C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion

by John Beversluis

C. S. Lewis was one of the most influential Christian apologists of the 20th century. An Oxford don and former atheist who converted to Christianity in 1931, he gained a wide following during the 1940s as the author of a number of popular apologetic books such as Mere Christianity, Miracles, and The Problem of Pain in which he argued for the truth of Christianity. Today his reputation is greater than ever―partly because of his books and partly because of the movie Shadowlands, starring Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger.In advocating Christianity, Lewis did not appeal to blind faith, but to reason. Convinced that Christianity is rationally defensible, he boldly "I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it." But do Lewis's arguments survive critical scrutiny?In this revised and expanded edition of his book originally published in 1985, philosopher John Beversluis takes Lewis at his word, sympathetically examines his "case for Christianity," and concludes that it fails.Beversluis examines Lewis's argument from desire―the "inconsolable longing" that he interpreted as a pointer to a higher reality; his moral argument for the existence of a Power behind the moral law; his contention that reason cannot be adequately explained in naturalistic terms; and his solution to the Problem of Evil, which many philosophers regard as the decisive objection to belief in Christianity. In addition, Beversluis considers issues in the philosophy of religion that developed late in Lewis's life―such as Antony Flew's criticisms of Christian theology. He concludes with a discussion of Lewis's crisis of faith after the death of his wife and answers the Did C. S. Lewis lose his faith? Finally, in this second edition, Beversluis replies to critics of the first edition.As the only critical study of C. S. Lewis's apologetic writings, this readable and intellectually stimulating book should be on the bookshelves of anyone interested in the philosophy of religion.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Nonfiction, Theology

363 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1985

Reviews

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

I grew up reading C.S. Lewis, both his fiction and his works of apologetics. The Chronicles of Narnia led me to Tolkien and his arguments for Christianity nourished my faith in high school. He is an excellent writer and his two best works, "The Screwtape Letters" and "The Great Divorce" are worth reading for their prose alone.
When I went to college and started taking philosophy courses however, it became impossible to take his apologetics seriously. This book by John Beversluis goes through all of Lewis' major arguments and demolishes them one by one with logic. Beversluis does an excellent job of reconstructing the arguments he refutes; there are no straw men in his analysis that I could find. Moreover, at several points throughout the book he displays a better understanding of orthodox Christianity than Lewis and faults him on theological grounds.
I would recommend this book to believers and non-believers alike. Those who believe should engage with Beversluis if for no other reason than to see the skeptic at his contrarian best. They shouldn't come away too devastated though. C. S. Lewis, while very popular today, is not Christianity's best spokesperson. It may also be the case that St. Anselm was right: you have to believe so that you may understand.

[Nancy Butts · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the revised and updated 2007 edition, not the original 1985 edition. Beversluis is an emeritus professor of philosophy at Butler University in Indiana and was apparently one of the first—and few—academic philosophers to take Lewis’ work as a Christian apologist seriously. Beversluis’ conclusions are not going to make Lewis fans happy, and as someone who has read and appreciated Lewis’ books since I was fifteen, I would have thought I’d be unhappy, too.

But I am not. Perhaps that is because as impressed and even awed I was as a teenager by C.S. Lewis’ intelligence and the reasons he gave why a thinking person ought to believe in Christianity, I always had nagging questions. My first response to Lewis’ famous trilemma—Jesus was either liar, lunatic, or Lord—was, “Wait, those aren’t the only three options.” I never understood why it wasn’t acceptable to consider a fourth possibility: that Jesus was honestly mistaken. Then later in college, after I’d studied the New Testament in a couple of religion courses, there was a fifth possibility as well. How do we know with any certainty what Jesus said about who he was?

So despite my admiration for Lewis, perhaps I was primed to accept the kind of critical analysis that Dr. Beversluis makes of Lewis’ logic and theology in his various books of Christian apologetics. I didn’t always follow that critique. Chapter 6 especially is filled with philosophical vocabulary that I struggled to understand. But I thought Beversluis was fair to Lewis and made many strong points.

Not everyone agrees on that score. This revised edition includes Beversluis’ direct response to his critics, some of whom were apparently quite strident in their denunciation of him. But although Beversluis ultimately comes to the conclusion that Lewis failed in his efforts to provide consistent rational reasons for belief in Christianity, he retains his admiration for Lewis. Beversluis writes of Lewis at the end of the book that he was “a man whose uncommon intellectual honesty and moral integrity elicit the abiding respect of those who remain unconvinced by his arguments.”

