Reviews of Lewis's "Mere Christianity"

[Richard_C]

So I read C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, and I was not impressed. Is this really the most popular apologetics book among Christians? Most of the book isn't even directed toward sceptics. I think the audience was people who are considering Christianity or had previously been apathetic.

I would be interested in your own reactions to the book, if you have read it. I guess I should also add more of my reactions, but I am a little confused of what part to review. I didn't find much of substance.

Let me see. There was Lewis's definition of faith. It was most unhelpful. Whatever its own problems, this definition is more at odds, I think, with the teaching of Christians and especially their approach to their own study. There was Lewis's defense of the Trinity. It didn't answer the common objections very well. Finally, Lewis's argument for the necessity of God to a sound theory of morality was a complete failure, as such arguments always are.

Thoughts?

[Dr Mundo]

So I read C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, and I was not impressed. Is this really the most popular apologetics book among Christians? Most of the book isn't even directed toward sceptics. I think the audience was people who are considering Christianity or had previously been apathetic.

I would be interested in your own reactions to the book, if you have read it. I guess I should also add more of my reactions, but I am a little confused of what part to review. I didn't find much of substance.

Let me see. There was Lewis's definition of faith. It was most unhelpful. Whatever its own problems, this definition is more at odds, I think, with the teaching of Christians and especially their approach to their own study. There was Lewis's defense of the Trinity. It didn't answer the common objections very well. Finally, Lewis's argument for the necessity of God to a sound theory of morality was a complete failure, as such arguments always are.

Thoughts?

What is his definition of faith? Based on what the Christians have presented here on this forum about him, I feel like his books would be a bad waste of time for me. So I have not read any of his stuff.

[Aaron]

I think its a great book if read from the right perspective. I don't think you'll ever find Lewis claiming that what he writes in the book should be taken as gospel. And I also don't think you'll find him saying that his moral argument is proof for God. I also don't think you find him expecting any who should read it to immediately be converted to Christianity. Its like anything else in life, expectations are very significant.

[Keep The Reason]

Yes, you must read it from the right perspective. Like this:

"I'm really considering becoming a Christian... what books propelling me to that belief shall I read?"

[mitchellmckain]

I have read the book twice with a considerable space of time between the two times. I cannot say that it was enormously impressed either time or that it was ever near the top of my must read list or anything like that. I did however like it the first time, probably more from simply wanting to hear the take of C. S. Lewis on Christianity. The second time I read it I found parts of it rather annoying (due to unjustified assumptions) so that I can quite easily understand why a skeptic would not think much of it and would say that it is not directed towards skeptics.

In all I think that Aaron has the right of it. It very much depends on what your expectations are and reading from a skeptical viewpoint and expecting a good argument will lead to disappointment. However simply from the perspective of seeing what kind of Christian C. S. Lewis was, I think it is great.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I suspect that this kind of book, and this book in particular is more often read by Christians who want some kind of affirmation for what they already believe than by sceptics. Although Lewis was at one time called the apostle to the sceptics you have to remember that scepticism took a very different form in the 1940s than it does today. Lewis is able to assume that his readers will accept a lot of things that we would now question. It's hard now to realise just how startling this book or the original radio shows were when first presented to the public. At that time Christian books tended to be formal and stuffy academic works and popular apologetics did not exist. Lewis was breaking new ground. He had been prepared for this by delivering lectures to servicemen but for an Oxford Don to even attempt this kind of thing was considered pretty outrageous. So he is simplifying arguments to the point they become patronising. To really feel the weight of Lewis as a thinker I think you need to read the stuff he presented to Oxford's Socratic Club or something like the re-written version of Miracles or The Abolition of Man. It's also worth reading Surprised by Joy which is massively entertaining though I think to get a balanced picture you should read it alongside A N Wilson's biography of Lewis though you should not believe that either of them are giving the unvarnished truth!For discussion of Lewis's apologetics try here http://cslewis.drzeus.net/forums/viewforum.php?f=11 Sadly these forums closed a couple of years ago.

[Richard_C]

So I read C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, and I was not impressed. Is this really the most popular apologetics book among Christians? Most of the book isn't even directed toward sceptics. I think the audience was people who are considering Christianity or had previously been apathetic.

I would be interested in your own reactions to the book, if you have read it. I guess I should also add more of my reactions, but I am a little confused of what part to review. I didn't find much of substance.

Let me see. There was Lewis's definition of faith. It was most unhelpful. Whatever its own problems, this definition is more at odds, I think, with the teaching of Christians and especially their approach to their own study. There was Lewis's defense of the Trinity. It didn't answer the common objections very well. Finally, Lewis's argument for the necessity of God to a sound theory of morality was a complete failure, as such arguments always are.

Thoughts?

What is his definition of faith? Based on what the Christians have presented here on this forum about him, I feel like his books would be a bad waste of time for me. So I have not read any of his stuff.

Lewis says that faith has no role in forming any belief. He thinks that faith is just needed to maintain one's existing beliefs against non-intellectual challenges. He doesn't say that faith is ever a substitute for, or an addition to, anything intellectual. He justs says we need the virtue of faith to avoid momentary lapses in acting according to those beliefs.

