، با وجود دگرگونی حالتهایِ روحیِ شما، آن را پذيرفته است. چون حالتهایِ روحی، به پایهٔ ديدگاهی كه خرد شما راهنمايی ميكند، دگرگون خواهند شد. . . . اكنون كه من یک ترسایی و مسیحی واقعی هستم من حالت روحی دارم كه كل هستی باوركردنی به نظر ميرسد: ولی زمانی كه بيخدا بودم، مسيحيت به نظرم به سختی باوركردنی مينمود. دگرديسیِ تند حالتهایِ روحیِ شما بر پاد خود راستين شما دور خواهد شد. اين فرنودی برایِ اين است كه چرا باور دينی یک خوبیِ مورد نياز است.. مگر آنكه شما به حالتهایِ روحیِ خود بياموزيد 'كجا شما را رها نمايند' ... شما نميتوانيد یک مسیحیِ خوب يا حتی یک بيخدایِ خوب باشيد، تنها یک انسان دودل، با باورهايی كه در واقع وابسته به آب و هوا و شكم ميباشد، و در جا ميزند، هستيد
***********************
لوييس ميپندارد به ما گفته شده كه دربارهٔ ويژگیِ ديگران داوری نكنيم چون ما شايستگیِ انجام چنين كاری را نداريم. و از عنوانی با نامِ "موادِ خام" برای انسان استفاده میکند که معلوم نیست، از کجا آن را یافته است و اینگونه مینویسد که: ارزيابی درخور ويژگيهایِ اخلاقیِ كسی نياز به داشتن دانش كاملی از روان شناسی درونی، ارث، و پرورش وی و "مواد خام" دارد. امّا ما تنها پيامدِ آنچه انسان بر پايهٔ "مواد خام" ميسازد، را ميبينيم . . . . خدا انسان را به هيچ وجه بر پايهٔ "مواد خام" داوری نميكند، بلكه بر پايهٔ آن چه انسان با آن انجام داده داوری ميشود
**********************
درکل عزیزانم، نیاکانِ ما نیز گفته اند که در مورد دیگران تا زمانی که شناخت کامل ندارید داوری نکنید.. ولی این دلیل نمیشود که داوری را بر عهدهٔ موجودی بگذاریم که نه دیده میشود و نه اثری از آن پیداست ... لذا بنا به خواستهٔ مذهبی ها اینگونه داوری بر عهدهٔ کلاش های دروغگویی می افتد که میگویند ما طبق احکام الهی باید داوری کنیم . زمانیکه داوری ها بر عهدهٔ کلیسا بود، تاریخ نشان داده که چه کثافتی به انسانیت وارد کردند و چه اندازه بیگناهان و خردمندان و اندیشمندانی را که با بیرحمی تمام و بخاطر مسیح اعدام کردند و شکنجه دادند و سوزاندند
عزیزانم، هیچگاه داوری را بر عهدهٔ موهومات نگذارید که این کارِ ابلهان و بیخردان است و بس
میبینید که در سرزمین خودمان چه حکم های ناجوانمردانه و بر خلافِ انسانیت را با نامِ الله اجرا میکنند و چه بیگناهانی که با عنوانِ محاربه با خدا اعدام شده اند و میشوند
موجوداتی همچون <لوییس> عقل و خرد خویش را به دین و مذهب فروخته اند و توان اندیشیدن به حقیقت و راستی و درستی را ندارند
----------------------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو برای شما خردگرایان مفید بوده باشه
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
July 28, 2023
I liked it but there were some points I disagreed with
March 4, 2012
I was actually really excited to read this book. I am an atheist, a recovering catholic to be specific, and was talking to a Christian friend who suggested I read this book. He hyped it up like “if you read this, you will definitely convert.” Sweet! I love a good logical argument. I had to put this book down after the first part. I can see how someone would see it as a good book, if you already believed the premises and conclusion to begin with.
In case why you are wondering why many people have given this book one star.. Here is my critique of the first book, part by part which I sent to my friend. If you haven't read this book first, you should stop here, read it and come to your own conclusion. I could be wrong in my logic, but this is what I thought as I read through the book.
1. The Law Of Human Nature
In this first part, if I understand right, he first sets up this “law of human nature” that supposed to be universal among humans. He states that this law is universal across all people and cultures, no matter where they might be. It's pretty obvious where he is going with this argument, that there was some “law giver” and it's why human societies have flourished. I don't think that he realizes that he is kind of defeating his argument before it even begins. He states that in every society that exists today, there is some precept of morality. Basic things like “don't kill your neighbor” “don't steal other peoples' stuff” “don't rape” “stand up for what is right” “be nice to others” etc. He says that its because of this law of human nature that these societies flourish and grow. If this is the case, then doesn't it kind of grant to itself that its probably not some supernatural being in the sky that might be the reason they grow? Societies that allow and even admire things like murder, rape, theft, that scorn compassion etc naturally fail to get together and become productive societies. They will probably either destroy themselves. If that is not the case, other more productive societies will most likely destroy them.
As primates, we are pretty social animals. We depend on each other for survival. We just aren't physically equipped to survive on our own. Intelligence is kind of our niche instead. Those of us that don't have a moral sense, or fail to exhibit one, aren't going to be able to join society. Example, if you steal all the time, no one is going to ever trust you or want to hang out with you. You'll have to fend for yourself. I don't know if you've ever observed animals taking care of each other and looking out for each other, but how did they come to know his “Human Nature?“ Animals sacrifice their own bodies for the good of the herd, or colony, or another in need all the time.
So, right from the get go, he seems to ignore any plausible natural explanation for human morality and goes right for the supernatural cause for morality.
2. Some Objections
In this section, he seems to present objections by people who dismiss his “Law of Human Nature.” He states that they just call this human instinct. He then clarifies what he means by is by differentiating between our instinctive “wants” and desires, verses the impulse that basically tells us that we need to do what is right. “Feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not.” Unless I missed it, he seems to give no basis for this statement, besides asserting that it is true. He tries distinguish this difference by saying that the the second one is that one “tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away.” According to him, our instincts are just the smaller components, directed by moral law. Again, he fails to establish a case. Why is it more plausible to assume that all of these instincts to help others, even if its not in our personal self interest, are more likely the products of an independent moral law? Why not just our natural instincts, which help us decide what the right thing to do is, based on the situation. This explanation (naturalistic) can also explain why certain historical figures have responded to moral dilemmas based on their social norms at the time and place they lived in. Lewis says that instincts are separate from moral law, but again he provides no evidence as to why human instincts can not provide an explanation.
