My thoughts: 1. AN Wilson's biography is widely held by those who knew Lewis best and Lewis scholars in general to be one of the least accurate biographies of the major Lewis biographies. Indeed, Wilson himself later admitted as much after he came back to Christianity, that he put too much stock in the pscyhoanalysis of Lewis than he should've done (and Lewis himself warned against this sort of thing). 2. I think it's true, though, that Lewis himself felt defeated after the debate. There's plenty of evidence for this in Lewis' own letters to others and from testimonials of friends like George Sayer, Derek Brewer, and Hugo Dyson as well as those from others present at the debate like Antony Flew. However I also think Lewis' feelings of defeat do not necessarily imply he was defeated. Or at least that he was as defeated as he thought he was. Rather I suspect Lewis' defeat was overblown in Lewis' own mind. Perhaps this is owing to the fact that Lewis knew Anscombe was a fine young philosopher at the time (as was her husband Peter Geach) and that Lewis knew he hadn't kept up his philosophical education given his scholarly role had shifted to English literature. These facts in Lewis' mind may have exacerbated Lewis' own emotions coming out of the debate and in particular after the debate wasn't as clear cut a victory as previous debates had been for him. Hence I suppose his post-debate feelings of defeat probably were more despairing than his actual debate performance which may have been quite decent. And Anscombe herself said (reprinted in the second volume of her collected papers): "My own recollection is that it was an occasion of sober discussion of certain quite definite criticisms, which Lewis' rethinking and rewriting showed he thought were accurate." 3. In any case, it is a testament to Lewis' humility that he revised his argument from reason in Miracles and that he spoke well of Anscombe afterwards. On a related note, some people may be interested to see Anscombe's own analysis of Lewis' rewritten argument in her paper "C. S. Lewis's Rewrite of Chapter III of Miracles." 4. Lewis still kept writing apologetics even if we only consider the Narnia books. After all, Lewis himself said: "I thought I saw how stories of this kind could sneak past a certain inhibition which had paralysed much of my own religion in childhood. Why did one find it so hard to feel as one was told one ought to feel about God or the sufferings of Christ? I thought the chief reason was that one was told one ought to. An obligation to feel can freeze feelings. And reverence itself did harm. The whole subject was associated with lowered voices; almost as if it were something medical. But supposing that by casting all these things into an imaginary world, stripping them of their stained-glass and Sunday school associations, one could make them for the first time appear in their true potency? Could one not thus steal past those watchful dragons? I thought one could." Of course, this is precisely what Lewis attempted to do in his Narnia books. So, even if Narnia was all Lewis wrote after the debate, which of course it wasn't (e.g. God in the Dock), I don't see it as Lewis as abandoning apologetics, but rather consciously or subconsciously shifting his apologetics strategy. He moved from a more obvious and explicit defense of the faith to a more subtle and discreet defense. In short, I think Lewis fine tuned or recalibrated his apologetics rather than that Lewis abandoned apologetics entirely. Just as Lewis honed and improved his argument from reason after the debate, so too Lewis honed and improved his apologetics in general after the debate. For Lewis I think this marks an advance, not a retreat, in his apologetics.
Thank you for a poignant summation! I too took notice of Wilson’s later retraction of earlier accounts about Lewis. I believe, if there was any “projecting” occurring, Wilson’s interpretation of the “White Witch”, as Anscombe, was far reaching, if not a complete misrepresentation. It’s a bit early, but I wish you a MERRY CHRISTMAS!✨🇨🇦✨
When I finished my bachelor thesis I thought it was pretty bad. We only succeeded in half the goals and the ones we succeeded we didn't manage to make it run. The only success we had was that we could measure a signal if we used highly artificial measurement data. Three years later I wanted to show it to a friend of mine. When looking through it I found that my memory and my perception of that time were not accurate because I was too focused on what could have been. The thesis was quite solid and we basically found managed to make it run with simulations on what went wrong and how things can be improved. It wouldn't surprise me if Lewis thought back then he had the debate in the bag and he should dominate it, but then he noticed that he wasn't quite perfect. So his later analysis of the debate might be more accurate and objective than the immediate one.
It is unheard these days for an acclaimed scholar to conduct a debate and possess the requisite humility to actually consider his opponents position seriously, to the point of being willing to honestly and openly engage and even reformulate based on the opposition feedback, all without conceding the supremacy of Christ and God. I find it refreshing and wholly Christian in nature.
Precisely! That was Lewis's point about great thinkers/writers in his introduction to 'On the Incarnation' by St. Athansias. Don't read a book about Platonism...read Plato!
C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton and T.S. Eliot are perhaps the best Christian writers in English of all time. None of the were overly technical in their writing, but anyone who thinks they were "unscholarly" or lacked academic rigor is a fool.
Well I don't think anyone would possibly feel the need to call Eliot "unscholarly." I think, in fact, a fairly common criticism of Eliot is for being too technical.
“Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.” “It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” C.S. Lewis, The World’s Last Night: And Other Essays, p.97
I love Lewis too. The Great Divorce is probably one of my all time favorites, along with his space trilogy. I’m actually Roman Catholic but there’s a lot to admire about the great man!
Beautiful defense of Lewis. He’s my favorite theologian for the exact reasons you outlined. His ability to approach incredibly complex topics with an air of humility is truly astounding. It’s also one of the reasons why his works has been so beloved.
I just showed my parents your video on C.S. Lewis's Till We Have Faces - they really enjoyed it! I'm so glad you appreciate him so much, and keep drawing out the value of his life and work, and its relevance to people today.
That’s the opposite of what proverbs says!! 👎 ! The beginning of wisdom is fear of God , so what’s the middle and end of wisdom? God is into religion more than he is the things of this world. It takes 8 years to become a lawyer or doctor & the Bible is deeper than that. The eschatology, ecclesiology, etc. We will never be able to completely understand omniscience, but the Bible is omniscient Jesus is the word, and he said -heaven, & earth will pass away, but my word will never pass away ! People are ignoring an eternal book if they don’t read the Bible !
@@jjphank i think you misunderstand what i'm trying to say. the comment is moreso about what was said later in the video in regards to lewis being looked down upon for being more accessible to the public
Indeed. The complexity of the bible's many, many tortuous miraculous tales, which don't comport to the reality we observe. Versus the simple "people make up stories all the time"
@@christianhayter upon further inspection, out of the various explanations for miracles such as the resurrection, the simple fact that a miracle did indeed occur is the simplest explanation which also holds the most explanatory power and scope
@@christianhayter you don’t know history! You can take 12 jurors today and convince them that Jesus rose from the dead because the Jews and the Romans did not want a third sect vying for power such as Christians, so they would’ve produced the body of Jesus and said , go home he’s dead! but instead what happens in the next 300 years, severe persecution against Christianity, and it bloomed, instead of died out! Miracle or coincidence?? Secular historians wrote about Jesus and his followers, Pliney Thalles, soTenius, Tacitus, and Josephus ! A God of love has to leave evidence, and there’s more evidence than this ; >You cannot out psychologize the Bible for God not to throw you into hell for all eternity. In other words, you cannot come up with a good enough excuse here and now, so you will not be able to on judgment day. If you say you did not want to be born, God is going to say you should’ve been born again, that means become a Christian so that’s not gonna work. And there are no other excuses try to think of one. So now you know for the first time in your life, that the Bible is smarter than you and it is a steel trap, smarter than all of mankind, What should you do then? So at least investigate and look to see that these things are true, because right now you just learned the Bible is smarter than you, and you will be accountable for your life on judgment day before God! Prophecy, the Bible is 27% prophecy, that’s future history written in advance. God‘s really sticking his neck out to get it cut off if he’s wrong, but he hasn’t been wrong about the thousands of prophecies that were fulfilled, so he’ll be right about the end of the world prophecies as well and you’ll have no excuse on judgment day for not looking for truth! Caveat: you cannot look for God in times of chaos says Isaiah 45:19, so you better do it now. In other words,You’ll be too worried about your own survival when chaos hits, than your eternal destiny! Statistic probability of 40 writers writing the Bible with zero margin of deviation, proves God wrote the Bible through the 40 writers! God authored the Bible! DNA does not auto encrypt, the code writer is outside of the code of the 3300000,000,000 lines of computer code in the human genome of our DNA! So who wrote the code to such sophistication? 1,000,000 seconds is 12 days, 1,000,000,000 seconds is 32 years! That’s the difference between 1 million and 1 billion! One person’s DNA could fill the Grand Canyon up to 50 times full of books. John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did, the world wouldn’t have enough room for the books telling of it.“ this verse would be fulfilled! Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“! Psalm 139 is about the human body!
