What do you think?
Rate this book
Miracles
In the classic Miracles, C.S. Lewis, the most important Christian writer of the 20th century, argues that a Christian must not only accept but rejoice in miracles as a testimony of the unique personal involvement of God in his creation.
294 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1947
2150 people are currently reading
45656 people want to read
About the author
C.S. Lewis
1,032 books48k followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Clive Staples Lewis was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably one of the most influential writers of his day. He was a Fellow and Tutor in English Literature at Oxford University until 1954. He was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include Mere Christianity, Out of the Silent Planet, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters, and the universally acknowledged classics The Chronicles of Narnia. To date, the Narnia books have sold over 100 million copies and been transformed into three major motion pictures.
Lewis was married to poet Joy Davidman.
W.H. Lewis was his elder brother]
Clive Staples Lewis was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably one of the most influential writers of his day. He was a Fellow and Tutor in English Literature at Oxford University until 1954. He was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include Mere Christianity, Out of the Silent Planet, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters, and the universally acknowledged classics The Chronicles of Narnia. To date, the Narnia books have sold over 100 million copies and been transformed into three major motion pictures.
Lewis was married to poet Joy Davidman.
W.H. Lewis was his elder brother]
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,241 reviews
October 5, 2022
A book in which one of the best selling, if not the best selling Christian writer of the Twentieth Century, C.S. Lewis shares his thoughts and rationale on 'miracles' founded on the idea that Christians should not only believe and honour miracles, but should rejoice in these 'supernatural' works executed by a single all-powerful God being. And yes, if I'd read that before picking this book up I wouldn't have bothered. But let's face it, to read a non-fiction religious theory work from the man that gave us The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is most likely a well-trodden path by some other readers?
If I learnt anything from this book, is is that I should remove any thoughts of denial about the The Seven Tales of Narnia being a deeply Christian awareness raising fantasy; as Lewis is a huge advocate for his faith one assured in his beliefs and with the knowledge, intelligence and self assuredness to argue his position in public, in words that will remain permanent in the ether. Still, although a very easy and accessible read for religious theory, it's just not that interesting or thought provoking, as the huge pro-Christian bias of the work makes it feel more like a statement than a theoretical work. 4 out of 12.
2021 read
If I learnt anything from this book, is is that I should remove any thoughts of denial about the The Seven Tales of Narnia being a deeply Christian awareness raising fantasy; as Lewis is a huge advocate for his faith one assured in his beliefs and with the knowledge, intelligence and self assuredness to argue his position in public, in words that will remain permanent in the ether. Still, although a very easy and accessible read for religious theory, it's just not that interesting or thought provoking, as the huge pro-Christian bias of the work makes it feel more like a statement than a theoretical work. 4 out of 12.
2021 read
May 25, 2010
My inveterate hatred of magazines began during my sophomore year of college. I was at a friend's apartment, waiting for him to get out of the shower, when I noticed a TIME magazine on his coffee table. It had a big picture of Jesus on it, with the headline "What Do We Really Know About Jesus?"
At the time I was an atheist or, more accurately, an agnostic. But I'd spent quite a bit of time in class that year reading and discussing significant portions of the Old and New Testaments, as well as translating parts of "Matthew" from the Greek. I was interested to see what the world of thoughtful people in the modern world did really know about Jesus.
I opened the magazine to the appropriate page. Among a distracting array of pie graphs and extraneous graphics, I was able to locate some actual text. It began by stating that the writers had gathered together a group of the best minds, experts in their fields, to consider what, in fact, we really know about Jesus, the historical figure.
The very first thing we can really say, according to this council of learned individuals, is that we must dismiss the miracles recounted in the Bible. I stopped and read this again. I almost couldn't believe it.
In the Bible, Jesus mainly does two things: he talks, and he performs miracles. The fact that he is doing extraordinary things in between the things he says seems, to me anyway, to be a necessary part of the story: it gives his words authority. The miracles are proof that he knows something about the world that we don't know.
Maybe the whole thing is made up, words and miracles both. This was vaguely my position at the time. Considered in this way, as literature, you can say lots of interesting things about the characters and events created by the author, just as you can say lots of interesting things about the characters and events in Don Quixote.
When considering any literature, however, it is nonsense to discount the action all together and simply consider the dialogue. You wouldn't read Moby Dick and skip all the descriptions of what happened and just read the dialogue. Furthermore, when considering literature, the actual "historical" events on which the piece is based mean next to nothing. Moby Dick might have been based on a "historical" whaling ship, or a real captain, but who cares?
If we consider the New Testament not as literature, but as a historical document, does it make any kind of sense to dismiss the miracles? Did Jesus, for example, walk around saying things, but not performing miracles? And then, later, somebody just wrote the miracles in? This is possible, but if it is, the person or people who recorded the events of the New Testament are completely unreliable. If they added in whatever events they wanted, why should we assume they kept strictly to the words Jesus said?
If, therefore, Jesus walked around saying things but not performing miracles, we can have no idea what he said. The words must be taken to be as made up as the miracles are, which brings us back to considering it as literature.
But on what basis are the miracles dismissed? Really? People said that they saw them. People were convinced by them, some of them convinced enough to die. Those two statements are historical fact. Those two statements are, in fact, something that we "really" know.
It's true, certainly, that anyone may find the statements of these people unconvincing. They are unconvincing because they do not fit into the framework of the world that we have in our minds. Like it or not, we are all dogmatists. There are too many crazy claims in the world for any of us not to be.
If, for example, I told you that my neighbor drives a red Volvo, you would probably believe me. The fact that somebody drives a red Volvo fits into the world as you understand it. If I told you (as someone once tried to tell me) that you could get rich teaching financial planning, because all you would have to do would be to get 20 other people to teach financial planning, and they would get 20 other people, and so on, you would (hopefully) not believe me. Even if I offered you "proof," by taking you to a seminar where the first guy who started all this was standing up in front of everyone talking about how rich he was, you still (hopefully) would not believe me.
My point with these two examples is that in the first case no proof was offered except my statement, and it was believable. In the second place some actual proof was offered, and it is still unbelievable. Believability depends, not so much on the proof offered, but almost entirely on how you view the world.
Now I'm getting to the heart of what really infuriated me about this article. The only reason to listen to experts is because we expect them to know something that we don't know ourselves. They have spent time studying facts, and in return for this we give them authority. We take what they say as truth without looking for the proof ourselves.
Insidiously, these experts did exactly the opposite of what they were supposed to do. They took my own dogma, the dogma of our age, that "miracles can't happen," they swallowed it whole and without question, and then they vomited it back up to me, the reader, as some kind of established fact, as something that we really "know." They used their authority to divorce me from the truth and responsibility of the fact that I was following a dogma.
The only thing they were experts in was what historical records show. Besides in the matter of historical records, the opinions of these people had no more value than my own. Historical records show, as I said before, that people said they saw these things and that people believed in them. No historical records show that these things were made up. What kind of people, then, would say "As historians, the first thing to start with is the dismissing of all the miracles"?
The truthful thing to say would be: "Speaking strictly historically, there is as much proof as we could reasonably expect for the events related in the New Testament, and nothing to disprove them. This does not, of course, constitute positive proof such extraordinary events really happened."
Still, I find it interesting to think about what constitutes "proof" of something. In the mathematical world, which is not "real," proof is a real thing. It's the ironclad, indisputable application of certain narrowly defined rules to certain narrowly defined objects. I wonder, however, whether the word "proof" has any meaning in the real world. Can anything in the real world be proven in the ironclad sense in which it can in mathematics? Whatever your answer to this may be, what then does that answer mean about how to proceed with people making outrageous claims, such as those made by people claiming they've seen miracles, or UFOs, or ghosts?
This is a review of the book "Miracles," and you are probably wondering where the review is. In fact, you have just read it. Everything I have discussed here is discussed in the book, in much greater detail and (obviously) with much more wisdom. The book is a logical argument concerning the question: Is the New Testament true?
It starts without asking you to believe anything and makes a series of logical steps which lead, eventually, to a belief in Christianity. Well, actually, at one point the steps become illogical because, as argued in the book, there are some questions that logic can't answer. Before anybody gets too upset, by "questions that logic can't answer" I don't mean anything especially deep, I mean questions about experience. I have a blue flower growing in my backyard. Is that statement true or false? Logic simply cannot tell you. You have to come to my backyard and see. Or, you have to make a probable judgment based on what you know about me, and about blue flowers. That's what I mean.
Anyway, the book winds up at an acceptance of Christianity, and uses some of its space in the analyzing of some of the miracles attributed to Jesus. Some of Mr. Lewis's descriptions and interpretations of these miracles are heartbreakingly beautiful, and I wish everybody could read them.
One passage I remember is the description of a man diving into the mud, like a pearl-diver, and disappearing beneath the surface, swimming down down down, into the very heart of what can only be called the bottom of the earth, and then gently, slowly, lifting with his whole body, reascending with the whole weight of everything upon his back. Every time I read and reread this passage it brought tears to my eyes. A much sillier and less well-written description of this same kind of action, by the way, can be found in that cheesy country song from the 1960's: "Big John." But the recurrence of similar themes found in the popular arts and religion, both before and after the New Testament, is discussed in the book as well.
