Mere obfuscation and sophistry.
C.S.Lewis, a capable writer and rare example of Xian intellectual, and friend of J.R.R Tolkien, an even better writer is best known for works such as the Perelandra Trilogy, the Chronicles of Narnia, and the Screwtape letters. In the aforementioned works he used fiction and fantasy elements to conceal religious themes. In Mere Christianity, the author dispenses with using parables, allegory, and fiction. He decides to get serious and tell it like it is in Lewis' imagination, as his theology does not correspond with any reality known in this world. Perhaps Alpha Ceti Prime has a world that meets Lewis' doctrinal metaphysics? Most Xians disdain using logic and reason to support their faith and see their faith as something that is believed or not believed, and the lack of evidence therefore, requires faith. Faith which ultimately boils down to wishful thinking, is the substance and foundation of Christianity, not reason or logic. Yet Lewis, like T. Aquinas before him tries the approach of reason as does McDowell the author of Evidence That Demands a Verdict. All of this stuff I have read with chuckles and giggles supressed. To answer who made the world with 'God' is to answer an unknown with an even greater unknown. At least the origins of the Universe should be accessible and solvable by the Scientific Method. Not so God, of whom, even his supporters admit, nobody knows anything except by 'revelation' meaning hearsay. One man says 'God told me such and such' and an even bigger blockhead believes him. Surprisingly, C.S.Lewis for a smart fellow, seems to forget the obvious. If God wants us to do such and such, he or she ought to make things clear as the noon-day sun, not leave things to long dead prophets, of which the Bible itself refers to as madmen deceived by God. Why cannot God tell me point blank 'I made you for this reason, I want you to do this, and I want you to stop doing that.' But this does not occur. Attempts to justify faith, which is belief without or contrary to evidence, by reason, is like using Socratic reasoning to support the existence of Unicorns. Basically, Lewis' 'logical' arguments boil down to 'I have an inner knowledge that the bizzare version of reality contained in Holy Writ is truth.' What am I or you to do with Lewis' or anybody else's 'inner' feelings? We can't argue or discuss that rationally. Even more amusing were Lewis' attempts to justify eternal suffering in Hell. No matter how hard you try, no matter how hard you conceal your illogic and specious reasoning with sesquipedalian words [words a foot and a half long--coined by Aristotle], you can never justify giving a finite amount of evil, an eternal punishment. Nor can you ever align that with a God of good. A God who is both good and evil might work, and a God who is mostly evil works even better. But this good guy God needs to be abandoned if hellfire is retained, else Hell can be forever thrown into the trashheap of theology, and the good God retained. You can't have it both ways. Better yet, throw God in the trash can with his stupid doctrines and laws, with other relics of the ignorant and superstitious past. Trying to justify past idiocies with 'reason' denotes a really lame intellect indeed. Lewis should have stuck to fiction, which at least had the slender palliative of entertainment to justify it. Mere Christianity belongs in the waste basket.
3 out of 49 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback.
Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.