Path: ultra.sonic.net!jolt.pagesat.net!news.inc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!aristos.demon.co.uk!aristos.demon.co.uk!sam From: Sam Dodsworth Newsgroups: alt.books.cs-lewis Subject: Re: Limitations of Lewis' apologetics Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:37:16 +0000 Organization: Annexia Free Press Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <01bc0753$a64a52e0$da745acf@marcus> <32E5983C.6F0B@dragontree.com> <32EBC2F8.A82@dragontree.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.01 <7c0azr3XvpMr4dZzpifF$I+pPf> Lines: 63 In article <32EBC2F8.A82@dragontree.com>, mary@dragontree.com writes >IMFO, L never imagined that the Radio Talks would still be in print 50 >years later, read worldwide, and taken apart as if they were enerrant >gospel by people of a different culture. IMHO, if he had imagined such >a thing, he probably wouldn't have done it! (Or would have resigned his >Chair at Oxbridge and devoted 365 man-hours to getting the expression >absolutely bulletproof in all details.) > I agree with this absolutely, but we seem to have a case of crossed wires - I haven't read "Mere Christianity" (yet), so I wasn't addressing it when I remarked that I had difficulties with Lewis' apologetics. This, in turn, mean that I misread your remarks as applying to "Miracles" and "The Abolition Of Man" as well - hence my lack of patience with them. [long snip] >No time to get into the following, looks like fun, will try to get back later. > >Mary > > >> With respect, I don't think St. Thomas Aquinas was overly >> familiar with the opinions of Mr Shaw and Mr Wells - or even with the >> Newtonian-deterministic view of the universe that Lewis attacks in >> chapter three of "Miracles". I've never read Aquinas, so I suppose he >> might address Epicureanism (as the nearest ancient equivalent), but on >> the whole I'm inclined to doubt that Lewis' objections to "progressive" >> ideas were condensations of earlier sources. (Which is not to say that >> Lewis might not do just that elsewhere - he certainly brings in the >> Ontological Argument at one point in "Miracles".) >> And come to think of it, are you really saying that Lewis placed >> deliberate errors > >LOL! As Jehovah was said to have planted the fossils in 4004 BC to >deceive us (tho for what motive I'm not sure)? "To test our faith" is the canonical answer, although I don't know how many people really think that. A quick look at talk.origins (long stays are not recommended if you wish to remain sane) reveals scores of people who think that the fossil record is in fact simply bodies buried in the silt from the Flood. > >> in his arguments because they were condensations of >> earlier works that he wanted to encourage the unlearned to read? > >Hope I've answered this above. >>Without indicating to the (unlearned) reader what those sources were? > >Wish he had!!! Maybe it's in Hooper's or someone's commentary somewhere? >Footnotes >we wish L had put. > This is my point. If Lewis really wanted to point the unlearned in the direction of his sources, I think he would probably have told the reader what they were. Sam Dodsworth (sam@aristos.demon.co.uk) "I think there should be more sex and violence on television, not less. Both are powerful catalysts of social change, at a time when change is desperately needed." -J.G. Ballard