Mere Christianity Reviews

• The defense of the faith

  
  By AVELCWFSK9R2G on 2002-09-12
  In his "Preface to Paradise Lost", Lewis wrote the following:

  "The first qualification for judging any piece of workmanship from a corkscrew to a cathedral is to know *what* it is - what it was intended to do and how it was meant to be used. After that has been discovered the temperance reformer may decide that the corkscrew was made for a bad purpose, and the communist may think the same about the cathedral. But such questions come later. The first thing is to understand the object before you: as long as you think the corkscrew was meant for opening tins or the cathedral for entertaining tourists you can say nothing to purpose about them."

  This is a splendid piece of writing, but the idea presented is no way an original one - Plato and Aristotle said the same, said it clearly, and said it over two thousand years before Lewis did. If you had been able to confront Lewis with this fact, he might have said "Exactly."

  This brings us to one of the great themes of Lewis's writing, evident nowhere more so than in "Mere Christianity": the defense of traditional wisdom against prejudice of our age that would reject it for no other reason than that it is traditional. Lewis often encountered those who complained that his ideas were old-fashioned, and his standard reply was that theirs would soon be as well, so in that they were equal. I admit I couldn't help but smile at the complaint by one Amazon reviewer that Lewis's ideas on sexuality were "decades old". The complaint is quite mistaken: the ideas are not decades old but thousands of years old.

  And it is here that we have part of the answer to the problem of understanding the kind of thing "Mere Christianity" is: it is nothing new. It is in fact very, very old. What Lewis is defending is not his own personal belief system, but the Christianity that is the common heritage of mankind. The threat to it comes not from hard-core atheists, who receive the barest of notices from Lewis, but the general modern tendency to subject traditional Christianity to the death of a thousand cuts - discarding one ancient doctrine after another, on grounds often no better than mere chronological snobbery - that modern people aren't supposed to believe that kind of thing anymore

  This is why Lewis, in what has been often described as the most important defense of Christianity in the twentieth century, spends a mere fifteen pages in arguing for the existence of God. The important task is not to defend a vague theism, which is the position Lewis found from experience that his audience already believed, but to rebuild what little of traditional Christianity modernism has left them - some vague belief in "a higher power", and "some purpose to all of this" into that concrete set of specific beliefs that are the historical core of Christianity.

  While the defense of historical Christianity is one part of understanding what "Mere Christianity" is, the other part is that it is intended to be accessible to anyone. This requires that Lewis be both clear and brief - a combination brutally difficult to achieve, as any writer who has attempted it will attest.

  Lewis's success in this can be measured in two ways: first, that his work has indeed found a very wide readership - millions of have read it; second, his work is often recommended by those whose knowledge of traditional Christian theology is broad and deep. The size of the readership attests to the accessibility of the work, and the expert recommendations attest to the accuracy of its message.

  There is one other thing that is important to note about Lewis's success: Lewis could afford to be brief because what he was explaining was not his own theology, but our common intellectual inheritance. The reader who is dissatisfied with the depth of this or that point in "Mere Christianity" will have no difficulty in finding sources that go into the same thing in much greater detail. Calvin wrote line-by-line commentaries on all of scripture. Thomas Aquinas's "Summa Theologica" is over 6,000 pages long. The collected works of Augustine fill more than 40 volumes.

  So, to return to the question with which this review began: what kind of thing is "Mere Christianity"? The answer is that it is a brief exposition of traditional Christianity for a modern audience. In the sixty years since it was published, the nature of the modernist challenge to Christianity has not substantially changed, nor has a clearer, more accessible response to that challenge yet been written. Some have complained that the work has "gaps" or that it skims over this or that point, but that is a complaint that fails to understand what kind of thing this is. What they are asking for, whether they know it or not, is a completely different book. Properly evaluated, on the basis of the kind of thing it is, it is trivially easy to give the highest recommendation to "Mere Christianity": it is on a topic of the greatest possible importance and the presentation is outstanding.
  
  

• Infinite stars for a book of eternal wisdom!

  
  By A281NPSIMI1C2R on 2000-11-21
  C. S. Lewis rejects the boundaries that divide Christianity's many denominations. While religious belief is not a concern for some, to many more it is an extremely serious decision, requiring deep thought and the entire energy of the mind.
  
  In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis leads all the Christian religions to common ground. This book is in fact a defense of the beliefs common to all Christians at all times. Originally, these ideas were contained in three separate books. Prior to 1943 they were only heard as informal radio broadcasts. This is why you will see colloquialisms used and the conversational style of the writing.
  
  When you read C. S. Lewis' work, you can hear his voice. Sometimes I forget I am reading. Like a friend with a cup of coffee in hand, he sits across from us. He then leads us up a ladder of logical thinking. He starts on the lowest step and gives us confidence to climb the next step. He guides us through an incredible thought process to a conclusion, which is perhaps so logical it becomes irrevocable truth.
  
  If you were to fall off a real ladder, your body would simply be obeying the laws of Gravity. He brilliantly explains how there is an eternal Law of Human Nature. This is the law of how mankind "ought" to behave in order to maintain a safe and happy society where everyone plays fair. Unfortunately, we all know how our society has failed to practice this law in all aspects of life.
  
  If you want a definition for this law it can only be "morals." A word from which many reel, as if a light was shining brightly in their eyes. To others: it is a light by which they see the path they walk through life. C. S. Lewis divides morality into three main sections: the actions, reasons behind the actions and why man was created. When you realize that different beliefs about the universe can make us behave differently; you can then make some compelling arguments in favor of Christianity.
  
  C. S. Lewis was an atheist (as was my father once and his writing reminds me of a conversation with my father for some reason, perhaps they came to some of the same conclusions) who later became a Christian. He is perhaps one of the most qualified individuals to discuss a universe at war, for the idea of atheism and Christianity could not be more diametrically opposed.
  
  "Good and evil both increase at compound interest. That is why the little decisions you and I make every day are of such infinite importance." --C. S. Lewis
  
  Like a voice from the grave (he passed away in 1963), C. S. Lewis speaks as if this message was for the year 2000. I read this work 53 years after it was written and the truths are still eternal. Good and Evil are perhaps the oldest concept we know of. I found it interesting when he pointed out that without good, evil would not exist. That good allows evil to occur. For example: selfishness is undesirable, while unselfishness is desirable. The basis for this is founded in some deep religious beliefs. He explains how this all relates to the moral laws of nature.
  