The next point he tries to make is that because we can see throughout history there were different moral standards and we can compare them, there must be a greater absolute morality, “Real Morality”. We refer to this subconsciously when we make moral judgments. Otherwise, how would we be able to know whether to act civilized or like barbaric savages right? He just doesn't seem to understand how his argument defeats itself once again. If there really does exist a “real morality” and that source is God (I'm not going to pretend like that's not where he's headed), then why is there any difference in morality in the first place? Why are there situations where we can compare the morality of say, the Nazi's to liberal morality? I have a feeling he would answer answer this by saying “free will.” (ie All people are aware of this higher morality but some choose to ignore it for self gain). I think that this is a cheap cop-out to put it nicely. What about psychopaths and sociopaths who are born without the ability to even register feelings like compassion, empathy, or any other “Real Morality.” Why are certain people deprived of this morality through no fault of their own? Anyway, why make a point of changing morality though out history, and progress made in the general zeitgeist? Isn't it exactly what we'd expect if there is no moral law? If its a process of trial and error, debate, critical reasoning, discussions, and then decided on and exercised by the individuals in question, then doesn't it defeat his argument?
I was almost physically ill when I read the statement about burning the witches. So, the “Natural Law of Behavior” supports us taking action on those things we believe. If we believe that the witches exist, we have every right to support the death penalty. But, we don't believe in witches anymore so, big whoops there. There are still witches that are still executed in south Africa and India. According to Lewis' philosophy, these actions may as a matter of fact be justified. I find it interesting that he says we no longer believe that witches exist, yet the bible does give a direct command as to what to do with these non-existent beings in Exodus. I'm sure you will try to give me some new interpenetration in order to give some crazy context that this statement is okay. What other kind of “ungodly” transgressions can we forgive as mere “mistakes of fact?” If we think someone is the anti-Christ, we would definitely be justified in killing him or her. Another example, if someone thinks that all Muslims are terrorists, then they have a right to execute them. If you don't think that they are terrorists then you don't have a right to execute them. Other examples include Eve who thought that God was perhaps “pulling a fast one on her” an obvious “mistake of fact” in hindsight. Or what about those that crucified christ because they didn't buy into his message? A pretty bad “mistake of fact” as well. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.
He seems to be saying that Christians should examine history from a perspective where if they viewed the enemy as a horrible being, they had a right to put the enemy to death. This, in my opinion is a very, very, flawed moral philosophy.
3. The Reality of the Law
He seems to be hashing out all the same old stuff as in the two previous chapters. Why does he feel its more reasonable for morality to come from something independent of the human brain? Let along some transcendent, omnipresent absolute. I'd have to go with Occam's razor on this one.
Does he not say essentially that the evidence for moral law comes from our ability to know right from wrong? Even if we chose to disobey it we validate its existence, according to Lewis. He then goes on to say its just as solid as natural laws (in the scientific sense). He gives the example of gravity. His use of an analogy here is pretty bad. I'm being very kind here. I can see why CS Lewis is notorious for using bad analogies. You can not reject gravity. When you step off a ledge, its going to pull you down whether you actively deny its existence or choose to ignore it. If Moral Law is on par with gravity then we should not be able to ignore it, as it comes from this absolute moral law giver. I think his weak analogy is just an attempt to elevate his Moral Law to something scientific in order to give it credibility as the only plausible explanation to human moral impulses.
So, he feels that this moral law is real and its bearing down on us from somewhere and that somewhere is definitely not from us. From where? Hopefully, he will disclose that in the next few chapters.
He also again fails to explain why there are certain people who lack any sense of this “universal” Moral Law, like psychopaths. Brain injuries can sometimes result in behavioral developments. One example usually pointed too in psychology books is this guy; http://www.damninteresting.com/phinea... If this law is external to our mental workings, why does it depend on an internally healthy brain? The only explanation here would seem to be that its dependent on our chemical brains.
Lewis tries to get around this by saying that any explanation as to why we and the societies that we occupy can only be coherent with an external being dictating these laws. I am going to stand by my argument from before, that morals arise from natural human behavior that generally benefits society as a whole. The stuff that works stays, the stuff that doesn't goes. If the society hangs on to too many bad morals, it will eventually collapse. Lewis tries to counter this with a straw man argument. He says that this is like saying “oh well, decent behavior is decent behavior.” It's decent because, not to beat a dead horse, but it works. This kind of behavior allows societies to grow. When a society members, as a whole act with antisocial behavior, there is no coherence. Behaviors that were at one time considered to be okay, eventually aren't considered to be okay. Why? Because they tend to destabilize society over time. Some places still do things that we'd find pretty horrible, like slavery, but there is no societal pressure in those places to totally abandon it. So, it still exists. He might call his moral relativism, but saying that there is no real “basis” for an absolute Moral Law is not the same thing as saying that there is no such thing as object right and wrong behaviors. It is really up to people to judge and consider these behaviors. Again, through trial and error. This is consistent with what we see throughout human history.
4. What Lies Behind the Law
So, he finally gets to his main point here. And it is that there is a God. Lewis “proved it” *rolls eyes* via the arguments above. He still doesn't say its a christian god, but we both know thats where this whole thing is headed.
So he talks about the two world views. The religious and the materialist. The materialist, according to him, believes that everything is random and it is mere chance that everything came into existence. The religious worldview holds that there's some sort of being, or force out there that created everything like matter, with a purpose. He states that its impossible for science to determine the difference because science determines the how and not the why. Btw, I've heard this a lot before. Why does religion get the monopoly on the question of “why”? Why not philosophy getting a crack at it? Of course this is all presupposed on the idea that there IS a why to begin with. Speaking of morality and science, an interesting read is a book that might interest you is a book by Sam Harris called The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values.