This most certainly winds up at the Christian perspective, and so in that way it is a Christian book. On the other hand, when I hear Christians speak generally they seem to take as accepted many things which many of their listeners don't seem to take as accepted.
For instance, at a funeral the other day the preacher kept repeating that we can all take comfort in knowing that the deceased was with Jesus. I would have been willing to bet that at least half the people in the room did not, in fact, believe that the deceased was "with Jesus," and so the preacher's words were empty. More than that, they seemed to be filled with silly promises that fell on deaf ears.
Now, my point about this is that, in my experience, most Christians talk as if they are preaching to the choir, when in fact they are not. This is one of the annoying things about many Christians that I've met. Maybe they can't help it, or never think of it, but in any case that is not at all what goes on in Mr. Lewis's book. It is respectful of the idea of doubt, and even of non-belief: it just asks the reader to follow through with the logical consequences of whatever his position is.
I would be interested to know, in light of this, where in the book an atheist or an agnostic or a Jew or Buddhist or Muslim would begin to disagree with Mr. Lewis. I have my suspicions. Probably most people would find the part about our innate belief in rationality itself to be a little dubious. This part of the argument reminded me of nothing so much as Descartes' famous statement: "I think, therefore I am."
Even before I'd read this book, I'd spent a long time thinking about that statement and what it actually means. It's really complex and very deep, and Descartes, in the "Meditations," really doesn't do it enough justice. I think he talks about it for 2 pages or something.
Anyway, Mr. Lewis's argument about rationality seems to be exactly the same kind of philosophical statement. In both cases, if you just read it and continue on, you're not understanding what you've read. Maybe nobody can really understand it, but the idea behind it seems to have a true bearing on the world around us, and how we should react to it and interpret it.
Flipping through a collection of Peter Singer essays at a friend's house, I came across a place where he mentioned this argument and referred to it as "intellectual judo." Needless to say, it appeared to me to be Mr. Singer who was engaging in "intellectual judo," with the added negativity of sneering dismissively while he did it. But I will admit that neither author devotes the space to this question that it really deserves. Maybe nobody could.
Anyway, I think all of us are lost in this world and, for me anyway, this beautiful and interesting book gave me some alternate interpretations of things that made a structured kind of sense. I'm certain that not everyone will be convinced by this book, but I think anyone who reads it honestly can't help but gain more respect for the Christian viewpoint than it sometimes seems to deserve based on the behavior of some of its adamant adherents.
At the time I was an atheist or, more accurately, an agnostic. But I'd spent quite a bit of time in class that year reading and discussing significant portions of the Old and New Testaments, as well as translating parts of "Matthew" from the Greek. I was interested to see what the world of thoughtful people in the modern world did really know about Jesus.
I opened the magazine to the appropriate page. Among a distracting array of pie graphs and extraneous graphics, I was able to locate some actual text. It began by stating that the writers had gathered together a group of the best minds, experts in their fields, to consider what, in fact, we really know about Jesus, the historical figure.
The very first thing we can really say, according to this council of learned individuals, is that we must dismiss the miracles recounted in the Bible. I stopped and read this again. I almost couldn't believe it.
In the Bible, Jesus mainly does two things: he talks, and he performs miracles. The fact that he is doing extraordinary things in between the things he says seems, to me anyway, to be a necessary part of the story: it gives his words authority. The miracles are proof that he knows something about the world that we don't know.
Maybe the whole thing is made up, words and miracles both. This was vaguely my position at the time. Considered in this way, as literature, you can say lots of interesting things about the characters and events created by the author, just as you can say lots of interesting things about the characters and events in Don Quixote.
When considering any literature, however, it is nonsense to discount the action all together and simply consider the dialogue. You wouldn't read Moby Dick and skip all the descriptions of what happened and just read the dialogue. Furthermore, when considering literature, the actual "historical" events on which the piece is based mean next to nothing. Moby Dick might have been based on a "historical" whaling ship, or a real captain, but who cares?
If we consider the New Testament not as literature, but as a historical document, does it make any kind of sense to dismiss the miracles? Did Jesus, for example, walk around saying things, but not performing miracles? And then, later, somebody just wrote the miracles in? This is possible, but if it is, the person or people who recorded the events of the New Testament are completely unreliable. If they added in whatever events they wanted, why should we assume they kept strictly to the words Jesus said?
If, therefore, Jesus walked around saying things but not performing miracles, we can have no idea what he said. The words must be taken to be as made up as the miracles are, which brings us back to considering it as literature.
But on what basis are the miracles dismissed? Really? People said that they saw them. People were convinced by them, some of them convinced enough to die. Those two statements are historical fact. Those two statements are, in fact, something that we "really" know.
It's true, certainly, that anyone may find the statements of these people unconvincing. They are unconvincing because they do not fit into the framework of the world that we have in our minds. Like it or not, we are all dogmatists. There are too many crazy claims in the world for any of us not to be.
If, for example, I told you that my neighbor drives a red Volvo, you would probably believe me. The fact that somebody drives a red Volvo fits into the world as you understand it. If I told you (as someone once tried to tell me) that you could get rich teaching financial planning, because all you would have to do would be to get 20 other people to teach financial planning, and they would get 20 other people, and so on, you would (hopefully) not believe me. Even if I offered you "proof," by taking you to a seminar where the first guy who started all this was standing up in front of everyone talking about how rich he was, you still (hopefully) would not believe me.
My point with these two examples is that in the first case no proof was offered except my statement, and it was believable. In the second place some actual proof was offered, and it is still unbelievable. Believability depends, not so much on the proof offered, but almost entirely on how you view the world.
Now I'm getting to the heart of what really infuriated me about this article. The only reason to listen to experts is because we expect them to know something that we don't know ourselves. They have spent time studying facts, and in return for this we give them authority. We take what they say as truth without looking for the proof ourselves.
Insidiously, these experts did exactly the opposite of what they were supposed to do. They took my own dogma, the dogma of our age, that "miracles can't happen," they swallowed it whole and without question, and then they vomited it back up to me, the reader, as some kind of established fact, as something that we really "know." They used their authority to divorce me from the truth and responsibility of the fact that I was following a dogma.
The only thing they were experts in was what historical records show. Besides in the matter of historical records, the opinions of these people had no more value than my own. Historical records show, as I said before, that people said they saw these things and that people believed in them. No historical records show that these things were made up. What kind of people, then, would say "As historians, the first thing to start with is the dismissing of all the miracles"?
The truthful thing to say would be: "Speaking strictly historically, there is as much proof as we could reasonably expect for the events related in the New Testament, and nothing to disprove them. This does not, of course, constitute positive proof such extraordinary events really happened."
Still, I find it interesting to think about what constitutes "proof" of something. In the mathematical world, which is not "real," proof is a real thing. It's the ironclad, indisputable application of certain narrowly defined rules to certain narrowly defined objects. I wonder, however, whether the word "proof" has any meaning in the real world. Can anything in the real world be proven in the ironclad sense in which it can in mathematics? Whatever your answer to this may be, what then does that answer mean about how to proceed with people making outrageous claims, such as those made by people claiming they've seen miracles, or UFOs, or ghosts?
This is a review of the book "Miracles," and you are probably wondering where the review is. In fact, you have just read it. Everything I have discussed here is discussed in the book, in much greater detail and (obviously) with much more wisdom. The book is a logical argument concerning the question: Is the New Testament true?
It starts without asking you to believe anything and makes a series of logical steps which lead, eventually, to a belief in Christianity. Well, actually, at one point the steps become illogical because, as argued in the book, there are some questions that logic can't answer. Before anybody gets too upset, by "questions that logic can't answer" I don't mean anything especially deep, I mean questions about experience. I have a blue flower growing in my backyard. Is that statement true or false? Logic simply cannot tell you. You have to come to my backyard and see. Or, you have to make a probable judgment based on what you know about me, and about blue flowers. That's what I mean.
Anyway, the book winds up at an acceptance of Christianity, and uses some of its space in the analyzing of some of the miracles attributed to Jesus. Some of Mr. Lewis's descriptions and interpretations of these miracles are heartbreakingly beautiful, and I wish everybody could read them.
One passage I remember is the description of a man diving into the mud, like a pearl-diver, and disappearing beneath the surface, swimming down down down, into the very heart of what can only be called the bottom of the earth, and then gently, slowly, lifting with his whole body, reascending with the whole weight of everything upon his back. Every time I read and reread this passage it brought tears to my eyes. A much sillier and less well-written description of this same kind of action, by the way, can be found in that cheesy country song from the 1960's: "Big John." But the recurrence of similar themes found in the popular arts and religion, both before and after the New Testament, is discussed in the book as well.
This most certainly winds up at the Christian perspective, and so in that way it is a Christian book. On the other hand, when I hear Christians speak generally they seem to take as accepted many things which many of their listeners don't seem to take as accepted.
For instance, at a funeral the other day the preacher kept repeating that we can all take comfort in knowing that the deceased was with Jesus. I would have been willing to bet that at least half the people in the room did not, in fact, believe that the deceased was "with Jesus," and so the preacher's words were empty. More than that, they seemed to be filled with silly promises that fell on deaf ears.