  I enjoyed his discussion of the Theological Virtues (Faith/Hope/Charity) and the Cardinal (pivotal) Virtues (Prudence/Temperance/Justice/Fortitude). His chapter on the issue of "Pride" (the most evil of all vices) also shows how "power" is what pride wants.
  
  "There is nothing that makes a man feel more superior to others as being able to move them about like toy soldiers." --C. S. Lewis
  
  Through this book, you will gain a greater understanding of what holds us all together, what makes us responsible to one another. You may even conclude that those who find morals threatening, may in fact be the largest threat to a civilized society. If we all had morals we would simply have a safer environment to thrive and be happy in. It is simply the way you look at it.
  
  Mere Christianity is one of the most thought provoking books I have ever read to date! If you are at all interested in the logical basis for Christianity, this book goes to the depths of thought and reveals the essence of the beliefs behind the beliefs. This book becomes perfume, which completely seduces your soul.
  
  For Christians, it will be a reminder of the truth you hold dear and a reminder of our eternal life. For those who love the Narnia Chronicles, page 146 gives you an insight into the "time factor." (The children in the story can leave the material world and when they return, time never changes.)
  
  One of my favorite quotes from Mere Christianity:
  
  " When it (Christianity) tells you to feed the hungry it does not give you a lesson in cookery." --C. S. Lewis, page 79
  
  On page 87 you will also find a beautiful passage. It is my all-time favorite passage to explain LIFE! It is a must read.
  
  This book will put your brain in gear and send you on a drive to enlightenment. I intend to read every one of Lewis' books. His work is deep, yet understandable. Eternally Recommended.
  
  C. S. Lewis is my all-time favorite author. I was first introduced to his writing as a very young child in second grade. It was then that I fell in love with his writing. Through the Narnia Chronicles, C.S. Lewis weaves the morals and beliefs children need to learn.
  
  I recommend Mere Christianity for non-Christians and Christians. For all children, The Chronicles of Narnia will enlighten them and they will never forget the stories! I also reviewed the set. They are the most magical stories a child can read. Mere Christianity is perhaps the most brilliant explanation for Christian beliefs any adult can read.
  
  ~The Rebecca Review
  
  

• A Great Simplistic View of A Complex Subject

  
  By A1E2P346COXFSW on 2001-11-01
  After reading several books on a similar topic that did nothing but confuse me, I was glad that I came upon C.S. Lewis's work. All of the other books about the existence of God are way off in their own world, and discourage anyone who feels lost in their ideas about God. This book really explained the reasons that God must exist, and then moved on to easily describe the major beliefs of Christians, without leaving anyone out in the cold on what the key issues actually are. This book is perfect for the agnostic, the atheist, and even the Christian that wants to know the logical and simple reasons that C.S. Lewis came to be a Christian. Over and over, his words made me see even the simplest concepts of religion in a completely new light. I was greatly impressed and have already read this book multiple times.
  
  

• A Tale of Two Reviews

  
  By A3N2EKUW1ERB4R on 2002-07-09
  Judging from earlier reviews, you'll either love this one or you'll hate it. A quick scan of the ratings reveals that Christians love it while agnostics and atheists pan it. From 129 ratings out there, only four readers provided on-the-fence "3 star" reviews. By joining this lonely (objective?) crowd, I'm hoping to convince myself that writing review number 130 is not purely an exercise in conceit but can provide a different perspective on the work.

  First, let's recognize that this book is really a combination of three prior, separate essays comprising two distinct topics. These topics are an apologetic of the Christian faith and a high-level review of fundamental Christian beliefs held across denominations. Those who offer blanket criticism appear to miss this distinction and view the entire work as an apologetic. In my view, these distinct components differ sharply in intent and quality and therefore deserve separate reviews.

  As to the common threads throughout the work, they are largely positive. Readers of other Lewis works will be familiar with his wonderful ability to write in clear, concise, conversational prose and these gifts are on display throughout the book. His capacity for using metaphors and analogies if rightfully renowned and is particularly helpful in explaining complex beliefs and doctrine.

  Unfortunately, the pure apologetic section of the work falls far short of it's target of providing a rational justification for the faith. Lewis attempts to structure logical deductive and inductive reasoning arguments to support his conclusion that there is a single God and that Jesus was his only Son. Surprisingly for one of Lewis' obvious intellect, his logic if rife with serious flaws. Two quick examples are symptomatic. First, Lewis states that "Reality is something you could not have guessed. This is one of the reason's I believe in Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed." What he means is that the world is complex and therefore a religion that accurately explains the world must be complex. Thus, because Christianity is complex, it accurately explains the world. This logic leaves seekers of religion free to accept any "complicated" belief system (in fact, the more complicated the better). Second, Lewis argues that Jesus must be the Son of God because the Bible makes it clear that he was "neither a lunatic nor a fiend" and that he must be either a lunatic/fiend or the Son of God. In addition to several deductive logic holes, the argument faces an obvious circularity problem (i.e. one believes what the New Testament says because Jesus is the Son of God and one believes He is the Son of God because of the Bible's description of his life). These and other similar examples of poor logic lead me to give a "2 star" rating to this section of the work.

  For all the issues with Lewis' apologetic efforts, his attempt to provide an easily understandable, concise summary of the major cross-denominational Christian beliefs is outstanding. One can take issue with the lack of depth and breadth of coverage, but only if one does not clearly understand Lewis' objectives. His discussion of the cardinal virtues, the sin of pride and the trinity are among the most clearly articulated explanations I have seen. While the passage of time has exposed several of his points (e.g. the Christian wife's obligation to "obey" her husband) as no longer falling within the common Christian belief set, on the whole he clearly succeeds in his goals. Thus, I give a "4 star" rating to this section of the work.

  The 2 and 4 stars equate to an overall 3 star rating. C.S. Lewis fans should read the book for an interesting perspective on his personal beliefs. Those looking for a clear explanation of those common beliefs that Christians hold dear would get great value from the work. Those looking for a compelling, rational defense of the faith would be better served looking elsewhere.
  
  

• Lewis sheds a new light on KNOWING God is real

  
  By A298X170X97OE3 on 2000-06-06
  If you're looking for a very interesting, enthralling book, this is the one. What I found so enjoyable about Lewis's style is how he develops such strong arguments promoting the fact that God exists by getting you to concede one small point at a time.

  This is the best Christian book I've read--almost more philosophical than theological. His short, essay-type chapters make this an entertainingly easy read. His arguments are strongly built and well founded.