It’s quite sad that people still think this yet he wrote countless essays related to apologetics after this ‘debate’. Dr. Art Lindsley lays it out in his book CS Lewis’ case for Christ
I read Victor Repperts book back in 2011, and it solidified the argument from reason as one of my favorite avenues to faith. He also does a great job poking holes in the Anscombe debate legends.
Thanks for doing this! I actually wrote about this debate in seminary. I find the nuances fascinating, especially considering that Anscombe was a believer as well.
Thank you for this video Gavin. I’m currently working my way through Harry Lee Poe’s 3 part biography of C.S. Lewis, and I’m now fascinated to see how this event is covered within it.
Thanks for another great video! As someone who is in ministry and also doing academic work, I would be really interested in a video on your academic process. How do you balance ministry and the academy? How do you prioritize sources, find new topics, think through potential answers to hard questions, etc. I think a video like that would be very helpful! Thankful for your continually helpful ministry!
Accessible and Humble: Yes! You do it well Sir. Love C.S. Lewis. I once had a brief conversation with the girl that worked with. It was extremely hostile towards the gospel and Christians and any mention of repentance. Then she told me how much she love the lion, the witch and the wardrobe, and I explain the gospel to her from that beautiful story. That Aslan is Jesus. She was blown away and understood, at least, in a cursory manner not only who Jesus was, but how Jesus was.
Gavin, I can’t thank you enough for this video. The Lord has blessed me so much through Lewis, and I’m glad to hear your excellent refutation of this myth that has been irresponsibly perpetuated about him.
I came here to say that "Miracles" is one of the most mentally challenging books I've ever read. I suspect most people dunk on C. S. Lewis because they see other people doing it, and have not really interacted with his work. And even more certainly I surmise that none of those dunking on him would surpass his intellect, if they match it at all. C. S. Lewis is of the finest thinkers I've ever read, and his place among the most astute of thinkers is well earned.
People think that since he has books that make philosophy and theological concepts highly accessible and engaging, it means he's not a serious thinker. That's one of the things that makes him so great, though. Lewis was able to take lofty ideas and write about them in ways average people could understand.
Hello dr.ortlund, thank you so much for these videos. You have been a great help in my spiritual journey. May the lord continue blessing you. Your video on ecclesial anxiety has aided me immensely. Thank you. Love from florida !
So glad that you made this video. Lewis loved fairy tales. His hero was also George Macdonald, a children’s fantasy writer. He loved these stories because he had a great love of mythology, and he viewed fairy tales as a medium for communicating myth, specifically the kind of true myths that we as Christians refer to as God’s general revelation. It was thru myth that Lewis became encountered joy and eventually Christ. In a sense, his stories serve as a form of powerful apologetics. It’s disappointing to hear such a strange psycho-analysis come from a ‘biographer’, but glad to see Gavin do right by Lewis. -Lewis’ biggest fan
That makes a lot of sense. A man who loved fairy tales would readily believe that a man lived inside a fish and that 5000 dudes can be fed with 2 fish snacks
Did Lewis believe Jonah lived inside a fish or that it was sacred fiction? I think he’d be open to the ladder. But Christ did multiply food to feed thousands. These texts are different and a well-read person would understand them to be different genres. I can tell by your snarky tone that you’re less interested in pursuing and hearing truth and more motivated by negative feelings towards Christianity. Therefore, your criticism is obviously coming from an irrational place and it undermines your credibility
You can't presuppose the "truth" before its proven that's indeed what happened. Outside the bible there is no evidence 5000 were really fed with a quantity food that wouldn't feed more than 3-4 people It doesn't make sense and it doesn't comport to the reality we observe
“To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence…But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being grown up is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.” CS Lewis Walking around feeling ashamed that someone may see you as an adult reading Harry Potter or the Hobbit or Chronicles of Narnia is the definition of insecurity.
Excellent, clear argument and well supported. Thank you. I sometimes feel agitated by the condescending manner in which great minds like C.S. Lewis are being portrayed, especially by the so-called New Atheists. It is actually a sophisticated way of using the ad-hominem approach!
Lewis is one of my all-time favorite authors. I believe him to be one of (if not, THE) the greatest thinker(s) of the 20th century. And I would agree that the disdain for Lewis among academia has to do with either jealousy for his popularity, or a disdain for his clarity and simplicity, which I think takes way more bravery and skill as a writer than being overly-ambiguous and esoteric in our language. Great video!
Certainly, the request by BBC to present multiple episodes on which would later evolve into the book “Mere Christianity”, during WWII, offers insight as to Lewis’ popularity with the public. It was definitely a challenging time, but that is when we need such authors like C.S. Lewis! Cheers🇨🇦
Academia is an odd profession full of very bright people with agendas and egos. For many, their pride rests in their record in influencing society, the number of peer reviewed articles they have published and, of course, winning arguments. Winning an argument is no guarantee that the winning argument is correct. History is littered with disastrous events that were the result of bright people winning arguments but couldn’t in fact run an orgy in a brothel.
You're right. People often don't appreciate how very impressive Lewis' literary criticism, his professional academic work, was. And you're right that he learned to hide its sheer weight, to an extent. However that's less hidden in The Allegory of Love, his first major book, which is simply intellectually dazzling, as well as being beautifully written. So good that like most of his literary criticism, it can (and should) be read for pleasure, while one benefits from being educated at the same time.
@TruthUnites Dear Dr. Ortlund, just to say thank again for all you do, and if I might make a request - I would be very interested in hearing you cover something on the Protestant 'tradition' of music/congregational singing/hymn writing. God bless.
Great video, Gavin! I’m currently editing a book featuring multiple philosophers who are defending - and strengthening - Lewis’s Argument From Reason. It will hopefully be published in 2024.
Great topic! I asked Max McLean about Lewis' debate with Anscombe after his performance of "The Most Reluctant Convert" and whether he thought that affected Lewis' career. He didn't really have an answer as he didn't know much about that particular moment in Lewis' life.
"...but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect..." (1 Peter 3:15) So, there is a place for apologetics. But we should always remember that it is never about winning, always about the Spirit using the opportunity to plant a seed in someone's heart. And rarely will it change minds that are already made up.
Amen! I try not to use schools of thought or leaders of philosophies as a description but there is much scripture which explicitly defines that God knew who was saved before the world began, those who are called to him are his and those destined for destruction he is patient with. I do think we should continue to evangelize as we are told to do so and that WE don't know who we may save when we properly do as the Lord has commanded us, though there is also good reason to believe most will reject God unless called by him. So don't be discouraged when few heed the word of the Lord.
