C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion (Revised and Updated) [Paperback]

John Beversluis (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: November 29, 2007

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

Editorial Reviews

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.

Product Details

• Paperback: 363 pages
• Publisher: Prometheus Books; Rev Upd edition (November 29, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1591025311
• ISBN-13: 978-1591025313
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 5.9 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (14 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #724,848 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

23 of 26 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Lewis' Search for Rational Religion Falls Short, January 2, 2008

By 

Ian E. Smith (Willimantic, CT) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion (Revised and Updated) (Paperback)

Philosophers and theologians have largely tended to ignore the Christian apologetics of C.S. Lewis perhaps because Lewis was neither a philosopher nor a theologian or perhaps due to a reluctance amongst such professionals to engage popular culture and to write for a general audience. But if nothing else the vast influence of Lewis' apologetic work demands a response from a professional philosopher with the ability to be rigorous in his argument while still being accessible to a general audience. John Beversluis admirably accepts this challenge and meets Lewis on his own terms: an insistence to follow where the evidence leads. It should be good news to both Lewis' fans and critics that Beversluis' C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion is back in print and furthermore has been revised and updated to address critics of the first edition.

Beversluis thoroughly examines Lewis's three principal arguments for believing in the God of Christianity: the Argument from Desire, the Moral Argument, and the Argument from Reason and ultimately finds them all lacking. Beversluis slows down the fast pace that Lewis often sets in his writing and by doing so is able to point out the gaps in argument and the reoccurring fallacies that Lewis's very engaging writing style often conceals.

Lewis is found routinely attacking straw men: characterizing the position he is arguing against in its weakest possible form and then refuting it in very short order. Lewis rarely responds to the views of specific thinkers who hold the position he is arguing against and seemingly overlooks or is unaware of criticisms of his own position which one could legitimately expect him to address. Beversluis provides the reader with more plausible versions of the positions that Lewis, intentionally or not, tends to caricature.

False dilemmas are revealed with startling frequency such as when Lewis addresses the alleged divine status of Jesus Christ. Lewis confronts his readers with a choice claiming that either Jesus Christ was the son of God or that he must have been some kind of lunatic. If one is reluctant to deem Christ a lunatic, Lewis's false dilemma gives the impression that one must acknowledge him as the son of God. The position that Jesus may have been mistaken about his divine status but still had some worthwhile moral advice to dispense is ruled out as an impossible position to maintain. The position that the Gospels are not historically reliable accounts of Jesus' life is also not considered. Beversluis documents many false dilemmas in Lewis' work.

In addition to successfully reconstructing and responding to Lewis's arguments, Beversluis also helps explain why despite the flaws, Lewis's work has been so influential. Lewis was writing largely for a very receptive audience who tended to already be convinced of Lewis's conclusions prior to even hearing the arguments. Furthermore, while Lewis was not a philosopher or a theologian he was undoubtedly a very skilled and persuasive writer. It should not be surprising that good writing and charged rhetoric can often change more minds than can rigorous and careful argument. This is evident in the fact that many of Lewis' fans are most impressed with Lewis' clever one-liners and rhetorical flourishes than with the arguments themselves. When Beversluis presents Lewis's arguments in plain language they are revealed as surprisingly weak.

15 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars No straw-man found...yet., June 28, 2008

By 

Jo-Be-Se - See all my reviews

This review is from: C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion (1985 Edition) (Paperback)

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.

(UPDATE)
Having finished the book I would also like to respond to another counter-argument brought up. The idea that Lewis' popular works were somehow "dumbed down" for the common person, and that Lewis' more sophisticated arguments are found in his letters/essays has been batted around. This may, or may not, be true. Regardless, Beversluis cites a number of Lewis' essays throughout the book. I would have to say that I have yet to see a fair criticism of this book on amazon.

Like it or not Beversluis is meticulous in setting up Lewis' arguments. Beversluis then gives reasons that he believes destroys the rationality behind those arguments. If you're looking for a counter-point to Lewis' apologetics this is the best single volume on the market. Well worth your while.

