Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!news.bbn.com!olivea!charnel!rat!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!christian
From:  (Phil Bowermaster)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: C. S. Lewis is OK (was Ancient Books)
Message-ID: <Apr.17.01.11.01.1993.2249@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 93 05:11:02 GMT
Sender: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Lines: 49
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

In article <Apr.14.03.07.58.1993.5438@athos.rutgers.edu>,
mayne@ds3.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) wrote:

> 
> The last sentence is ironic, since so many readers of
> soc.religion.christian seem to not be embarrassed by apologists such as
> Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis. The above also expresses a rather odd sense
> of history. What makes you think the masses in Aquinas' day, who were
> mostly illiterate, knew any more about rhetoric and logic than most people
> today? If writings from the period seem elevated consider that only the
> cream of the crop, so to speak, could read and write. If everyone in
> the medieval period "knew the rules" it was a matter of uncritically
> accepting what they were told.
> 
> Bill Mayne
> 
> [This may be unfair to Lewis.  The most prominent fallacy attributed
> to him is the "liar, lunatic, and lord".  As quoted by many
> Christians, this is a logical fallacy.  In its original context, it
> was not.  --clh]


Exactly. 

C. S. Lewis has taken a couple of pretty severe hits in this group lately.
First somebody was accusing him of being self-righteous and unconvincing.
Now we are told that we Christians should be embarrassed by him. (As well
as by Josh McDowell, about whom I have no comment, having never read his
work.)

Anyone who thinks that C. S. Lewis was self-righteous ought to read his
introduction to The Problem of Pain, which is his theodicy. In it, he
explains that he wanted to publish the book anonymously. Why? Although he
believed in the argument he was presenting, he did not want to seem to
presume to tell others how brave they should be in the face of their own
suffering. He did not want people to think that he was presenting himself
as some kind of model of fortitude, or that he was anything other than what
he considered himself to be -- "a great coward." 

OFM has adequately handled the question of whether we ought to be
embarrassed by Lewis' liar/lunatic/lord argument (which, by the way, is
part of a *much* bigger discourse.) I would just like to add that, far from
being embarrassed by Lewis, I am in a state of continual amazement at the
soundness and clarity of the arguments he presents. 

- Phil -

Hey, we're talking about the PHONE COMPANY, here. The Phone Company doesn't
have opinions on this kind of stuff. This is all me.