@stephenbailey9969 Imagine if Christians followed that verse, or engaged in any form of honest discussion or debate. Honest being the key word. And why would God's spirit guide anyone towards Christian idolatry? And define lord?
"Writing plainly" is EXACTLY the mark of a great thinker/writer, according to Lewis's own introduction to "On the Incarnation,' by St. Athansias. Why read a book About Plato when you can read Plato? And don't be afraid that the great thinkers will be too far over your head; one thing that makes them so great is that they are actually understandable, whereas the latest scholarly book about Platonism will be very difficult for most readers. Great thinkers can explain their thoughts on all levels. So even if Lewis's later works were 'written plainly,' that means nothing. Thank you for the wonderful video; I had never heard of this debate nor the controversy about it.
Really nice! Had me wondering what those authors were seeing, if Lewis literally published apologetics works after that debate. And even in Surprised By Joy (Lewis's own autobiography), he talked about the whimsy he experienced in childhood play, when he and his brother would construct entire fantasy worlds to play in; it seems obvious this had long been a part of him, not just something he fell into pursuing because he felt incapable of writing what he "really wanted to." Sending this to my friend Mike at Apologetics, Inc.! (formerly known as the C.S. Lewis Society).
When I read "The Silver Chair" I also see that lewis didn't abandon apologetics. The great climax is a debate where the Green witch is trying to convince Jill, Eustace, and Puddleglum that their surface world isn't real.
Great video! I've found Lewis one of the most compelling authors in any genre he's written. He just has "it". Also, not to imply Lewis' argument failed, but can we agree that even a "failed" argument is still very valuable for the conversation it spurs from which better, clearer, more precise definitions and arguments arise? It feels to me that any earnest philosophical proposition is inherently valuable even if it can be utterly refuted.
I think like most people, Lewis was completely disappointed in reason to be able to convince anyone of anything if they are committed to their own point of view. Debate had simply become a game which skeptics only ever wanted a stalemate by denying all things. In the end if only one person is interested in playing and the other is just set on spoiling because theu know they can't even begin to play, it is not worth it.
Perfectly stated sir There are some thing that though evidently true, just need to be ...."seen" For example try arguing with a hardened physicalist about how his system destroys the concept of reason and you'll find this out. Sometimes art is a better way to reach people
Thank you for this video! I have loved reading CS Lewis. And videos like yours that break down these topics are fascinating. I don't know that I would have appreciated Till We Have Faces had I not watched your video on that book. It was a great outline as I reread it! 14:26 And though I had listened to That Hideous Strength many many many times on audio book, it seemed I got more and more as I listened to it. I didn't have the words to describe what I thought he was outlining in the contrast difference between Modernity and Middle Ages. Really enjoyed this and the videos related to his other works! 😊
I really think Platinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism is far superior to Lewis’s argument from reason. Although, Lewis’s argument from reason still demands genuine consideration, as Plantinga’s argument wouldn’t exist without it.
The two arguements amount to the same thing essentially And Lewises method gets to the heart of the matter better Plantingas is just more digestible to thhe mind of a man steeped in naturalistic ways of thinking
Three things: 1. Thank you. This video is excellent. I agree, this issue gets blown way out of proportion, and I agree with Anscombe that the best explanation is "projection." 2. I would love it if you made a video going through the points of contention between Anscombe and Lewis and if Lewis' revised argument meets the challenges - I know you already touched on that briefly in this video. 3. An addition to this video, if I may be so bold: even if Lewis only wrote children's literature after this debate, that does nothing to show that he did not engage in apologetics. For that would be to assume that children's literature cannot be apologetic. It seems to me, only a fool would dismiss children's literature as a possible source for deep insight - apologetic or otherwise.
How you write depends on who you're writing for. I'm a professional writer of fiction and non-fiction, but not an academic. Lewis was both. In general, distilling a difficult concept into simple, clear language should always be the goal, and Lewis did that better than anyone. If you can't explain the concept simply, you don't understand it well enough. Writing for academia is more rigid and demands more complexity but that's what made him a genius. He did both. He wrote for everyone. He just didn't have the typical intellectual snobbery to go along with it. He was humble to admit his mistakes and clarify his positions. In general, I find the literary academy (at least the local folk I know) to be quite ivory-tower level snobby. (They don't sell the books that Lewis did, either.) Thank you for defending my literary hero, Gavin. I enjoyed this.
Lewis abandoned his atheist position at age 32 and joined the Church of England much to the dismay of his close friends J.R.R. Tolkein who wanted him to convert to Catholicism. People change their beliefs all the time. I expect it.
Anyone opposing Lewis' ideas would of course try to create narrative showing him in a bad light. And those others who want to deny Lewis' ideas, because they strike a spiritual nerve, will glom onto and continue the bad light narrative; even though it is not true. Very familiar scenario in human existence. Good job with this, good sir.
It is important to know that Anscombe was no lightweight. She did her PhD with Wittgenstein and went on to translate and edit Wittgenstein's posthumous work, Philosophical Investigations.
Lewis couldn't handle the emerging atheistic notions in philosophical circles about explanatory adequacy, prior assumptions, vagueness about key terms, and general metatheoretic issues. Look at the devasting effect of Flew and Wisdom when they finally published on those themes (except for straightforward metatheoretic analysis). 3 key articles did almost all the damage, and all three arguments +still+ have not been addressed by any Christian apologist. And here we are.
It’s not a branch really. Its root can be found in the Bible. ”But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;“ I Peter 3:15 NKJV If we believe in Jesus, we must be ready to articulate why we do so. Our faith isn’t blind. It is based on the evidence of Jesus. Stephen, Peter, Paul, etc were asked why they believed and gave answers.
I think it's actually to Lewis' credit if he felt defeated. In my experience, many religious apologists are bumptiously confident about the strength of their arguments.
Thank you for this beautifully cogent discussion. Some of the reports about the debate would have us believing that Lewis fled in dismay immediately afterwards, but nothing in his or Anscombe's notes gives this credibility, and the idea that Anscombe became the source of the White Witch is gob-smackingly silly. As an elderly atheist, perhaps I can add that no writer has shaped my study or my attitude to life as much as this truly remarkable man.
Despite your belief, you can appreciate Lewis 🙂 - you might want to have another look at his defence of Christianity and God. Take off your lenses and check him out again.
@@philipd8868 Thank you for your comment, Phillip. As it is, I continue to read Lewis -in fact I am rereading 'The Great Divorce' at present. I prize Lewis's intelligence, humanity, clarity and learning, but I disagree fundamentally at times with some of his premises; those times are rare, but they mean that I cannot accept his most important conclusions about Christianity and God. I know that Lewis hated hypocrisy, and I would not dishonour him by pretending to accept what I find unacceptable. With kind regards.
10:54 C S Lewis wrote a forward to a friends translation of Athanasius' Incarnation of the Word which later appeared as "On The Reading Of Old Books" in "God In The Dock" where he said that many beginners are afraid that they won't understand the ancient philosophers and responded "if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator".
I havent read AN Wilson's book but I did enjoy the tv documentary he did on Lewis. It was on UK tv so not sure if available in the US. He did say Lewis had a rather odd relationship with his late comrade's mum who he had promised to look after. But overall enjoyable.
At 60, I’ve come to the point of being excited about being shown errors in my thinking. If I think of my own theology as a “product “ to be sold, rather than the actual journey it is, then I’m fragile. I think Lewis in the end was the opposite- a resilient believer and scholar.
