The Case For Christianity, The World & # 8217 ; s Last Night Essay, Research Paper

I. Introduction

II. Brief Biographical Information

III. The Case for Christianity

& # 8211 ; Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe

IV. The Problem with Pain

& # 8211 ; Divine Omnipotence

V. The World & # 8217 ; s Last Night

& # 8211 ; The Efficacy of Prayer

VI. Decision

A Critique of C. S. Lewis

“ A Relativist said, & # 8216 ; The universe does non be, England does

non be, Oxford does non be and I am confident that

I do non Exist! & # 8217 ; When Lewis was asked to answer, he stood

up and said, & # 8216 ; How am I to speak to a adult male who & # 8217 ; s non at that place? & # 8217 ; ”

– C. S. Lewis: A Biography

Clive Staples Lewis was born, in 1898, in Belfast. C. S. Lewis

was educated at assorted schools in England. In 1914, Lewis began

analyzing Latin, Greek, French, German and Italian under the private

tuition of W. T. Kirkpatrick. He so moved to Oxford where his surveies

were interrupted by World War I ( 1917 ) . Two old ages subsequently he was back in

Oxford restarting his surveies. In 1924, Lewis was “ elected ” to learn

Literature and Language at Magdalen College, Oxford and remained there

boulder clay 1954. During this clip period in his life, Lewis wrote the

bulk of his work. Lewis moved to Cambridge for the balance of his

life learning Medieval and Renaissance Literature.1

C. S. Lewis was a adult male dedicated to the chase of truth who ”

believed in statement, in debate, and in the dialectic of Reason. .

. “ 2 He began his chase of truth as an atheist and ended up as a

Christian. His works the Problem of Pain and Mere Christianity dealt

with issues he struggled with. Mere Christianity consists of three

separate wireless broadcasts. One of the broadcasts was titled The Case For

Christian religion.

In The Case For Christianity, Lewis discussed two important subjects

in his excusatory defence of Christianity. They were the “ Right and

Incorrect as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe ” and “ What Christians

Believe ” . This review will turn to the first chapter. “ Right and

Incorrect as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe ” , can be broken into

three parts. The first trades with moral jurisprudence and its being. The

2nd addresses the thought of a power or head behind the existence, who,

is intensely interested in right behavior. Besides that this power or God

is good. Good as in the country of truth, non soft and sympathetic. The

3rd point moves to Christianity, its properties and why it was

necessary for the long ” round-about ” attack.

The jurisprudence of nature binds worlds every bit would the Torahs of gravitation

apply to a falling rock. It is called the jurisprudence of nature because it

does non necessitate to be taught. Lewis points out that an uneven person

may be “ here and at that place who didn & # 8217 ; t cognize it, merely as you find s few

people who are color-blind or have no ear for melody. But taking the race

as a whole, they thought that the human thought of Decent Behavior was

obvious to every 1. “ 3

Lewis brightly defended his statement of natural jurisprudence & # 8217 ; s

being. Two statements, which argue for relativity, posted against

him are the “ herd ” inherent aptitudes or familial inborn in us ( i.e. maternally

love, endurance or sexual urges ) and that which is taught socially or

learned. Historically, these to readings of human behaviour have

clashed, nevertheless, he suggest that “ ground ” is above both. He clarifies

his place by sorting urges as separate from the determination to

follow the impulse itself. The “ erudite ” statement is refuted by his

analogy of a male child on the island who is unaware of the being of the

procedure of generation. He ne’er attended school and learned them.

The instruction would be classified as “ human convention ” . This human

convention, accordingly, did non invent generation merely as it did

non contrive the jurisprudence of nature.

However, this comparing is based on a false premise. The

jurisprudence of nature, as Lewis argued, is non taught but some how exists as an

built-in portion of the human mind. This jurisprudence besides presents itself in the

signifier of determinations and actions in line with what ought to be done. There

is no school-room which imparts this jurisprudence and the pattern of it.

Consequently, mathematics demands to be taught and learned. The efforts

to compare the jurisprudence of nature with mathematics in an analogy is

misleading. The lone connexion between mathematics and the jurisprudence is the

nature of its being and the commonalty of non being a homo

convention.

Lewis classified a natural jurisprudence or the being of a system of

absolutes as important in faith and particularly in Christianity. Lewis

developed an statement through the comparing of moral systems and what

is judged as right or instead what ought to be. Using extremes, such as

Christian religion and the Nazi systems of morality, he concludes his

analysis. In this comparing one might state that the Christian morality

is preferred to the Nazi. Why? and by what criterion has the Nazi

system been rejected? Lewis explains this as an underlying right or

absolute. This absolute system is based on those things which ought to

take topographic point. In decision of this point, Lewis states that the jurisprudence of

nature exists, ordering what worlds ought to make or compensate and wrong.

The 2nd portion of his statement dealt with inquiries of the

being of the existence and the power or head behind it. He

addressed the possibility of development and its feasibleness. The thought

that affair merely exists and by a good luck came together in flawlessness

bring forthing what we see around us today, was one of the two possibilities

that Lewis purposed. The 2nd possibility is that behind the existence

is a ciphering “ head ” . He brightly refutes scientific discipline & # 8217 ; s ability to

happen out what is behind the formation of the existence. For even if

scientific discipline wholly answered the enigmas environing how the existence

is here, it can non spot the ground “ why ” it is here. Therefore he

concluded that a head is behind the universe & # 8217 ; s being and this head

can non be seen. The grounds for the invisibleness or intangibleness of

the head is, once more brightly, explained in an analogy. Lewis

provinces, ” If there was a commanding power outside the existence, it could

non demo itself to us as one of those facts inside the universe- no more

than an designer of a house could really be a wall or stairway or

hearth in that house. “ 4

The construct of a good power or head is misdirecting. When God is

referred to as good, the immediate idea is a warm loving personality.

Lewis referred to this good as representative of truth. The jurisprudence of

nature is defined by what adult male ought to make or as absolute truth. When

one acts harmonizing to what they ought to make, the jurisprudence of nature has no

consideration of how painful or unsafe it might be. This good which

Lewis argued for is cold and difficult, without personable traits. He

attributed good as “ either the great safety or the great

danger-according to the manner you react to it. And we have reacted the

incorrect manner. “ 5

The 3rd facet argued and justified the demand for people to

repent and the promise of forgiveness. In this phase, two realisations

must be made: First, that there is after all a “ existent moral jurisprudence, and a

power behind the jurisprudence, and that you have broken that jurisprudence and set yourself

incorrect with that Power. “ 6 Second, the phase of discouragement which precedes

comfort. This first realisation is built on the logic of the old

statements. To comprehend the state of affairs as despairing sheds visible radiation on and

aids one to understand what the Christians are “ speaking about ” . The

decision of this statement demands that single recognize that

coming to footings with what ought to be or truth is so a sobering

experience.

When discoursing the constructs of absolutes and that God is good

one would inquire about His power. If so God is the Godhead of this

existence, so his power would be huge. The word “ omnipotent ” is

used to depict the power of God in this context. The inquiry so

arises refering a good God and the being of hurting and immorality in his

creative activity. If pain exists in this universe so God is either non genuinely

good or lacks power to halt it.

Lewis dedicates a chapter in his work, The Problem of Pain, to

explicating this evident contradiction. He besides tackles the construct of

impossibleness in relation to omnipotence. The dialectic analysis

consists of things “ per se possible ” and the things

“ per se impossible ” .7 A God of almighty power can make all

things per se possible. The mention to God executing the

per se impossible is absurd and folly to Lewis. The

ascription of miracles and supernatural happenings to God can be

explained as possible, though worlds perceive it as impossible.

Clyde S. Kilby argues the point of free will and God & # 8217 ; s power in

context to Lewis & # 8217 ; work on the being of hurting. Kilby states that:

“ Suppose that in my avidity to be absolutely happy I persuade God

twenty-four hours after twenty-four hours to alter all prevalent conditions to my wants.

But if all conditions follow my wants, it is obvious that they

can non perchance follow your wants besides and you will therefore

be deprived of your freedom. Freedom is impossible in a

universe topic to whim. “ 8

Therefore, strivings existence in a existence created by a “ good and

almighty God is logically executable.

The following work by C. S. Lewis is The World & # 8217 ; s Last Night. This

work contains an essay on supplication. Lewis examined supplication and its intent

by inquiring certain inquiries. Questions like, “ What grounds would turn out

the efficaciousness of supplication? ” 9 If a supplication is “ answered ” , “ how can you of all time

cognize it was non traveling to go on anyhow? “ 10 The reply to a supplication does

no provide incontrovertible grounds of the efficaciousness of supplication.

“ Does prayer work? ” Lewis states that supplication is non a machine

by which 1 could stop up in the right phrases and acquire the consequences. He

defines supplication as either a “ absolute semblance or a personal contact between

embryologic, uncomplete individuals ( ourselves ) and the utterly concrete

Person. “ 11 If in fact supplication is a absolute semblance its intent would be

for the voice of desirous thought. Whether the coveted consequence

comes to go through is wholly based on destiny or the simple fact that it

was traveling to go on anyhow.

If is so a contact to an “ utterly concrete Person ” to what

help? What advice can a finite and intellectually limited individual give

to an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being? Lewis states, “ Our

act, when we pray, must non, any more than all our other Acts of the Apostless, be

offprint from the uninterrupted act of God Himself, in which entirely all

finite causes operate. “ 12 Prayer, harmonizing to Lewis, is a

statement harmonizing to the “ will ” or actions of God.

The will of God is cognizable harmonizing to Lewis. However, he

does non advert what God & # 8217 ; s will was/is. In the undermentioned paragraphs

Lewis handily changes his way turn toing an other facet of

supplication. He besides does non explicate how 1 goes about happening God & # 8217 ; s will

or why would God desire to hear one million millions of small voices stating Him

what His will is. Lewis does a hapless occupation warranting the efficaciousness of

supplication.

It can be seen that C. S. Lewis & # 8217 ; analysis was ever in footings of

black and white or extremes. Any other option is either

folly or unthinkable. He wielded the dialectic procedure of

analysis as though it were 2nd nature to him. His well trained head

synthesized theological quandary for the layperson. Constantly mentioning

to himself as a layperson himself, Lewis left the inside informations of theological

philosophy and doctrine to those who were “ experts ” . He was merely

interested in his ain personal inquiries refering Christianity and

sharing his well thought out replies to others.

This review of C. S. Lewis contains assorted choices from

three of his books. The first work reference the subject of “ Right and

Incorrect as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe. ” In this subdivision Lewis

argues for the being of absolutes, God and the cogency of

Christianity. The 2nd work which was examined was The Problem of

Pain. A choice on the almighty power of a “ good ” God was discussed

in footings of the “ per se impossible ” and the being of hurting.

Third, the “ efficaciousness of supplication ” was addressed in critical inquiring

of the intent its being.