“Richard Dawkins, C. S. Lewis and the Meaning of Life” by Alister McGrath

[Sirona]

I borrowed a book entitled “Richard Dawkins, C. S. Lewis and the Meaning of Life” by Alister McGrath from my local library. Only when I took a careful look at it at home, I noticed that it was from a Christian publisher, but I decided to give it a chance anyway. However, I gave it up after the first two claims.

1. The first one was that the Bible stories were “true” while the stories of other religions were “untrue” and had been modeled after the biblical story of salvation though Christ. This argument was invented by C. S. Lewis to ease his guilty conscience, since his strong liking of Norse and Greek mythology had long prevented him from embracing the Christian religion "exclusively".

2. The second was that scientists “believe” in their theories the way devout Christians “believe” in the Bible stories. In the field of science, it may be possible that some rare individuals may become fanatical about their theories, but in my opinion, scientists rather make educated guesses about phenomena based upon evidence they already have. Making educated guesses is not the same as blindly believing, as it depends on something you already know.

In a boring moment I may continue to read the book (as it’s thin), but frankly, if the author comes up with such "redefinitions" and manipulative claims already in the beginning, I wonder what is yet to follow. I think sometimes it can be praiseworthy to come up with a defense for religion, but if the author really wants to convince critical readers he’s got to try harder.

 

[Nimos]

I borrowed a book entitled “Richard Dawkins, C. S. Lewis and the Meaning of Life” by Alister McGrath from my local library. Only when I took a careful look at it at home, I noticed that it was from a Christian publisher, but I decided to give it a chance anyway. However, I gave it up after the first two claims.

1. The first one was that the Bible stories were “true” while the stories of other religions were “untrue” and had been modeled after the biblical story of salvation though Christ. This argument was invented by C. S. Lewis to ease his guilty conscience, since his strong liking of Norse and Greek mythology had long prevented him from embracing the Christian religion "exclusively".

2. The second was that scientists “believe” in their theories the way devout Christians “believe” in the Bible stories. In the field of science, it may be possible that some rare individuals may become fanatical about their theories, but in my opinion, scientists rather make educated guesses about phenomena based upon evidence they already have. Making educated guesses is not the same as blindly believing, as it depends on something you already know.

In a boring moment I may continue to read the book (as it’s thin), but frankly, if the author comes up with such "redefinitions" and manipulative claims already in the beginning, I wonder what is yet to follow. I think sometimes it can be praiseworthy to come up with a defense for religion, but if the author really wants to convince critical readers he’s got to try harder.

Yeah that sound like a book based on a lot of wrong premisses and misunderstandings, if that is truly what it state.

 

[Erebus]

I borrowed a book entitled “Richard Dawkins, C. S. Lewis and the Meaning of Life” by Alister McGrath from my local library. Only when I took a careful look at it at home, I noticed that it was from a Christian publisher, but I decided to give it a chance anyway. However, I gave it up after the first two claims.

1. The first one was that the Bible stories were “true” while the stories of other religions were “untrue” and had been modeled after the biblical story of salvation though Christ. This argument was invented by C. S. Lewis to ease his guilty conscience, since his strong liking of Norse and Greek mythology had long prevented him from embracing the Christian religion "exclusively".

2. The second was that scientists “believe” in their theories the way devout Christians “believe” in the Bible stories. In the field of science, it may be possible that some rare individuals may become fanatical about their theories, but in my opinion, scientists rather make educated guesses about phenomena based upon evidence they already have. Making educated guesses is not the same as blindly believing, as it depends on something you already know.

In a boring moment I may continue to read the book (as it’s thin), but frankly, if the author comes up with such "redefinitions" and manipulative claims already in the beginning, I wonder what is yet to follow. I think sometimes it can be praiseworthy to come up with a defense for religion, but if the author really wants to convince critical readers he’s got to try harder.

I suppose it could work as a handy guide on how not to form an argument.

 

[PureX]

It would be difficult to weed through that kind of obvious propaganda, but I suppose if your could, there may be some enlightenment in terms of how the "true believers" among us think.

Personally, I'm not sure I'd care enough about that to put up with the obvious dishonest attempts at manipulation.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I borrowed a book entitled “Richard Dawkins, C. S. Lewis and the Meaning of Life” by Alister McGrath from my local library. Only when I took a careful look at it at home, I noticed that it was from a Christian publisher, but I decided to give it a chance anyway. However, I gave it up after the first two claims.

C.S. Lewis is a great fiction writer. He's got a wonderful brain, loves childlike themes. He suffers a lot of trauma from his WW1 experiences. He hates technology and I think subverts theology in the interests of discouraging the use of technology.