I agree about the difficulty of writing clearly and understandably. Those who write academically are often very bright but use jargon terms that hide as much as they reveal--sometimes they don't really understand the terms themselves (I know because, I graduated from graduate school, and I was one of them). The brilliant writer appreciates the essence of the argument so well that jargon is irrelevant. Once that level of mastery is reached the author can write for almost any audience. As did Lewis and in other contexts Mortimer Adler.
I mean, at the end of that day, does it matter that he felt confident in his assertions and previous books? Regardless of whether HE was confident doesn’t undermine the soundness of his arguments we’ve found to be so for so long. A good argument is a good argument.
Really interesting. I thought the comments about his academic colleagues writing him off for writing a popular level. One of my lecturers at theological college had been one of William Barclay's PHD students and said that Barclay was constantly told that by writing for the church rather than the academy he was wasting his talent and throwing away his career
If the claims of religions do not comport to the reality we observe, we should be justified in rejecting them. The claims of Christianity do not comport to the reality we observe
Dr. Ortlund, did you ever have the pleasure of meeting James Houston (from Regent College, Vancouver) while at Fuller? He would occasionally teach classes at Fuller. Anyway, Houston didn't talk about it until late in his career, but he was a friend of Lewis' while at Oxford.
Even if Lewis had abandoned his arguments and apologetics that doesn't mean anything, if the logic of his positions holds true. It's an argument from authority. It's like, on the other side, the oft-repeated story that Darwin recanted his theories on his deathbed (or later in life or whenever). If you find an argument to be logical and valid, a mere recantation by the person who made the argument doesn't refute its logic or validity. It may be a good occasion to go and give the argument a second look, but if the logic still holds, then its the recantation that's in error (if the recantation ever happened at all).
I wholly endorse Planet Narnia. I do like its point that perhaps the Narnia books _were_ a result of that debate, as he set about putting his notion of enjoyment vs. contemplation into practice.
Anscombe later wrote that Lewis' critics regarding his "turn" were projecting their own insecurities on to him. Given what we know of the brain today Haldane was wrong. Plus Truth is something we pursue in God's Creation not something that exists on our thoughts.
My impression from how Lewis friends described his reaction to the Anscombe debate later the same afternoon when they met in a pub is that he was very surprised at how formidable she was. Anscombe was a very unusual person and a very formidable opponent. If it was probably enough that a younger woman should have put him on the defensive that would have made him wonder if he was losing his edge but it
Anybody who has studied apologetics long enough has come to realize some of the arguments that they once thought were good no longer are and vice versa. This is a very normal part of the process. To think that someone like CS Lewis would jump ship on apologetics altogether because a single one of his arguments was challenged and perhaps shown to be lacking seems entirely juvenile and naive. Although I appreciate the argument from reason, it is certainly not the first one I jump to in order to try and show someone that God exists, and that Christianity is true. I see it as a fun secondary sort of argument. I would imagine CS Lewis would think something similar about it in the first place.
Good piece here. Quite frankly I find no evidence that debates ever actually resolve anything for most people. The whole structure of them is prone to be subjectively interpreted as to who actually "wins." Usually the audience who already have their favorites will think everything the favorite says is great anyway on both sides. I've also found that some of the greatest writers and thinkers don't necessarily do their best presentations in a format that presents with time limits and expected and unexpected attacks on your thinking. It's very fluid and dynamic what will arise and not everyone is able to quickly compose a good answer on the spot without more time to think more clearly. It doesn't mean they don't have the better answer in their brain. It's very different from writing books where you have unlimited time to refine your argument and rephrase your wording and get lots of feedback before publishing. Debate is just a format that takes extreme skills and some that are good debaters aren't always great thinkers either. If you can do both you are in rarified air. Jesus succeeded to the point his detractors quit asking questions.
11:00. The only theologian/apologist who is remotely as accessible as Lewis was R.C. Sproul. And I expect him to be dismissed as a "popular theologian" within 5yrs as well.
Very interested in both Lewis and Anscombe! *Anyways, Gavin, what do you personally make of all the internal politicking and, say, structural strife inside the RCC?* As for myself, as someone interested in both Catholicism and Protestantism, the infighting and drama always going on in the RCC really deters me, even if there is so much else I find attractive. Doubtless there is infighting in some Protestant denominations and churches as well, but because of the centralized structure so particular of Catholicism, it just seems so much more unpalatable.
Infighting is a human characteristic - unfortunately it exists, and has existed in pretty much all branches of Christianity that I'm aware of. I think the reason it stings more when it shows up in the RCC though is due to their exclusivist claim to being The Chair of Peter, and the surrounding claims of infallibility and apostolic succession, etc. In short, they elevate themselves above all others, and thus when the same problems that everyone else has manifest in them, it is a more visible and profound problem.
Christ came to bring and give us a sword, not peace in this fallen world. If you are not willing to pick up said sword and become a spiritual warrior, you should not just give up only the true Faith and complete comminion of Apostolic Catholicism, but Christianity as a whole. There are no cowards nor lazy people in Heaven. I became convinced of the Truth of the Catholic Church exactly because Satan is trying to infiltrate, mock and destroy Her from within. I hope you presevere! May our Heavenly Mother bless you!
@@bookishbrendan8875 well I think it's more problematic for them to have these issues because they basically claim to be above them. So while the issues themselves may not stand as a damning blow against Rome's claims to authority and infallibility they definitely pose a problem - one which for me is a part of why I'm not Roman Catholic though certainly not the main reason.
@nmpltleopardi A Protestant can make the same argument. He might say he's convinced of Protestantism because Satan has worked so hard to destroy it. Evidenced by the division and varying messages from within.
I guess if he wrote apologetics after the debate, the debate was not necessarily the cause of him abandoning apologetics for children's book. Maybe he was just ready for a change.
My thoughts:
1. AN Wilson's biography is widely held by those who knew Lewis best and Lewis scholars in general to be one of the least accurate biographies of the major Lewis biographies. Indeed, Wilson himself later admitted as much after he came back to Christianity, that he put too much stock in the pscyhoanalysis of Lewis than he should've done (and Lewis himself warned against this sort of thing).
2. I think it's true, though, that Lewis himself felt defeated after the debate. There's plenty of evidence for this in Lewis' own letters to others and from testimonials of friends like George Sayer, Derek Brewer, and Hugo Dyson as well as those from others present at the debate like Antony Flew.
However I also think Lewis' feelings of defeat do not necessarily imply he was defeated. Or at least that he was as defeated as he thought he was.
Rather I suspect Lewis' defeat was overblown in Lewis' own mind. Perhaps this is owing to the fact that Lewis knew Anscombe was a fine young philosopher at the time (as was her husband Peter Geach) and that Lewis knew he hadn't kept up his philosophical education given his scholarly role had shifted to English literature. These facts in Lewis' mind may have exacerbated Lewis' own emotions coming out of the debate and in particular after the debate wasn't as clear cut a victory as previous debates had been for him.
Hence I suppose his post-debate feelings of defeat probably were more despairing than his actual debate performance which may have been quite decent.
And Anscombe herself said (reprinted in the second volume of her collected papers): "My own recollection is that it was an occasion of sober discussion of certain quite definite criticisms, which Lewis' rethinking and rewriting showed he thought were accurate."
3. In any case, it is a testament to Lewis' humility that he revised his argument from reason in Miracles and that he spoke well of Anscombe afterwards.
On a related note, some people may be interested to see Anscombe's own analysis of Lewis' rewritten argument in her paper "C. S. Lewis's Rewrite of Chapter III of Miracles."
