Healthy Skepticism...

Bob and Melanie, Great job leading!

While I can easily imagine the range of emotions and profanities uttered in my general direction at the conclusion of the book study:) I have the utmost respect and admiration for anybody willing to take the reigns and lead such a group.

With that being said, and before I post my comments about the chapters, I feel it necessary to apologize to anyone who might have felt my comments, questions, or discussion on the 2 previous Sundays to be condescending. That is certainly not my intention, ever, and although I truly enjoy spirited discussion (and debate) I don't intend arrogance or condescension and apologize if that's the way it came out. I hope to clarify some of my points from the previous Sunday discussions in this blog which, of course, does not in any way imply that one needs to believe them, accept them or agree with them nor do I intend to delude myself in thinking that I wont further pi** somebody off. That's where "free will" comes in...

It is probably no secret at this point that I am a healthy skeptic of many things and C.S. Lewis' writing is not exempt from that skepticism. While I certainly believe he is firm in what he believes I am suspect of his method of delivery as it seems to be filled with faulty and, in some cases, inaccurate logic in arriving at his conclusions (my opinion only).

It is obvious that C. S. Lewis is a skilled writer, as is evidenced by his other works on Christianity and, of course, his much revered Chronicles of Narnia series. However, in the book we have been discussing (which is noted that its from his radio addresses) I believe Lewis real style comes through much more blatantly than his works of fiction. As has been stated in the first discussion, I believe his writing style to be rather circular and filled with contradiction that deserves pause if his writing is part of a discussion.

Lewis is very adept at grabbing one by the nostrils and dragging them in the direction he is headed and, for an individual not so easily accepting of the offer for candy by a stranger, it deserves pause and dismantling of his words to better understand whether or not one truly accepts his premises and conclusions.

As an example from the end chapter 2, page 14, middle of the last paragraph. Lewis cites an example of man he believes to be exaggerating the differences of Morality and the differences of belief about facts. His response to the man's question about putting witches to death, "... but surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did...surely we would agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there..."

This can be easily unwrapped by stating the corollary of Lewis' premise, if we believed witches DID exist, who better to execute than these filthy quislings. But since we do not believe in witches there is no moral advance made. The only moral advance would be if we DID believe witches existed and we DID NOT execute them. Then there would be a moral advance (even if he does believe in the death penalty for "filthy quislings", which seems a bit judgmental to me).

This is a very slippery slope into dogmatism as one could easily replace the word "witch" with any religious hot button term like: Homosexual, Abortion, Stem Cell Research, or Evolutionist. If, to use Lewis' premise, we don't believe Homosexuals "exist", meaning its "nurture" not nature or genetics then there's no moral advance in not putting them to death (as the bible requires) OR possibly grant them equal rights. And if they DO exist then who better to ______ than these ______ _____s. I only use that as an example of how Lewis uses somewhat flawed logic to make his case for Morality on this point.

Worthy of discussion? Maybe not for you but if one lets that logic slip by the doorman unchallenged then it is likely the same flawed logic will present itself elsewhere unnoticed.

Another example of Lewis' skilled salesmanship is in chapter 5, page 29, second paragraph. He uses the word "evidence" to cite information he believes to be pointing to the Wondrous nature of the Creator and the beauty of the Universe. He goes on to use the word "evidence" again on the heels of his own premise/conclusion riff by citing the "moral law" He (He presumably being the creator) put into our minds. The problem I encounter with this type of writing is not necessarily an argument over whether or not I believe those things actually to be evidence of the things Lewis claims they are, its in using words like "evidence" which can trick one into automatically following the premise to Lewis' own conclusion.

If a doctor views an X-ray for the first time and says, "I see a lump and I have evidence that its cancer", you would assume some level of expertise, professional knowledge, prior testing of the lump for cancerous cells, etc. You may ask for a second opinion but you would take the word "evidence" as the second most important word after "cancer". If the doctor says, "I see a lump and it might be cancer but it very well could be just a lump", a door of hope, as well as room for skeptical inquiry, is left open.

To sum up, if the logic of his premises and conclusions are not challenged in a book study then it could be said that we're only trying to affirm our own beliefs instead of actually discussing Lewis' writing. If one claims that they can be a "believer" of a particular faith AND still search...as was stated in the first Sunday discussion, the follow up question would have to be, are you truly searching and questioning to uncover Truth or simply searching for evidence to affirm what it is you already believe (the second type is what is more typical).

A true search, I believe, entails a healthy skepticism to remain open for ALL possibilities instead of searching with a preconceived notion already in place which will, by necessity and survival instinct, only allow in that which affirms what one believes to be true.