Now, my point about this is that, in my experience, most Christians talk as if they are preaching to the choir, when in fact they are not. This is one of the annoying things about many Christians that I've met. Maybe they can't help it, or never think of it, but in any case that is not at all what goes on in Mr. Lewis's book. It is respectful of the idea of doubt, and even of non-belief: it just asks the reader to follow through with the logical consequences of whatever his position is.
I would be interested to know, in light of this, where in the book an atheist or an agnostic or a Jew or Buddhist or Muslim would begin to disagree with Mr. Lewis. I have my suspicions. Probably most people would find the part about our innate belief in rationality itself to be a little dubious. This part of the argument reminded me of nothing so much as Descartes' famous statement: "I think, therefore I am."
Even before I'd read this book, I'd spent a long time thinking about that statement and what it actually means. It's really complex and very deep, and Descartes, in the "Meditations," really doesn't do it enough justice. I think he talks about it for 2 pages or something.
Anyway, Mr. Lewis's argument about rationality seems to be exactly the same kind of philosophical statement. In both cases, if you just read it and continue on, you're not understanding what you've read. Maybe nobody can really understand it, but the idea behind it seems to have a true bearing on the world around us, and how we should react to it and interpret it.
Flipping through a collection of Peter Singer essays at a friend's house, I came across a place where he mentioned this argument and referred to it as "intellectual judo." Needless to say, it appeared to me to be Mr. Singer who was engaging in "intellectual judo," with the added negativity of sneering dismissively while he did it. But I will admit that neither author devotes the space to this question that it really deserves. Maybe nobody could.
Anyway, I think all of us are lost in this world and, for me anyway, this beautiful and interesting book gave me some alternate interpretations of things that made a structured kind of sense. I'm certain that not everyone will be convinced by this book, but I think anyone who reads it honestly can't help but gain more respect for the Christian viewpoint than it sometimes seems to deserve based on the behavior of some of its adamant adherents.
September 24, 2014
Most people here on Goodreads will have had the experience of meeting an intelligent, witty, well-informed person who holds views that you absolutely do not agree with, but who defends them with imagination and force. This can often lead to extraordinarily enjoyable discussions, even if, at the end, your beliefs (at least, the ones you are aware of) have not been changed at all. Well, reading Miracles was rather like that for me, which is why I'm prepared to give it three stars. Lewis presents a defence of miracles which is imaginative and passionate; I think it's completely wrong, but I enjoyed watching him argue the case and mentally arguing back at each step. I'm just sorry we couldn't meet in person.
The rest of this review is available elsewhere (the location cannot be given for Goodreads policy reasons)
The rest of this review is available elsewhere (the location cannot be given for Goodreads policy reasons)
October 19, 2010
This is a clear 5-star book. I was flat-out stunned by how wrong my prior expectations were for this book. I imagined this to be a less formal discussion on what miracles meant to Christians and maybe why God uses them, etc.
This is a philosophy book. It is the most intellectually challenging CS Lewis book I've read and it is totally worth it. This book uses logic and clear language to present a case for Divinity in general and the existence of the Supernatural. It then describes how miracles are central to the Christian life, anchoring the core of Christianity on the Resurrection.
This book addresses arguments I heretofore believed were very modern, proving that there truly isn't much new under the sun. He digs deep to address exactly what Naturalism is, and why it is so pervasive in our culture, and how reason must be engaged by our minds in a conscious way to overcome it.
If you have ever felt like you needed to have a more lucid, intellectual grasp of the philosophy involved in discussing the existence of God, this is the perfect book for you.
This is a philosophy book. It is the most intellectually challenging CS Lewis book I've read and it is totally worth it. This book uses logic and clear language to present a case for Divinity in general and the existence of the Supernatural. It then describes how miracles are central to the Christian life, anchoring the core of Christianity on the Resurrection.
This book addresses arguments I heretofore believed were very modern, proving that there truly isn't much new under the sun. He digs deep to address exactly what Naturalism is, and why it is so pervasive in our culture, and how reason must be engaged by our minds in a conscious way to overcome it.
If you have ever felt like you needed to have a more lucid, intellectual grasp of the philosophy involved in discussing the existence of God, this is the perfect book for you.
July 15, 2012
I must admit that I think I did not fully understand what this book was trying to tell me. However, I am happy to say that I gave this book a chance: I read each word slowly and carefully even if I had more engaging fiction books in my currently-reading folder.
You see, I earlier read and liked his two later works, A Grief Observed (1961) and Mere Christianity (1957) before reading this earlier book that was first published in 1947. So, I invited some members of our book club to read this with me. They agreed and our discussions are in this thread. Notice that we were all having a problem reading the book so either we Filipinos are not matched to Professor Lewis's intellectual level or we just did not have the academic training to understand all his philosophical arguments.
If I may compare, "Grief" and "Christianity" are easier to understand because they delve more into feelings and emotions rather than philosophy and reasons. If the two books appeal to the reader's heart, "Miracles" appeals to one's brain particularly the first two-thirds of the book. In these parts, he talks about Naturalism and Supernaturalism. The first one means that nothing exists apart from Nature but the later one means that there are other forces outside nature. Then he associates Miracle by saying that there are two ideas where miracles are said to happen: either by deviating from the natural flow of events (naturalism) or by other forces that affect Nature. Ask me why are these important to Miracle and I will answer you that I do not know.
Then he moves to differentiate Pantheism and Theism. Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) or God (divinity) are identical. A pantheist does not believe in personal God. Theism, on the other hand, believes in the existence of One God as it is a doctrine concerning the nature of monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe. Being an Christian apologist (a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc), naturally, Lewis says that miracles cannot co-exist with Pantheism although untrained minds would easily fall prey that Universe (Nature) and God are one. Ask me why this is important to Miracle and I will answer you that I do not know.
Then in the last third of the book, Lewis talks about Old and New Creations. I think he coined these terms that mean those miracles that happened in the Old Testament (Old Creations) and New Testaments (New Creations). Being true to his credential as a Christian apologist, he of course defends that all miracles mentioned in the Bible are indeed miracles. He suggest for non-believers to read the actual passages in the Bible (starting with those in the New Testament) before reading the works of the scholars that deal with those miracles. Ask me why this is important to understand Miracle and I will answer you that I do not know.
What I know really is what I believed since many years ago: believing in Miracles is through the heart. You don't need proofs to believe. That's why even if I appreciate the intellectual arguments presented convincingly by the beloved Oxford professor in this book, for me, there is nothing new. Miracles happen. They are God's works and they are His signs for us that He hasn't forgotten us. He wants us to feel His Divine Presence. We don't need to be convinced that miracles happen. Just look at the sun still shining every morning is enough proof for all of us.
The global warming is totally another story though and that is NOT a miracle.
You see, I earlier read and liked his two later works, A Grief Observed (1961) and Mere Christianity (1957) before reading this earlier book that was first published in 1947. So, I invited some members of our book club to read this with me. They agreed and our discussions are in this thread. Notice that we were all having a problem reading the book so either we Filipinos are not matched to Professor Lewis's intellectual level or we just did not have the academic training to understand all his philosophical arguments.
If I may compare, "Grief" and "Christianity" are easier to understand because they delve more into feelings and emotions rather than philosophy and reasons. If the two books appeal to the reader's heart, "Miracles" appeals to one's brain particularly the first two-thirds of the book. In these parts, he talks about Naturalism and Supernaturalism. The first one means that nothing exists apart from Nature but the later one means that there are other forces outside nature. Then he associates Miracle by saying that there are two ideas where miracles are said to happen: either by deviating from the natural flow of events (naturalism) or by other forces that affect Nature. Ask me why are these important to Miracle and I will answer you that I do not know.
Then he moves to differentiate Pantheism and Theism. Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) or God (divinity) are identical. A pantheist does not believe in personal God. Theism, on the other hand, believes in the existence of One God as it is a doctrine concerning the nature of monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe. Being an Christian apologist (a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc), naturally, Lewis says that miracles cannot co-exist with Pantheism although untrained minds would easily fall prey that Universe (Nature) and God are one. Ask me why this is important to Miracle and I will answer you that I do not know.
Then in the last third of the book, Lewis talks about Old and New Creations. I think he coined these terms that mean those miracles that happened in the Old Testament (Old Creations) and New Testaments (New Creations). Being true to his credential as a Christian apologist, he of course defends that all miracles mentioned in the Bible are indeed miracles. He suggest for non-believers to read the actual passages in the Bible (starting with those in the New Testament) before reading the works of the scholars that deal with those miracles. Ask me why this is important to understand Miracle and I will answer you that I do not know.
What I know really is what I believed since many years ago: believing in Miracles is through the heart. You don't need proofs to believe. That's why even if I appreciate the intellectual arguments presented convincingly by the beloved Oxford professor in this book, for me, there is nothing new. Miracles happen. They are God's works and they are His signs for us that He hasn't forgotten us. He wants us to feel His Divine Presence. We don't need to be convinced that miracles happen. Just look at the sun still shining every morning is enough proof for all of us.
The global warming is totally another story though and that is NOT a miracle.