4. Lewis still kept writing apologetics even if we only consider the Narnia books. After all, Lewis himself said: "I thought I saw how stories of this kind could sneak past a certain inhibition which had paralysed much of my own religion in childhood. Why did one find it so hard to feel as one was told one ought to feel about God or the sufferings of Christ? I thought the chief reason was that one was told one ought to. An obligation to feel can freeze feelings. And reverence itself did harm. The whole subject was associated with lowered voices; almost as if it were something medical. But supposing that by casting all these things into an imaginary world, stripping them of their stained-glass and Sunday school associations, one could make them for the first time appear in their true potency? Could one not thus steal past those watchful dragons? I thought one could."
Of course, this is precisely what Lewis attempted to do in his Narnia books. So, even if Narnia was all Lewis wrote after the debate, which of course it wasn't (e.g. God in the Dock), I don't see it as Lewis as abandoning apologetics, but rather consciously or subconsciously shifting his apologetics strategy. He moved from a more obvious and explicit defense of the faith to a more subtle and discreet defense. In short, I think Lewis fine tuned or recalibrated his apologetics rather than that Lewis abandoned apologetics entirely. Just as Lewis honed and improved his argument from reason after the debate, so too Lewis honed and improved his apologetics in general after the debate. For Lewis I think this marks an advance, not a retreat, in his apologetics.
Thank you for a poignant summation!
I too took notice of Wilson’s later retraction of earlier accounts about Lewis. I believe, if there was any “projecting” occurring, Wilson’s interpretation of the “White Witch”, as Anscombe, was far reaching, if not a complete misrepresentation.
It’s a bit early, but I wish you a MERRY CHRISTMAS!✨🇨🇦✨
When I finished my bachelor thesis I thought it was pretty bad. We only succeeded in half the goals and the ones we succeeded we didn't manage to make it run. The only success we had was that we could measure a signal if we used highly artificial measurement data.
Three years later I wanted to show it to a friend of mine. When looking through it I found that my memory and my perception of that time were not accurate because I was too focused on what could have been. The thesis was quite solid and we basically found managed to make it run with simulations on what went wrong and how things can be improved.
It wouldn't surprise me if Lewis thought back then he had the debate in the bag and he should dominate it, but then he noticed that he wasn't quite perfect. So his later analysis of the debate might be more accurate and objective than the immediate one.
It is unheard these days for an acclaimed scholar to conduct a debate and possess the requisite humility to actually consider his opponents position seriously, to the point of being willing to honestly and openly engage and even reformulate based on the opposition feedback, all without conceding the supremacy of Christ and God.
I find it refreshing and wholly Christian in nature.
@@G1stGBlessAmen!
Excellent comment! Thank you
C.S. Lewis is a genius because of how accessible he is to all types of audiences.
Precisely! That was Lewis's point about great thinkers/writers in his introduction to 'On the Incarnation' by St. Athansias. Don't read a book about Platonism...read Plato!
C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton and T.S. Eliot are perhaps the best Christian writers in English of all time. None of the were overly technical in their writing, but anyone who thinks they were "unscholarly" or lacked academic rigor is a fool.
Well I don't think anyone would possibly feel the need to call Eliot "unscholarly." I think, in fact, a fairly common criticism of Eliot is for being too technical.
“Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”
“It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.”
C.S. Lewis, The World’s Last Night: And Other Essays, p.97
The greatest English Christian writer is surely St. John Henry Newman.
I love Lewis too. The Great Divorce is probably one of my all time favorites, along with his space trilogy. I’m actually Roman Catholic but there’s a lot to admire about the great man!
Beautiful defense of Lewis. He’s my favorite theologian for the exact reasons you outlined. His ability to approach incredibly complex topics with an air of humility is truly astounding. It’s also one of the reasons why his works has been so beloved.
Are you familiar with RC Sproul? He was a brilliant theologian.
I just showed my parents your video on C.S. Lewis's Till We Have Faces - they really enjoyed it! I'm so glad you appreciate him so much, and keep drawing out the value of his life and work, and its relevance to people today.
a fool admires complexity, a genius admires simplicity
That’s the opposite of what proverbs says!! 👎 ! The beginning of wisdom is fear of God , so what’s the middle and end of wisdom?
God is into religion more than he is the things of this world. It takes 8 years to become a lawyer or doctor & the Bible is deeper than that. The eschatology, ecclesiology, etc.
We will never be able to completely understand omniscience, but the Bible is omniscient Jesus is the word, and he said -heaven, & earth will pass away, but my word will never pass away !
People are ignoring an eternal book if they don’t read the Bible !
@@jjphank i think you misunderstand what i'm trying to say. the comment is moreso about what was said later in the video in regards to lewis being looked down upon for being more accessible to the public
Indeed.
The complexity of the bible's many, many tortuous miraculous tales, which don't comport to the reality we observe.
Versus the simple "people make up stories all the time"
@@christianhayter upon further inspection, out of the various explanations for miracles such as the resurrection, the simple fact that a miracle did indeed occur is the simplest explanation which also holds the most explanatory power and scope
@@christianhayter you don’t know history! You can take 12 jurors today and convince them that Jesus rose from the dead because the Jews and the Romans did not want a third sect vying for power such as Christians, so they would’ve produced the body of Jesus and said , go home he’s dead! but instead what happens in the next 300 years, severe persecution against Christianity, and it bloomed, instead of died out! Miracle or coincidence??
Secular historians wrote about Jesus and his followers, Pliney Thalles, soTenius, Tacitus, and Josephus !
A God of love has to leave evidence, and there’s more evidence than this ; >You cannot out psychologize the Bible for God not to throw you into hell for all eternity. In other words, you cannot come up with a good enough excuse here and now, so you will not be able to on judgment day. If you say you did not want to be born, God is going to say you should’ve been born again, that means become a Christian so that’s not gonna work. And there are no other excuses try to think of one. So now you know for the first time in your life, that the Bible is smarter than you and it is a steel trap, smarter than all of mankind, What should you do then? So at least investigate and look to see that these things are true, because right now you just learned the Bible is smarter than you, and you will be accountable for your life on judgment day before God!
Prophecy, the Bible is 27% prophecy, that’s future history written in advance. God‘s really sticking his neck out to get it cut off if he’s wrong, but he hasn’t been wrong about the thousands of prophecies that were fulfilled, so he’ll be right about the end of the world prophecies as well and you’ll have no excuse on judgment day for not looking for truth!
Caveat: you cannot look for God in times of chaos says Isaiah 45:19, so you better do it now. In other words,You’ll be too worried about your own survival when chaos hits, than your eternal destiny!
Statistic probability of 40 writers writing the Bible with zero margin of deviation, proves God wrote the Bible through the 40 writers!
God authored the Bible!
DNA does not auto encrypt, the code writer is outside of the code of the 3300000,000,000 lines of computer code in the human genome of our DNA! So who wrote the code to such sophistication?
1,000,000 seconds is 12 days, 1,000,000,000 seconds is 32 years! That’s the difference between 1 million and 1 billion!
One person’s DNA could fill the Grand Canyon up to 50 times full of books. John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did, the world wouldn’t have enough room for the books telling of it.“ this verse would be fulfilled!
Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“!
Psalm 139 is about the human body!
Your videos are greatly underappreciated. The quality and the content itself is just outstanding. You have my respect.
It’s quite sad that people still think this yet he wrote countless essays related to apologetics after this ‘debate’. Dr. Art Lindsley lays it out in his book CS Lewis’ case for Christ
I feel like the thumbnails and the editing are on an upwards trend when it comes to quality. Glad to see the presentation get better and better!
I read Victor Repperts book back in 2011, and it solidified the argument from reason as one of my favorite avenues to faith. He also does a great job poking holes in the Anscombe debate legends.
Thanks for doing this! I actually wrote about this debate in seminary. I find the nuances fascinating, especially considering that Anscombe was a believer as well.