First, it's obvious most Christians think faith plays a role in initially accepting the teachings of Christianity. And isn't maintaining one's beliefs from intellectual objections also an interest of Christians? Second, what's this difference between intellectual challenges and non-intellectual, emotional challenges? He says someone might think it best to undergo a surgery, but during the surgery he becomes too scared of the scalpels and anesthetic to go through with it. I do not remember that Lewis ever gave an example of how this kind of faith applies to Christianity, but I imagine he is only referring to the quality of "people of faith" who rely on what they think are God's promises.

[Richard_C]

I think its a great book if read from the right perspective. I don't think you'll ever find Lewis claiming that what he writes in the book should be taken as gospel. And I also don't think you'll find him saying that his moral argument is proof for God. I also don't think you find him expecting any who should read it to immediately be converted to Christianity. Its like anything else in life, expectations are very significant.

What's the point of his moral argument if it's not meant to provide evidence for God?

[Aaron]

I think its a great book if read from the right perspective. I don't think you'll ever find Lewis claiming that what he writes in the book should be taken as gospel. And I also don't think you'll find him saying that his moral argument is proof for God. I also don't think you find him expecting any who should read it to immediately be converted to Christianity. Its like anything else in life, expectations are very significant.

What's the point of his moral argument if it's not meant to provide evidence for God?

Well as Lewis said the moral discourse he begins the book with was not meant to be a sort of trick played on someone to put them in some sort of logic headlock forcing them to accept the existence of God. Rather he said he used it to try to introduce his readers to the idea that right and wrong are real things for which people are responsible for. He says people must understand sin and repentance to understand Christianity and I think he's right. See Lewis's third point in the end of the last chapter of book 1.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I think its a great book if read from the right perspective. I don't think you'll ever find Lewis claiming that what he writes in the book should be taken as gospel. And I also don't think you'll find him saying that his moral argument is proof for God. I also don't think you find him expecting any who should read it to immediately be converted to Christianity. Its like anything else in life, expectations are very significant.

What's the point of his moral argument if it's not meant to provide evidence for God?

Well as Lewis said the moral discourse he begins the book with was not meant to be a sort of trick played on someone to put them in some sort of logic headlock forcing them to accept the existence of God. Rather he said he used it to try to introduce his readers to the idea that right and wrong are real things for which people are responsible for. He says people must understand sin and repentance to understand Christianity and I think he's right. See Lewis's third point in the end of the last chapter of book 1.

And you have to put this in context. Prominent atheist thinkers when Lewis was writing were people like Bertrand Russell and A J Ayer.
Here's Ayer on ethics

The presence of an ethical symbol in a proposition adds nothing to its factual content. Thus if I say to someone, "You acted wrongly in stealing that money," I am not stating anything more than if I had simply said, "You stole that money." In adding that this action is wrong I am not making any further statement about it. I am simply evincing my moral disapproval of it. It is as if I had said, "You stole that money," in a peculiar tone of horror, or written it with the addition of some special exclamation marks. … If now I generalise my previous statement and say, "Stealing money is wrong," I produce a sentence that has no factual meaning—that is, expresses no proposition that can be either true or false. … I am merely expressing certain moral sentiments.

And here's Russell

The theory which I have been advocating is a form of the doctrine which is called the "subjectivity" of values. This doctrine consists in maintaining that that, if two men differ about values, there is not a disagreement as to any kind of truth, but a difference of taste. If one man says "oysters are good" and another says "I think they are bad," we recognize that there is nothing to argue about. The theory in question holds that all differences as to values are of this sort, although we do not naturally think them so when we are dealing with matters that seem to us more exalted than oysters.

That is the kind of position atheists were taking and Lewis is arguing that a Christian position which sees ethical differences are something more than matters of taste or expressions of emotion is more rationally valid.

[Spectrox War]

Lewis is a terrible writer both from a fictional POV and from an apologetics standpoint. Lame ass-hattery of the highest order.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Lewis is a terrible writer both from a fictional POV and from an apologetics standpoint.

Possibly but he'd never resort to bombast and neologism of this sort.

Lame ass-hattery of the highest order.

[mitchellmckain]

Some people want to communicate actual ideas and others just want to insult people... And yes... some people do both.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Thought some people might want tolisten tothis debate on Lewis's apologetics. Personally I thinkthe atheist guy wins all the way down the line and Ken Samples does a very poor job of presenting Lewis's argument. Next time they should get Victor repert!!!!!
http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable?mod_page=2Top of the page

[Kiwi]

I read Mere Christianity when I was at school. I loved it so much I made my friend read it and she subsequently became a Christian. It's still sitting on my bookshelf next to The Screwtape Letters.

That was a long time ago, I'm no longer a Christian and I've since grown very bored of the way Christianity almost worships Lewis. His quotes turn up everywhere, doubling as evidence. I'm especially tired of the classic quote about how Jesus was either the Son of God or a madman. Isn't that called the False Dilemma Fallacy?