Article 10 of 98

Subject:      Re: Limitations of Lewis' apologetics
From:         Sam Dodsworth <sam@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Date:         1997/02/05
Message-Id:   <ZxswABA9RN+yEwx2@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Distribution: world
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk
References:   <vrGdmDAPn34yEwn5@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Organization: Annexia Free Press
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:   alt.books.cs-Lewis



In article <5da8lq$6qa@btc1.up.net>, Keith Schooley <kschool@up.net>
writes
>mary@dragontree.com wrote:
>>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.)
>
>This is precisely the case, and pace Mr. Dodsworth, applies to 
>Miracles and Abolition of Man as well as Mere Christianity.  
>Although I'm uncomfortable with those who call Lewis's style 
>"lowbrow" (I have plenty of good, intelligent friends who have 
>difficulty reading him), still, it was meant to be understood by 
>the non-technical reader (listener).  Had he undertaken to engage 
>all non-Christian philosophy and answer every possible objection, 
>he would have written scholarly tomes filled with footnotes, 
>obscure references, and intricate arguments unreadable to any but 
>professional philosophers.  None of us would be talking about 
>him.  Lewis would roar with laughter at those who thought that, 
>in defeating him, they'd defeated Christianity.
>
        I think I agree with Mary more than I agree with you - there are
a surprising number of people out there who've been swayed by Lewis'
persuasive writing to the point that they're unable to step back and
examine it critically. I do accept that Lewis left out a lot of detail
because he wanted his writing to be accessable, but I also think that
because he was writing popular works he consciously tries to persuade
where he can't prove... making his intentions more modest than some
would-be canonizers of Lewis would credit.
        I confess that I sometimes find Lewis' attitude to his opponents
irritating - and the phenomenon of Lewis worship, however genuine and
well-meant, more irritating still. It's this irritation that's behind
the occasional ascerbity in my posts, not any desire to defeat Lewis or
even to defeat Christianity. Lewis evidently wrote much that was
excellent, but some of his work is flawed and his fans do him no service
by assuming that it is all of the same standard.
        As for Christianity... I'm an atheist and I'd convert people to
my religion if I could, but I'm not a great believer in evangelism. I
like to argue religion, but more as an intellectual workout than an
attack: it keeps the mind sharp and helps prevent complacency. I hope I
don't come across as if I'm out to destroy Christianity.

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