December 20, 2021
C.S. Lewis is best known for his Chronicles of Narnia children's book series, but still holds immense sway in the Christian community for his theological writings. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say, 58 years after his death (he died on the same day as JFK), that Lewis ranks chief among Apologists: intellectuals with academic credentials who focus their efforts on defending the faith, providing cover for others within the fold. In this case, the Christian fold. I'll quote him from this book: "Once the doctrines are there, clever people can invent clever arguments to defend them." That's precisely what Lewis is doing in Miracles: he applies his considerable wit and acumen, analogies, syllogisms (of varying quality), and Oxford-don-in-tweed stylings to establish the probability of supernatural events.
And yet, the title is a misnomer. Lewis might have done better to call this "The Miracles of Jesus", as those are the only miracles addressed, and even then non-comprehensively. Lewis only briefly acknowledges the existence of additional miracle claims past and present, and is pretty confident in dismissing them with the shrugging admission that some magic may have been allowed pagans or demons. Don't expect any interesting discussions of Lourdes, Padre Pio, weeping statues, angelic visitations, the Shroud of Turin, or fun new miracle stories that you can share with friends. Even the Old Testament miracles are treated as more mythic than those in the New Testament. Lewis doesn't use the term, but many Christians might be disappointed to find him speaking like a Cessationist, one who believes that "interference with Nature by supernatural power" (his working definition of miracles, which I can get behind) largely concluded with the ascension of Christ. More on that later. I'll spoil the moment in the epilogue in which Lewis admits that he himself has never experienced a miracle: "God does not shake miracles into nature at random as it from a pepper-caster. They come on great occasions: they are found at the great ganglions of history – not of political or social history, but of that spiritual history which cannot be fully known by men. If your life does not happen to be near one of those great ganglions, how should you expect to see one? If we were heroic missionaries, apostles, or martyrs, it would be a different matter. But you or I?"
Even Christ's specific miracles are not mentioned until the second half of the book. I am reminded of Jeff Goldblum's line as Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park: "Now eventually you might have dinosaurs on your... on your dinosaur tour, right? Hello? Yes?" Lewis decides from the outset that, since experience can be questioned and written off as illusion, he must focus on the philosophical question of whether miracles can conceivably occur. I can understand him wanting to battle on familiar philosophical ground, but an extended conversation about Nature-interference that has not presented a single example to establish the phenomenon being explained... is begging the question (an error he accuses others of committing).
Lewis distinguishes Naturalism (believing everything, or as he calls it, "the whole show", is a result of itself) from Supernaturalism (believing everything to have an external cause, namely God). Cutely, he also separates "Nature" from "Supernature". He tries to establish Naturalism (and later, Pantheism) as the default belief of the age. In 1947? Nice try, Jack. Everyone wants to be the underdog, I guess. He also presents a steady stream of straw man summaries of Naturalist positions, such as his ever-so-brief caricature of the Naturalist disbelief in free will, which was and ever has been more nuanced. Lewis's presentation seems geared in part for the "man on the fence", but primarily for the already-convinced Christian, which may be why he is so quick to discard irrelevant concepts, such as polytheism, from the docket.
The first wobbly syllogism he trots out is well known as the "argument from reason", which can be stated as "No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes." [source] The idea is that all rational thought derives from other rational thought, and that the chain must eventually link back to an external source, a thought-giver (God). He supports this with a long discussion of cause-and-effect versus ground-and-consequent determinations, as well as tautologies like "An argument cannot prove that no argument is sound." Great, good job. I think Lewis finds such formations far more impressive than they are, and uses them to boldly springboard into some declarative statement he has not earned. He offers a defense of tautologies... I wonder if he was getting flack for using them. I should note that this particular argument, as presented in its initial 1947 edition, received critical feedback from philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe (a Catholic) in an infamous debate in 1948. Lewis, to his credit, changed the name of the chapter and addressed some of the notes in a 1960 re-release. Anscombe, while appreciating the changes, said the new version still had "much to criticize in it". Indeed: I can hardly believe this argument would be taken seriously anywhere, and it has numerous refutations. I just have to wonder if Lewis reasoned that all poor reasoning also needs an external source.
Lewis gave me a chuckle when he acknowledged just how little he had established in the way of miracles by page 67: "I have advanced reasons for believing that a supernatural element is present in every rational man. The presence of human rationality in the world is therefore a Miracle by the definition given in Chapter II. On realising this the reader may excusably say, 'Oh, if that’s all he means by a Miracle…' and fling the book away." Ha! Indeed. I don't want to be all negative... there are good doses of dry wit and self-deprecatory humor, and on some occasions, he does present the opposition's arguments and objections well. He's obviously a smart guy, it’s fun to follow his thought process, and reading this sparked a lot of critical engagement on my part. I must also thank him for not redefining amazing-but-fully-natural-daily-phenomena such as breathing or childbirth as miracles, as many do (apart from the aforementioned miracle of "Reasoning" and leaving aside the glaring exception for Christ's virgin birth - don't get me started on that one). On the whole, however, Lewis is not up to his usual quality of writing in this book, and in many spots gets bogged down in the weeds.
Oh my, I've taken too many notes on this book. I, too, shall be guilty of getting bogged down in the weeds. Have I mentioned that I primarily write these for my own recollection? Thanks for reading if you've gotten this far. Let's turn this paragraph into a quick vent of observations: There are many arguments from absurdity and Lewis's own personal incredulity. I really did start to suspect that Lewis might be intentionally "blinding with philosophy". I'm not sure if he's aware of the burden of proof when it comes to miracles, but he flips it to the Naturalist with panache, and seems unaware that the null hypothesis is counter to his starting point. He builds incomplete lists (he loves to do this with word definitions, including in an appendix on "spirit" and "spirituality" that has nothing to do with this book, and famously with his "lunatic, liar or Lord" construction in Mere Christianity) and then proceeds as if he's constructed a valid syllogism, or cracks the door for a possibility and then presses it into service as an actuality. He accuses the Naturalist of lacking objective standards (such as when he claims a Naturalist can never form an "ought" statement), without acknowledging that even his fellow Christians cannot agree on such statements, despite their common belief in a shared, objective source.
Lewis dismisses other creation legends as "giants being cut up", but gives pride of place to the Hebrew legend without acknowledging its own obvious logical flaws. Why would the sun be created on the day after plants? Who did Adam's sons marry? Lewis plays fast and loose with biblical exegesis, criticizing those who treat certain stories or miracles as metaphors, but then determining that other passages must be metaphorical. For example, he spends a long time finding a way to avoid what he sees as the embarrassment of Jesus disappearing into the clouds as he "ascends" to heaven. Lewis does not believe that makes any kind of sense, and devotes many pages to finding a metaphorical way to prevent the upward journey into... space? Similarly, he declares there's no logical way Jesus could have sat at the Father's literal right hand. I was surprised at just how many theological determinations Lewis made in this book, on everything from the nature of the resurrected body (many pages on this) to Christ's descent into hell (which Lewis mentions frequently, despite that narrative's feeble scriptural support) to his idiosyncratic model of God's relation to time. He also, quite effectively, neuters the power of prayer in the final appendix. There are enough doctrinal deviations here to start a whole new branch of Christianity, and I imagine many Christians would take exception to some of Lewis's declarations... if anyone were analyzing them that closely, and if they were not already so reliant upon him as a source of Apologetic shielding.
And indeed, a shield is what Lewis provides. In the epilogue, he warns the reader against what will happen upon finishing the book and re-entering the real world: miracles will seem fadingly real, because we live in a world where we don't see them. He urges us to cling to our temporary boost in certainty, and to be on guard against other influences: "And when you turn from the New Testament to modern scholars, remember that you go among them as sheep among wolves. Naturalistic assumptions, beggings of the questions such as that which I noted on the first page of the book, will meet you on every side – even from the pens of clergyman."
I will offer no such injunctions. Go forth, read more (even this book), and think for yourself. As Philip K. Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
And yet, the title is a misnomer. Lewis might have done better to call this "The Miracles of Jesus", as those are the only miracles addressed, and even then non-comprehensively. Lewis only briefly acknowledges the existence of additional miracle claims past and present, and is pretty confident in dismissing them with the shrugging admission that some magic may have been allowed pagans or demons. Don't expect any interesting discussions of Lourdes, Padre Pio, weeping statues, angelic visitations, the Shroud of Turin, or fun new miracle stories that you can share with friends. Even the Old Testament miracles are treated as more mythic than those in the New Testament. Lewis doesn't use the term, but many Christians might be disappointed to find him speaking like a Cessationist, one who believes that "interference with Nature by supernatural power" (his working definition of miracles, which I can get behind) largely concluded with the ascension of Christ. More on that later. I'll spoil the moment in the epilogue in which Lewis admits that he himself has never experienced a miracle: "God does not shake miracles into nature at random as it from a pepper-caster. They come on great occasions: they are found at the great ganglions of history – not of political or social history, but of that spiritual history which cannot be fully known by men. If your life does not happen to be near one of those great ganglions, how should you expect to see one? If we were heroic missionaries, apostles, or martyrs, it would be a different matter. But you or I?"
