Rating: 
Summary: An excellent plethora of thought
Review: I loved the intellectual craft of this book. It was metally and spiritually refreshing to read, though it took me a while. I strongly recommend it to anyone who loves reason.
Rating:
Summary: Terrific book; and rebuttal to Jonathan Widger's critique
Review: I recently read this for the first time in years. It's funny how easy it is to forget so much about a book read once. I was pleasantly surprised and refreshed at the bracing logic and intellectual honesty to be found in these pages. Reading C.S. Lewis is always such a clarifying experience, and _Miracles_ is as prime an example of this as any.The title may be a bit misleading to the first-time reader, so be warned: Lewis is here primarily concerned with analyzing the shortcomings of philosophical naturalism rather than discussing the historicity of certain miracles. He acknowledges that he has a background in philosophical but not historical methods, so the thrust of this book is in laying a framework for epistemology, and exposing fallacies in common objections to the supernatural. Good timing for me to want to write a review of _Miracles_, so I can have the opportunity to respond to the previous review, by Jonathan Widger, as well. The "three serious problems" Mr. Widger raises are a series of compounded misunderstandings/misrepresentations of the arguments propounded in _Miracles_. Mr. Widger astutely points out that "non-rational causation", that to be caused is not to be proved, does not necessarily make caused beliefs false. This is true, and is worth pointing out. While reading Lewis's explanation of this main argument of his, there was a nagging sense in the back of my mind that there was something missing from it, and I think Mr. Widger has hit upon it. But while it does not follow, ipso facto, that a caused belief is false, to say that we arrive at reasoned, universal truths by way of a determinist chain of causes and effects is so far afield from the way anyone believes in or practices epistemology and logic, that it does not bear up under any amount of scrutiny. Presumably, Lewis considers this too obvious to point out explicitly. As he illustrates, the whole way in which we argue demonstrates how epistemology works: one of the commonest methods of debunking an opponent's views is to say "you say that simply *because* you are (an academic, a liberal, etc.)." The only workable treatment of the very foundations of reason and thought are that they are "super-natural," although Lewis admits that this is a very different use of the word from what we are used to. "Self-caused" might be clearer, although that term doesn't hit on the point as directly, which is that will and rationality cannot be reduced to a mere dependent chain of events. This brings us to Jonathan Widger's third point (I'll get to number two), which is that ultimately Lewis's premise rests on an "argumentum ad ignorantum." A more thorough misapprehension of Lewis' point could scarcely be conceived. It is not because we do not know *how* the mind works that we must invoke a supernatural explanation, but the mere fact that (as Lewis takes pains to explain) the process of reasoning, in order to be as meaningful and valid as we make it out to be, must be placed *outside* the cause-and-effect chain of natural events, means that its basis must be "super-natural" (self-caused). I would guess that eventually a reductionistic quantum-mechanical description (it will probably be called an "explanation") of the workings of the brain during the process of thought will be formulated, but this will not change the fact that "natural", causative explanations of rationality will be as self-defeating as they ever were, if not more so. Lewis' main argument, as always, remains intact. Widger's second objection is perhaps the most confused and incoherent of all. Wholly dependent on the whole "argumentum ad ignorantum" idea, the converse of this second objection seems to be that naturalism can somehow offer a better justification for distinguishing between true and false beliefs than even Widger's badly misunderstood version of Lewis' argument can. Once again, it is not that we don't *understand* mental processes enough to offer a natural explanation, the point is that a "natural" explanation, by definition, would be out of court with all human experience, and would leave us with no workable system in which rationality itself could be trusted. Not only would it not make any conceivable difference what we believed, but any conviction that we *chose* so would have to be utterly illusory. Incredibly, Widger compounds his misunderstanding even further by treating a "supernatural cause" as though it is just another natural cause, so that "our supernatural cause is either unreliable or even malicious" if someone's thought process is irrational! However, it is clear from the definition of independent will that one may choose irrationally, and from human frailty that we may be in error unwittingly. Supernatural entities may be corrupted just as natural ones; indeed, any corruption in the dependent natural world implies some corruption in the supernatural realm. This is the rational basis for a belief in the existence of actual evil, which naturalism once again gives us no grounds for.
Rating:
Summary: Last few chapters are a must read!
