tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post4323993368240342389..comments2024-03-28T08:58:27.412-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: C. S. Lewis's Sensible SupportersVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71789001757409272442008-04-27T05:44:00.000-07:002008-04-27T05:44:00.000-07:00Lewis is a metaphysical, epistelogical, and moral ...Lewis is a metaphysical, epistelogical, and moral realist, and thus stands in a long tradition tracing to Aristotle, Aquinas, and others. Yet he wrote at a popular level. Beversluis analyzes him from the perspective of a technical philosopher. This approahc, then, does not first articulate Lewis's arguments on the level at which Beversluis engages. However, it is not that difficult for those of us who appreciate and understand and represent the tradition Lewis was speaking for to place Lewis's arguments and the trajectory of his thought in more sophisticated terms. When that is done, the Beversluis critique weakens dramatically. Stay tuned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73362816089360896292008-02-01T09:28:00.000-07:002008-02-01T09:28:00.000-07:00I prefer not to rate Lewis, and indeed to rate var...I prefer not to rate Lewis, and indeed to rate various thinkers because they are not engaged in the same enterprise. Plantinga and Lewis are involved in projects that overlap but have different audiences, and different expectations. I thought that Lewis had been victimized by an unfair degree of academic snobbery which I thought deserved to be reversed.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17153539750363044232008-01-31T21:33:00.000-07:002008-01-31T21:33:00.000-07:00Great blogging, Victor. And thanks for your great ...Great blogging, Victor. And thanks for your great book.<BR/><BR/>As a long time studier of Lewis and as a philosopher, would you grant it fair to say that Lewis sometimes did not show his full capacity as a philosopher as he wrote at a popular level?<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>And is it fair to say that the criticisms and rejections or and refinements and restating of Lewis’ arguments is typical of any high profile philosopher? For example, one ought to beware of quoting Bertrand Russell’s ‘Why I am Not a Christian’ or J. L. Mackie’s ‘The Miracle of Theism’ as a complete authority against Christianity as much as quoting Lewis’ ‘Mere Christianity’ or Lee Strobel’s ‘Case for Christ’ for it? Or worse, Richard Dawkin’s ‘The God Delusion’ or Geisler Norman’s ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist’?<BR/><BR/>(I must add I would not usually put Strobel anywhere near Lewis but just for the sake of argument).<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>How highly could one objectively rate Lewis among the intellectual heavyweights of the last century (against the likes of Russell, Flew etc…)?<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Lastly, whats the chances of getting my copy of CSL’s DI signed by post? :)<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>Chris B<BR/>christopher.byrnes@gmail.comChris Byrneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08543552314480796141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17901814426299877202008-01-31T20:08:00.000-07:002008-01-31T20:08:00.000-07:00I don't think you'll find anything in Joshi that i...I don't think you'll find anything in Joshi that is the equivalent of Beversluis's rejection of the Anscombe legend (the biographical argument, not the philosophical case on behalf of Anscombe's criticisms, which he does make), or Beversluis<BR/>s criticism of overly hasty attacks on the trilemma argument, which he thinks he did refute but insists it requires careful analysis to refute it. <BR/><BR/>It's been awhile since I've read Joshi, but the tone seemed pretty harsh and dismissive to me.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60644099595339465882008-01-31T07:07:00.000-07:002008-01-31T07:07:00.000-07:00They'd fall under category 4, Ed: "Hostile critics...They'd fall under category 4, Ed: "Hostile critics. These are people who think Lewis is not only wrong, but either stupid, ignorant, insane or wicked, someone who deserves to be laughed off the intellectual stage."<BR/><BR/>Victor didn't distinguish between Christian and non-Christian in either of his opponent categories. Though admittedly he only put up sceptical examples. So I guess you could add Van Till to category 3 and, um, the guy who wrote _Skeleton in the Wardrobe_ to category 4?<BR/><BR/>Actually plenty of theologians might take strong exception piecemeal to Lewis and so fall piecemeal into category 3. Obviously I think Lewis fails to successfully argue for annihilationism, even though I usually fall strongly into category 2. N.T. Wright has a well-known (and frankly kind of petulant, IMO) animosity to Lewis' smackdown of liberal biblical criticism in "Fernseed and Elephants" (despite the fact that they both end up saying much the same thing for much the same reasons on much the same topics within that range). Joseph Pearce (don't know whether he would count as a theologian) couldn't stand Lewis' non-Catholicism so much he ended up quasi-inventing Lewis' Catholicism to compensate. One of Lewis' best friends, Tolkien, couldn't stand the unorthodox (and so by appearances anti-Catholic) version of Christ in the Narnia series; and was naturally even more upset by the rather more pointed and intentional anti-Catholicism of Lewis' final theological book (_Letters from Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer_).<BR/><BR/>Any of those/us would still <I>largely</I> fall into the second category, while also having enough problems to classify as third category on a limited basis. On the other hand, heavy supporters of presuppositionalistic theology like Van Till and (to pull a semi-random name out of a hat) John Piper, while they might appreciate Lewis' intentions, would ultimately have to say that in the final analysis Lewis' arguments must be unsuccessful (as a matter of principle). So they'd end up much more in category 3, as loyal opponents. Ditto various Mormon apologists, who typically love Lewis but obviously aren't going to be able to accept his basically orthodox apologetics broadband.<BR/><BR/>JRP<BR/><BR/>JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45789685405863994172008-01-30T17:22:00.000-07:002008-01-30T17:22:00.000-07:00I've looked at Joshi's comments on Lewis, and I fr...I've looked at Joshi's comments on Lewis, and I frankly don't recall anything worse than what you attribute to Beversluius--what did you have in mind?The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-92185514886740069802008-01-30T15:04:00.000-07:002008-01-30T15:04:00.000-07:00You left out the category of Christians who are ho...You left out the category of Christians who are hostile to many of Lewis's views (finding many of them dubious at best and damnable at worst). Some of them question whether Lewis was "saved" at all.Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.com