Even Christ's specific miracles are not mentioned until the second half of the book. I am reminded of Jeff Goldblum's line as Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park: "Now eventually you might have dinosaurs on your... on your dinosaur tour, right? Hello? Yes?" Lewis decides from the outset that, since experience can be questioned and written off as illusion, he must focus on the philosophical question of whether miracles can conceivably occur. I can understand him wanting to battle on familiar philosophical ground, but an extended conversation about Nature-interference that has not presented a single example to establish the phenomenon being explained... is begging the question (an error he accuses others of committing).
Lewis distinguishes Naturalism (believing everything, or as he calls it, "the whole show", is a result of itself) from Supernaturalism (believing everything to have an external cause, namely God). Cutely, he also separates "Nature" from "Supernature". He tries to establish Naturalism (and later, Pantheism) as the default belief of the age. In 1947? Nice try, Jack. Everyone wants to be the underdog, I guess. He also presents a steady stream of straw man summaries of Naturalist positions, such as his ever-so-brief caricature of the Naturalist disbelief in free will, which was and ever has been more nuanced. Lewis's presentation seems geared in part for the "man on the fence", but primarily for the already-convinced Christian, which may be why he is so quick to discard irrelevant concepts, such as polytheism, from the docket.
The first wobbly syllogism he trots out is well known as the "argument from reason", which can be stated as "No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes." [source] The idea is that all rational thought derives from other rational thought, and that the chain must eventually link back to an external source, a thought-giver (God). He supports this with a long discussion of cause-and-effect versus ground-and-consequent determinations, as well as tautologies like "An argument cannot prove that no argument is sound." Great, good job. I think Lewis finds such formations far more impressive than they are, and uses them to boldly springboard into some declarative statement he has not earned. He offers a defense of tautologies... I wonder if he was getting flack for using them. I should note that this particular argument, as presented in its initial 1947 edition, received critical feedback from philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe (a Catholic) in an infamous debate in 1948. Lewis, to his credit, changed the name of the chapter and addressed some of the notes in a 1960 re-release. Anscombe, while appreciating the changes, said the new version still had "much to criticize in it". Indeed: I can hardly believe this argument would be taken seriously anywhere, and it has numerous refutations. I just have to wonder if Lewis reasoned that all poor reasoning also needs an external source.
Lewis gave me a chuckle when he acknowledged just how little he had established in the way of miracles by page 67: "I have advanced reasons for believing that a supernatural element is present in every rational man. The presence of human rationality in the world is therefore a Miracle by the definition given in Chapter II. On realising this the reader may excusably say, 'Oh, if that’s all he means by a Miracle…' and fling the book away." Ha! Indeed. I don't want to be all negative... there are good doses of dry wit and self-deprecatory humor, and on some occasions, he does present the opposition's arguments and objections well. He's obviously a smart guy, it’s fun to follow his thought process, and reading this sparked a lot of critical engagement on my part. I must also thank him for not redefining amazing-but-fully-natural-daily-phenomena such as breathing or childbirth as miracles, as many do (apart from the aforementioned miracle of "Reasoning" and leaving aside the glaring exception for Christ's virgin birth - don't get me started on that one). On the whole, however, Lewis is not up to his usual quality of writing in this book, and in many spots gets bogged down in the weeds.
Oh my, I've taken too many notes on this book. I, too, shall be guilty of getting bogged down in the weeds. Have I mentioned that I primarily write these for my own recollection? Thanks for reading if you've gotten this far. Let's turn this paragraph into a quick vent of observations: There are many arguments from absurdity and Lewis's own personal incredulity. I really did start to suspect that Lewis might be intentionally "blinding with philosophy". I'm not sure if he's aware of the burden of proof when it comes to miracles, but he flips it to the Naturalist with panache, and seems unaware that the null hypothesis is counter to his starting point. He builds incomplete lists (he loves to do this with word definitions, including in an appendix on "spirit" and "spirituality" that has nothing to do with this book, and famously with his "lunatic, liar or Lord" construction in Mere Christianity) and then proceeds as if he's constructed a valid syllogism, or cracks the door for a possibility and then presses it into service as an actuality. He accuses the Naturalist of lacking objective standards (such as when he claims a Naturalist can never form an "ought" statement), without acknowledging that even his fellow Christians cannot agree on such statements, despite their common belief in a shared, objective source.
Lewis dismisses other creation legends as "giants being cut up", but gives pride of place to the Hebrew legend without acknowledging its own obvious logical flaws. Why would the sun be created on the day after plants? Who did Adam's sons marry? Lewis plays fast and loose with biblical exegesis, criticizing those who treat certain stories or miracles as metaphors, but then determining that other passages must be metaphorical. For example, he spends a long time finding a way to avoid what he sees as the embarrassment of Jesus disappearing into the clouds as he "ascends" to heaven. Lewis does not believe that makes any kind of sense, and devotes many pages to finding a metaphorical way to prevent the upward journey into... space? Similarly, he declares there's no logical way Jesus could have sat at the Father's literal right hand. I was surprised at just how many theological determinations Lewis made in this book, on everything from the nature of the resurrected body (many pages on this) to Christ's descent into hell (which Lewis mentions frequently, despite that narrative's feeble scriptural support) to his idiosyncratic model of God's relation to time. He also, quite effectively, neuters the power of prayer in the final appendix. There are enough doctrinal deviations here to start a whole new branch of Christianity, and I imagine many Christians would take exception to some of Lewis's declarations... if anyone were analyzing them that closely, and if they were not already so reliant upon him as a source of Apologetic shielding.
And indeed, a shield is what Lewis provides. In the epilogue, he warns the reader against what will happen upon finishing the book and re-entering the real world: miracles will seem fadingly real, because we live in a world where we don't see them. He urges us to cling to our temporary boost in certainty, and to be on guard against other influences: "And when you turn from the New Testament to modern scholars, remember that you go among them as sheep among wolves. Naturalistic assumptions, beggings of the questions such as that which I noted on the first page of the book, will meet you on every side – even from the pens of clergyman."
I will offer no such injunctions. Go forth, read more (even this book), and think for yourself. As Philip K. Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
March 6, 2023
Coming back to Lewis is like coming back to your own bed after a long trip. His prose is comfortable and familiar, and his reasoning is sound. Miracles is an incredibly well thought out argument for not only the existence of miracles, but also the existence of God, as well as a rebuttal of the naturalistic perspective in favor of what he calls the supernaturalist perspective. It’s fun to catch Lewis’ influences. I did catch some similarities at times to Chesterton’s orthodoxy. I also found that the way Lewis uses Plato to understand the supernatural perspective is beautiful and very similar to the view that I have begun to hold after reading Plato.
September 25, 2023
September 2023 Review
Chapter seven is where it starts getting into the best stuff. Great analogies that explain how miracles work without breaking the laws of nature/physics. Later he gets into the Incarnation, Christ's Resurrection, and our resurrection on the last day as miracles. Appendixes at the back explore God's providence and prayer. In a way this is a sequel to Mere Christianity, for the average Christian layman.
February 2015 Review
Insightful connections. Astute metaphors. Absolutely brilliant! Everybody should read this book, if nothing else to be a better person and develop a worldview. In true Lewis fashion, his ideas do flicker from one spiel to the next, but that doesn't make it any less fascinating or relevant. Has become one of my Lewis favorites.
Chapter seven is where it starts getting into the best stuff. Great analogies that explain how miracles work without breaking the laws of nature/physics. Later he gets into the Incarnation, Christ's Resurrection, and our resurrection on the last day as miracles. Appendixes at the back explore God's providence and prayer. In a way this is a sequel to Mere Christianity, for the average Christian layman.
February 2015 Review
Insightful connections. Astute metaphors. Absolutely brilliant! Everybody should read this book, if nothing else to be a better person and develop a worldview. In true Lewis fashion, his ideas do flicker from one spiel to the next, but that doesn't make it any less fascinating or relevant. Has become one of my Lewis favorites.
September 27, 2024
2024 Review
Took a lot of attention but once I found my groove, I enjoyed this re-read. Definitely lots to mull over.
2016 Review
4.5, rounded up because it is Lewis
Brilliant. Beyond me. Some of his arguments felt over my head, yet it didn't take long for me to pick up his train of thought. Perhaps the greatest part of Lewis's genius is his ability to make the complex understandable. Miracles looks broadly at worldviews and is as much an argument for Christianity as for the existence of miracles. In fact, that is probably inescapable, as so much of Christianity depends on the miraculous.
A very profound book that is fun but not easy to read. Lewis presents several complex arguments and they often take focus to completely grasp. I think it is worth it in the end. This book naturally follows Mere Christianity and The Abolition of Man, but would probably be hard to tackle as an introduction to Lewis. I understood a lot of his arguments because I first grasped where they came from in his other books, including The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, which was fascinating.
I like that Lewis constantly references other books to read to get a broader understanding of the subject.
Definitely worth the time and focus!
Side note, I love that Lewis calls Chapter 9, "A Chapter Not Strictly Necessary." That cracks me up.
Took a lot of attention but once I found my groove, I enjoyed this re-read. Definitely lots to mull over.
2016 Review
4.5, rounded up because it is Lewis
Brilliant. Beyond me. Some of his arguments felt over my head, yet it didn't take long for me to pick up his train of thought. Perhaps the greatest part of Lewis's genius is his ability to make the complex understandable. Miracles looks broadly at worldviews and is as much an argument for Christianity as for the existence of miracles. In fact, that is probably inescapable, as so much of Christianity depends on the miraculous.