[Paul C. Stalder · Rating 4 out of 5]

C.S. Lewis may be more enjoyable to read than John Beversluis, but the arguments Beversluis makes are far more sound, compelling, and persuasive. This observation, however, could accurately describe a central thesis of Beversluis' work; Lewis' theological arguments, while captivatingly written, lack rhetorical force.

In what can only be described as a comprehensive look at Lewis' theology, Beversluis carefully, and thoughtfully dismantles the arguments and apologetics of this literary giant. Filled with wit, and answers to rebuttals from the initial edition, Beversluis has made a captivating reader to accompany a trounce through Lewis' non-fiction works.

This book, however, is not for everyone. Beversluis is a philosopher to the core and flies this flag proudly. If philosophical writing does not interest you, steer clear. If, however, you want to wade through a well-written challenge to one of the most influential Christian authors of the 20th century, this is the book to check out.

[Error Theorist · Rating 4 out of 5]

While the book is structurally muddled and would do well with the addition of subchapters, its content is top notch, as ought to be expected from a professional. My main interest is confined to the chapters on the argument from desire, reason, and the moral argument. The rest of the book was interesting, but my own interests lie outside of its scope.

The chapter on the argument from desire was structurally muddled but covered the major reasons why it fails (in my mind). The opaque scope of ‘desire’ in the argument renders its intentional object’s universality suspect. On top of that, according to the author, Lewis didn’t event take into account the possibility of the intentional object being nonexistent. Furthermore, the idea that the intentional object of a desire ought to be transparent to the person holding the desire seems rather intuitive, so Lewis's idea of a desire of we know-not-what seems incoherent. I would be open to a clever counterexample to that rule, though.

The chapter(s) on the moral argument were the most confusing due to the structural issues mentioned above. I found myself going back to re-read things I just finished to see what the author’s point was with the various different discussions going on at once. The author’s depiction of ethical subjectivism was fair, accurate, but a bit cursory. That’s fine, though, since it was enough to deal with Lewis’s misunderstanding of the position, and thus to deal with his reasons for rejecting it as an alternative.

The chapter on the argument from reason suffered from the same problems mentioned above, but also had its own problem. The author sufficiently dealt with Lewis’s rendition of the argument, and Anscombe's critiques are strongly represented; but his discussion of Victor Reppert’s version is seriously lacking. While his rebuttals show promise, the entire discussion lacks the required length and depth to sufficiently deal with the conceptual nuances of Reppert’s argument.

Overall, the book was a good counter to Lewis’s cumulative apologetic. I would recommend the book to anybody who was a big fan of Lewis and wanted to see what the opposition looks like.

[Zenaphobe67 · Rating 4 out of 5]

A long time ago I read Lewis' works and thought that they made a pretty solid case for the Christian faith, but after reading this book, it's evident in hindsight that I was more convinced by Lewis' rhetoric than by the soundness of his arguments.

I believe the author did a very good job of sticking to the facts and examined Lewis' arguments in a fair and even handed manner. Being this is a second edition, he even addresses objections that were made by several Lewis defenders and shows that their criticisms seemed to spring more from some sort of Lewis worship then anything of substance.

The problem of suffering still remains one of the most intractable problems for those believers who want to define God as "good" in any sense that is recognizable when humans use the term "good". The Euthyphro dilemma is still a force to be reckoned with, and the author goes into great detail as to why Lewis failed to resolve it in a manner that does not require us to abandon the common use of language.

[Michael Perkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Review of book by a former evangelical pastor and apologist.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/C...

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm glad that I found this critical study of the arguments of Lewis - it challenges a figure in Christianity that definitely need some real hard challenging. I must also note that I did not reread Lewis for the sake of this book or review, so I have only in front of mind the excerpts that Beversluis provide in the book.