He writes a science fiction series: Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength. These demonstrate his views on technology, and in them he associates technology with evil influences. These reflect his experience in the war and his fear of the changing times he is seeing, possibly the weapons and unnatural use of nature.

In his seven fantasy books about Narnia, technology does not appear; however evil does and manifests as magical technique as opposed to wild magic. For example in the book The Magician's Nephew, an evil magician tinkers with magical dust that he has obtained and finds a way without touching it to form it into magic rings which he does not fully understand and tests on his nephew. Evil also manifests in the form of human kingdoms that banish wild magic. Controlled magic, such as used by the evil characters is different from the wild, mysterious and secret magic of Aslan the good lion. The evil Queen Jadis uses formulaic magic commands and words to control and to manipulate magic that has already been created, but Aslan the good lion sings and creates magic with his songs. This is analogous to the use of technology as opposed to the unprocessed element, the natural.

As for his twisting of theology, he opposes understanding of scripture. Towards this end he popularizes that evil and misleading argument: Lord, Liar or Lunatic. In it he presumes to assert control over the reader things he does not himself believe. He doesn't himself believe in Christ by means of this broken riddle, but supposedly for our good he would force us through ignorance to accept ignorance. We are not able to handle the knowledge that he has! He would prevent us from the thought processes which burden himself.

 

[exchemist]

I borrowed a book entitled “Richard Dawkins, C. S. Lewis and the Meaning of Life” by Alister McGrath from my local library. Only when I took a careful look at it at home, I noticed that it was from a Christian publisher, but I decided to give it a chance anyway. However, I gave it up after the first two claims.

1. The first one was that the Bible stories were “true” while the stories of other religions were “untrue” and had been modeled after the biblical story of salvation though Christ. This argument was invented by C. S. Lewis to ease his guilty conscience, since his strong liking of Norse and Greek mythology had long prevented him from embracing the Christian religion "exclusively".

2. The second was that scientists “believe” in their theories the way devout Christians “believe” in the Bible stories. In the field of science, it may be possible that some rare individuals may become fanatical about their theories, but in my opinion, scientists rather make educated guesses about phenomena based upon evidence they already have. Making educated guesses is not the same as blindly believing, as it depends on something you already know.

In a boring moment I may continue to read the book (as it’s thin), but frankly, if the author comes up with such "redefinitions" and manipulative claims already in the beginning, I wonder what is yet to follow. I think sometimes it can be praiseworthy to come up with a defense for religion, but if the author really wants to convince critical readers he’s got to try harder.

Interesting. I don't know the book but I have come across McGrath, who has a background both as a clergyman and as a scientist (a 1st in chemistry and D Phil in molecular biophysics). To be honest, I'd be a little surprised if he were to make claims quite as crudely as you have portrayed them.

Regarding point 1, are you sure you've got this quite right? Is this is claim made by McGrath, or is it his description of what C S Lewis claimed?

As for point 2, most scientists take on trust the theories their predecessors have formulated, which is what a religious believer does, too. No scientist starts with a blank slate and constructs physics, chemistry or biology for him- or herself. He or she buys into a huge pre-existing structure of human thought about nature, and then works away extending a tiny corner of it.

The difference between science and religion, surely, is that the theories of science are founded on reproducible observation of nature, while religious ideas are not. Both involve accepting on trust the teaching of authorities, but in the case of science the authority, ultimately, is confirmed observation, which is as close to objective fact as humanity can manage.

P.S. I don't think fanaticism is particularly relevant to the issue. In my experience most religious people are no more fanatical about their belief than most scientists.

 

[SomeRandom]

C.S. Lewis is a great fiction writer. He's got a wonderful brain, loves childlike themes. He suffers a lot of trauma from his WW1 experiences. He hates technology and I think subverts theology in the interests of discouraging the use of technology.

He writes a science fiction series: Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength. These demonstrate his views on technology, and in them he associates technology with evil influences. These reflect his experience in the war and his fear of the changing times he is seeing, possibly the weapons and unnatural use of nature.

In his seven fantasy books about Narnia, technology does not appear; however evil does and manifests as magical technique as opposed to wild magic. For example in the book The Magician's Nephew, an evil magician tinkers with magical dust that he has obtained and finds a way without touching it to form it into magic rings which he does not fully understand and tests on his nephew. Evil also manifests in the form of human kingdoms that banish wild magic. Controlled magic, such as used by the evil characters is different from the wild, mysterious and secret magic of Aslan the good lion. The evil Queen Jadis uses formulaic magic commands and words to control and to manipulate magic that has already been created, but Aslan the good lion sings and creates magic with his songs. This is analogous to the use of technology as opposed to the unprocessed element, the natural.

