• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

POM 5 - Clive "Screwtape" Lewis

FireGarden

Philosopher
FireGarden
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
5,047
OK,
The last Philosopher Of the Month was started in April 2003. But, here on Planet X, we measure time the proper way!

First an intro to the format :

When Seelie began this, the "mission statement" was
The idea is to create a thread in which a philosopher is introduced, we learn a bit about their history, and then we take a snippet of their writings/ideas and discuss. Good old-timey sit down discussion of a concept from all sides. There is no "right" or "wrong" to it, nor is there any argument to "win".

So, the "history"
I'm sure you've heard of CS Lewis. He converted to Christianity, from atheism, I think. He wrote more serious works on Christianity, but... He is remembered for Narnia and the Screwtape letters. Especially by psilosophers, such as myself!

In the latter,
A wise old devil called Screwtape writes to his younger, less experienced, nephew Wormwood. Various snippets of advice would be given, aimed at helping Wormwood steer his "patient" away from the "enemy". IE: keep mortal souls away from embracing God.

This is Screwtape's first letter. I actually like the style of presentation. But what of the content?

You may not like the way he portrays atheism as a "don't think about it" belief. But are you innocent enough to cast the first stone? (I'm waiting ready to cast the second! :)) Imagine that instead of atheism, the topic is maintaining a belief in homeopathy or some other woo-woo idea. The presentation is exactly the kind of "flame" you might find on this board. Case in point is the snippet:

"By the very act of arguing, you awake the patient's reason; and once it is awake, who can foresee the result?"

The letter is very short, so please take the time to read the context. I originally planned to have the snippet be the advice in the final paragraph, regarding the dangers of science leading the patient astray (ie: towards God), because of the way it contrasts with some anti-evolution/science stuff that you hear coming from some parts of America today.

But I think the actual snippet is more general.
The way dissenters are categorised as unthinking ...



That should be enough for a start.
Yes, this is a bit like the scene in Python's "Meaning of Life". You are at that restaurant, .. Well... More of a road-side diner, really.

You want chips with that?
 
Nice intro and post. Personally I love Lewis, just not Screwtape Letters. I appreciate that many enjoy the format of the book, but I'm not a big fiction fan.

I think you made a good point about science... Lewis never saw science as something to be feared and it really bothers me that our loudest voices in Christianity exude fear and loathing of science and human advancement.

In my opinion, this is probably one of Lewis' weakest works... you are correct that he oversimplfies people without faith as "unthinking." I believe he is way off base, I'd probably take the tack of trying to communicate that "thinking" isn't the object of worship.

Materialism was on the prowl in Lewis' day and maybe he overestimated the effect it would have on faith and science.

If the thread doesn't take off, I'd be more interesting in discussing "The Abolition of Man," which is in my opinion Lewis at his best, still relevant 50 years later, and quite accurate in its predictions of mankind (to me).

Also, if anyone is more of a fiction reader, I'd recommend the third book in his science fiction series entitled: "That Hideous Strength." I absolutely loved that book, and I generally dislike fiction.

Flick
 
Hi Flick,
I'd prefer you start a new thread. If this one dies then it dies, why dance on its grave?

You'll have to lead us through "Abolition of Man", because I know nothing about it. I'm interested, and I've found some online references:

http://www.pc.maricopa.edu/ss/phi101/supplementary/more/Abolition_of_Man_.htm

which is one of many links at the end of this page:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/242

Give it a week if you don't want to be tied up with too many threads.
 
stamenflicker said:
Also, if anyone is more of a fiction reader, I'd recommend the third book in his science fiction series entitled: "That Hideous Strength." I absolutely loved that book, and I generally dislike fiction.
Click to expand...
Interesting you should say that. In spite of its manifest problems ("a woman's place" and all that), I also love that book, and have for many years. Very few of my science fiction reading friends agree with me though. Sorry if this is a derail, I'll go away if it is, but what did you think of Till We Have Faces?

I agree that Screwtape is Lewis at his weakest. He's trying so hard to be simple and populist and accessible he strays into the straw man territory without (I think) really meaning to. The Abolition of Man is more robust, but also consider Miracles for some extremely interesting philosophy.

Rolfe.
 