There missteps Beversluis makes are more often subtle than clear, but my overall dislikes come from the points of the general idea of a critique like this. I find that the fault lies in that Beverluis does not himself put clearly where he stands. When he argues that "here Lewis is wrong" he seldom tells us what is right. This means that Lewis may have been more in the right than his own standpoint on the issue. Also, when going after what he seems as Lewis weaker argument, he should also include what is the better(or the best possible) argument on the issue. He has to interpret Lewis, and he seems to do that wrongly on many a turn. Even a slight misstep may falter the argument he makes, and sometimes that does happen. Often than that, he has to extend Lewis arguments into chains of thinking that exist elsewhere in theology and philosophy, and then go rambling about the wrong horse. It seems that Beverluis sometimes goes on a slight character assassination, in the sense that he needs to apply motive to Lewis so that the reader reads Lewis in the same way he does. Another aspect of this is the way he tries to rip down every single thing he sees wrong in Lewis to the extent that it became tiresome. There is also a sense that these arguments were somehow the epitome of Lewis belief, but I see them more as arguments he in his style and thinking found new and forceful and that is why he made them. Lewis knew well about the other arguments for God's existence, but the argument from desire was what made him realize and take the jump - and for a Christian, in a world where God is real, the argument both rings and is true - the only shatter Beversluis applies is the validity as a philosophical and logical one from a neutral outset.

All in all, it is a bit "negative" book, but full of both good scholarly arguments and broader explanations of the implication and some of the variants there are, but mostly full of impugning on Lewis words(and also misplacing motive). I enjoyed very much the discussion from "The Problem of Evil" that culminated in "A Grief Observed" via some essays. On another note, there is a lot to keep in mind when reading the book - and when the layout is a bit messy sometimes(especially when trying to explain and interpret the words of Lewis) and probably more than ever in my second edition, the reading is sometimes a bit cumbersome.

I would so much have likened Lewis to have read and responded to the book. I wonder how many "thas was not what I was trying to say" he would have found...

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A NOT-UNSYMPATHETIC CRITIQUE OF LEWIS’S APOLOGETIC WRITINGS

[NOTE: This review pertains to the original 1985 paperback edition.]

Author James Beversluis wrote in the Introduction to this 1985 book, “it is as a Christian apologist that [Lewis] is best known, and it is on his apologetic writings that I will be focusing. In them we discover the quintessential Lewis: the ‘mere’ Christian who once described himself as ‘a very ordinary laymen of the Church of England…’ … during the course of his own lifetime he became known as ‘the apostle to the skeptics,’ ‘the man who made righteousness readable,’ and one of the most influential spokesmen for orthodox Christianity in the twentieth century.” (Pg. ix-x) He adds, “I am… recording my conviction that C.S. Lewis needs to be rescued not only from the evils of excessive hostility but also and equally from the evils of excessive loyalty. His apologetic writings deserve better than cavalier rejection or uncritical acceptance… Lewis was committed not only to the truth of Christianity but to debating it with all comers. An open forum of this kind is rare. In what follows, I take up his challenge as I reconstruct and critically examine his case for Christianity.” (Pg. xiii-xiv)

He states in the first chapter, “Many Christians are perfectly willing… to acknowledge that there are no proofs for the existence of God and that it is hard to reconcile their religious beliefs with the observed facts…. Lewis rejected this view on the ground that it surrenders the case for rational religion at the very outset. He considered it as a serious mistake to define faith as belief in propositions for which there is no evidence, and he maintained that those who advocate ‘leaps of faith’ do a grave disservice to the Christian religion.” (Pg. 1)

Of Lewis’s assertion of a Moral Law within us, he comments, “Lewis did not… think that this argument proves the existence of the God of Christianity, but he did think it proves the existence of a Power behind the universe in general and behind the Moral Law in particular… Convinced that he has established the existence of a Power behind the Moral law, he proceed elucidate the nature of the God believed in by Christians and to explain how this God is related to that Power.” (Pg. 36)

He points out, “One of Lewis’s most serious weaknesses as an apologist is his fondness for the false dilemma. He habitually confronts his readers with the alleged necessity of choosing between two alternatives when there are in fact other options to be considered. One horn of the dilemma typically sets forth Lewis’s view in all its apparent forcefulness, while the other is
A ridiculous straw man. EITHER the universe is the product of a conscious Mind OR it is a mere ‘fluke’… EITHER morality is a revelation OR it is an inexplicable illusion… EITHER morality is grounded in the supernatural OR it is a ‘mere twist’ in the human mind… No matter how often he repeats the arguments, he never makes good his claim that an adequate theory of morality MUST be grounded in the supernatural.” (Pg. 43)