Thank you for this video Gavin. I’m currently working my way through Harry Lee Poe’s 3 part biography of C.S. Lewis, and I’m now fascinated to see how this event is covered within it.
Thanks for another great video! As someone who is in ministry and also doing academic work, I would be really interested in a video on your academic process. How do you balance ministry and the academy? How do you prioritize sources, find new topics, think through potential answers to hard questions, etc. I think a video like that would be very helpful! Thankful for your continually helpful ministry!
Accessible and Humble: Yes! You do it well Sir. Love C.S. Lewis. I once had a brief conversation with the girl that worked with. It was extremely hostile towards the gospel and Christians and any mention of repentance. Then she told me how much she love the lion, the witch and the wardrobe, and I explain the gospel to her from that beautiful story. That Aslan is Jesus. She was blown away and understood, at least, in a cursory manner not only who Jesus was, but how Jesus was.
Gavin, I can’t thank you enough for this video. The Lord has blessed me so much through Lewis, and I’m glad to hear your excellent refutation of this myth that has been irresponsibly perpetuated about him.
I came here to say that "Miracles" is one of the most mentally challenging books I've ever read. I suspect most people dunk on C. S. Lewis because they see other people doing it, and have not really interacted with his work. And even more certainly I surmise that none of those dunking on him would surpass his intellect, if they match it at all. C. S. Lewis is of the finest thinkers I've ever read, and his place among the most astute of thinkers is well earned.
I read that when I was 14 , I didn't find it a hard read
@@deltadom33 that is remarkable
People think that since he has books that make philosophy and theological concepts highly accessible and engaging, it means he's not a serious thinker. That's one of the things that makes him so great, though. Lewis was able to take lofty ideas and write about them in ways average people could understand.
@@emmagrace6396 I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Hello dr.ortlund, thank you so much for these videos. You have been a great help in my spiritual journey. May the lord continue blessing you. Your video on ecclesial anxiety has aided me immensely. Thank you. Love from florida !
I’d never heard of this. Appreciate the insight!
Yesterday was 60 years since Lewis passed away.
May he rest in peace.
Cool, I never knew C.S Lewis and Elizabeth Anscombe personally interacted
So glad that you made this video.
Lewis loved fairy tales. His hero was also George Macdonald, a children’s fantasy writer. He loved these stories because he had a great love of mythology, and he viewed fairy tales as a medium for communicating myth, specifically the kind of true myths that we as Christians refer to as God’s general revelation. It was thru myth that Lewis became encountered joy and eventually Christ. In a sense, his stories serve as a form of powerful apologetics. It’s disappointing to hear such a strange psycho-analysis come from a ‘biographer’, but glad to see Gavin do right by Lewis.
-Lewis’ biggest fan
That makes a lot of sense. A man who loved fairy tales would readily believe that a man lived inside a fish and that 5000 dudes can be fed with 2 fish snacks
Did Lewis believe Jonah lived inside a fish or that it was sacred fiction? I think he’d be open to the ladder. But Christ did multiply food to feed thousands. These texts are different and a well-read person would understand them to be different genres.
I can tell by your snarky tone that you’re less interested in pursuing and hearing truth and more motivated by negative feelings towards Christianity. Therefore, your criticism is obviously coming from an irrational place and it undermines your credibility
You can't presuppose the "truth" before its proven that's indeed what happened. Outside the bible there is no evidence 5000 were really fed with a quantity food that wouldn't feed more than 3-4 people
It doesn't make sense and it doesn't comport to the reality we observe
Loving fairy tales as an adult is absolutely nothing to be proud of
“To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence…But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being grown up is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.” CS Lewis
Walking around feeling ashamed that someone may see you as an adult reading Harry Potter or the Hobbit or Chronicles of Narnia is the definition of insecurity.
Excellent, clear argument and well supported. Thank you. I sometimes feel agitated by the condescending manner in which great minds like C.S. Lewis are being portrayed, especially by the so-called New Atheists. It is actually a sophisticated way of using the ad-hominem approach!
Ooh snazzy production & editing! Very slick, but I will say the sound effects are a little distracting. Still---great video. Thanks for all you do!
Lewis is one of my all-time favorite authors. I believe him to be one of (if not, THE) the greatest thinker(s) of the 20th century.
And I would agree that the disdain for Lewis among academia has to do with either jealousy for his popularity, or a disdain for his clarity and simplicity, which I think takes way more bravery and skill as a writer than being overly-ambiguous and esoteric in our language. Great video!
Certainly, the request by BBC to present multiple episodes on which would later evolve into the book “Mere Christianity”, during WWII, offers insight as to Lewis’ popularity with the public. It was definitely a challenging time, but that is when we need such authors like C.S. Lewis!
Cheers🇨🇦
Or maybe it's because his arguments are weak and easily refuted.
Academia is an odd profession full of very bright people with agendas and egos. For many, their pride rests in their record in influencing society, the number of peer reviewed articles they have published and, of course, winning arguments. Winning an argument is no guarantee that the winning argument is correct. History is littered with disastrous events that were the result of bright people winning arguments but couldn’t in fact run an orgy in a brothel.
Thank you Gavin for setting the record straight. I am an admirer of both Lewis and Anscombe.
Love the new editing, really clean and well done, dial back some on the sound design and you’re perfect 👌
Just noticed a small detail sir Gavin, there's improvement with the editing of effects in your presentation! Keep it up sir!
Absolutely excellent. Glad to hear a strong context-derived debunking of this myth (myth in the pejorative sense).
Woa, video and editing quality went way up on this video. Keep it up Gavin 👍🙏
You're right. People often don't appreciate how very impressive Lewis' literary criticism, his professional academic work, was. And you're right that he learned to hide its sheer weight, to an extent. However that's less hidden in The Allegory of Love, his first major book, which is simply intellectually dazzling, as well as being beautifully written. So good that like most of his literary criticism, it can (and should) be read for pleasure, while one benefits from being educated at the same time.
Well done Gavin. You have made a great contribution to how people can appreciate CSL’s literature and arguments.
Wow the presentation has seriously improved! It was great before but the small touches and sound effects breathe a little more life in the videos.
@TruthUnites Dear Dr. Ortlund, just to say thank again for all you do, and if I might make a request - I would be very interested in hearing you cover something on the Protestant 'tradition' of music/congregational singing/hymn writing.
God bless.
Great video, Gavin! I’m currently editing a book featuring multiple philosophers who are defending - and strengthening - Lewis’s Argument From Reason. It will hopefully be published in 2024.
Many great historical figures are slandered like this...
This is well done. Loving the new graphic work throughout the episode too!
This thumbnail made me chuckle haha. Seeing Gavin just barely poking out of the bottom was so funny for some reason
Great topic! I asked Max McLean about Lewis' debate with Anscombe after his performance of "The Most Reluctant Convert" and whether he thought that affected Lewis' career. He didn't really have an answer as he didn't know much about that particular moment in Lewis' life.
"...but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect..." (1 Peter 3:15)
So, there is a place for apologetics.
But we should always remember that it is never about winning, always about the Spirit using the opportunity to plant a seed in someone's heart. And rarely will it change minds that are already made up.
Amen!
I try not to use schools of thought or leaders of philosophies as a description but there is much scripture which explicitly defines that God knew who was saved before the world began, those who are called to him are his and those destined for destruction he is patient with.
I do think we should continue to evangelize as we are told to do so and that WE don't know who we may save when we properly do as the Lord has commanded us, though there is also good reason to believe most will reject God unless called by him. So don't be discouraged when few heed the word of the Lord.
