Product Description

C. S. Lewis was perhaps the most influential Christian apologist of the 20th century. An Oxford don and former atheist who converted to Christianity in 1931, he gained a wide following during the 1940s as the author of a number of popular books like Mere Christianity, Miracles, and The Problem of Pain in which he argued for the truth of Christianity. Today his reputation is greater than ever--partly because of his books and partly because of movies like "Shadowlands" and "The Chronicles of Narnia."

In advocating Christianity, Lewis did not appeal to blind faith, but to reason. Convinced that Christianity is rationally defensible, he boldly declared: I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it." But do Lewis's arguments survive critical scrutiny?

In this revised and expanded version of his book, originally published in 1985, philosopher John Beversluis takes Lewis at his word, critically examines his "case for Christianity," and concludes that it fails.

Beversluis examines Lewis's Argument from Desire--the "inconsolable longing" that he interpreted as a pointer to a higher reality; his Moral Argument for the existence of a Power behind the moral law; and his Argument from Reason--his contention that reason cannot be adequately explained in naturalistic terms. He also examines Lewis's solution of the Problem of Evil, which many philosophers think is a decisive objection to belief in Christianity. In addition, he considers issues in the philosophy of religion that developed late in Lewis's life--such as Antony Flew's criticisms of Christian theology. He concludes with a discussion of Lewis's crisis of faith after the death of his wife and answers the question: Did C. S. Lewis lose his faith? In the process, Beversluis replies to critics of the first edition of his book, thereby responding not only to Lewis but to the whole Lewis movement--that cadre of expositors, popular apologists, and philosophers who continue to be inspired by him and his books. The result is not just a revised and updated second edition, but a very different book that supercedes the first edition on every point.

As the only critical study of C. S. Lewis's apologetic writings, this readable and intellectually stimulating book should be on the shelves of everyone interested in the philosophy of religion.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #227471 in Books
• Published on: 2007-11-29
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 363 pages

About the Author
John Beversluis is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Butler University in Indianapolis, IN. He is also the author of Cross-examining Socrates (2000) and a number of articles in various philosophical journals.

Customer Reviews

No straw-man found...yet.
I write only to counter the statement that Beversluis attacks strawmen. Having gotten half-way through the book I have found no such thing as of yet.

To get bias out of the way, yes I am an atheist. I have, however, read most of Lewis' original apologetic works (Mere Christianity, etc.). Beversluis quotes extensively from Lewis' own works, and takes great pains to try and keep Lewis' quotes in context. If anything Beversluis is so cautious in setting up Lewis' arguments correctly that he makes the reading tedious at times.

I will not say that this critique is a devastating refutation of Lewis' primary arguments (that's your decision to make). I will say that Beversluis is careful, and honest in setting up Lewis' arguments and he takes pains to explain why the arguments don't hold up to careful scrutiny. Whether you believe or don't believe this book is a worthwhile read after you have taken a look at Lewis' apologetic works.

The arguments of C.S. Lewis demolished
Whether you are a Christian fundamentalist, an atheist or somewhere in-between you might be surprised at the notion that the existence of God and the truth of Christian theology could be arrived at through rational reasoning and logical argument rather than through, say, faith or revelation. But amazingly enough C.S. Lewis was such a skilled and clever wordsmith that he was able to convince many people that he had done exactly that. Starting with 10 minute British radio addresses during World War II and then in numerous books C.S. Lewis presented arguments that convinced my hearers and readers that rationality and logical reasoning lead inexorably to the existence of God and (even more amazingly) to the truth of Christian theology (rather than Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or other religious truths.)
In his book "C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion" John Beversluis convincingly and thoroughly demolishes Lewis' arguments. Beneath Lewis' rhetorical flourishes were very weak arguments that completely collapse upon critical examination. Christians may continue to believe in Christian truths and God but they can no longer claim the support of logic, reason, evidence and rationality. They must now admit that they choose to believe on the basis of faith, in spite of the evidence, rational thought and argument rather than because of them.

Why did this book need to be written?
This book leaves one with the impression of having watched Shaq knock out an elderly fan at Staples Center with three quick punches. And being proud about it.

1) Lewis was a POPULAR apologist. His works were not meant to be tight philosophical arguments. They were meant to make sense of Christianity, at a simple level, for the average Briton during-and-after WWII.

2) Lewis wrote in the 1940s. Even had he been writing as a professional philosopher, his works could probably be torn apart by modern atheistic philosophers . . . and corrected by modern theistic philosophers. Never forget that requirements for philosophical rigor change over time.

3) Criticizing Lewis on the basis of "rhetoric" sounds more like a complaint against his excellent writing skills. It's like a health-nut complaining to a pastry chef that his product is too sugar-coated. Lewis was not aiming for tight logical arguments. Like Chesterton, his works are written at a "common sense" level. This is why "Mere Christianity" is a continual bestseller . . . it makes SENSE at a basic level.

4) Not a single reader of Lewis would expect his arguments to hold up to close scrutiny. I certainly didn't. The gist of Beversluis' arguments, I came up with myself while reading. They're good arguments . . . but they don't conclude the debate. And while they seem more "logical" than Lewis's arguments, they certainly don't make as much "sense."

5) I have to wonder why a professional philosopher would feel it necessary to pick on Lewis (who never earned higher than our equivalent of a BA, and who never intended his work to be held to philosophical standards). It's like tearing apart "A Brief History of Time" because it oversimplifies things, and doesn't lay out the math like it's laid out in a theoretical physics journal. I can only wonder about issues of jealousy and bitterness on the part of the author.

In short: unless you're into bullies beating up 98-lb weaklings, I'd stay clear of this book. Lewis's arguments have already been sharpened and refined by modern Christian philosophers. Even Darwin could be critiqued like this.