Of the ‘Liar, Lunatic, Lord’ Trilemma, he observes, “Perhaps Lewis thought that if Jesus’ claims about himself were false, we would have to conclude that they were lies. But that does not follow either. We could simply suppose that although he sincerely believed that he was God, he was mistaken. This would bring us to the same problem: why should the mere fact that he was mistaken about himself have any implications for the soundness and acceptability of his moral teachings?... Lewis failed to realize that the question of whether Jesus’ factual claims about himself are true is wholly separate from the question of whether his teachings are sound. If we deny that Jesus was God, we are not compelled to say that he was a lunatic; all we have to say is that his claim to be God was false. The word ‘lunatic’ simply clouds the issue with emotional rhetoric.” (Pg. 55)
He recounts, “On February 2, 1948… the British philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe… read a paper entitled, ‘A Reply to Mr. C.S. Lewis’s Argument that “Naturalism” Is Self-Defeating’ to the Oxford Socratic Club. Lewis responded, and an exchange followed. Various people have commented on the outcome of that famous meeting. Humphrey Carpenter claims that Lewis was unprepared for the ‘severely critical analysis’ to which his arguments were subjected… Anscombe herself is said to have responded to [a] query about the encounter by ‘removing a cigar from her mouth only long enough to say, “I won.”’ … Alan Bede Griffith… says that Lewis not only told him and Anscombe had ‘completely demolished ‘his argument.” (Pg. 65-66)

He observes, “One cannot read ‘Miracles’ and doubt for a moment that Lewis is enjoying himself at the naturalists’ expense. But his celebration of the defeat of naturalism is premature. Again and again his ‘refutation’ depends on the shaky foundation of the strawman argument and the false dilemma… As with the Lord-or-lunatic dilemma, these alternatives are simply not exhaustive. Intermediate positions remain open to us. Naturalism is one of them.” (Pg. 83)

He states, “Lewis’s talk of being a ‘reluctant convert’ starts wearing noticeably thin after a while. Who, after all, would be RELUCTANT to abandon the absurd views he ascribes to subjectivists, naturalists, and atheists?” (Pg. 90)

He argues, “it is simply not true that if God had created the world differently, he would have rules out the possibility of human freedom. Those who account for the existence of evil by appealing to the concept of free will habitually imply that freedom is an all-or-nothing affair, that men are either worldly free of not free at all. They fail to recognize that … No one is wholly free. But the mere fact that we are not free to do some things is in no way incompatible with our being free to do other things.” (Pg. 110)

After the death of Lewis’s wife and his book ‘A Grief Observed,’ he states, “Although Lewis found a refuge in Ockhamism, he was still disquieted by the problem of suffering, and he continued to be disquieted… In ‘A Grief Observed’ Lewis arrives at a halfway house that provides him with neither the consolation of Platonism nor the settled resignation of Ockhamism.” (Pg. 156)

He concludes, “Yet after ‘A Grief Observed’ we can no longer read those earlier books as we once read them. For we now know that… Lewis himself came to have grave doubts about the views he had so confidently and even joyously defended in them---doubts out of which he could not find his way. This fact casts an eerie retrospective light over his entire career as an apologist… Taken as a whole… Lewis’s apologetic writings do not embody a religion that satisfied his own definition of rationality… Although the Lewis cult has made him out to be something he never was, and although Lewis the man must be distinguished from Lewis the myth and elemental force, his apologetic writings repay study---even if not for the reason he wrote them.” (Pg. 166-167)

This is an excellent critical study of Lewis’s apologetics, that will be “must reading” for students of his approach to apologetics.

[Kris · Rating 3 out of 5]

At first I thought Beversluis was taking a modest approach to criticism on Lewis, appreciating him for what things he explores, and pointing out simple weaknesses. Then as I got further into this text, I realized how biting and cynical Beversluis's tone could be. He tackles Lewis's analogies with an acrid fervor, using a debate-like approach to tear up his analogies into little tiny pieces. Lewis himself was no professional theologian, and no debater. Yet he treats Lewis's words like they are supposed to somehow stand up to this minutely-detailed, compartmentalized, dry approach to apologetics.

He accuses Lewis of generalizations, where Lewis never meant to be specific, and then makes generalizations himself. Beversluis often defends the "other side" of some arguments (such as the Naturalists), and yet he never seems to fully grasp the nature of Christianity. I felt that he even blatantly ignored some basic points Lewis was trying to make, nit-picking other words to death. He pokes holes in practically every picture Lewis creates, jumps to connections the man did not intend, and pulls the reader along with snarky questions that get you nowhere.

And yet it is somehow still very well written...? I could tell Beversluis is a very learned man, and a very good writer. His vocabulary is extensive, grammar well-structured, and I actually enjoyed seeing where he led me sometimes. Though his paragraphs seemed often detached, and I didn't understand the logic behind the structure of the book.