Review: I'd have given the book three or four stars because I get so bored with the type of dialectical apologetics against Modernism that the first two thirds are full of (Even though Lewis is never really boring). But when he begins to speak about the Resurrection and the New Creation, God's Great Reversal, the book becomes outstanding. The escatological significance of what he says cannot be overstated. And when Lewis says it, he says it with beautiful eloquence that will break your heart. He begins a conversation that we must return to and continue. The Anglican Bishop Tom (N.T.) Wright said this is the best he has ever seen anyone deal with the Resurrection. He also says, "Space, Time, and Resurrection" by Thomas Torrance is a close second.
Rating:
Summary: A suggestion for C.S. Lewis Lovers
Review: I'm an enourmous fan of C.S. Lewis and have been for many years. His explorations of Christianity bring a much needed intellegence to the faith and I have always been so grateful for his writing. On more then a few occasions, I have given his books to secular friends as an introduction to Christianity and have read them myself several times. His insight and observations have always given me something new to consider. unfortunately, I've always found other Christian writers of fiction to be strongly lacking the same level of intellegence. Recently, however, a good friend loaned me a copy of We All Fall down by Brian Caldwell. I found the novel to be every bit as intellegent and enjoyable as Lewis. Caldwell writes with real energy and passion and his novel made me rethink many aspects of my faith. I would strongly recomend it for people who enjoy C.S. Lewis. It's a great book.
Rating: 
Summary: The Essence of Miracles
Review: In this book, C.S. Lewis looks at the essence of what miracles are and how they relate to Christianity. He begins with a few chapters trying to prove that miracles have occurred and are occurring. In these chapters and at other points in the book, he examines what miracles are to us psychologically and why individuals have a hard time believing in them. Lewis talks intelligently about a subject that many would consider only a matter of faith and not reason. While I am not wholeheartedly ready to jump in the boat on every single one of his ideas, I found his thinking to be enlightened and very interesting. One of Lewis's main points is the difference between the belief that the universe is the whole of existence with nothing possible outside of it and the belief that God is the surveyor of all there is with our universe being only one of other realms. He makes this and his other points clearly and intelligently. Reading through this book is invaluable in deepening one's faith and understanding of Christianity.
Rating:
Summary: A great discussion of miracles
Review: In this work, the master of Christian apology tackles a difficult subject: miracles. The question is easy enough--do miracles really occur?--but the answer is far more complex and difficult. True to his style, Lewis picks apart the question and analyzes it with the scrutinizing eye of a skeptic who has seen the light and wants to help others see it too.
The scope, of course, goes far beyond miracles. In analyzing the probability of such events, Lewis examines Pantheism vs. Christianity, and the idea of a Nature that is completely independent of any outside interference (even God`s). His argument that the laws and `nature' of Nature are not violated by miracles is convincing, as is his argument that miracles are, in fact, necessary. For Lewis, a miracle wrought by the Creator of mankind is really nothing extraordinary. Some miracles, such as the water being turned into wine, simply skip a step or two. Instead of water nourishing a vine that eventually produces grapes for wine, Christ merely eliminates the intermediary steps. Other miracles, such as Christ's Resurrection, are simply a glance at what's to come, when everyone will be resurrected.
Whether or not you agree with Lewis, his argument is worth considering. Like most of his work, this book is written for believer and skeptic alike, and provides a stimulating analysis of the probability of miracles occurring. This one belongs on the shelf of any Christian thinker, and will prove a stimulating read for students of philosophy as well.
Rating:
Summary: A great discussion of miracles
Review: In this work, the master of Christian apology tackles a difficult subject: miracles. The question is easy enough--do miracles really occur?--but the answer is far more complex and difficult. True to his style, Lewis picks apart the question and analyzes it with the scrutinizing eye of a skeptic who has seen the light and wants to help others see it too.
The scope, of course, goes far beyond miracles. In analyzing the probability of such events, Lewis examines Pantheism vs. Christianity, and the idea of a Nature that is completely independent of any outside interference (even God's). His argument that the laws and 'nature' of Nature are not violated by miracles is convincing, as is his argument that miracles are, in fact, necessary. For Lewis, a miracle wrought by the Creator of mankind is really nothing extraordinary. Some miracles, such as the water being turned into wine, simply skip a step or two. Instead of water nourishing a vine that eventually produces grapes for wine, Christ merely eliminates the intermediary steps. Other miracles, such as Christ's Resurrection, are simply a glance at what's to come, when everyone will be resurrected.