Now, Im sidetracking. Sorry. So, he argues that the religious view is better by appealing to what we know about the nature of mankind. We can only detect Moral Law within, so it can not be observed by an external method, ie science. Also, the controlling power of this law must be beyond the universe and can also only be detected within. This all must come from an active mind on which we are based. He seems to be saying that through human experiences with the Moral Law, we can deduce a cosmic mind behind the universe. This still doesn't explain what exactly in our experiences with reality lets us believe that there is any sort of mind independent of our brains. Every account of anything that has ever happened has been a product of the brain. There is almost no real reason to even read the last chapter as this point really kills anything he might say in the last chapter anyway.
5. We Have Cause to Be Uneasy
So, he set two false premises, there is something out there that made the universe and that he put the Moral Law inside our hearts. He never really gave any evidence for this first premise anywhere in the chapters thus far. He never felt the obligation to discuss alternatives (unless you count his saying materialism is everything at random is another “explanation” of something). And the other one, he didn't even really argue very well. And even if this was the case, why rule out polytheism? It's interesting to me that he says that he's not pointing directly to a christian God, yet he seems to use the masculine term and a single being throughout the essay. He makes very weak and baseless arguments thus far and and then jumps on them assuming that they are true to transition to the next point. And if he is just proving that a God exists or “something” why does he assume that it is good? There was no proof or argument for this in the first place. I'm sure you've had to take a logic and critical thinking course while in College. You remember when the professor would present something with a long drawn out argument which sounded pretty good. Then you would look at it with the lens of trying to figure out what is wrong in almost every step along the way? I feel like this is a great example of one of those papers.
His writings are very misleading. He uses this pretense of “oh, I'm being objective because I get no personal comfort with Christianity being the real and my beliefs are based on evidence.” He just expects you to trust this and to roll with it.
Sorry to say this, but if I was grading this book as a paper, I'd probably have to give it an F. =/ I can see after reading this, why he does not garner much respect outside of the christian community. I had heard about the kinds of tactics he uses, but thanks for letting me see it first hand. I can see how he'd appeal to people who believe already, but to an outside rationalist, it just doesn't hold water. Sorry. If this is the best rationalism for Christianity and theism, I think I will stick to my “willed ignorance” thank you very much.
In case why you are wondering why many people have given this book one star.. Here is my critique of the first book, part by part which I sent to my friend. If you haven't read this book first, you should stop here, read it and come to your own conclusion. I could be wrong in my logic, but this is what I thought as I read through the book.
1. The Law Of Human Nature
In this first part, if I understand right, he first sets up this “law of human nature” that supposed to be universal among humans. He states that this law is universal across all people and cultures, no matter where they might be. It's pretty obvious where he is going with this argument, that there was some “law giver” and it's why human societies have flourished. I don't think that he realizes that he is kind of defeating his argument before it even begins. He states that in every society that exists today, there is some precept of morality. Basic things like “don't kill your neighbor” “don't steal other peoples' stuff” “don't rape” “stand up for what is right” “be nice to others” etc. He says that its because of this law of human nature that these societies flourish and grow. If this is the case, then doesn't it kind of grant to itself that its probably not some supernatural being in the sky that might be the reason they grow? Societies that allow and even admire things like murder, rape, theft, that scorn compassion etc naturally fail to get together and become productive societies. They will probably either destroy themselves. If that is not the case, other more productive societies will most likely destroy them.
As primates, we are pretty social animals. We depend on each other for survival. We just aren't physically equipped to survive on our own. Intelligence is kind of our niche instead. Those of us that don't have a moral sense, or fail to exhibit one, aren't going to be able to join society. Example, if you steal all the time, no one is going to ever trust you or want to hang out with you. You'll have to fend for yourself. I don't know if you've ever observed animals taking care of each other and looking out for each other, but how did they come to know his “Human Nature?“ Animals sacrifice their own bodies for the good of the herd, or colony, or another in need all the time.
So, right from the get go, he seems to ignore any plausible natural explanation for human morality and goes right for the supernatural cause for morality.
2. Some Objections
In this section, he seems to present objections by people who dismiss his “Law of Human Nature.” He states that they just call this human instinct. He then clarifies what he means by is by differentiating between our instinctive “wants” and desires, verses the impulse that basically tells us that we need to do what is right. “Feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not.” Unless I missed it, he seems to give no basis for this statement, besides asserting that it is true. He tries distinguish this difference by saying that the the second one is that one “tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away.” According to him, our instincts are just the smaller components, directed by moral law. Again, he fails to establish a case. Why is it more plausible to assume that all of these instincts to help others, even if its not in our personal self interest, are more likely the products of an independent moral law? Why not just our natural instincts, which help us decide what the right thing to do is, based on the situation. This explanation (naturalistic) can also explain why certain historical figures have responded to moral dilemmas based on their social norms at the time and place they lived in. Lewis says that instincts are separate from moral law, but again he provides no evidence as to why human instincts can not provide an explanation.
The next point he tries to make is that because we can see throughout history there were different moral standards and we can compare them, there must be a greater absolute morality, “Real Morality”. We refer to this subconsciously when we make moral judgments. Otherwise, how would we be able to know whether to act civilized or like barbaric savages right? He just doesn't seem to understand how his argument defeats itself once again. If there really does exist a “real morality” and that source is God (I'm not going to pretend like that's not where he's headed), then why is there any difference in morality in the first place? Why are there situations where we can compare the morality of say, the Nazi's to liberal morality? I have a feeling he would answer answer this by saying “free will.” (ie All people are aware of this higher morality but some choose to ignore it for self gain). I think that this is a cheap cop-out to put it nicely. What about psychopaths and sociopaths who are born without the ability to even register feelings like compassion, empathy, or any other “Real Morality.” Why are certain people deprived of this morality through no fault of their own? Anyway, why make a point of changing morality though out history, and progress made in the general zeitgeist? Isn't it exactly what we'd expect if there is no moral law? If its a process of trial and error, debate, critical reasoning, discussions, and then decided on and exercised by the individuals in question, then doesn't it defeat his argument?