  I'm a believer who sometimes runs across Atheists. I always try to explain why there must be a God; Mere Christianity makes it apparent that there is a God, purely from a logical perspective. Lewis proves it using the truth that lies in the guts every person.

  Bravo! C.S.
  
  

• Review of all reviews
  By A2EX94KZWZ94JF on 2002-03-13
  I'm an agnostic, which pretty much means that the only thing I know for certain is that I know nothing for certain. Hence, in reading this title, I naturally had a tendency to question the arguments presented.

  Overall I found that C.S. Lewis' work, while smartly written, was an exercise in fallacies. I'm not criticizing his belief or his talent for writing (I thoroughly enjoyed his Narnia stories growing up), but I think his arguments for those beliefs does have what most would call holes in them. And yes, his views are a bit unconventional by today's standards, (but then again he did write some time ago, so that's an understandable trait.)

  I can see why so many Christians would enjoy the book. What's not to enjoy for them, it reinforces their beliefs. If you're already skeptical of the religion's arguments for being the one and only truth, this will most likely deepen the seed of distrust in your head. If you are a believer, then hey, here's some christian soup for the soul.

  What I find most discouraging is that with the previous reviews, there is a tendency for reviews that praise the book to receive larger amounts of votes towards the review itself being helpful. Those that criticized the book tend to get lower votes. Why is that? A review is generally a descriptive opinion of something. Whether or not the review speaks highly of the product shouldn't prove if it's helpful or not. In my opinion any review that provides details is helpful.

  It really looks like those religious souls that believe in what C.S. Lewis did are offended that someone would criticize their views, and therefore have chosen to vote against the review being helpful. Seriously, look at the reviews and you should see the trend.

  That's very sad that so many folks can't get past the fact that everyone's entitled to different opinions and I think it speaks volumes for why religion has divided so many in the world.

  I know, I digressed from the original topic of the book, but I couldn't help it. Pick up the book and read it, you'll most likely either embrace it or discard it, there's rarely an in between. The one star is for the style and talent of writing.

  So was this review helpful, or merely offensive to Christians? Let's see what the votes say... (I'm guessing 2 out of 20 will find this helpful.)
  
  

• Perfect
  By A2TDBQX76SJIBA on 2006-01-08
  "Mere Christianity" is undeniable. Lewis' infallible arguments and persuasive words will teach anyone and everyone. C.S. Lewis takes you step by step, argument by argument, logic by logic into Spiritual truths that, although you may have known, you'll now see in a new light. Truly, this book has changed my walk and my thought.
  
  Lewis' logic is food for thought and replenishment for the mind. Inside this awesome book you'll find the logic behind our existance, the truth about "right" and "wrong", the definition of morality, how Christianity compares to other major world religions and so much, much more. Truly, C.S. Lewis is pivotal in modern Christian thinking... this book is merely the proof.
  
  This book is a must have for any new-Christian, anyone wanting to be a better Christian or anyone looking for logic in Christianity.
  
  "I believe in Christianity in the same way I believe in the sun; not because I can see it, but because, by it, I can see everything."
  
  -- C.S. Lewis
  
  
• Mere Stupidity
  By A1Q1NMBEFM87YZ on 2002-08-07
  While this is often held up as a paragon of clear, concise, and convincing apologetics, Mere Christianity is logically weak, filled with antiquated views, and ignorant of some basic social science.

  To begin with, Lewis likes to raise objections to his arguments, imaging that these are the very things a non-believer might say in response to his claims. However, most of these objections are petty and insignificant, easily refuted and not anything a serious non-Christian would raise as an objection.

  For example, he likes to use the Lord/Lunatic/Liar argument for the divinity of Jesus (see Book 2 Chapter 3). It goes as follows: Jesus claimed to be God. Either he was indeed God, or he was a lunatic for claiming it, or he was an outright liar. This argument is a non-argument for at least two reasons. As Lewis argues, "It seems obvious to me that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend" (Book 2 Chapter 4). It seems obvious to Lewis, but not to me.

  To begin with, there are more than three possible explanations here. Perhaps he never did claim to be God. Or perhaps he was misquoted in the Gospels. On the other hand, we can't so easily dismiss the lunatic or liar possibility as Lewis likes to think. We have to remember that Jesus lied at least once. "'Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come.' After saying this, he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone to the festival, then he also went, not publicly but as it were in private" (John 7.8-10 RSV). In addition, the lunatic label, while somewhat un-PC, might indeed fit, for Jesus once cursed a fig tree because it wasn?t bearing fruit, though it wasn't in season.

  He also makes the bizarre argument in Book 2 Chapter 2 that Christianity is real because it's too bizarre to have been made up. In other words, it's true because it's weird. I guess that makes all science fiction stories true as well.

  In arguing for basic theism, Lewis makes a little linguistic switch and then makes something out of it. He begins by using the word "law" descriptively (i.e., gravity) and the switches to a prescriptive use of "lawê (i.e., morality). He then makes much of this fact without acknowledging that that in fact is all he's done. It's a language trick, not in any way a proof of god.

  Not only is Lewis book illogical, it is steeped in antiquated ideas. He subscribes to the idea of constant societal, moral progress (i.e., we as a society are becoming more and more morally enlightened) a la Comte even though this claim has widely been disputed by both historians and sociologists. He also shows an ignorance of basic sociology, and seems never to have read a single work of Durkheim (who could easily explain whence comes this internal ?moral law? that Lewis basis so much of his argument on).

  A good example of his sociological ignorance comes when discussing the nature of Jesus? sacrifice in Book 2 Chapter 4. He makes the analogy that Jesus? sacrifice was not as much receiving punishment as paying a debt we all owe to God. That?s fine and good until we stop to think about what ?debt? is. In short, it is a societal construction. A debt is simply saying ?I owe you money.? What happens if we don?t pay it? According to nature, nothing. We won?t drop dead of a heart attack or break out in a rash. Instead, society allows the person owed to punish the debtor if the debt is not paid. One could easily imagine a society where there was no concept of debt. In this society, you can give money to your friend, but you cannot expect or even desire for the friend to pay it back.

  Another example of antiquated ideas is his sexism. Describing the Christian marriage, Lewis says, ?There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule? (Book 3 Chapter 6). Not only is that a sexist statement, but, like most such statements, it is a sweeping generalization that presumes to see into the heart of thousands of women whom Lewis might describe as ruling over their husbands.

  In short, Mere Christianity is a disappointment. It offers no new insight into Christianity and is in fact chock full of logical fallacies and ignorance. Any educated non-believer will remain unconvinced.
  