Whether or not you agree with Lewis, his argument is worth considering. Like most of his work, this book is written for believer and skeptic alike, and provides a stimulating analysis of the probability of miracles occurring. This one belongs on the shelf of any Christian thinker, and will prove a stimulating read for students of philosophy as well.
Rating:
Summary: Good defense of Miracles
Review: Lewis examines many of the ill-conceived views of miracles that alot of people hold. He exposes them in light of the Bible, human reasoning and other examining tools. This approach is great for people who are seeking a philosophical prespective rather than a scientific or historical one (since many people reject scientific or historical views due to philosophical presuppositions). Another classic from Lewis.
Rating:
Summary: Lewis Dispels Yet More Myths about Religion
Review: Miracles is one of Lewis' longer apologetic works, and I think, perhaps the most complicated. This is not because Lewis has lost the wonderful, taut, reasoned writing that people have grown to expect of him, but rather because people's views on miracles can be terribly hard to unknot. This, I think, is also the most purely philosophical work he wrote, though that should not scare anyone away, as he lays out everything in a very clear, readable way. Lewis starts with a bang, in that he shows that miracles and the uniformity of natural laws are in fact bound together. He turns the materialists' (or Naturalists', as he calls them) own guns on them by showing that Reason cannot be accounted for in science--I should also point out that these objections have also been raised by professional philosophers in epistemology and ethics, but Lewis is the only person to raise them for a wider audience. I wish I had read this book earlier, when I was first encountering David Hume, as C.S. Lewis in this part of the book exposes the philosophical sleight-of-hand Hume used to "disprove" miracles. With this, C.S. Lewis then addresses religions which state that God does not work miracles because He does not see fit to interfere with creation and a variety of other bad metaphors and misconceptions that have cropped up. I continue to wonder at Lewis' clarity, and his understanding of the modern mind which allows him to diagnose its fallacies so well. Academics and many other modern citizens do not question the possibility of miracles, or at any rate adhere to some faulty reason for denying their existence. I hope this book can help shake that up and get people talking about this issue with greater clarity.
Rating:
Summary: A brilliantly argued work
Review: Miracles, while not a perfect book, is certainly an excellent one, in which C.S. Lewis is at his philosophical best. It's not an easy read, by any means, but grinding through it is worth the effort. Recently, another review (by Widger) has widely misconstrued Lewis' argument in the first few chapters, so I would like to use this space, to help "hinder the hindrances" to a very good book. Widger makes three inadequate criticisms against Lewis' argument. The second and third basically amount to the same critique, so I'll group them together. 1.)Widger says, "First, although he is right that a logical ground for a belief is not the same kind of cause as 'non-rational causation' and although he is also right that a belief being physically caused would not mean that it was proved, it does not follow that having a physical cause would ipso facto prove falsehood."
2.)Widger claims Lewis is arguing to the supernatural through ignorance, and then elucidates some problems with arguing from ignorance. 1.) Lewis never says that having a physical cause proves falsehood ipso facto. He makes this clear by talking about human thought as the border of two frontiers. He says it can be physically accounted for in the brain, but that the brain itself can never give a fully adequate account of reasoning. Just because the water in a fishbowl always moves when the fish moves, doesn't mean the fish is the water. Or that all the movements of the water can be fully explained by the water itself. 2.) Lewis is not arguing from ignorance; he's arguing from reason. He's saying you could never give a complete account of reason through irrational causation. Saying you could would be like saying you could have a round triangle. Now a person can always say, "Well, since you haven't seen every shape in the world, you can't really say there is no such a thing as a round triangle," but it's only another testament to reason that we can declare that statement to be foolishness (And if a person can't see that, it's no use arguing with them). Lewis' whole point is that the very thing we mean by reason, cannot arise from what we mean by irrationality. Saying he is only arguing from ignorance is merely ignoring his argument. If you want to see this argument developed further, read the book, not a review of it. It's quite a fascinating bit of thinking.
|