As for his twisting of theology, he opposes understanding of scripture. Towards this end he popularizes that evil and misleading argument: Lord, Liar or Lunatic. In it he presumes to assert control over the reader things he does not himself believe. He doesn't himself believe in Christ by means of this broken riddle, but supposedly for our good he would force us through ignorance to accept ignorance. We are not able to handle the knowledge that he has! He would prevent us from the thought processes which burden himself.

Lewis had a strong childlike conviction. That’s not meant to be an insult or anything of the kind. But his apologetics come from a very naive place, imo.

Tolkien was the superior mind and he knew to keep his theology to himself. As a result whilst his writings could always be read from a theological point of view, he was able to appeal to a lot of nerds outside his spectrum.
Don’t get me wrong I love Lewis and think he had a very interesting mind. I just think Tolkien was able to “rise above it” as it were

 

[Sirona]

Interesting. I don't know the book but I have come across McGrath, who has a background both as a clergyman and as a scientist (a 1st in chemistry and D Phil in molecular biophysics). To be honest, I'd be a little surprised if he were to make claims quite as crudely as you have portrayed them.

Regarding point 1, are you sure you've got this quite right? Is this is claim made by McGrath, or is it his description of what C S Lewis claimed?.

When you get down to splitting hairs, McGrath describes what C. S. Lewis thought, but in " ... the Meaning of Life" McGrath makes Lewis' argument his own. "... the Meaning of Life" goes on to describe why one should become a Christian, so McGrath's further chain of reasoning would be meaningless if the Christian faith were not "true" as opposed to "pagan myth."

As a footnote, see Alister E. McGrath, The Intellectual World of C.S. Lewis, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell,2013, "A Gleam of Divine Truth: The Concept of Myth in Lewis's Thought," p.55-82.

McGrath also describes that Lewis learned about the idea explained in (1.) during a conversation with J. R. R. Tolkien in 1931.

 

[AlexanderG]

For point 1), I think this view reflects a poor understanding of history, maybe combined with some wishful thinking or special pleading. In fact, we can see basic claims and tenets of Christianity present in other local religions that predated it. We can see some of Jesus' parables circulating verbatim in the regional culture prior to his life, as well. If anything, Christianity was cobbled together from other faiths.

For point 2), this is something I've also noticed in discussions with apologists or evangelists.

It is very difficult from them to understand that an atheistic worldview does not attempt, claim, or need to account for the fundamental nature of reality, the ultimate purpose of existence, or any other metaphysical issues. When we point this out, they take this to mean that our worldview is "self-defeating," or "incoherent." Rather, we are just recognizing that there are limits to current human knowledge. To speculate beyond these limits is interesting but speculation can never count as evidence or justification for a particular metaphysical belief, and so we admit "we don't know that yet, and may never know." This may fall outside their definition of "worldview" or "knowledge." I'm not sure.

For a certain set of religious people, a central utility of their faith is to provide them with absolute, certain, ultimate answers. For whatever reason, they personally need this assurance. It is hard for them to understand that many other people don't personally need this assurance, and that we even find such assurance hollow and unjustifiable. For this reason, they project their dependency on metaphysical certainty onto scientists and scientific findings. You need to clearly explain to them that the scientific method provides only tentative working models that are subject to revision in the future, and no ultimate claims about reality. It's very alien to them and it can take a few tries.

 

[exchemist]

When you get down to splitting hairs, McGrath describes what C. S. Lewis thought, but in " ... the Meaning of Life" McGrath makes Lewis' argument his own. "... the Meaning of Life" goes on to describe why one should become a Christian, so McGrath's further chain of reasoning would be meaningless if the Christian faith were not "true" as opposed to "pagan myth."

As a footnote, see Alister E. McGrath, The Intellectual World of C.S. Lewis, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell,2013, "A Gleam of Divine Truth: The Concept of Myth in Lewis's Thought," p.55-82.

McGrath also describes that Lewis learned about the idea explained in (1.) during a conversation with J. R. R. Tolkien in 1931.

I don't think it is splitting hairs to distinguish between McGrath's own views and those of the two people he has chosen to explore as illustrating opposite points of view. It is not justified to assume that, just because McGrath advocates Christianity, that he has views identical to Lewis's. But he obviously accepts the Christian story: he is an Anglican priest, after all.

But it is interesting. Lewis seems to have had a quite nuanced view of myth, seeing its recurring patterns as dim reflections of underlying truth: https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/node/44. So he was far from dismissing myth as false or valueless.