@stephenbailey9969 Imagine if Christians followed that verse, or engaged in any form of honest discussion or debate. Honest being the key word. And why would God's spirit guide anyone towards Christian idolatry? And define lord?
"Do not cast pearls before swine" also comes to mind
@@kriegjaeger Of course it does, it's the eternal cop-out when Christians refuse to honour 1 Pet. 3:15. Irony is lost on them.
@@youknowitstrue3826
Will someone who hates you be convinced by any evidence or argument?
I love the thumbnail for this.
"Writing plainly" is EXACTLY the mark of a great thinker/writer, according to Lewis's own introduction to "On the Incarnation,' by St. Athansias. Why read a book About Plato when you can read Plato? And don't be afraid that the great thinkers will be too far over your head; one thing that makes them so great is that they are actually understandable, whereas the latest scholarly book about Platonism will be very difficult for most readers. Great thinkers can explain their thoughts on all levels. So even if Lewis's later works were 'written plainly,' that means nothing. Thank you for the wonderful video; I had never heard of this debate nor the controversy about it.
I love the new graphics!
Really nice! Had me wondering what those authors were seeing, if Lewis literally published apologetics works after that debate. And even in Surprised By Joy (Lewis's own autobiography), he talked about the whimsy he experienced in childhood play, when he and his brother would construct entire fantasy worlds to play in; it seems obvious this had long been a part of him, not just something he fell into pursuing because he felt incapable of writing what he "really wanted to." Sending this to my friend Mike at Apologetics, Inc.! (formerly known as the C.S. Lewis Society).
Never heard of this idea before nor had I gotten even the slightest whiff of it from my own extensive reading of Lewis's essays.
When I read "The Silver Chair" I also see that lewis didn't abandon apologetics. The great climax is a debate where the Green witch is trying to convince Jill, Eustace, and Puddleglum that their surface world isn't real.
Great video! I've found Lewis one of the most compelling authors in any genre he's written. He just has "it".
Also, not to imply Lewis' argument failed, but can we agree that even a "failed" argument is still very valuable for the conversation it spurs from which better, clearer, more precise definitions and arguments arise? It feels to me that any earnest philosophical proposition is inherently valuable even if it can be utterly refuted.
Jacobs' book is fantastic. Absolutely loved reading it.
I think like most people, Lewis was completely disappointed in reason to be able to convince anyone of anything if they are committed to their own point of view. Debate had simply become a game which skeptics only ever wanted a stalemate by denying all things. In the end if only one person is interested in playing and the other is just set on spoiling because theu know they can't even begin to play, it is not worth it.
Perfectly stated sir
There are some thing that though evidently true, just need to be ...."seen"
For example try arguing with a hardened physicalist about how his system destroys the concept of reason and you'll find this out.
Sometimes art is a better way to reach people
I like Lewis and Anscombe
Thank you for this video! I have loved reading CS Lewis. And videos like yours that break down these topics are fascinating. I don't know that I would have appreciated Till We Have Faces had I not watched your video on that book. It was a great outline as I reread it!
14:26 And though I had listened to That Hideous Strength many many many times on audio book, it seemed I got more and more as I listened to it. I didn't have the words to describe what I thought he was outlining in the contrast difference between Modernity and Middle Ages. Really enjoyed this and the videos related to his other works! 😊
This was fun! Thank you kind sir!
I really think Platinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism is far superior to Lewis’s argument from reason. Although, Lewis’s argument from reason still demands genuine consideration, as Plantinga’s argument wouldn’t exist without it.
The two arguements amount to the same thing essentially
And Lewises method gets to the heart of the matter better
Plantingas is just more digestible to thhe mind of a man steeped in naturalistic ways of thinking
which says a lot about Lewis since Platingas evolutionary argument is, let me be kind and say, misguided.
Thank you. Newly discovered 👍
Three things:
1. Thank you. This video is excellent. I agree, this issue gets blown way out of proportion, and I agree with Anscombe that the best explanation is "projection."
2. I would love it if you made a video going through the points of contention between Anscombe and Lewis and if Lewis' revised argument meets the challenges - I know you already touched on that briefly in this video.
3. An addition to this video, if I may be so bold: even if Lewis only wrote children's literature after this debate, that does nothing to show that he did not engage in apologetics. For that would be to assume that children's literature cannot be apologetic. It seems to me, only a fool would dismiss children's literature as a possible source for deep insight - apologetic or otherwise.
How you write depends on who you're writing for. I'm a professional writer of fiction and non-fiction, but not an academic. Lewis was both. In general, distilling a difficult concept into simple, clear language should always be the goal, and Lewis did that better than anyone. If you can't explain the concept simply, you don't understand it well enough. Writing for academia is more rigid and demands more complexity but that's what made him a genius. He did both. He wrote for everyone. He just didn't have the typical intellectual snobbery to go along with it. He was humble to admit his mistakes and clarify his positions. In general, I find the literary academy (at least the local folk I know) to be quite ivory-tower level snobby. (They don't sell the books that Lewis did, either.) Thank you for defending my literary hero, Gavin. I enjoyed this.
Thank you. I had uncritically bought into the myth that Anscombe had somehow "destroyed " Lewis' argument.
Lewis abandoned his atheist position at age 32 and joined the Church of England much to the dismay of his close friends J.R.R. Tolkein who wanted him to convert to Catholicism.
People change their beliefs all the time. I expect it.
Excellent, Gavin
"The Great Divorce" is my favorite genre.
Love this video. This taught me something new I had never knew about Lewis!
Anyone opposing Lewis' ideas would of course try to create narrative showing him in a bad light. And those others who want to deny Lewis' ideas, because they strike a spiritual nerve, will glom onto and continue the bad light narrative; even though it is not true. Very familiar scenario in human existence.
Good job with this, good sir.
I think CS Lewis had a huge influence on you. Which is why you gave a well proportionate defense for him. Good video.
It is important to know that Anscombe was no lightweight. She did her PhD with Wittgenstein and went on to translate and edit Wittgenstein's posthumous work, Philosophical Investigations.
Excellent! I believe you are spot on about Lewis....
Lewis couldn't handle the emerging atheistic notions in philosophical circles about explanatory adequacy, prior assumptions, vagueness about key terms, and general metatheoretic issues. Look at the devasting effect of Flew and Wisdom when they finally published on those themes (except for straightforward metatheoretic analysis). 3 key articles did almost all the damage, and all three arguments +still+ have not been addressed by any Christian apologist. And here we are.
Thank you for this!
Why does Christianity have a branch of study called apologetics? If we believe it, why does it matter if somebody else criticizes us for it?
It’s not a branch really. Its root can be found in the Bible.
”But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;“
I Peter 3:15 NKJV
If we believe in Jesus, we must be ready to articulate why we do so. Our faith isn’t blind. It is based on the evidence of Jesus. Stephen, Peter, Paul, etc were asked why they believed and gave answers.
I think it's actually to Lewis' credit if he felt defeated. In my experience, many religious apologists are bumptiously confident about the strength of their arguments.
Of course, we should also point out that Anscombe was a devout Roman Catholic. It's not like she was some atheist or something.
Thanks
The Medieval Mind of CS Lewis is a lovely read to add to your list 😊
Thank you for this beautifully cogent discussion. Some of the reports about the debate would have us believing that Lewis fled in dismay immediately afterwards, but nothing in his or Anscombe's notes gives this credibility, and the idea that Anscombe became the source of the White Witch is gob-smackingly silly. As an elderly atheist, perhaps I can add that no writer has shaped my study or my attitude to life as much as this truly remarkable man.
Despite your belief, you can appreciate Lewis 🙂 - you might want to have another look at his defence of Christianity and God. Take off your lenses and check him out again.