It has been far too long since I read that book. I will pick it back up and respond as an adult, because its been 15 years plus since I read it... I'd likely see it differently now.

Flick
 
Lewis yes huge fan :)

Dont forget he did say not everything in the letters should be assumed to be true, even from Screwtapes view.

One thing I love about the book and Lewis in general is basically breaking it all down and making you think about it.

In this chapter and Im not sure what your looking for in comment here so here goes;

The whole issue of misdirection in the middle of an arguement, and the idea of whats real keeps people spinning for days.
 
There are aspects of Lewis' concerns regarding objective/subjective in the Screwtape letter.
At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning. [...]

[Thepatient] doesn't think of doctrines as primarily 'true' or 'false', but as 'academic' or 'practical', 'outworn' or 'contemporary', 'conventional' or 'ruthless'.
Click to expand...
You may regard it as a "simple and populist" way of communicating, but in what way is the actual message different?

I realise he doesn't get onto the same topic as "Abolition of Man", ie: morality. (At least not in this letter - I've only read parts of Screwtape as part of RE in school a long time ago. I have a very poor memory) But surely Lewis is still putting forward the claim that his ideas are objective, while the rest of us are stuck in our parochial worldview - able but unwilling to go where reason leads us.

The way I would compare the two works is that, in Screwtape, Lewis is preaching to the converted. In the other work he is trying to reach out to a wider audience.


Kitty Chan
The main thing I tried to single out was the dismissing of those that disagree with our ideas - not because of a fault in their reasoning, but because of a fault in their attitudes.
One thing I love about the book and Lewis in general is basically breaking it all down and making you think about it.
Click to expand...
Great!
That means that Lewis is not himself following Screwtape's advice. Which would have been really strange!
 
Closer to "Abolition" is this quote from letter 23. Admitedly, there is no argument to support Lewis' position. But as I said before, I reckon he's preaching to the converted in the letters.
For Humans must not be allowed to notice that all great moralists are sent by the Enemy not to inform men but to remind them, to restate the primeval moral platitudes against our continued concealment of them. We make the Sophists; He raises up a Socrates to answer them.
Click to expand...
Screwtape later suggests that the patient be made to view Christianity as a means to an end; even if that end is social justice. He ends with
You see the little rift? 'Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.' That's the game.
Click to expand...
Preceding that, there are echoes of his Lord/Liar/Lunatic trilemma. That argument assumes that if a teacher holds a delusion, then they cannot have anything of worth to teach.

Also, against the first quote, I'm not so sure that Socrates argues in favour of an objective morality in Euthyphro. He just argues againt the idea that good things are good because the gods love them. Admitedly, the device he uses is to investigate the alternative: That God loves a thing because it is good. I don't think that things are resolved.


Here's an e-text of what seems to be the whole collection of letters. I could have saved myself some typing. Not to mention that I just bought the book today!

http://members.fortunecity.com/phantom1/books2/c._s._lewis_-_the_screwtape_letters.htm

I would have thought that copyright still applied. But seems not.
 
When reading Lewis I always imagine that, as an atheist, I am supposed to be slapping my hand to my head saying "Gosh, I never thought of that!" Perhaps his arguments are effective on atheist who never really thought it all through but are pretty much lost on one who has.

Nevertheless Screwtape Letters is a fine read and often psychologically insightful, especially in the ways we fool ourselves. The significant thing about the letter quoted in the OP is what is left out. What line of thought was the 'patient' in the British Museum starting to follow?
 
Robin
Nevertheless Screwtape Letters is a fine read and often psychologically insightful, especially in the ways we fool ourselves.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've been thinking along those lines too.

For instance,
In one of the letters, he says that humans value things in principle, or in theory, but rarely ever in practice.

I often tell myself that if I spent more time on my hobbies than watching TV, then I would be a better guitarist, etc. But what do I do? I watch too much TV.

I decided to cut back this week. Only watch the "quality"stuff. So last night I watched "Dead Ringers", half an hour. I was eating a late dinner so not really wasting time, I told myself. But what happened after? I turned over to BBC1 to watch some pathetic "journey of Life" program, supposedly educational but actually utter drivel. I won't get that half hour of my life back.