A very profound book that is fun but not easy to read. Lewis presents several complex arguments and they often take focus to completely grasp. I think it is worth it in the end. This book naturally follows Mere Christianity and The Abolition of Man, but would probably be hard to tackle as an introduction to Lewis. I understood a lot of his arguments because I first grasped where they came from in his other books, including The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, which was fascinating.
I like that Lewis constantly references other books to read to get a broader understanding of the subject.
Definitely worth the time and focus!
Side note, I love that Lewis calls Chapter 9, "A Chapter Not Strictly Necessary." That cracks me up.
November 23, 2024
3.5 ⭐
Phew! This one required every single brain cell I possess and some that I don't (and likely never will!). In other words, I'm not sure I fully grasped one hundred percent of everything C S Lewis was saying here, nor am I sure that I ever will.
However, I understood enough to get the gist of his meaning and I did find it very interesting. The amount of time in my life that I have spent pondering the miracles in the Bible can be contained in a thimble, so I really appreciated the opportunity to examine the whole concept of miracles in general, and a few miracles in particular, in a way I never have before.
This book is written for skeptics, so I'm not the intended audience, but I still got a lot out of it. But it's not for the casual reader, that's for sure. It's meaty, intellectual, philosophical, occasionally theological. Lots of material to ponder.
I don't agree with Lewis on some finer points of theology, but I loved his exploration of "old creation" miracles vs "new creation" miracles, and his thoughts on what we can infer from Jesus' resurrected body in regards to our own future resurrected body.
Phew! This one required every single brain cell I possess and some that I don't (and likely never will!). In other words, I'm not sure I fully grasped one hundred percent of everything C S Lewis was saying here, nor am I sure that I ever will.
However, I understood enough to get the gist of his meaning and I did find it very interesting. The amount of time in my life that I have spent pondering the miracles in the Bible can be contained in a thimble, so I really appreciated the opportunity to examine the whole concept of miracles in general, and a few miracles in particular, in a way I never have before.
This book is written for skeptics, so I'm not the intended audience, but I still got a lot out of it. But it's not for the casual reader, that's for sure. It's meaty, intellectual, philosophical, occasionally theological. Lots of material to ponder.
I don't agree with Lewis on some finer points of theology, but I loved his exploration of "old creation" miracles vs "new creation" miracles, and his thoughts on what we can infer from Jesus' resurrected body in regards to our own future resurrected body.
April 18, 2021
Miracles is dense; more so than any Lewis book we’ve read this term. The entire book is a somewhat stealth exercise in Lewis’ presuppositional apologetic. By that I mean not that Lewis argues with the non-Christian from some imaginary set of shared presuppositions, but that he deftly dismantles the non-Christian’s presuppositions, leaving him standing there, naked, ashamed, and in desperate need of the Gospel. And he does it all before the non-Christian knows what’s happened.
It’s kind of like one giant narratio, in that way. In each chapter, Lewis, with unimpeachable logic, writes in such a way as to get non-Christians to nod emphatically along with him until, all of a sudden, they are blindsided with a consequent truth. A truth that they’d really rather not accept. You’ll find no straw-manning here. Lewis is a defector from the non-Christian camp and knows all their movements.
All you will find are clearly presented truths that, I’m sure, have left many readers confronted, bewildered, with the inescapable glory of God’s greatest miracle: the incarnation. Here’s hoping many a soul found it convincing enough to do something about it.
APRIL 2021: Evem better the second time around. Lewos has a singular talent for translating complex theological and philosophical concepts into clear, everyday langauge. I wish I could do the same.
This time I happened to read it in close proximity to Alvin Plantiga's "Wjere tje Cpmflict Really Lies" and Michael Heisner's "The Unseen Realm." It's a trio that comlement each other in surprising and wonderful ways.
It’s kind of like one giant narratio, in that way. In each chapter, Lewis, with unimpeachable logic, writes in such a way as to get non-Christians to nod emphatically along with him until, all of a sudden, they are blindsided with a consequent truth. A truth that they’d really rather not accept. You’ll find no straw-manning here. Lewis is a defector from the non-Christian camp and knows all their movements.
All you will find are clearly presented truths that, I’m sure, have left many readers confronted, bewildered, with the inescapable glory of God’s greatest miracle: the incarnation. Here’s hoping many a soul found it convincing enough to do something about it.
APRIL 2021: Evem better the second time around. Lewos has a singular talent for translating complex theological and philosophical concepts into clear, everyday langauge. I wish I could do the same.
This time I happened to read it in close proximity to Alvin Plantiga's "Wjere tje Cpmflict Really Lies" and Michael Heisner's "The Unseen Realm." It's a trio that comlement each other in surprising and wonderful ways.
October 31, 2015
I am trying to read through Lewis's Canon which is extremely fluid in places, not quite as canonized as Shakespeare. This book is pure Lewis. He takes a subject and logically works his way through it. We do not always understand what he is saying but he says it so well we do not care.
I always feel sad while reading Lewis that he is dead and not sitting across from me at the Bird and the Baby.
I always feel sad while reading Lewis that he is dead and not sitting across from me at the Bird and the Baby.
January 1, 2022
I found this to be a tale of two books.
The first spans the first 160 pages or so. Here Lewis lays necessary groundwork for his central thesis, but it's all high philosophy and I found it a bit too abstract. Reading was a slog. So much so that I almost put the book on the shelf for good…but I was juuust curious enough to continue, so I pressed on. I'm glad I did.
Lewis wrapped up his preliminaries and began Chapter 14. He had finally turned the corner and arrived at the thesis itself. In a brisk and grand sweep, he carries us up to the vantage point from which he sees the world—and my, what a view. It's pure exhilaration. That is about all I can say at this point. I'm still trying to take it in all in.
Aside from my general and inarticulate acclamation, there is one thing I'll mention in particular.
In his chapter on the Incarnation, Lewis writes, "When spring comes it 'leaves no corner of the land untouched'; even a pebble dropped in a pond sends circles to the margin." (p. 200)
It's typical of his style to quote something but leave it unattributed. But it caught my eye, so I looked up the source. The line about spring is from an address given by James Davie Butler in 1875 at the inauguration of the Madison Free Library in Wisconsin.
Here's the reason I looked it up: winter giving way to spring is one of the principal motifs in the Chronicles of Narnia. Here’s Mr. Beaver in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe:
Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight,
At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more,
When he bares his teeth, winter meets its death,
And when he shakes his mane, we will have spring again.
That was published in 1950, just three years after Miracles. Was James Butler the origin of what would become one of Lewis's most famous metaphors? I don't know. But it's fun to consider.
The first spans the first 160 pages or so. Here Lewis lays necessary groundwork for his central thesis, but it's all high philosophy and I found it a bit too abstract. Reading was a slog. So much so that I almost put the book on the shelf for good…but I was juuust curious enough to continue, so I pressed on. I'm glad I did.
Lewis wrapped up his preliminaries and began Chapter 14. He had finally turned the corner and arrived at the thesis itself. In a brisk and grand sweep, he carries us up to the vantage point from which he sees the world—and my, what a view. It's pure exhilaration. That is about all I can say at this point. I'm still trying to take it in all in.
Aside from my general and inarticulate acclamation, there is one thing I'll mention in particular.
In his chapter on the Incarnation, Lewis writes, "When spring comes it 'leaves no corner of the land untouched'; even a pebble dropped in a pond sends circles to the margin." (p. 200)
It's typical of his style to quote something but leave it unattributed. But it caught my eye, so I looked up the source. The line about spring is from an address given by James Davie Butler in 1875 at the inauguration of the Madison Free Library in Wisconsin.
Here's the reason I looked it up: winter giving way to spring is one of the principal motifs in the Chronicles of Narnia. Here’s Mr. Beaver in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe:
Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight,
At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more,
When he bares his teeth, winter meets its death,
And when he shakes his mane, we will have spring again.
That was published in 1950, just three years after Miracles. Was James Butler the origin of what would become one of Lewis's most famous metaphors? I don't know. But it's fun to consider.
February 10, 2025
As I said on my friend's review: I am both a Christian and a scientist and I was unable to embrace this book from either of those, my dominant ideologies. This book is completely inaccessible. It's philosophical in nature and seems to rely heavily on logic to try to defend an ideology that is not at all logical.
Part of my kill-my-tbr project, in which I'm reading all my physical, unread books, which number around one thousand!
Part of my kill-my-tbr project, in which I'm reading all my physical, unread books, which number around one thousand!
Want to read
May 6, 2023Just found a 1947 first edition for less than a dollar!
March 13, 2016
Excellent. Went through it again in March of 2016. Richer each time.
May 23, 2020
Lewis is so brilliant.
June 23, 2025
Read for “Prompt No. 2: Read a non-fiction work,” for Kailey’s awesome new Inklings Readathon in June!
What an outstanding exposition on the great confidence and assurance we as Christians can have for believing in miracles. He particularly addresses the difference between Naturalism and Supernaturalism, and why the belief systems of Pantheism, Dualism, and Rationalism all fall short of a full, complete, and logical worldview that not only allows for the presence and occasions of miracles, but insists on them.