34 of 43 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars This is a Devestating Case Against the Apologetics of C.S. Lewis and Company!, January 2, 2008

By 

John W. Loftus (Indiana) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion (Revised and Updated) (Paperback)

C.S. Lewis has had an enormous impact on the evangelical mind. His books still top the charts in bookstores. But what about the substance of his arguments? Philosopher Dr. John Beversluis wrote the first full-length critical study of C. S. Lewis's apologetic writings, published by William B. Eerdmans, titled "C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion" (1985). For twenty-two years it was the only full-length critical study of C.S. Lewis's writings.

Beversluis was a former Christian who studied at Calvin College under Harry Jellema who inspired Christian thinkers like Alvin Plantinga (who was already in graduate school), and Nicholas Wolterstoff (who was a senior when he entered). Later he was a student at Indiana University with my former professor James D. Strauss. He became a professor at Butler University.

In this first book, Beversluis took as his point of departure Lewis's challenge where he said: "I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it" ("Mere Christianity" p. 123). Beversluis thoroughly examined that hypothesis and found the evidence Lewis presents should not lead people to accept Christianity.

According to Beversluis, his first book "elicited a mixed response-indeed, a response of extremes. Some thought I had largely succeeded. I was complimented for writing a `landmark' book that `takes up Lewis's challenge to present the evidence for Christianity and ... operates with full rigor'" (p. 9-10). But the critics were "ferocious." He said, "I had expected criticism. What I had not expected was the kind of criticism...I was christened the "bad boy" of Lewis studies and labeled the "consummate Lewis basher" (p. 10).

In his "Revised and Updated" book published by Prometheus Books, which was prompted by Keith Parsons and Charles Echelbarger, Beversluis claims "this is not just a revised and updated second edition, but a very different book that supercedes the first edition on every point" (p.11). According to him: "Part of my purpose in this book to show, by means of example after example, the extent to which the apparent cogency of his arguments depends on his rhetoric rather than on his logic...Once his arguments are stripped of their powerful rhetorical content, their apparent cogency largely vanishes and their apparent persuasiveness largely evaporates. The reason is clear: it is not the logic, but the rhetoric that is doing most of the work. We will have occasion to see this again and again. In short, my purpose in this book is not just to show that Lewis's arguments are flawed. I also want to account for their apparent plausibility and explain why they have managed to convince so many readers" (pp. 20,22).

Additionally, Beversluis tells us, "My aim in this revised and updated edition is twofold. First, I will revisit and reexamine Lewis's arguments in light of my more recent thoughts about them. Second, I will to reply to my critics and examine their attempts to reformulate and defend his arguments, 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. I will argue that their objections can be met and that even when Lewis's arguments are formulated more rigorously than he formulated them, they still fail" (p. 11).

C.S. Lewis' writings contain three arguments for God's existence, the "Argument from Desire," the "Moral Argument," and the "Argument From Reason." Lewis furthermore argued that the Liar, Lunatic, Lord dilemma/trilemma shows Jesus is God. Lewis also deals with the major skeptical objection known as the Problem of Evil. Beversluis examines all of these arguments and finds them defective, some are even fundamentally flawed. Lastly Beversluis examines Lewis' crisis of faith when he lost the love of his life, his wife. (He denies he ever said Lewis lost his faith).

I can only briefly articulate what Beversluis says about these arguments here, but his analysis of them is brilliant and devastating to Lewis' whole case. The Argument From Desire echoes Augustine's sentiment in his "Confessions" when addressing God that "You have made us for yourself and our hearts find no peace until they rest in you." Lewis develops this into an argument for God's existence which can be formulated in several ways, but the bottom line is that since humans have a desire for joy beyond the natural world, which is what he means by "joy," there must be an object to satisfy that desire in God. Beversluis subjects this argument to criticism on several fronts. How universal is this desire for joy? Is joy even a desire? Is Lewis' description of joy a natural desire at all, since desires are biological and instinctive? Do all our desires have fulfillment? What about people who have been satisfied by things other than God, with their careers, spouses and children? In what I consider the most devastating question, he asks if there is any propositional content to the object of Lewis' argument. Surely if there is an object that corresponds to the desire for joy then one who finds this object should be able to describe it from such an experience. Based upon Lewis' argument she can't. In fact, Beversluis argues if she cannot do that then how does she even know its an object that corresponds to her desire for joy in the first place?