  

• The definitive work for the case of Christianity
  By A2O1FLF439GX3P on 2000-07-28
  Although Lewis was a skeptic for much of his life, he was smart enough to consider the possibility that he might be wrong about his nonbelief in God (for the first half of his life, anyway). Mere Christianity is a compilation of the reasons why he converted. It should be pointed out that this book will not prove Christianity to be true. Trusting in Christ is still a faith issue. However, the evidence presented by Lewis is strong enough to get even the most ardent skeptic to think through the philosophical arguments used to bolster the case Christianity.

  This book is good for a number of reasons. I appreciate Lewis' candor and frankness as he supports the truth of Christianity. It has been instrumental in the conversions of many people, even those who are very prominent in the Christian scene today. (I think it is wonderful how much more popular Lewis is today than when he was alive!) Indeed, his writing has touched a great number of people, including me. In fact, I've read all of his nonfictional works, and I find it fascinating to track with Lewis' reasoning and argumentation. As you can see, this book has my highest recommendation.
  
  

• "Mere Assertion" would be a better title
  By A2LR32KJUKWW4N on 2001-10-05
  If C.S. Lewis is, as a previous reviewer put it, "perhaps the twentieth century's finest Christian writer" that may go a long way towards explaining why Christianity continues to lose adherents. This book is, quite frankly, worthless. From the opening in which he argues that since we all share a sense of right and wrong (unsupported assertion) it must have a supernatural source (Non Sequitur), to the "lord/liar/lunatic" argument (commonly known since the book's publication as "Lewis's False Trilemma"), he doesn't miss the chance to fall into an obvious and easily refuted logical fallacy at every turn. Whatever one's opinion of Christianity, it deserves a better defense than this.

  Lewis may have had a marvelous way with words, but as a logician or a theologian, he's simply appalling. While this book may appeal to the already converted on an emotional level, it's unlikely to influence any non-believer who posseses the slightest grasp of logic and reason.
  
  

• Good Read, But Has Some Problems
  By A2P1YADEK8BQK8 on 2002-07-13
  This is a very easy read, and it gives much insight into how Lewis saw religion and Christianity. It is very dated; I wonder how many people here would agree that it is a woman's duty to obey her husband.

  I was kind of surprised at the number of very weak arguments and ridiculous assumptions in this book. One example is the circular logic of using scripture to try to convince us of Jesus' divinity. We believe he is the son of God because the New Testement shows that to be the case, and we believe the New Testement is correct because we believe that Jesus is the son of God. In fact, I think this is the only time Lewis tries to make a case for Christianity in Mere Christianity; he does try many times to make a case for theism.

  I find Lewis' strategy to discredit those who disagree with him very similar to the strategy creationists use to try to discredit Evolution. They take certain unproven theories of evolution, and use the fact that they are not proven to assert that the FACT of evolution (that life forms tends to change over time) is false, even though they understand it as fact themselves. Lewis will attack weak claims made by some of the opposition, and then assert that the entire opposition has been discredited, even though the entire opposition doesn't make those weak claims. It's disconcerting to witness someone fool so many people using these kinds of dishonest tactics.

  Well, this has mostly been very negative, but I am glad I read Mere Christianity. It is well-written, and it is extremely insightful in a number of ways.

  On the issue of critics of this book getting few "helpful" votes... That some of the critics are not backing up what they say is merely an excuse. Many reviews that praise the book without backing the praise up AT ALL are getting all or almost all yes votes. I have provided examples in my review and it is going to be infested with many hypocritical no votes, not because I didn't support my assertions enough, but because people merely disagree with me about C.S. Lewis and religion.
  
  

• Flimsy arguments tell Christians what they want to hear.
  By A3Q3G9GISG5YLE on 2005-09-16
  I'd read on a website about an atheist who'd converted to Christianity after reading this book, and C.S. Lewis tells readers that he was once an atheist himself. Since I'd love to believe that some Big Grand-Daddy in the Sky is going to make atrocities like George W.'s presidency all right in the end, I gave it a shot. I really did go into it with an open mind, but I was sorely disappointed.
  
  In essence, C.S. Lewis's argument is that since humans know right from wrong, we must be getting that notion from somewhere; hence, there must be a god who gives it to us. He dismisses the idea that right and wrong could be hardwired into the human brain by millions of years of evolution by saying the following: You cannot claim that the sense of right and wrong is instinctive because (a) we can have competing instincts, and (b) we often choose to morally follow the weaker of the competing instincts. He gives the example of the instinct to save a drowning man and claims that most people would experience two instincts in that situation--to wit, one to save the man and one to not put oneself in danger--and that the moral man would choose to act on the weaker of the instincts in order to save the man. According to C.S. Lewis, the decision-making that allows us to govern between instincts to choose the moral or immoral course of action comes from god.
  
  In a matter of a few minutes, C.S. Lewis dismisses--erroneously, I believe--the idea that morality is a complex biological process whereby the mind sorts through various drives, with the executive decision-making process itself a biological function (which can be impaired or highly functional across individuals). This materialistic view is increasingly supported by scientific research on the brain that was simply unavailable in C.S. Lewis' day. Hence, "Mere Christianity" is not a very timely or sophisticated piece of writing, since its entire argument rests on the premise that knowledge of right and wrong demands acknowledgement of a god.
  
  Atheists and agnostics who want a true challenge to their inclinations must look elsewhere. Likewise, people who are of another religion and considering Christianity ought to look elsewhere. The other major world religions are dismissed even more quickly than C.S. Lewis dismisses moral materialism. People who are already Christians will enjoy not being challenged to think critically, as well as some of C.S. Lewis' less mainstream views on repentance, becoming born again, etc.
  
  
• A VERY WORTHWHILE BOOK
  By A341BG8RMH8QW on 2003-10-28
  Recently, I've run into several people who say they find reading C.S. Lewis difficult. What??? C.S. Lewis had the cleanest, most lucid prose style ever known to English (His poetry however is another case).

  I guess I am left asking--like the Professor in Lewis's The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe--"What are they teaching in schools these days?"

  Now that that is out of my system:

  Mere Christianity is a fine book. It played a huge part in my own acceptance of Christ as my Savior. Lewis's arguments for the presence of a universal standard of behavior, of the presence of conscience/the Holy Spirit met me right where my atheistic/agnostic self had been living. "If we do not believe in decent behavior, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently?"