I was almost physically ill when I read the statement about burning the witches. So, the “Natural Law of Behavior” supports us taking action on those things we believe. If we believe that the witches exist, we have every right to support the death penalty. But, we don't believe in witches anymore so, big whoops there. There are still witches that are still executed in south Africa and India. According to Lewis' philosophy, these actions may as a matter of fact be justified. I find it interesting that he says we no longer believe that witches exist, yet the bible does give a direct command as to what to do with these non-existent beings in Exodus. I'm sure you will try to give me some new interpenetration in order to give some crazy context that this statement is okay. What other kind of “ungodly” transgressions can we forgive as mere “mistakes of fact?” If we think someone is the anti-Christ, we would definitely be justified in killing him or her. Another example, if someone thinks that all Muslims are terrorists, then they have a right to execute them. If you don't think that they are terrorists then you don't have a right to execute them. Other examples include Eve who thought that God was perhaps “pulling a fast one on her” an obvious “mistake of fact” in hindsight. Or what about those that crucified christ because they didn't buy into his message? A pretty bad “mistake of fact” as well. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.
He seems to be saying that Christians should examine history from a perspective where if they viewed the enemy as a horrible being, they had a right to put the enemy to death. This, in my opinion is a very, very, flawed moral philosophy.
3. The Reality of the Law
He seems to be hashing out all the same old stuff as in the two previous chapters. Why does he feel its more reasonable for morality to come from something independent of the human brain? Let along some transcendent, omnipresent absolute. I'd have to go with Occam's razor on this one.
Does he not say essentially that the evidence for moral law comes from our ability to know right from wrong? Even if we chose to disobey it we validate its existence, according to Lewis. He then goes on to say its just as solid as natural laws (in the scientific sense). He gives the example of gravity. His use of an analogy here is pretty bad. I'm being very kind here. I can see why CS Lewis is notorious for using bad analogies. You can not reject gravity. When you step off a ledge, its going to pull you down whether you actively deny its existence or choose to ignore it. If Moral Law is on par with gravity then we should not be able to ignore it, as it comes from this absolute moral law giver. I think his weak analogy is just an attempt to elevate his Moral Law to something scientific in order to give it credibility as the only plausible explanation to human moral impulses.
So, he feels that this moral law is real and its bearing down on us from somewhere and that somewhere is definitely not from us. From where? Hopefully, he will disclose that in the next few chapters.
He also again fails to explain why there are certain people who lack any sense of this “universal” Moral Law, like psychopaths. Brain injuries can sometimes result in behavioral developments. One example usually pointed too in psychology books is this guy; http://www.damninteresting.com/phinea... If this law is external to our mental workings, why does it depend on an internally healthy brain? The only explanation here would seem to be that its dependent on our chemical brains.
Lewis tries to get around this by saying that any explanation as to why we and the societies that we occupy can only be coherent with an external being dictating these laws. I am going to stand by my argument from before, that morals arise from natural human behavior that generally benefits society as a whole. The stuff that works stays, the stuff that doesn't goes. If the society hangs on to too many bad morals, it will eventually collapse. Lewis tries to counter this with a straw man argument. He says that this is like saying “oh well, decent behavior is decent behavior.” It's decent because, not to beat a dead horse, but it works. This kind of behavior allows societies to grow. When a society members, as a whole act with antisocial behavior, there is no coherence. Behaviors that were at one time considered to be okay, eventually aren't considered to be okay. Why? Because they tend to destabilize society over time. Some places still do things that we'd find pretty horrible, like slavery, but there is no societal pressure in those places to totally abandon it. So, it still exists. He might call his moral relativism, but saying that there is no real “basis” for an absolute Moral Law is not the same thing as saying that there is no such thing as object right and wrong behaviors. It is really up to people to judge and consider these behaviors. Again, through trial and error. This is consistent with what we see throughout human history.
4. What Lies Behind the Law
So, he finally gets to his main point here. And it is that there is a God. Lewis “proved it” *rolls eyes* via the arguments above. He still doesn't say its a christian god, but we both know thats where this whole thing is headed.
So he talks about the two world views. The religious and the materialist. The materialist, according to him, believes that everything is random and it is mere chance that everything came into existence. The religious worldview holds that there's some sort of being, or force out there that created everything like matter, with a purpose. He states that its impossible for science to determine the difference because science determines the how and not the why. Btw, I've heard this a lot before. Why does religion get the monopoly on the question of “why”? Why not philosophy getting a crack at it? Of course this is all presupposed on the idea that there IS a why to begin with. Speaking of morality and science, an interesting read is a book that might interest you is a book by Sam Harris called The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values.
Now, Im sidetracking. Sorry. So, he argues that the religious view is better by appealing to what we know about the nature of mankind. We can only detect Moral Law within, so it can not be observed by an external method, ie science. Also, the controlling power of this law must be beyond the universe and can also only be detected within. This all must come from an active mind on which we are based. He seems to be saying that through human experiences with the Moral Law, we can deduce a cosmic mind behind the universe. This still doesn't explain what exactly in our experiences with reality lets us believe that there is any sort of mind independent of our brains. Every account of anything that has ever happened has been a product of the brain. There is almost no real reason to even read the last chapter as this point really kills anything he might say in the last chapter anyway.
5. We Have Cause to Be Uneasy
So, he set two false premises, there is something out there that made the universe and that he put the Moral Law inside our hearts. He never really gave any evidence for this first premise anywhere in the chapters thus far. He never felt the obligation to discuss alternatives (unless you count his saying materialism is everything at random is another “explanation” of something). And the other one, he didn't even really argue very well. And even if this was the case, why rule out polytheism? It's interesting to me that he says that he's not pointing directly to a christian God, yet he seems to use the masculine term and a single being throughout the essay. He makes very weak and baseless arguments thus far and and then jumps on them assuming that they are true to transition to the next point. And if he is just proving that a God exists or “something” why does he assume that it is good? There was no proof or argument for this in the first place. I'm sure you've had to take a logic and critical thinking course while in College. You remember when the professor would present something with a long drawn out argument which sounded pretty good. Then you would look at it with the lens of trying to figure out what is wrong in almost every step along the way? I feel like this is a great example of one of those papers.