One of the denser and more philosophical books by Lewis that I’ve read—it goes way beyond “mere” apologetics. But what an utterly satisfying and enriching read this was.
Highly recommended!
What an outstanding exposition on the great confidence and assurance we as Christians can have for believing in miracles. He particularly addresses the difference between Naturalism and Supernaturalism, and why the belief systems of Pantheism, Dualism, and Rationalism all fall short of a full, complete, and logical worldview that not only allows for the presence and occasions of miracles, but insists on them.
One of the denser and more philosophical books by Lewis that I’ve read—it goes way beyond “mere” apologetics. But what an utterly satisfying and enriching read this was.
Highly recommended!
May 27, 2025
This rating is based off my understanding of the book, not the book itself!!
I truly love the concept of this book, and I love C.S Lewis! But I think my brain just can’t understand the somewhat big ideas he presents lol. But either way, every Christian should read this!!!
I truly love the concept of this book, and I love C.S Lewis! But I think my brain just can’t understand the somewhat big ideas he presents lol. But either way, every Christian should read this!!!
June 17, 2021
Update:
Reread for grad school, and my opinion hasn't changed. There are 3 or 4 essays available in God in the Dock in which Lewis deals with these subjects more concisely. They did not benefit from being joined and expanded into a book, especially when that book can't decide whether it is meant for everyday readers or natural philosophers.
Original Review:
Considered the least successful of Lewis' nonfiction; this is deserved. Frequently lacks that startling clarity that is Lewis' trademark. The content is helpful and worthwhile, but its delivery is considerably less brilliant than I've come to expect from him.
Reread for grad school, and my opinion hasn't changed. There are 3 or 4 essays available in God in the Dock in which Lewis deals with these subjects more concisely. They did not benefit from being joined and expanded into a book, especially when that book can't decide whether it is meant for everyday readers or natural philosophers.
Original Review:
Considered the least successful of Lewis' nonfiction; this is deserved. Frequently lacks that startling clarity that is Lewis' trademark. The content is helpful and worthwhile, but its delivery is considerably less brilliant than I've come to expect from him.
March 14, 2023
I’ve said all of this many times but I’m thankful that I’m just agreeing with one of history’s greats
April 22, 2013
"Miracle" has become a dirty word in modern society. People generally view miracles as being, by their very definition, things that cannot possibly occur; therefore, anyone who argues for their existence is demonstrably an idiot. In this book, though, Lewis argues that miracles are only impossible so long as people consider Nature to encompass the entirety of all existence. He then capably demonstrates that Nature actually doesn't, thereby opening up an extensive range of fascinating possibility. Lewis argues that miracles likely operate on a different set of natural laws than what we are able to experience with our five senses. He also shows that not all miracles are equally absurd: some--such as the ones performed in the New Testament--fit snuggly inside a greater narrative and provide a basis for certain historical events that otherwise might remain inexplicable.
Want to read
February 28, 2022The book includes the topic of miracles, but it's more of an argument from reason. The early edition of Miracles was criticized by Elizabeth Anscombe, a philosopher who debated Lewis in the only public debate that Lewis ever lost. A revised edition of this book, according to this article (cf. here), addresses Anscombe's concern, but essentially uses it to reinforce Lewis's original opinion. Chapter 3 was the revised chapter. See Donald Williams's comments on the Anscombe issue here. Williams lectures on Lewis's argument from reason here.
See Jacobs's The Narnian for a challenge to the common way of talking about Lewis vs. Anscombe (that Lewis was humiliated and retreated to writing children's literature). Hooper may have overplayed Lewis's reaction to Anscombe, according to Anscombe herself (Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Mind: The Collected Philosophical Papers of G.E.M. Anscombe, vol. 2, 1981, p. x.).
Related sources that work out and confirm Lewis's basic idea include Reppert's C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason (Reppert also deals with the Anscombe myth), Plantinga's Knowledge and Christian Belief (a popular-level exposition of his work—Stokes reviews it here; see Plantinga's EAAN here, which mentions both Lewis and Reppert), and Stokes's A Shot of Faith.
Here's Doug Wilson on different kinds of miracles. Here (around the 47 minute mark) Wilson says that Lewis here argues as a presuppositionalist. Joe Minich has a series of introductory videos on this book, the first of which is here.
See Jacobs's The Narnian for a challenge to the common way of talking about Lewis vs. Anscombe (that Lewis was humiliated and retreated to writing children's literature). Hooper may have overplayed Lewis's reaction to Anscombe, according to Anscombe herself (Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Mind: The Collected Philosophical Papers of G.E.M. Anscombe, vol. 2, 1981, p. x.).
Related sources that work out and confirm Lewis's basic idea include Reppert's C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason (Reppert also deals with the Anscombe myth), Plantinga's Knowledge and Christian Belief (a popular-level exposition of his work—Stokes reviews it here; see Plantinga's EAAN here, which mentions both Lewis and Reppert), and Stokes's A Shot of Faith.
Here's Doug Wilson on different kinds of miracles. Here (around the 47 minute mark) Wilson says that Lewis here argues as a presuppositionalist. Joe Minich has a series of introductory videos on this book, the first of which is here.
January 20, 2020
I must say that I have been trying to read this book for a long time but somehow I kept on strolling through the chapters with slight interest. Eventually one day I took this book with me while I had a visit and started reading with more interest and I finally understood that it was worth the read.
I was reading where he describes the incarnation of Christ and the book had all my attention. The content is very interesting and I highly recommend it.
I was reading where he describes the incarnation of Christ and the book had all my attention. The content is very interesting and I highly recommend it.
January 8, 2025
I need some time to think about the star rating on this one.
Lewis goes deep in his academic voice with theological thoughts. Whew. I felt like my brow was furrowed [just trying to understand] until about chapter seven where it became easier. haha!
As always, I'll have a more in-depth review [where I usually read a snippet & go deep with thoughts] on my YT channel. 💙☕📚
Lewis goes deep in his academic voice with theological thoughts. Whew. I felt like my brow was furrowed [just trying to understand] until about chapter seven where it became easier. haha!
As always, I'll have a more in-depth review [where I usually read a snippet & go deep with thoughts] on my YT channel. 💙☕📚
December 1, 2025
sensul/definitia cuvintelor are o importanță mare, la fel cum si contextul lucrurilor le dă o alta semnificatie, cuvintele "spirit"/"spiritual" conteaza mult unde si cum le pui sau cum le folosesti in vorbire, daca ne gandim într-un context de africani șamani ei spun unii despre altii ca sunt foarte "spirituali" sau ei spun ca sunt plini de "spirite", noi crestinii stim clar ca acest "spiritual" sau "spirite" despre care vorbesc africanii sunt niste lucruri rele pt ca pt noi a fi "spiritual" in perspectiva credintei noastre in Cristos inseamna a fi "desavarsit" sau cel putin a aspira spre aceasta directie.
miracolele sau minunile facute de Dumnezeu sunt dovedite pt noi prin intermediul Lui Cristos, fiu de Dumnezeu întrupat in om si toate exemplele de minuni sunt explicate ca si niste lucruri obisnuite ce le vedem deobicei cu ochii nostri in viata de zi cu zi, atata ca El isi impune amprenta de supranatural si ne da de fiecare data un mic "spoiler" despre viata vesnica care ne asteapta, traind in trupuri noi dar ca si ale Lui Cristos cand a trait printre oameni. De exemplu schimbarea apei in vin la nuntă pt multi este ceva inexplicabil si inadmisibil a fi o minune pt ca au nevoie de dovezi, dar cum toti stim ca la ordinea zilei omul schimba apa in tot felul de bauturi diverse, tot asa si Cristos a schimbat apa din ulcioare in vin, deci in teorie nu este o minune inexplicabila ci doar un principiu natural pe care l-a tot auzit lumea dar pt ca n-au fost si ei acolo atunci nu pot crede asa ceva. Miracolele nu se intampla dupa timpul nostru, ci dupa timpul Lui Dumnezeu, nu istoric sau social, ci timpul spiritual care se ia dupa natura Lui, un timp vesnic prezent la dispozitia lui,minunile se intampla cand a rânduit El sa se intample, anumite victorii sau tratate de pace se pot considera minuni pt ca au salvat posibile vieti de la moarte dar am fost noi acolo sa le vedem sa le traim? nu, deci nu putem fi martori la orice sau chiar toata minunile posibile, la fel cum daca nu stai langa o cale ferata nu ai cum cand iesi din casa sa vezi cum merge trenul. "Sentimentele tale in acest moment nu constituie o dovada ca nu se pot produce miracole"
Natura si Dumnezeu nu sunt precum spune Kant, pe etaje, la parter este Natura si vezi doar ce se afla aici cand te situezi la acest nivel, iar la primu etaj este Dumnezeu si poti vedea splendoarea lui daca urci pana la acest etaj. "Nu ne aflam niciodata intr-o stare sufleteasca"
"Inca din viata aceasta prezenta am vazut cu totii felul in care Dumnezeu ne poate aduna toate aparentele contrarietati intru faptul spiritual, facand ca ele sa joace un rol nu lipsit de importanță in transformarea binecuvântării din acel moment într-o binecuvantare speciala"
viata noastra nu este o cladire cu mai multe sau mai putine etaje, este un santier in continua constructie si dărâmare pt ca suntem reînnoiti de Dumnezeu prin slava Sa, noi nu vrem sa fim eliberati total de aceasta natura ci sa fim imbracati din nou in chip desăvârșit.