Lewis' Moral Argument is basically that all people have a notion of right and wrong, and the only explanation for this inner sense of morality must come from a Power behind the moral law known as God. Beversluis claims this argument is based on a few questionable assumptions related to the Euthyphro dilemma, and it depends on the theory of ethical subjectivism from which Lewis only critiques straw man versions rather than the robust versions of Hume and Hobbes. And if that isn't enough to diminish his case, deductively arguing that there is a Power behind this moral law is committing "the fallacy of affirming the consequent." (p. 99). 1) If there is a Power behind the moral law then it must make itself known internally within us. 2) We do find this moral law internally within us. .: Therefore, there is a Power behind the moral law. As such this argument is invalid. Of course, there is much more here in Beversluis' argument.

The Argument From Reason, as best seen in Lewis' book, "Miracles", "is the philosophical backbone of the whole book," from which "his case for miracles depends." (p. 145). Lewis champions the idea that if naturalism is true such a theory "impugns the validity of reason and rational inference," and as such, naturalists contradict themselves if they use reason to argue their case. If you as a naturalist have ever been troubled by such an argument you need to read Beversluis' response to it, which is the largest chapter in his book, and something I can't adequately summarize in a few short sentences. Suffice it to say, he approvingly quotes Keith Parsons who said: "surely Lewis cannot mean that if naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as valid reasoning. If he really thought this, he would have to endorse the hypothetical `If naturalism is true, then modus ponens is invalid.' But since the consequent is necessarily false, then the hypothetical is false if we suppose naturalism is true (which is what the antecedent asserts), and Lewis has no argument." (p. 174).

Lewis' Liar, Lunatic, Lord Dilemma/Trilemma is one of the most widely used arguments among popular apologists, in variations, where since Jesus claimed he was God, the only other options are that he was either a liar or a lunatic, or both, which Lewis argues isn't reasonable. Therefore Jesus is God, who he claimed he was. Even William Lane Craig defends it in his book "Reasonable Faith." But it is widely heralded as Lewis' weakest argument as he defended it, and fundamentally flawed. Beversluis subjects Lewis' defense of it and his defenders to a barrage of rigorous intellectual attacks. There is the problem of knowing what Jesus claimed, which by itself "is sufficient to rebut the Trilemma." (p. 115). Also it is a false dilemma. Even if Jesus claimed he was God he could simply be mistaken, not a lunatic, for lunatics can be very reasonable in everyday life and still have delusions of grandeur. And it's quite possible for someone to be a good moral teacher and yet be wrong about whether he was God. Furthermore, the New Testament itself indicates many people around him including his own family thought he was crazy. In the end, Beversluis claims, "we can now dispense of the Lunatic or Fiend Dilemma once and for all....If the dilemma fails, as I have argued, the trilemma goes with it. In the future, let us hear no more about these arguments." (p. 135). I agree.

In Lewis' book, "The Problem of Pain," he deals head on with the Problem of Evil coming at the heels of WWII. Suffice it to say, as Victor Reppert summarized the argument of his first book, Beversluis: "If the word `good' must mean approximately the same thing when we apply it to God as what it means when we apply it to human beings, then the fact of suffering provides a clear empirical refutation of the existence of a being who is both omnipotent and perfectly good. If on the other hand, we are prepared to give up the idea that `good' in reference to God means anything like what it means when we refer to humans as good, then the problem of evil can be sidestepped, but any hope of a rational defense of the Christian God goes by the boards."

This is must reading if you think C.S. Lewis was a great apologist, and it's part of the Debunking Christianity Challenge (go to [...]). Beversluis' arguments are brilliant and devastating to the apologetics of Lewis and company.

-----------

I'm the author of "Why I Became an Atheist," and the edited book, "The Christian Delusion."