His writings are very misleading. He uses this pretense of “oh, I'm being objective because I get no personal comfort with Christianity being the real and my beliefs are based on evidence.” He just expects you to trust this and to roll with it.
Sorry to say this, but if I was grading this book as a paper, I'd probably have to give it an F. =/ I can see after reading this, why he does not garner much respect outside of the christian community. I had heard about the kinds of tactics he uses, but thanks for letting me see it first hand. I can see how he'd appeal to people who believe already, but to an outside rationalist, it just doesn't hold water. Sorry. If this is the best rationalism for Christianity and theism, I think I will stick to my “willed ignorance” thank you very much.
February 1, 2015
Great. Also read in March of 1985. Also listened to it a couple times on audio over the course of a few years, finishing the second time through in October 2011.
Finished listening to it again in January 2015.
Finished listening to it again in January 2015.
October 9, 2014
Score for literary merit and enduring cultural importance: 5+
Score for actual theologizing: 3 tops
“Theology means ‘the science of God,’ and I think any man who wants to think about God at all would like to have the clearest and most accurate ideas about Him which are available.”
“If Christianity only means one more bit of good advice, then Christianity is of no importance. There has been no lack of good advice for the last four thousand years.”
I’d read this piecemeal through high school and college (including a Lewis tutorial in Oxford during my year abroad), then the ladies of my extended family did an online book discussion through five months of last year. The chat fizzled out, as these things so often do; I think many struggled, not with the ideas but with the language, finding it dated and inaccessible. Meanwhile, I was the devil’s advocate, with much the most liberal and ‘heretical’ views.
Now that I’ve finally gotten around to finishing, I’ll condense some of the thoughts I sent via e-mail into a general response. This second time around, about a dozen years after I first started broadening my idea of what Christianity could be, I was surprised by how inadequate I found much of Lewis’s thinking to be. His stated aim is to illuminate the least common denominator of Christian doctrine, but the effect of this is to produce a flat picture of a faith that doesn’t evolve to fit changing circumstances.
Lewis relies on what, to me, seem like over-simplified dualities. For instance, in his discussion of pantheism and monotheism he offers a caricature of the viewpoints and doesn’t discuss the subtleties of a middle way known as “panentheism” (everything rests in God, as in Acts 17:28: “For in him we live and move and have our being”). I also find the dichotomy between the powers of good and darkness – and especially martial metaphors like “enemy-occupied territory” – both unhelpful and outdated. Likewise, I was disappointed by Lewis’s unfair dismissal of “Creative Evolution.” He misrepresents the serious attempt to reconcile undeniable scientific fact with a belief that there is purpose and value to human life.
I’m not sure I agreed with his discussion of the term “Christian” and how it has been devalued. A comparison with the term “gentleman” didn’t resonate. He tries to argue that whereas “gentleman” once had wealth and class meaning, it now refers to behavior only, and the same is happening with the term “Christian.” Yet if faith without works is dead, and many people outside the Church are more Christ-like than those inside, perhaps the very word “Christian” should only be applied to those who really merit it. For this reason, Irish theologian Peter Rollins says that being a Christian “means entering into a journey of becoming one” – acknowledging that we will never reach the ideal of modeling Christ.
I’ve always thought Lewis’s “Liar, Lunatic or Lord” argument a rather weak one. He’s assuming that Jesus thought himself to be God, whereas Paul writes “Jesus did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself” (Philippians 2:6). However, I appreciated the discussion of how Christianity is not intuitive and that this in itself is support for it being true: principles like “whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it” don’t make logical sense, but are the way of God’s Kingdom.
I liked the idea that nature can give us a picture of God – and that it suggests both beauty and terror. I also appreciated his mention of the “good dreams” of a dying God that prefigured the way for Christ (though I find his language about “heathens” patronizing) – this is something I read a lot about in college religion classes, particularly Joseph Campbell’s book of comparative mythology, The Hero with a Thousand Faces.
A few more points I found particularly useful were:
• theories of atonement are just pictures and needn’t be taken too literally
• Jesus models for us a new way to be human (a great Switchfoot lyric, that), even a next step in human evolution
• the sacraments are ways of entering into the life of Christ
• the incarnation was God entering the world by stealth, “starting a sort of secret society to undermine the devil” – a quiet revolution rather than a forceful takeover (I’ve thought a lot about this – see, e.g. The Secret Message of Jesus by Brian McLaren)
• Christian creative work is not in some separate class: “Christian literature comes from Christian novelists and dramatists—not from the bench of bishops getting together and trying to write plays and novels in their spare time”; “no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it.”
Book III, Chapter 3 (“Social Morality”) is terrific, and very provocative. Lewis ponders what a society based on the Golden Rule would look like: a place where every politician, economist and artist was committed to seeking the common good and treating people as they would wish to be treated. Imagine – no advertising, no charging interest, none of the trivial and superficial matters that make up so much of society today. Call it socialized or communist or whatever you like, but it’s supported by the way of Jesus and the model of the early Church. I was especially challenged by his opinion that our charitable giving should be putting constraints on our lifestyle, and if it’s not, we just aren’t giving enough.
Chapters on sexual morality and marriage are also very good. I think he’s right that while chastity is an unchanging virtue, notions of modesty and propriety are culturally relative and change over time. I especially loved this line: “But if a healthy young man indulged his sexual appetite whenever he felt inclined, and if each act produced a baby, then in ten years he might easily populate a small village.” In other words, it’s ludicrous to think that our every sexual desire could or should be satisfied. I also loved the metaphor of putting a lamb chop on display under a cover and slowly revealing it – like a striptease, but with food. This would seem both ridiculous and unhealthy to us, a sign of both starvation and obsession. Indeed, our relationship with sex in this porn-drenched day and age is similarly sick and addictive.
It’s interesting to read Lewis’s ideas about Christian marriage, knowing that he wrote this book in 1944 but didn’t marry until 1957. I wonder what he would have changed, if anything, if he’d written this as a married man. I agree with him completely that marriage is a decision and a promise that long outlasts “being in love.”