"A ne retrage de la tot ceea ce poate fi numit Natura într-o spiritalitate negativa este ca si cum am fugi de cai in loc de a învăța să-i calarim"
miracolele sau minunile facute de Dumnezeu sunt dovedite pt noi prin intermediul Lui Cristos, fiu de Dumnezeu întrupat in om si toate exemplele de minuni sunt explicate ca si niste lucruri obisnuite ce le vedem deobicei cu ochii nostri in viata de zi cu zi, atata ca El isi impune amprenta de supranatural si ne da de fiecare data un mic "spoiler" despre viata vesnica care ne asteapta, traind in trupuri noi dar ca si ale Lui Cristos cand a trait printre oameni. De exemplu schimbarea apei in vin la nuntă pt multi este ceva inexplicabil si inadmisibil a fi o minune pt ca au nevoie de dovezi, dar cum toti stim ca la ordinea zilei omul schimba apa in tot felul de bauturi diverse, tot asa si Cristos a schimbat apa din ulcioare in vin, deci in teorie nu este o minune inexplicabila ci doar un principiu natural pe care l-a tot auzit lumea dar pt ca n-au fost si ei acolo atunci nu pot crede asa ceva. Miracolele nu se intampla dupa timpul nostru, ci dupa timpul Lui Dumnezeu, nu istoric sau social, ci timpul spiritual care se ia dupa natura Lui, un timp vesnic prezent la dispozitia lui,minunile se intampla cand a rânduit El sa se intample, anumite victorii sau tratate de pace se pot considera minuni pt ca au salvat posibile vieti de la moarte dar am fost noi acolo sa le vedem sa le traim? nu, deci nu putem fi martori la orice sau chiar toata minunile posibile, la fel cum daca nu stai langa o cale ferata nu ai cum cand iesi din casa sa vezi cum merge trenul. "Sentimentele tale in acest moment nu constituie o dovada ca nu se pot produce miracole"
Natura si Dumnezeu nu sunt precum spune Kant, pe etaje, la parter este Natura si vezi doar ce se afla aici cand te situezi la acest nivel, iar la primu etaj este Dumnezeu si poti vedea splendoarea lui daca urci pana la acest etaj. "Nu ne aflam niciodata intr-o stare sufleteasca"
"Inca din viata aceasta prezenta am vazut cu totii felul in care Dumnezeu ne poate aduna toate aparentele contrarietati intru faptul spiritual, facand ca ele sa joace un rol nu lipsit de importanță in transformarea binecuvântării din acel moment într-o binecuvantare speciala"
viata noastra nu este o cladire cu mai multe sau mai putine etaje, este un santier in continua constructie si dărâmare pt ca suntem reînnoiti de Dumnezeu prin slava Sa, noi nu vrem sa fim eliberati total de aceasta natura ci sa fim imbracati din nou in chip desăvârșit.
"A ne retrage de la tot ceea ce poate fi numit Natura într-o spiritalitate negativa este ca si cum am fugi de cai in loc de a învăța să-i calarim"
September 10, 2024
4.6/5 Stars 🌟
I opened this book, and it never stopped amazing me from chapter 1 to the end. C.S. Lewis has broken the boundaries of how I thought the universe worked based on all the world has taught me. I never thought to defy science by asking, "What if it's not all true?" Instead, I'd try to fit God in the confines of my high school textbooks 😂
C.S. Lewis was such a huge thinker! I'm constantly wondering how on this earth he ever escaped having his brain conformed to what are considered worldly truths? How the heck did his imagination break these chains and push forward with such great faith? He continues to blow my mind and encourages me to see God beyond normal conventions. He's not limited to all that I know. He's beyond anything I can ever think or imagine. God, I mean, not C.S. Lewis 🤣
Although in with all this praise for C.S. Lewis's intellect, imagination, and ice breaking humour, I must add my own personal touch of belief that while I am happy to have an idea of so many things that I didn't ever try to understand or notice unveiled for my eyes to be opened to God's amazing character, I also find that somethings can not be explained and I don't mind them being left to Faith in exchange of understanding. There are moments during C.S. Lewis's explanations when he acknowledges as much I do that we may never understand every point.
I got bored and confused at times when he did explain one of those points that I felt were explained in vain because I had deemed it quite a faith matter.
I'm glad that he answers questions and broadens the scope of my vision. My faith and love for God grows everytime I read C.S. Lewis 😊 I hope others explore his works and are blessed. Perhaps what I see as a faith matter could be a question others need answers to. So I recommend Miracles to everyone, especially Christians.
I opened this book, and it never stopped amazing me from chapter 1 to the end. C.S. Lewis has broken the boundaries of how I thought the universe worked based on all the world has taught me. I never thought to defy science by asking, "What if it's not all true?" Instead, I'd try to fit God in the confines of my high school textbooks 😂
C.S. Lewis was such a huge thinker! I'm constantly wondering how on this earth he ever escaped having his brain conformed to what are considered worldly truths? How the heck did his imagination break these chains and push forward with such great faith? He continues to blow my mind and encourages me to see God beyond normal conventions. He's not limited to all that I know. He's beyond anything I can ever think or imagine. God, I mean, not C.S. Lewis 🤣
Although in with all this praise for C.S. Lewis's intellect, imagination, and ice breaking humour, I must add my own personal touch of belief that while I am happy to have an idea of so many things that I didn't ever try to understand or notice unveiled for my eyes to be opened to God's amazing character, I also find that somethings can not be explained and I don't mind them being left to Faith in exchange of understanding. There are moments during C.S. Lewis's explanations when he acknowledges as much I do that we may never understand every point.
I got bored and confused at times when he did explain one of those points that I felt were explained in vain because I had deemed it quite a faith matter.
I'm glad that he answers questions and broadens the scope of my vision. My faith and love for God grows everytime I read C.S. Lewis 😊 I hope others explore his works and are blessed. Perhaps what I see as a faith matter could be a question others need answers to. So I recommend Miracles to everyone, especially Christians.
August 25, 2025
4.5 stars.
A classic masterpiece of Lewis' literature, full of deep thoughts and interesting points. I feel after reading it once that maybe I gleaned only a small amount of what this book has to offer, so it definitely will require more re-reads down the road. There were moments I felt I disagreed with him, but I also know this may be because I misunderstood. It is easy to skirt the surface of something someone says and write it off and forever categorize it as wrong, but if you venture a second look, or extend a little charity, you might find that wasn't what they were saying at all, or, impossibility of impossibilities, you find that you were the one who was wrong!
There were so many pages where I felt like I was devouring a decadent feast, and must admit, some points where I zoned out. (Probably my own fault, rather than the author's). In all, this was an excellent work, well worth the read and re-read, and re-read etc....
A classic masterpiece of Lewis' literature, full of deep thoughts and interesting points. I feel after reading it once that maybe I gleaned only a small amount of what this book has to offer, so it definitely will require more re-reads down the road. There were moments I felt I disagreed with him, but I also know this may be because I misunderstood. It is easy to skirt the surface of something someone says and write it off and forever categorize it as wrong, but if you venture a second look, or extend a little charity, you might find that wasn't what they were saying at all, or, impossibility of impossibilities, you find that you were the one who was wrong!
There were so many pages where I felt like I was devouring a decadent feast, and must admit, some points where I zoned out. (Probably my own fault, rather than the author's). In all, this was an excellent work, well worth the read and re-read, and re-read etc....
November 11, 2025
Truly an incredible book. The second half is one of the most beautiful articulations of central tenets of the Christian faith that I’ve ever read.
August 17, 2019
I slogged through the first ten chapters, plodding onward because it was C.S. Lewis. Then the door cracked open in chapter 11 and by chapter 14 I was illuminated and enthralled. It seemed that his audience for the earlier section was readers without faith. But once he started describing The Grand Miracle (the incarnation of Christ) and several other classes of miracles, my attention was fixed.
I have added a new Goodreads bookshelf: Terminal DX. There are several titles that I would like to read if (when?) I were given a terminal diagnosis. ("Always be prepared.") This book is included. The last Narnia book is another. I think chapter 14 may become an annual Advent reading with my husband.
I'm blushing to write this, but Curt and I have always privately protested the verses about no marriage and no sex in heaven. When a taste of heaven is given in our bedroom, it's hard to imagine no conjugal beds in heaven. If you've wondered about this, go to page 260 for the most brilliant explanation I've read.
I have added a new Goodreads bookshelf: Terminal DX. There are several titles that I would like to read if (when?) I were given a terminal diagnosis. ("Always be prepared.") This book is included. The last Narnia book is another. I think chapter 14 may become an annual Advent reading with my husband.
I'm blushing to write this, but Curt and I have always privately protested the verses about no marriage and no sex in heaven. When a taste of heaven is given in our bedroom, it's hard to imagine no conjugal beds in heaven. If you've wondered about this, go to page 260 for the most brilliant explanation I've read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,241 reviews