  Lewis follows his opening argument by presenting what he sees as the basic Christian beliefs and the general characteristics of Christian living. In the chapter titled The Invasion Lewis states the position of the Christian in the world quite succinctly and eloquently:

  "Enemy-occupied territory--that is what the world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage."

  Lewis's arguments are chock full of such vivid passages. His real strength is in the boiling down of his arguments. Lewis gets to the absolute core of True Christian beliefs and traditional Christian living.

  At the end of the last century the magazine Christianity Today called Mere Christianity the Christian book of the century. I personally think that this is a bit of an overestimation (the Bible speaks to all generations and is the book of every century), but Mere Christianity is indeed a worthy book.

  I give Mere Christianity my full recommendation.
  
  

• After the first few chapters...
  By A237ZSSKQY6BRT on 2001-09-09
  After having only read the first five chapters of this book, I can already conclude that in my opinion, this book fails miserably at presenting a logical argument for the basis of Christianity. Lewis employs one logical fallacy after another in the first few chapters to prove that there is some Universal code of conduct (whether we follow it or not is our own personal decision). He claims that set A of morals obviously is "more correct" than set B of morals, as set A models itself more closely to the Law of Human Decency. His argument is strongly based on his belief that morality does not change over time, nor does it differ in any significant way from culture to culture.

  This is simply untrue, and his entire argument can so easily be disproved that a child could come up with sufficient counterexamples. Two quickly jump to mind... Firstly, attitudes towards homosexuality (homosexuals are abhorrently immoral in the eyes of Christians, but homosexuality was considered a blessing in the eyes of North American Indian religions). Secondly, attitudes towards drugs (Christians seem opposed to drugs and view drugs as being immoral, whereas many other cultures embrace drugs and find them to be a wonderful tool of knowledge). Who is to dictate which culture is more right in this case? Christians would obviously state that they are correct, seeing as homosexuality is condemned by the Bible. However, to say that Christians are correct would be to use the assumption that Christianity is correct, which is what Lewis is trying to prove in this book. You cannot use an assumption to prove an assumption! (The sky is green. Hence, the sky must be green.)

  Lewis' logic often resembles something akin to using examples to prove a point. Anyone who understands basic mathematics would realize that examples are utterly insufficient in proving a theory. I can easily say that 0 + 1 = 1 and 2 + (-1) = 1, hence any two numbers added together must equal 1. But clearly 3 + 3 = 1 is a ridiculous statement to make.

  Thus, sadly, there is little point for me in continuing to read this book, as Lewis will be extending his argument for Christianity based on his earlier arguments, which I believe I have sufficiently disproven.

  I give this book two stars because despite the fact that I think Lewis' arguments are flawed, his writing style is excellent.

  I realize that some of the Christians here will mod down this review as being unuseful, but just because my views disagree with yours does not indicate that my review is any less valid, important, or useful than your own. There is no harm in disagreeing and I hope I inspire at least one of you to read this book more critically and formulate your own arguments for the validity of Christianity. I read your reviews with an open mind. I hope that you will do the same with mine.
  
  

• Urbane, Genteel Insanity
  By A39IBJB2PBVC7I on 2006-01-22
  Reading this book one is struck by the author's style, so much a product of his time and place. Lewis had a good intellect and a good command of his subject. But this is not a textbook, nor is it even an examination of the fundamental beliefs underpinning Christianity. It's a pep rally intended to persuade the uncertain that Christianity is the one true religion and correct in all its basic assumptions. As such it must fail because this can only be determined by faith.
  
  What is so fascinating is how Lewis develops his mild-mannered sweet style, a voice so unassuming you would forgive him anything. He is always refined, logical, and methodical, sometimes painfully so. Thus, when in the middle of a rational sentence you find a phrase like, "Every time an English child sticks a fork into an electrical outlet, ten Chinese men laugh uproariously," one simply nods one's head in agreement.
  
  Sadly, this charm does not qualify as intellectual honesty, what Lewis is passing off as rigorous logic would get him thrown out of a freshman year philosophy class. He uses misdirection regularly, sometimes flat denial, other times simply skirts by issues, and even defines things by their opposite!
  
  When I watch an unctuous televangilist banging on the bible and asking for money, I know I've got a huckster who, in another life would have been a used car salesman. What makes this book so incredibly dangerous is that its lunatic message is delivered with grace, dignity, and erudition. The man with the briefcase steals more than the man with the gun.
  
  
• Christianity...No, seriously.
  By A3NTR8JBMDZEY on 2001-11-17
  I feel somewhat foolish giving C.S. Lewis a book review. Formerly a rigid atheist, Lewis tested the tenets of Christianity with his intellect. This was no small test. Lewis, an Oxford alumni and professor, put his faith in the one who claimed to be the Messiah to a people needing salvation.

  If you are searching for absolute truth, or if you seek something more than what you see from your so-called "Christian" neighbors, read this book. If you are an agnostic, read this book. Atheist? Read the book. Do you go to church every Sunday? Read it! Frequent the bars? It's okay. Read the book at the bar. I guarantee that C.S. Lewis will paint an attractive picture of what Christianity is all about. You will not feel threatened. You will not be judged. I will, however, guarantee a mental work-out. Further, you will see Christianity for what it truly is. No, seriously.
  
  

• Interesting, but not convincing to me
  By A1JH5J1KQAUBMP on 2003-08-02
  I'll be right up front with my own religious orientation and say that I'm an atheist. As such, I suppose I am the ideal audience for this book, since CS Lewis undertakes to explain the fundamental unifying beliefs of the various Christian denominations in simple language and analogy that should be clear to anyone. In this, he succeeds admirably, although his tone often comes off as condescending. In the end, however, I was not persuaded. I am put off by his views on homosexuals and the role of women as well as his acceptance of the Christian's permission (if not obligation) to kill in cases such as war or criminal punishment.

  I was also not convinced by his basic premise that God must exist because humans everywhere share a basic moral sense. It is easier for me to believe that we evolved certain behaviors because they allowed us to coexist relatively peacefully in communities; these behaviors had survival value for us because we are best able to thrive in communities. Being the intellectually complex beings that we are, we have developed sets of religious belief to explain these behaviors and tendencies to ourselves.

  These problems notwithstanding, "Mere Christianity" is a readable and illuminating introduction to Christian thought and merits reading.
  