Perhaps my biggest objection relates to Lewis’s position on capital punishment and just war. Lewis states, “It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy.” Lewis himself fought in WWI and was writing in the throes of WWII, so he lived in a different time, one where war seemed justified and necessary. Now, in our age of “preventive” warfare and anti-terrorism, this is not the case anymore, nor is capital punishment ever right. The ‘right to life’ is the right to life for everyone, criminals included – because who among us is truly innocent? Jesus didn’t set parameters on peace; he simply said “Blessed are the peacemakers,” “love your enemies,” and “if a man strikes you, turn the other cheek.”
My favorite lines may well have been about not looking to religion for comfort: “God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from...If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth – only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair.”
The fact that the book originated as a set of radio broadcasts is reflected in the style – it’s less formal and more conversational than your average theology book. If at times it seems a touch patronizing – like a Sunday school primer – that speaks to his desire to make this comprehensible for new Christians and questioners alike.
There are so many memorable metaphors here: souls as tin soldiers coming to life, the image of religion as a hallway with many rooms, the idea of God being ‘sixpence none the richer’ whenever we give our talents back to him. In terms of introducing useful examples and analogies, you can’t fault it.
This is an important book for any Christian to read, if only because C.S. Lewis has had such a huge impact on Evangelical theology (especially in America) through to the present day. It was even voted best book of the twentieth century by Christianity Today magazine in 2000. It’s definitely worth reading (or rereading after years or decades), even if just to see what you think is helpful and salvageable and what strikes you as outmoded.
Score for actual theologizing: 3 tops
“Theology means ‘the science of God,’ and I think any man who wants to think about God at all would like to have the clearest and most accurate ideas about Him which are available.”
“If Christianity only means one more bit of good advice, then Christianity is of no importance. There has been no lack of good advice for the last four thousand years.”
I’d read this piecemeal through high school and college (including a Lewis tutorial in Oxford during my year abroad), then the ladies of my extended family did an online book discussion through five months of last year. The chat fizzled out, as these things so often do; I think many struggled, not with the ideas but with the language, finding it dated and inaccessible. Meanwhile, I was the devil’s advocate, with much the most liberal and ‘heretical’ views.
Now that I’ve finally gotten around to finishing, I’ll condense some of the thoughts I sent via e-mail into a general response. This second time around, about a dozen years after I first started broadening my idea of what Christianity could be, I was surprised by how inadequate I found much of Lewis’s thinking to be. His stated aim is to illuminate the least common denominator of Christian doctrine, but the effect of this is to produce a flat picture of a faith that doesn’t evolve to fit changing circumstances.
Lewis relies on what, to me, seem like over-simplified dualities. For instance, in his discussion of pantheism and monotheism he offers a caricature of the viewpoints and doesn’t discuss the subtleties of a middle way known as “panentheism” (everything rests in God, as in Acts 17:28: “For in him we live and move and have our being”). I also find the dichotomy between the powers of good and darkness – and especially martial metaphors like “enemy-occupied territory” – both unhelpful and outdated. Likewise, I was disappointed by Lewis’s unfair dismissal of “Creative Evolution.” He misrepresents the serious attempt to reconcile undeniable scientific fact with a belief that there is purpose and value to human life.
I’m not sure I agreed with his discussion of the term “Christian” and how it has been devalued. A comparison with the term “gentleman” didn’t resonate. He tries to argue that whereas “gentleman” once had wealth and class meaning, it now refers to behavior only, and the same is happening with the term “Christian.” Yet if faith without works is dead, and many people outside the Church are more Christ-like than those inside, perhaps the very word “Christian” should only be applied to those who really merit it. For this reason, Irish theologian Peter Rollins says that being a Christian “means entering into a journey of becoming one” – acknowledging that we will never reach the ideal of modeling Christ.
I’ve always thought Lewis’s “Liar, Lunatic or Lord” argument a rather weak one. He’s assuming that Jesus thought himself to be God, whereas Paul writes “Jesus did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself” (Philippians 2:6). However, I appreciated the discussion of how Christianity is not intuitive and that this in itself is support for it being true: principles like “whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it” don’t make logical sense, but are the way of God’s Kingdom.
I liked the idea that nature can give us a picture of God – and that it suggests both beauty and terror. I also appreciated his mention of the “good dreams” of a dying God that prefigured the way for Christ (though I find his language about “heathens” patronizing) – this is something I read a lot about in college religion classes, particularly Joseph Campbell’s book of comparative mythology, The Hero with a Thousand Faces.
A few more points I found particularly useful were:
• theories of atonement are just pictures and needn’t be taken too literally
• Jesus models for us a new way to be human (a great Switchfoot lyric, that), even a next step in human evolution
• the sacraments are ways of entering into the life of Christ
• the incarnation was God entering the world by stealth, “starting a sort of secret society to undermine the devil” – a quiet revolution rather than a forceful takeover (I’ve thought a lot about this – see, e.g. The Secret Message of Jesus by Brian McLaren)
• Christian creative work is not in some separate class: “Christian literature comes from Christian novelists and dramatists—not from the bench of bishops getting together and trying to write plays and novels in their spare time”; “no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it.”
Book III, Chapter 3 (“Social Morality”) is terrific, and very provocative. Lewis ponders what a society based on the Golden Rule would look like: a place where every politician, economist and artist was committed to seeking the common good and treating people as they would wish to be treated. Imagine – no advertising, no charging interest, none of the trivial and superficial matters that make up so much of society today. Call it socialized or communist or whatever you like, but it’s supported by the way of Jesus and the model of the early Church. I was especially challenged by his opinion that our charitable giving should be putting constraints on our lifestyle, and if it’s not, we just aren’t giving enough.
Chapters on sexual morality and marriage are also very good. I think he’s right that while chastity is an unchanging virtue, notions of modesty and propriety are culturally relative and change over time. I especially loved this line: “But if a healthy young man indulged his sexual appetite whenever he felt inclined, and if each act produced a baby, then in ten years he might easily populate a small village.” In other words, it’s ludicrous to think that our every sexual desire could or should be satisfied. I also loved the metaphor of putting a lamb chop on display under a cover and slowly revealing it – like a striptease, but with food. This would seem both ridiculous and unhealthy to us, a sign of both starvation and obsession. Indeed, our relationship with sex in this porn-drenched day and age is similarly sick and addictive.