Every once in a while it scared me that I still enjoyed reading parts of this book, even though the snarky refutations made me scoff, and wince, and huff at all his pretentiousness. I wouldn't mind having this on my shelf, although I would advise one to read it with a watchful eye and a few grains of salt on hand.

[Jc · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am giving this four stars but with a warning…if you are not VERY familiar with philosophical writing, not to mention high-level theological argumentation, you will only find this book confusing or even boring. That being said, this is not only the ONLY serious book-length criticism of C.S. Lewis and his ideas, it is also an extremely well-written and learned exploration of Lewis’s works and their influence on lay christian thought. Even if one has respect for CSL’s “theology,” which I do not*, this book is worth reading to understand problems hidden in his arguments. This, the completely rewritten “Revised and Updated” edition, addresses not only the original discussion in the 1985 edition (which I have not read), but responds to criticism Beversluis received regarding that original version. This is an important book to read to round out an understanding of 20th century christian thought, though again I warn the potential reader that this is not light reading.

*note: I do, h0wever, have great respect for CSL’s translations and studies of early British Isles legends and poetry. Also, his “That Hidden Strength” (1945) is among my favorite mid-20th century scifi books, though it is a bit anti-science and, as Orwell commented, “would have been stronger without the supernatural elements.”

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

C.S. Lewis was a Christian apologist and has had an enormous influence on mainstream, Evangelical Christianity. But, as Bevershluis shows in painstaking detail, Lewis' arguments are less than logically convincing. Bevershluis reconstructs and analyzes all of Lewis' major arguments - often providing multiple versions of them - and subjects them to a thorough going logical analysis. This second edition of the book incorporates and responds to criticisms of the first version, and does so convincingly. This book is a must read for anyone interested in Christian apologetics in general or C.S Lewis in particular.

[Zb1113 · Rating 4 out of 5]

7

Pretty thorough investigation into Lewis' defenses of Christianity (many recycled from previous apologists, and often rebutted centuries before). Beversluis does have a couple of interesting points regarding meaning/ethical language, and Lewis' late life struggle with the Problem of Evil (Pain in Lewis's terms). The chapter on the "Argument from Reason" shows just how out of depth Lewis was with philosophy contemporary to his writing.

[Winston Jen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beversluis Leaves no Stone Unturned. Dry at times, but Always Incisive and Intelligently Argued

CS Lewis has been lauded as the premier Christian apologist of the 20th century by priests, bishops and many Christian apologists even today. Outside his clique of fawning sycophants, however, he is often regarded as shallow, vapid and unconvincing, although most agree that Lewis was an expert rhetorician and erudite wordsmith.

In this second edition, Beversluis expertly ripostes the major rebuttals by Christians who have been quick to leap to Lewis' defense. Having not read the original work, I cannot make any comparisons. Having said that, I will say that Beversluis does an exemplary job at exposing Lewis' hollow arguments for what they are. Mere Christianity and Miracles are two of the primary targets. Most people who take a critical eye to MC will be frustrated and disillusioned when the "best" case Lewis can offer for Jesus' divinity is the Liar/Lunatic/Fiend dilemma. Not only does this presuppose that Jesus was a good moral teacher (the fig tree incident and breaking the 5th and 8th commandments), but it also assumes that the historical claims made in the gospels are accurate. They aren't. They weren't even made by people who lived around the time of Jesus' estimated lifetime.

The Argument from Reason (in a nutshell, if consciousness evolved, then we can't trust our brains, so it must have a supernatural source) is shown for the lemon it is. That Alvin Plantinga and more recently Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind are using it is something that should be more than enough to make Lewis spin in his grave.

The Problem of Pain is given its own chapter, and in it Beversluis contrasts the Platonist view (god only commands what is moral) with the Ockhamist view (whatever god decrees is moral, even if he sends all Christians to hell and all atheists to heaven) of morality. Many readers will notice that they are the two responses to the Euthyphro Dilemma, articulated by Plato. Beversluis expertly exposes Lewis' god with Lewis' own arguments. Any reasonable person must conclude that CS Lewis worships a paternalistic tyrant who treats humans as pawns in an effort to convert more Christians and bring more people to him. And no matter what misery, torments and sufferings are inflicted or apathetically ignored in service of this goal, everything is "justified" in the mind of Lewis since god is infallible and can do no wrong. It ALMOST makes me celebrate when I imagine Lewis' in the abyss of grief brought about by the death of his wife.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

this book was hard for me to understand but you should still raed it