  

• Delude yourselves if it makes you feel good...
  By A1DHR5XVHL9EHV on 2006-02-09
  I am a former Christian who no longer believes in the concept of souls, god, hell, etc., and I readily revel in the wonders science uncovers everyday. Yet, I've had quite a few people recommend this book to me (to sway me, I suppose)--so I finally read it. (Although religious folks never read the stuff I suggest for them: do a websearch for Richard Dawkins'Good and Bad Reasons for Believing; it's a much shorter and easier read than C.S. Lewis' pedantic tome. Besides, C.S. Lewis was a Science Fiction writer, like Scientology's founder, L. Ron Hubbard. I suggest you get your science from scientists not science fiction writers--but I digress.) This work of self aggrandizing philosophizing might possibly be a good book if your goal is to convince yourself (or others) that Christianity is the truth--but it's a really crappy book if you are actually interested in truth--the good kind...the kind with evidence that can be explained to anyone with just a wee bit of scientific knowledge--. Scientific truths are sort of like math--it's useful stuff to know--a great tool...but truth doesn't care if you believe it or not. You can believe that the value of pi is indeterminable and that the moon is made of cheese if you desire.
  
  Anyhow, let me sum of some of C.S. Lewis' nuggets of wisdom so you can assess whether this book is for you. C.S. Lewis has carfully studied the bible and Christian literature to discover what the worst sin of all is-- Just guess what the worst sin of all is, folks? It's not pedophilia, it's not starting wars by lying, it's not cruelty, it's not killing people because you've labled them evil, it's not child abuse--it's (drumroll please)--PRIDE. That's right--pride is the worse sin of all according to C.S. Lewis based upon his diligent study of Christian Doctrine. Now, to me, a person living many years after Lewis' death--I find this stuff inane. Granted, my I.Q. and education level is higher than most, but I once lapped up this stuff because, by golly, it never occurred to me that authority figures could be full of crap. At this wiser point in my life, I think that C.S Lewis was not only full of crap--but he exhibits pride to the point of arrogance in pretending to have reasoned his way to Christian truth. Do you notice, that like many cult leaders, he claims to understand mysteries of the universe without showing any evidence in support of his claims? Sort of like Hitler (another Christian, mind you), Osama, Marshall Applewhite,Charles Manson, Reverend Moon, and David Koresh (note: how telling that all gods, prophets, demons, devils, etc. are men--could this be a testosterone inspired delusion?).
  
  Let me share some other nuggets from C.S. Lewis--ah yes... here's a Christian favorite--"sinning in your thoughts is as bad as sinning in actuality." Try selling that to a jury. I would prefer that someone imagine raping me than actually doing it...I suspect most would agree. Go ahead and imagine me in hell, just don't inflict it upon me (leave the smiting to your Almighty, please.) Actual rape causes pain, suffering, and possibly pregnancy and/or AIDS.If it's the same to god, he/she/it is insane. Here on planet earth, controlling ones actions takes precedence over controlling ones thoughts (which doesn't seem to be particularly effective-- especially when it comes to more primal thinking where evolution has ensured some particularly compelling thoughts. Check out Jimmy Swaggert...or homosexuals trying to think themselves "straight".)
  
  C.S. Lewis also tells us that soldiers should serve with gaiety in a war even though they are killing people. That's right, C.S. Lewis is a warmonger. Although Osama's followers served their god happily, I suspect most soldiers have to be pretty brainwashed to ignore the suffering they cause in the fight for some "ideal" or against some "poorly defined evil." Killing people devastates the lives of loved ones no matter which god you pray to, and I can't imagine anyone finding gaiety in inflicting such suffering. (I bet non-atheist soldiers think god is on their side--no matter whose army they fight in. By the way, evidence confirms there are lots of atheist in foxholes. Also, there are lots of people praying for god to save them in many doomed situations (the Virginia miners). I suspect all doomed hijacked flights have plenty of passengers pleading for a safe landing--of course the hijackers are praying to their god for a successful mission and heavenly rewards. This god of C.S. Lewis' seems to pick and choose when it comes to prayer answering, no?
  
  Most of C.S. Lewis' advice seems aimed at men--sort of like the bible's rules about coveting wives and it's treatment of women as chattle. And not unlike the islamic view that tells guys that virgins await them in heaven--what woman wants that heaven? Religion is also a great way to control people without having to answer to anyone about the results (because they all occur in some nebulous afterlife). It doesn't seem to occur to most religious dudes that women are as intelligent (though often more trusting and gullible) than them. Who can blame them, of course, if their religion tells them that women are responsible for the fall of mankind and that god was created in man's image (testosterone proneness to wrath and revenge included)? Heck, the Mormon religion tells guys they get to be gods on their own planets--of course women are secondary and can only get to heaven via marriage and submission to their husbands. Bummer. And women seem to sin so much less then men; they hardly ever covet or kill, and they seldom rape or commit child molestation. And, most aren't particular prideful (the biggest sin of all, according to C.S. Lewis. The woman I know tend to be humble as a group and more placating and empathic then their Y-chromosomed counterparts. Heck, women never start wars, so why do men get all the goodies in the afterlife? Sounds like a scam to me! Women also seem to be the biggest consumers of religion, so if you get heaven bonus points for believing,women win there too.
  
  Maybe, Mere Christianity was wise for the time it was written. But the problem with all religious texts is that they expect you to squeeze truth out of ideals. All supernatural beliefs involve putting faith in something without being able to question it...test it...explore it...challenge it. It's all based on the same namby pamby evidence that we wouldn't even accept in a court of law--hearsay, testimony, feelings, inner knowingness, claims of miracles, revelations, guys who claim to be Gods, prophets, gurus, and bearers of secret knowledge. But if you try to test these claims--for example, say I ask a catholic to take the communion out of your mouth so we can analyze it for Human DNA...or ask a Mormon to test their holy undergarments in a double blind taser test, I am accused of arrogance. Could it be that the emperor is wearing no clothes and that's why he wants you to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?" Could it be that the zealots are trying to convince you in an effort to convince themselves? (If anyone has a supernatural claim such as the above or anything else that they can demonstrate scientifically, I encourage you google "JREF--million dollar prize." Just state what supernatural thing you can do and prove it.
  
  All religions promise you goodies if you believe; they tell you you'll be punished eternally for being not believing the right untestable claim or a false prophet. They tell you that you are arrogant to ask questions...yet I think those who ask questions aren't arrogant; they're intelligent and often eager to share the information they've gained. Most scientists seem eager to share information with those who can comprehend it and test it. Most religious people hide behind "god's mysterious ways." I think there are obvious reasons why belief in the supernatural (god, souls, hell, alien abductions, etc.) decreases as intelligence and education increase. But I also think that religious people have more kids passing on whatever genes influence religiosity (especially religous people who think god doesn't want them to use birth control.) I think relion makes people stupid and makes them focus on an afterlife at the expense of the only verifiable life they have. Scientists indulge them in these fantasies, mainly because religious people can be scary. I know I seldom speak out, but I'm not the kind to tell a kid there is no Santa either.
  