It’s interesting to read Lewis’s ideas about Christian marriage, knowing that he wrote this book in 1944 but didn’t marry until 1957. I wonder what he would have changed, if anything, if he’d written this as a married man. I agree with him completely that marriage is a decision and a promise that long outlasts “being in love.”
Perhaps my biggest objection relates to Lewis’s position on capital punishment and just war. Lewis states, “It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy.” Lewis himself fought in WWI and was writing in the throes of WWII, so he lived in a different time, one where war seemed justified and necessary. Now, in our age of “preventive” warfare and anti-terrorism, this is not the case anymore, nor is capital punishment ever right. The ‘right to life’ is the right to life for everyone, criminals included – because who among us is truly innocent? Jesus didn’t set parameters on peace; he simply said “Blessed are the peacemakers,” “love your enemies,” and “if a man strikes you, turn the other cheek.”
My favorite lines may well have been about not looking to religion for comfort: “God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from...If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth – only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair.”
The fact that the book originated as a set of radio broadcasts is reflected in the style – it’s less formal and more conversational than your average theology book. If at times it seems a touch patronizing – like a Sunday school primer – that speaks to his desire to make this comprehensible for new Christians and questioners alike.
There are so many memorable metaphors here: souls as tin soldiers coming to life, the image of religion as a hallway with many rooms, the idea of God being ‘sixpence none the richer’ whenever we give our talents back to him. In terms of introducing useful examples and analogies, you can’t fault it.
This is an important book for any Christian to read, if only because C.S. Lewis has had such a huge impact on Evangelical theology (especially in America) through to the present day. It was even voted best book of the twentieth century by Christianity Today magazine in 2000. It’s definitely worth reading (or rereading after years or decades), even if just to see what you think is helpful and salvageable and what strikes you as outmoded.
April 4, 2023
I'm honestly not sure how to word my thoughts on this book... Wow. The way Lewis presents his thoughts in an engaging and easy-to-understand way always astounds me. It's like he's your friend sitting beside you and explaining something, not just a writer stating facts that you should believe because they are what he believes.
The whole approach of what it truly means to be a Christian is amazing! The truth is that we are fallen and often the Church and Christians don't act as they should, but that doesn't mean that God isn't real, just that we as humans are fallible.
I love Lewis's engaging style, the complex truths that he breaks down in an easy-to-understand way, and the humble tone he uses to deliver his message. This is a beautiful book, enlightening, encouraging, and inspiring. I learned a lot.
Overall, I recommend this to anyone looking for a deeper understanding of the Christian faith!
The whole approach of what it truly means to be a Christian is amazing! The truth is that we are fallen and often the Church and Christians don't act as they should, but that doesn't mean that God isn't real, just that we as humans are fallible.
I love Lewis's engaging style, the complex truths that he breaks down in an easy-to-understand way, and the humble tone he uses to deliver his message. This is a beautiful book, enlightening, encouraging, and inspiring. I learned a lot.
Overall, I recommend this to anyone looking for a deeper understanding of the Christian faith!
July 4, 2022
This was….wow. I don't know why I waited so long to read this. This book was so good. It had such good insights. There is just so much packed into this one 256-page book. But who am I kidding? It's Lewis; can I expect anything less than an amazing read?
Mere Christianity explains and elucidates basic Christian doctrines and principles in a most genius matter. It argues and defends the validity of Christianity and gives a better foundation to your beliefs. It's great to believe in something passionately, but it's important and vital to know WHY you believe it. You need a solid foundation that allows you to defend your faith in the midst of adversity; Mere Christianity helps you to build that foundation.
This is the kind of book that makes you see things in a new light, a book that augments your perspective and knowledge and leaves you feeling baffled at how much you didn't know and how much you just absorbed. It also is just so full of things that you should know already, yet when you read it, it makes you feel like you're finding it out for the first time. (You ever get that? I get it a lot.)
The illustrations and examples Lewis gives are just so amazing and ingenious. He was able to come up with such wonderful, effective, persuasive examples/illustrations because he really understood what he was trying to communicate. Even when I had a hard time understanding a topic, his word pictures made it click in my mind and helped me wrap my head around the difficult subjects. I still don't know how he even thought of illustrations that so perfectly captured the heart of his topic, but everything he said was just so clear and lucidly expressed to the reader exactly what he wanted to say.
Writing excellent nonfiction is HARD, yet Lewis executes it beautifully and almost makes it look easy. His thinking was critical. He doesn't rush through things. He takes the reader steadily & patiently through his own thought process to the conclusion, using simple language so that anyone can understand. However, he does it all while not dumbing it down as if the reader is unintelligent. He respects his readers and he doesn't write from a moral high ground. He was well-informed about his topics but demonstrated a great deal of humility in his writing. He was able to answer these questions so effectively and empathetically because he himself wrestled with these questions for years.
I believe every Christian should read this book. There are so many things you can learn from this, regardless of your level of maturity as a Christian. Not only will you gain a new appreciation for Lewis' pure genius in both writing and Christianity, but you will also walk away from this book with a better understanding of things every believer should know and with an increased knowledge of how to better your walk with God and live a life that is in harmony with both God and man, a life that is pleasing to Him.
Mere Christianity explains and elucidates basic Christian doctrines and principles in a most genius matter. It argues and defends the validity of Christianity and gives a better foundation to your beliefs. It's great to believe in something passionately, but it's important and vital to know WHY you believe it. You need a solid foundation that allows you to defend your faith in the midst of adversity; Mere Christianity helps you to build that foundation.
This is the kind of book that makes you see things in a new light, a book that augments your perspective and knowledge and leaves you feeling baffled at how much you didn't know and how much you just absorbed. It also is just so full of things that you should know already, yet when you read it, it makes you feel like you're finding it out for the first time. (You ever get that? I get it a lot.)