@@philipd8868 Thank you for your comment, Phillip. As it is, I continue to read Lewis -in fact I am rereading 'The Great Divorce' at present. I prize Lewis's intelligence, humanity, clarity and learning, but I disagree fundamentally at times with some of his premises; those times are rare, but they mean that I cannot accept his most important conclusions about Christianity and God. I know that Lewis hated hypocrisy, and I would not dishonour him by pretending to accept what I find unacceptable. With kind regards.
First comment! Your videos are wonderful!
Good take!
10:54 C S Lewis wrote a forward to a friends translation of Athanasius' Incarnation of the Word which later appeared as "On The Reading Of Old Books" in "God In The Dock" where he said that many beginners are afraid that they won't understand the ancient philosophers and responded "if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator".
I havent read AN Wilson's book but I did enjoy the tv documentary he did on Lewis. It was on UK tv so not sure if available in the US. He did say Lewis had a rather odd relationship with his late comrade's mum who he had promised to look after. But overall enjoyable.
At 60, I’ve come to the point of being excited about being shown errors in my thinking. If I think of my own theology as a “product “ to be sold, rather than the actual journey it is, then I’m fragile. I think Lewis in the end was the opposite- a resilient believer and scholar.
I agree about the difficulty of writing clearly and understandably. Those who write academically are often very bright but use jargon terms that hide as much as they reveal--sometimes they don't really understand the terms themselves (I know because, I graduated from graduate school, and I was one of them). The brilliant writer appreciates the essence of the argument so well that jargon is irrelevant. Once that level of mastery is reached the author can write for almost any audience. As did Lewis and in other contexts Mortimer Adler.
Amazing how the simple rebuff was missed. Scales do not measure and assign weight to smth. The person using the scales does.
I mean, at the end of that day, does it matter that he felt confident in his assertions and previous books? Regardless of whether HE was confident doesn’t undermine the soundness of his arguments we’ve found to be so for so long. A good argument is a good argument.
Really interesting. I thought the comments about his academic colleagues writing him off for writing a popular level. One of my lecturers at theological college had been one of William Barclay's PHD students and said that Barclay was constantly told that by writing for the church rather than the academy he was wasting his talent and throwing away his career
If the claims of religions do not comport to the reality we observe, we should be justified in rejecting them.
The claims of Christianity do not comport to the reality we observe
The Intelligentsia can be the fourth road to the cross. God! I miss Fulton Sheen. Have a blessed day.
Dr. Ortlund, did you ever have the pleasure of meeting James Houston (from Regent College, Vancouver) while at Fuller? He would occasionally teach classes at Fuller. Anyway, Houston didn't talk about it until late in his career, but he was a friend of Lewis' while at Oxford.
Love the thumbnail 😂
Even if Lewis had abandoned his arguments and apologetics that doesn't mean anything, if the logic of his positions holds true. It's an argument from authority. It's like, on the other side, the oft-repeated story that Darwin recanted his theories on his deathbed (or later in life or whenever). If you find an argument to be logical and valid, a mere recantation by the person who made the argument doesn't refute its logic or validity. It may be a good occasion to go and give the argument a second look, but if the logic still holds, then its the recantation that's in error (if the recantation ever happened at all).
I wholly endorse Planet Narnia. I do like its point that perhaps the Narnia books _were_ a result of that debate, as he set about putting his notion of enjoyment vs. contemplation into practice.
You're doing the job well. Carry on.
Anscombe later wrote that Lewis' critics regarding his "turn" were projecting their own insecurities on to him. Given what we know of the brain today Haldane was wrong. Plus Truth is something we pursue in God's Creation not something that exists on our thoughts.
Thank you for clearing that up. I had been slightly affected by that fog of disinformation myself.
My impression from how Lewis friends described his reaction to the Anscombe debate later the same afternoon when they met in a pub is that he was very surprised at how formidable she was. Anscombe was a very unusual person and a very formidable opponent. If it was probably enough that a younger woman should have put him on the defensive that would have made him wonder if he was losing his edge but it
Anybody who has studied apologetics long enough has come to realize some of the arguments that they once thought were good no longer are and vice versa. This is a very normal part of the process. To think that someone like CS Lewis would jump ship on apologetics altogether because a single one of his arguments was challenged and perhaps shown to be lacking seems entirely juvenile and naive. Although I appreciate the argument from reason, it is certainly not the first one I jump to in order to try and show someone that God exists, and that Christianity is true. I see it as a fun secondary sort of argument. I would imagine CS Lewis would think something similar about it in the first place.
Good piece here. Quite frankly I find no evidence that debates ever
actually resolve anything for most people. The whole structure of them is prone to be subjectively interpreted as to who actually "wins." Usually the audience who already have their favorites will think everything the favorite says is great anyway on both sides. I've also found that some of the greatest writers and thinkers don't necessarily do their best presentations in a format that presents with time limits and expected and unexpected attacks on your thinking. It's very fluid and dynamic what will arise and not everyone is able to quickly compose a good answer on the spot without more time to think more clearly. It doesn't mean they don't have the better answer in their brain. It's very different from writing books where you have unlimited time to refine your argument and rephrase your wording and get lots of feedback before publishing. Debate is just a format that takes extreme skills and some that are good debaters aren't always great thinkers either. If you can do both you are in rarified air. Jesus succeeded to the point his detractors quit asking questions.
11:00. The only theologian/apologist who is remotely as accessible as Lewis was R.C. Sproul. And I expect him to be dismissed as a "popular theologian" within 5yrs as well.
So what was the argument and rebuttal of the actual debate?
Outside the Church there is no salvation.
Liked and subscribed ❤
Very interested in both Lewis and Anscombe!
*Anyways, Gavin, what do you personally make of all the internal politicking and, say, structural strife inside the RCC?*
As for myself, as someone interested in both Catholicism and Protestantism, the infighting and drama always going on in the RCC really deters me, even if there is so much else I find attractive. Doubtless there is infighting in some Protestant denominations and churches as well, but because of the centralized structure so particular of Catholicism, it just seems so much more unpalatable.
Infighting is a human characteristic - unfortunately it exists, and has existed in pretty much all branches of Christianity that I'm aware of. I think the reason it stings more when it shows up in the RCC though is due to their exclusivist claim to being The Chair of Peter, and the surrounding claims of infallibility and apostolic succession, etc. In short, they elevate themselves above all others, and thus when the same problems that everyone else has manifest in them, it is a more visible and profound problem.
Christ came to bring and give us a sword, not peace in this fallen world. If you are not willing to pick up said sword and become a spiritual warrior, you should not just give up only the true Faith and complete comminion of Apostolic Catholicism, but Christianity as a whole. There are no cowards nor lazy people in Heaven. I became convinced of the Truth of the Catholic Church exactly because Satan is trying to infiltrate, mock and destroy Her from within. I hope you presevere! May our Heavenly Mother bless you!
@@tategarrett3042 Would it be poor judgement to take that as an indication that their claim to authority is false?
@@bookishbrendan8875 well I think it's more problematic for them to have these issues because they basically claim to be above them. So while the issues themselves may not stand as a damning blow against Rome's claims to authority and infallibility they definitely pose a problem - one which for me is a part of why I'm not Roman Catholic though certainly not the main reason.
@nmpltleopardi A Protestant can make the same argument. He might say he's convinced of Protestantism because Satan has worked so hard to destroy it. Evidenced by the division and varying messages from within.
I guess if he wrote apologetics after the debate, the debate was not necessarily the cause of him abandoning apologetics for children's book. Maybe he was just ready for a change.