Habit you see. Another of Screwtape's recomended methods for leading humans astray from their best intentions.

I intend to be more productive today. Let's see what happens.
 
Kopji said:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/cslewisand.htm

Too bad his brand of ecumenism is often portrayed by Christians as evil.
Click to expand...

SIGH sounds like David Cloud has his head in them.

He went off to live the rock and roll lifestyle but wont let Lewis say vauge drug references
a hero named Edmund meets a magical witch who conjures up for him a box of Turkish Delight, which Edmund devours and begs for more. Turkish Delight is a name for hashish.
Click to expand...

Maybe Lewis meant that or it sounded good or fit the story. Its also the name of a choclate bar, so is that company terrible too?

Not too mention Mr Cloud is falling into the very Screwtape trap of freaking about rock and roll. Its "all the beat" has got to be the most prejudiced thing ever invented. Its right out of Screwtapes fathers book probably under the chapter on killing creativity while oppressing a group of people. :mad:

Then Mr Cloud mentions this

Lewis claimed that followers of pagan religions can be saved without personal faith in Jesus Christ:
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I must be "continuing the legacy of C.S. Lewis" by "broad inclusion" so put me out on the street. I guess I'll sit there with Lewis and keep him company. :)

When I read that broad inclusion I knew Lewis was right and exactly what he was getting at. Its this (sorry that guy has stirred me Irish)

People in general and Cloud in particular get so focused on this judgement thing, they gleen through the bible and find rules, dont eat whatever, drink, what you wear. They get totally hung up on the rules as if the more of them they keep the better they will be.

What they are missing is, it matters squat what rules you keep in the end. What matters, what God actually cares about, What He wants to see more than anything else is, YOUR HEART how you treat others.

Now, keeping some of the rules, in particular the ones from the sermon on the mount are going to help you with your heart condition. This is a good thing. But this nit picky squabbling over details that are meaninless I believe is part of the subject of the book of this month.

When Lewis said that; he was recognizing that Gods not going to look at things the way we do. Yes, Christ said that if one believes that I am, who I said I am, and trys their best to follow love your neighbour, they will be with Me.

But He also does not want anybody lost to Him. He would leave the 99 sheep to find the one. Maybe that one never had the opportunity to hear the gospel in exact words. Or were born somewhere where it was bad all the time. The "one" is who Lewis was talking about, their heart is right they just dont know the details.

Besides when we say oh they arent getting "in" isnt that judgemental and isnt the judging to be left to God. That all Lewis was saying "its not my business its Gods."
 
I kinda liked the Screwtape Letters. C.S. Lewis is a remarkable author, even if I don't agree with everything he says. In an allusion to the book, a particularly smart-mouthed A.I. construct uses the name Wormwood.
 
I enjoyed the Screwtape Letters, and Lewis's are some of the few Christian books I still keep around. There is simply not enough humor in religion, Lewis's book conveys the sense he enjoyed writing it the way he did.

I tried reading 'Narnia' at least twice and was bored silly each time, never finished the first book. (That's pretty rare.)

A more serious read is Dietrich Bonhoffer's 'Letters and papers from prison'. I did not agree with all his points but feel he offers an authentic perspective on the human condition. Dying in a concentration camp probably does that...

Well on the path to atheism is Paul Tillich :), I can only imagine what some Christians must think about him.
 
The first quote below is from a transcript from John Ankenberg's website. CS Lewis is mentioned only in passing , but the gist of the discussion is that once any part of the Bible is accepted as not fully historic or accurate, we lose the ability to say that any of it is historic or accurate. This is an insightful point I would agree with. I found this transcript fascinating btw, especially the concluding remarks.
Excerpts:
...I’m not convinced that the position that was advocated by Mr. Rogers holds up, that if you in fact tear away at the shreds of Christianity that is in historical parts or you allow for error in those particular parts, that in fact you do full justice either to the biblical record or to the defense of Christianity.

...Jesus’ attitude was one of total trust in regards to the entire Old Testament history as being factually correct, including the accounts of Adam and Eve, Noah, and Jonah.

...Now the Apostle Paul teaches us in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is breathed out by God." The meaning here is clear: the words written were breathed out by God. It was not the Apostles who breathed out Scripture. God did not breathe into, that is, inspire the writings. Rather, God breathed out—"spirated"—the writings. This tells us the words themselves, as written, are revelation.