  But why do religious people imagine they'll feel something in an afterlife when they won't have a working brain to do so? Neurologists have well documented that consciousness occurs within the brain; no one has given evidence of consciousness outside of a body. Neurologists have pretty much shown that all consciousness, feelings, experiences, etc., are brain dependent. We can duplicate most every religious type experience with drugs and brain stimulation in various area. Brain damage can make people believe all sorts of really crazy things, like Capgras delusion, where one's mother and other close associates are seen as imposters (the sight and emotion part of the brain lose their connection). Or many of those experiencing dementia claim that the image in the mirror isn't them. Religion causes delusions too.
  
  Science, like knowledge and technology, evolves. Antiquated religious notions can't. I am just amazed that people who understand that the earth is spherical and orbiting despite our perceptions still invest so much in supernatural claims. And the problem with supernatural claims is that they tend to contradict each other and without evidence. The only way to determine one's superiority to the other is confirmation bias, it seems. If I want something to be true I am readily drawn to evidence which supports these desires. Humans are very great at fooling themselves--think of optical illusions.
  
  How can people who readily accept paternity tests, and fly in planes, and think test tube babies and cloned sheep are no big deal--people who use the internet--how can they still believe that "evil" and "good" exist outside the mind of human beings? Our technology and science would make us indistiguishable from gods to generations past (my dog thinks I'm god as far as I can tell) but still we make up our own gods, even as his/her role seems to diminish further with each new scientific discovery.
  
  Science is built from the bottom up--on that which works--it's honed, refined, and added to --no designer needed. Today's internet had no overlord planner--it evolved from the technology that came before. C.S. Lewis offers something that is untestable, and that you can only build more untestable, nebulous, knowledge on top of. It's a waste of time, I think, unless you're hoping to bolster your own tentative beliefs.
  
  Why do Christians always want people to read this book, but they never seem to read the imminently more readable scientists of our times like Dawkins, Shermer, Blackmore, and, for beginners, Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World? Truth is gathered from the evidence--you can't assume what it is and then try to make the evidence fit those facts. Atheists seem to be more widely read in both the religious arena and the science arena from what I can tell--I certainly am; whereas religious folks stick to the stuff that encourages their particular belief--just like the Amish stay away from the modern world and things that might tempt them away from their heavenly path. It seems a waste of brainpower which could advance knowledge. Moreover, it causes the part of the brain responsible for logical thinking to whither.
  
  If you are going to explore beliefs without evidence, you might also try try homeopathy, out-of-body transcendence, levitation, astrology, and satanism; check out the Koran; the bhagvad gita; fairies are fun too. Try out Zeus as your god for a week. Try fearing Hades and praying to Allah. See if you get better results than you get from your current beliefs. They are all equally likely from a scientific perspective. Yes, a lot of this stuff is old and discredited--but many people claim these beliefs to be true. How about alien made crop circles? If you base your beliefs on feelings, depth of belief indicated by believers, or fear of hell (by the way...everyone is going to hell in someone else's religion), what makes you and C.S. Lewis believe you've stumbled upon the undefinable, untestable, but actual "truth?" Pride? Arrogance? Stupidity? Youth? Brainwashing? Death of logic neurons in the brain? Were you suckered in by the promise of heaven and afraid to question due to a fear of hell?
  
  Consider this: no wise writer of religious texts thought to offer up some cool things that science later discovered on its own--no supreme being thought to include information about DNA, microbes, atoms, and solar systems in any of their religious texts. Kind of incompetent for an almighty. Sure you can bend vague prophesies and use formulas to find secret codes in the bible. Sure you can play your records backwards and hear demons supposedly. But that's not stuff smart people give credence to. We don't burn people because they are witches anymore and we don't perform exorcisms on people with Tourette Syndrome.
  
  And here's a final piece of wisdom from C.S. Lewis: Humans are unlovable -- "creatures like us who actually find hatred such a pleasure that to give it up is like giving up beer or tobacco ..." I don't know about you, but I find pleasure in none of these.
  
  
• Second-rate even among Lewis's oeuvre
  By on 1999-10-10
  C. S. Lewis has been compared to such robust Christian and literary personalities as Chesterton and Samuel Johnson, and like them it's impossible to sum him up in a single sentence. Well -- Lewis was a fascinating man. I doubt he would have had his virtues if he had not had his contradictions. But all personal opinions about the man aside, this book is not Lewis at his best. Conceded, he had an extraordinary gift for metaphor, wrote with disarming clarity and lucidity, and, as far as I can tell, really strove to live a life of spiritual regeneration. These elements are present in this book, but cannot redeem its gross failing to make Christian orthodoxy appear logical. [You can interpret that remark however you like.] As Hardy (I believe it was) said of Cardinal Newman's _Apologia_, the argument is admirable and would compel assent if only one could accept the initial premises. I give it three stars because it is better than a lot of stuff that gets published, it's become sort of a classic and deserves a point for that, and, finally, it does have its "moments"; but I can't give it any more because of the frankly elementary lapses in reasoning, and because its reputation (IMHO) far exceeds its worth. Here's a tear-out guide to your likely reaction depending on your faith or lack of it:

  1) Theologically conservative Christian, esp. evangelical Protestant: You'll love this book, if you haven't already read it.

  2) Other Christian: You'll find much of value and might even be swayed toward Lewis's orthodoxy.

  3) Lapsed Christian and/or "seeker": This could signal your reawakening, like the _Hortensius_ to St. Augustine -- depending on your previous reading and experience. But you're not likely to be *wholly* won over.

  3) Hardened atheist: You'll be confirmed in all your worst opinions about the intelligence of Christians.

  4) Agnostic: Your results will vary.
  
  

• The most solid apologetic overview that I've ever read.
  By on 1999-09-28
  Having read Mere Christianity several times and then having read the BAD reviews on it I found the "one star crowd" to be a particularly bitter bunch, ignoring the weightier concepts and ignoring the whole scope of the book. Mr Lewis's life and work was a singular effort in defense of the faith (after his conversion) and anyone who sees a 200 odd page compilation of many of these insights as superficial is correct in only the most superficial way. It would take a book that was a decade in the making and more than an armful to exhaustively compile all the arguments and counter-arguments for and against the christian faith and Lewis gives a lively and accurate synopsis of the whole of apologetics. This is very readable stuff in a progressive manner that basically takes you from the starting point of believing that we exist, through the existance of moral law, a moral law-giver, a self revealing moral lawgiver, and finally arriving at a wise immortal man on a cross. The final sections of the book basically saw what we can think and know about reality basd on this situation and how we should then live. A wonderful book that a christian's heart will take as spiritual steak and potatoes and unbelivers will reel at as they begin to see the reasonableness of the God.
  