The illustrations and examples Lewis gives are just so amazing and ingenious. He was able to come up with such wonderful, effective, persuasive examples/illustrations because he really understood what he was trying to communicate. Even when I had a hard time understanding a topic, his word pictures made it click in my mind and helped me wrap my head around the difficult subjects. I still don't know how he even thought of illustrations that so perfectly captured the heart of his topic, but everything he said was just so clear and lucidly expressed to the reader exactly what he wanted to say.
Writing excellent nonfiction is HARD, yet Lewis executes it beautifully and almost makes it look easy. His thinking was critical. He doesn't rush through things. He takes the reader steadily & patiently through his own thought process to the conclusion, using simple language so that anyone can understand. However, he does it all while not dumbing it down as if the reader is unintelligent. He respects his readers and he doesn't write from a moral high ground. He was well-informed about his topics but demonstrated a great deal of humility in his writing. He was able to answer these questions so effectively and empathetically because he himself wrestled with these questions for years.
I believe every Christian should read this book. There are so many things you can learn from this, regardless of your level of maturity as a Christian. Not only will you gain a new appreciation for Lewis' pure genius in both writing and Christianity, but you will also walk away from this book with a better understanding of things every believer should know and with an increased knowledge of how to better your walk with God and live a life that is in harmony with both God and man, a life that is pleasing to Him.
August 16, 2010
I don't know how to begin this book review. I've probably typed and deleted a dozen sentences already. Why should this be so difficult?
Because, I liked it.
I did.
Except.
No. Even that part, the part he got wrong, I liked.
Which made me wonder.
Who is this book for?
Christians?
Obviously. We love this stuff. Having a smart guy give smart reasons to explain why Christianity makes perfect sense feels...smart. It sits well, if you will. Many, if not most, of his arguments were things I had not previously thought about in terms of why I believe there is a God and why I believe that Christ was our Savior, and to have them explained to me with both his brilliant circular logic and then the helpful and much-easier-to-follow analogy, filled my believer's bucket.
But I don't think Lewis prepared these addresses (Mere Christianity is actually a compilation of radio addresses he delivered on the BBC during the Second World War) in order to simply preach to the choir.
Because Lewis was a former atheist, I believe he felt strongly, especially during such a major conflict as the war which included in its causes a fight against evil, that the world needed to understand where our morality comes from. I think he was motivated to convince the masses that goodness isn't something we choose because it makes the world a better place or because our parents taught us the golden rule but rather, we choose it because God is real. Christ is real. And the possibility to become like them is real.
So, what about the others? How would a non-Christian respond to Lewis?
It's hard for me to say, because, while I think he's very convincing and right quite a lot of the time, there are times throughout the book where I think he's wrong. I think he's wrong because I have been taught something different and I believe that to be truth instead. It's difficult for me to not take that one step further and assume that others who have been taught something else might thing he's wrong in even more places.
This inability for me to claim the book as all right is a stumbling block. I want to be able to say, "Read this. He makes the case for Christianity." But I'd have to add, "However, I think he's a little off about the Godhead." Lewis, himself, frequently cites his own reasoning as guesswork. I admire his ability to say, "I can't be sure but this is how I think it works." If he had done that with the Godhead, I'd probably be a lot more at ease with my reaction to the book but he doesn't. He's pretty firm about how God begat Christ, which makes him his "Son" although they are the same being, just as a cube can be made up of more than one squares but they are not separate from the cube. They are the cube. God is God. All of Him. I'd continue to explain the Holy Ghost but it gets a little confusing. My belief that they are three different beings is so much more clear to me.
Still, it is what it is. A fascinating and articulate justification forChristianity. And read with a proper British voice narrating in my head, it was a delightful and enlightening read.
Because, I liked it.
I did.
Except.
No. Even that part, the part he got wrong, I liked.
Which made me wonder.
Who is this book for?
Christians?
Obviously. We love this stuff. Having a smart guy give smart reasons to explain why Christianity makes perfect sense feels...smart. It sits well, if you will. Many, if not most, of his arguments were things I had not previously thought about in terms of why I believe there is a God and why I believe that Christ was our Savior, and to have them explained to me with both his brilliant circular logic and then the helpful and much-easier-to-follow analogy, filled my believer's bucket.
But I don't think Lewis prepared these addresses (Mere Christianity is actually a compilation of radio addresses he delivered on the BBC during the Second World War) in order to simply preach to the choir.
Because Lewis was a former atheist, I believe he felt strongly, especially during such a major conflict as the war which included in its causes a fight against evil, that the world needed to understand where our morality comes from. I think he was motivated to convince the masses that goodness isn't something we choose because it makes the world a better place or because our parents taught us the golden rule but rather, we choose it because God is real. Christ is real. And the possibility to become like them is real.
So, what about the others? How would a non-Christian respond to Lewis?
It's hard for me to say, because, while I think he's very convincing and right quite a lot of the time, there are times throughout the book where I think he's wrong. I think he's wrong because I have been taught something different and I believe that to be truth instead. It's difficult for me to not take that one step further and assume that others who have been taught something else might thing he's wrong in even more places.
This inability for me to claim the book as all right is a stumbling block. I want to be able to say, "Read this. He makes the case for Christianity." But I'd have to add, "However, I think he's a little off about the Godhead." Lewis, himself, frequently cites his own reasoning as guesswork. I admire his ability to say, "I can't be sure but this is how I think it works." If he had done that with the Godhead, I'd probably be a lot more at ease with my reaction to the book but he doesn't. He's pretty firm about how God begat Christ, which makes him his "Son" although they are the same being, just as a cube can be made up of more than one squares but they are not separate from the cube. They are the cube. God is God. All of Him. I'd continue to explain the Holy Ghost but it gets a little confusing. My belief that they are three different beings is so much more clear to me.
Still, it is what it is. A fascinating and articulate justification forChristianity. And read with a proper British voice narrating in my head, it was a delightful and enlightening read.
January 7, 2023
C.S. Lewis is such a prolific and articulate author. I'm really enjoying his works. I'm constantly blown away by the way in which he seamlessly (with humor) explains his beliefs and thoughts. I can't wait to read more from him. I feel bless having closed 2016 year reading his works.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 13,365 reviews