...Sixth, if some claim inspiration and inerrancy for only the so-called salvation parts of the Bible, they should not say they hold to biblical authority but only partial biblical authority. They should also honestly admit they cannot tell us precisely which parts are inspired, where to find these, and how to separate the salvation parts from the uninspired, errant non-salvation parts.
- John Ankerberg

************

1 At the time of this taping, Dr. Jack Rogers was
Professor of Philosophical Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary and a member of the General Assembly’s Taskforce on
Biblical Authority and Interpretation of the United
Presbyterian Church of the U.S.A.

2 At the time of this taping, Dr. Peter Macky was Associate Professor of Religion at Westminster College.

3 At the time of this taping, Dr. Donald A. Carson was Associate Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

4 "The individual person was conceived and treated as
merged in the larger group of family or clan or nation." (http://www.erskine.edu/seminary/lowe/Aberdeen Present
/tsld049.htm)

5 At the time of this taping, Dr. John Woodbridge was Professor of Church History at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP1204W4.htm
Click to expand...

My concern about CS Lewis, is that even though he is popular among evangelicals his fundamental view about the Bible seems opposed to the evangelical view of Scripture.

From a letter to Clyde S. Kilby, May 7, 1959, from C. S. Lewis
Whatever view we hold of the divine authority of Scripture must make room for the following facts:

1. The distinction which St. Paul makes in 1 Cor vii between ouk ego all’ ho kurios [not myself but the Lord] (v. 10) and ego lego oux ho kurios [I myself say, not the Lord] (v. 12).

2. The apparent inconsistencies between the genealogies in Matt. i and Luke ii; with the accounts of the death of Judas in Matt. xxvii 5 and Acts i 18-19.

3. St. Luke’s own account of how he obtained his matter (i 1-4).

4. The universally admitted unhistoricity (I do not say, of course, falsity) of at least some of the narratives in Scripture (the parables), which may well also extend to Jonah and Job.

5. If every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of lights, then all true and edifying writings, whether in Scripture or not, must be in some sense inspired.

6. John xi 49-52 Inspiration may operate in a wicked man without him knowing it, and he can then utter the untruth he intends (propriety of making an innocent man a political scapegoat) as well as the truth he does not intend (the divine sacrifice).

It seems to me that 2 and 4 rule out the view that every statement in Scripture must be historical truth. And 1, 3, 5, and 6 rule out the view that inspiration is a single thing in the sense that, if present at all, it is always present in the same mode and the same degree. Therefore, I think, rule out the view that any one passage taken in isolation can be assumed to be inerrant in exactly the same sense as any other: e.g., that the numbers of O.T. armies (which in view of the size of the country, if true, involve continuous miracle) are statistically correct because the story of the Resurrection is historically correct. That the over-all operation of Scripture is to convey God’s Word to the reader (he also needs his inspiration) who reads it in the right spirit, I fully believe. That it also gives true answers to all the questions (often religiously irrelevant) which he might ask, I don’t. The very kind of truth we are often demanding was, in my opinion, not even envisaged by the ancients.

- Quoted in Michael J. Christensen, C. S. Lewis on Scripture, Abingdon, 1979, Appendix A.
http://www.cresourcei.org/lewisbib.html
Click to expand...

Now, the above at least seems reasonable to me. But as Ankerberg said above, if you start to think this way how could you honestly say if any of the Bible was inspired?
 
if you start to think this way how could you honestly say if any of the Bible was inspired?
Click to expand...

Objectively say? You can't say with much objectivity that it was inspired by the very God it defines. Again, its one of those situations to me where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That in spite of what appear to be weaknesses and contradictions in the book (there are many), the whole still works together to convey meaning, which as a student of the book, I find amazing.

Flick
 
Just posting a link to an online version of Abolition.
Click to expand...

FG,

I wonder if it wouldn't be better to start another thread on Abolition? Or do you think we could discuss it here?

Flick
 
Flick,
I've started that other thread.

I think this one has drifted from the OP.

I suggest we just leave it as a general CS Lewis thread - apart from "Abolition"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom