{"id":250,"date":"2018-07-16T10:48:56","date_gmt":"2018-07-16T14:48:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.superversivesf.com\/inklings\/?p=250"},"modified":"2018-07-09T21:08:11","modified_gmt":"2018-07-10T01:08:11","slug":"review-beversluis-on-lewis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.superversivesf.com\/inklings\/2018\/07\/16\/review-beversluis-on-lewis\/","title":{"rendered":"Review: Beversluis on Lewis\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

Article by\u00a0Donald Williams\u00a0from a blog called The Five Pilgrims<\/a>,\u00a0July 10, 2017<\/em><\/span><\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/a>ote:\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>This review was originally published in\u00a0Mythlore: The Journal of the Mythopoeic Society<\/em>\u00a0105\/106, Spring\/Summer 2009): 168-70.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0C.\u00a0<\/strong>S. LEWIS AND THE SEARCH FOR RATIONAL RELIGION.<\/strong>\u00a0Revised and Updated. John Beversluis.\u00a0 Amherst, N. Y.:\u00a0 Prometheus Books, 2007. 363 pp.\u00a0 $20.00, pbk.\u00a0 ISBN 978-1-59102-3.<\/span><\/p>\n

Surely one of the most controversial books in the history of Lewis studies was the first edition of John Beversluis\u2019s\u00a0C. S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion<\/em><\/a>, originally published by Eerdmans in 1985.\u00a0 Billing itself as the only book-length critical study of Lewis\u2019s rational apologetic for Christian faith, it concluded that none of his arguments succeeded.\u00a0 Reviewing the first edition in\u00a0Mythlore<\/em>\u00a043 (Autumn 1985), Nancy-Lou Patterson called it \u201cas waspish a work\u201d as it had ever been her \u201cdisagreeable task to review,\u201d concluding that the faith, \u201cincluding its reasoned elements\u201d would survive the book (42).\u00a0 Patterson was right: the first edition sometimes gave the impression that Beversluis thought accusing Lewis of a fallacy was equivalent to demonstrating that he had committed it.\u00a0 Few readers who had appreciated Lewis\u2019s apologetic works were convinced by Beversluis\u2019s arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now we have a new revised, updated, and expanded edition.\u00a0 It has already caused much exultation on atheist websites and much dismissive eye-rolling among Lewis fans.\u00a0 Neither reaction is justified.<\/span><\/p>\n

Beversluis has responded to his critics, continued his own thinking, and rewritten each section to the point that this version is almost a completely new book.\u00a0 In the process, he has strengthened his presentation considerably.\u00a0 While in the end I still find it mostly unconvincing, it does keep its promise to provide the strongest sustained critique of Lewis\u2019s apologetic on the market.\u00a0 As such it performs a valuable service.\u00a0 Those who wish to continue using updated versions of Lewis\u2019s arguments for Christian theism will have to get past Beversluis in order to do so with credibility, and their arguments will be stronger for the exercise.<\/span><\/p>\n

Beversluis sets out to take seriously Lewis\u2019s statement in\u00a0Mere Christianity<\/em>\u00a0that he does not ask anyone to accept Christianity \u201cif his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it.\u201d\u00a0 Beversluis approves of Lewis for demanding evidence and wants to know if he has succeeded in showing that the best reasoning supports Christian faith.\u00a0 Beversluis concludes that Lewis\u2019s own best reasoning fails to do so.\u00a0 While he examines several of Lewis\u2019s arguments\u2014the argument from desire, the moral argument for theism, the \u201ctrilemma\u201d argument for the deity of Christ, the argument from reason for the self-refuting character of naturalism, Lewis\u2019s theodicy, etc.\u2014in great detail, his objections can be summarized in two points.\u00a0 First, the \u201capparent cogency of [Lewis\u2019s] arguments depends on his rhetoric rather than on his logic\u201d (20).\u00a0 Lewis was such a good writer that people are carried away by his words and do not notice the fallacies being committed under their cover.\u00a0 Second, Lewis\u2019s arguments are fallacious, and his besetting fallacy is the False Dilemma.\u00a0 Lewis will say that there are only two (or three) choices, refute one, and thus seem to leave Christian theism standing in sole possession of the field; but in reality, there are other alternatives he has not considered, and the one he is rejecting is a straw man.<\/span><\/p>\n

It should be immediately obvious to Beversluis\u2019s readers that his first criticism of Lewis is valid only if, and only to the extent that, the second is upheld.\u00a0 It is hardly a fault to write well unless that writing can be shown to be in the service of error.\u00a0 The details of the second criticism will likely be debated in the journals for some time.\u00a0 The question will be whether the additional alternatives Beversluis tries to posit do not in fact ultimately reduce to the set of choices that Lewis\u2019s more incisive analysis had set before us in the first place.\u00a0 In most cases, I believe that they do.<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more…<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Article by\u00a0Donald Williams\u00a0from a blog called The Five Pilgrims,\u00a0July 10, 2017 ote:\u00a0\u00a0This review was originally published in\u00a0Mythlore: The Journal of the Mythopoeic Society\u00a0105\/106, Spring\/Summer 2009): 168-70. \u00a0C.\u00a0S. LEWIS AND THE SEARCH FOR RATIONAL RELIGION.\u00a0Revised and Updated. John Beversluis.\u00a0 Amherst, N. Y.:\u00a0 Prometheus Books, 2007. 363 pp.\u00a0 $20.00, pbk.\u00a0 ISBN 978-1-59102-3. Surely one of the most…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":251,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[40,41,39],"class_list":["post-250","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lewis","tag-beversluis","tag-donald-williams","tag-lewis"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.superversivesf.com\/inklings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.superversivesf.com\/inklings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.superversivesf.com\/inklings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.superversivesf.com\/inklings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.superversivesf.com\/inklings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=250"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.superversivesf.com\/inklings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":252,"href":"https:\/\/www.superversivesf.com\/inklings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250\/revisions\/252"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.superversivesf.com\/inklings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/251"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.superversivesf.com\/inklings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.superversivesf.com\/inklings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.superversivesf.com\/inklings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}