  
• "Musturbation" versus human well-being.
  By AQ6G6X8FARK8W on 2001-04-24
  Lewis begins his argument for Christianity by pointing out the grammatical oddity (in English) that we often speak of things that we ought, or ought not, do. He then makes the dramatic leap that the origin of such ideas must come from some SUPERNATURAL realm, and thus opens a doorway for the arbitrary and historically contingent Judeo-Christian ideas about "god."

  Now, really. When you buy a new auto, and you read in the owner's manual something like, "You ought to change the oil every 3,000 miles," are you to conclude that you've just received a "supernatural" revelation?

  Of course not. Some human invented that ought-statement as a way of expressing the relationship between a means and an end, in this case, maintaining one's auto properly. Moral ought statements are no different, though their origins have been lost in the passage of time. They express relationships relating to the maintenance of a workable society, with the "supernatural" sanctions associated with them acting as a kind of psychological scarecrow to improve compliance.

  Moreover, since Lewis argues elsewhere (_The Abolition of Man_), following David Hume, that you can't derive ought from is, this effectively destroys the argument that the postulated existence of a god means that we ought to act in certain ways. "We ought" cannot follow in any way from "God is," so Lewis's case is dead on arrival.

  Moreover, even if the origin of moral ideas is genuinely mysterious (though I don't see them that way), you can't explain a mystery by invoking an even bigger mystery ("god").

  And to top off my critique, I might add that modern cognitive psychotherapy (exemplified by the popular writings of Albert Ellis and David Burns, many of them still in print) has discovered that a lot of unnecessary emotional distress results from irrational adherence to ought, must and have-to ideas. Ellis coined the term "musturbation" to describe the kind of crooked thinking responsible for so much human suffering. We can use ought statements as guidance when they serve human flourishing, but the kind of unthinking ought-idolatry promoted by Lewis and other Christian moral absolutists causes nothing but misery.
  
  

• A Very Good Workout Book of Logic
  By on 2004-10-06
  This is a great work out book if you are in to logic. Take this for example:
  
  "...Athiesm turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..."
  
  It made me think for a while. At first, it made sense. As did the typical comparison Lewis made immediately afterward about if there was no light, "dark" would be meaningless.
  
  But then, I actually thought about it, and realized: if there was a or many gods, then the thought of a world without god/s would be meaningless, yet, it has meaning.
  
  In the same light, a world devoid of meaning could still contain the illusion of meaning, just as a world without divinity could still contain the illusion of one.
  
  So when one finds out that meaningfullnes is just an illusion, meaningless still retains a defintion since the experience of meaningfullness, even though it was never real, has been... experienced.
  
  To reiterate Lewis' argument, if the world was truely meaningless, then no one would realize the fact since meaning has never reached us. And that is true until you have taken the imaginative faculties of humanity. Meaning is purely perceptual, opinionated, biased. Sky diving can be extremely meaningful, but not to someone who hates it or does not care for the experience of falling. So taking the human mind out of the universe, it is entirely devoid of meaning.
  
  There are many other examples in the book I'm sure, I just flipped to a random page here and found an interesting sophism logic at work and thought I'd share it.
  
  
• It was lucky to get the one star.
  By A27FGWV6N1W6RG on 1999-06-24
  CS Lewis managed in the Chronicles of Narnia to prove his mastery of the clumsy religious allegory. And, with Mere Christianity, he tries to approach the thorny topic of God's existence and the divinity of Jesus using "logic" and "reason." It's as subtle a piece of elegant design and craftsmanship as any tractor factory in Rostok.

  Facile arguments are bolted together using bold assumptions and the Krazee-Glue of faith. It's amazing that anyone could send such a clunky contraption to plough furrows in logic and reason and sow the seeds of unconditional belief. I read that book and I think think the only thing he got right was the title, which is bang-on.
  
  

• A Classic Apology
  By A3SHHMJXIVZHF9 on 2003-12-30
  Religious or athiest (which, one could argue, is a religion itself), all will agree that Lewis was a master of his craft. Few men possess the talent to strip an issue down to its core, exposing its true (or the author's view of the truth) value. Other apologists, like Chesterton, get bogged down and easily lose the reader. Lewis, on the other hand, has a knack for making the most complex appear trivially simple.

  For those who reject Christianity, Lewis offers at the very least an exercise in logic and reasoning. He'll begin an argument with simple reasoning, akin to "you agree that two plus two equals 4, corrct?", and then before you know it, he'll trap you in a logical parlor trick, forcing you to either accept his reasoning, or argue that two plus two does not equal four.

  It takes a few readings of some passages to discover some errors (as I percieve them)in his assumptions. He writes with such lucidity and confidence that you'll find yourself mesmerized and nodding along with him. But he lost me at the pivotal point, where he argues for Christ's divinity.

  Lewis warns us of those who would look to Jesus as a moral teacher, and not as the Son of God, saying that they then are placing their trust at what would be, by their denial of Christ as Savior, in the hands of a lunatic. If Christ is not God, than he was insane; for only an insane man would argue that he was the Son of God. Thus, you must completely dismiss Jesus as a relevant moral teacher, or accept his divinity. I believe Lewis is on shaky ground here.

  A popular example to argue the contrary is the story of John Nash, popularized by the movie A Beautiful Mind. Nash was insane - certifiably so - yet that doesn't preclude mathemeticians from accepting his mathematical ideas as correct. Granted mathematics and religion are not the same (but probably closer than most would like to believe), but I think the point is still valid - "insanity" does not preclude someone from the validity of their work. I am not arguing that Christ was insane, I'm just trying to illustrate that the pivotal argument of the apology is on very shaky ground. I can accept his arguments regarding the internal moral law and such, but I expected a much better argument for the most important issue an apologist can address - the divinity of Jesus Christ.

  But it is still worth 4 stars for the greatness of his writing, and its excellent treatise on "What Christians Believe". At the very least, this book will force you to think - a dying art itself.
  
  

• Merely wonderful...
  By A2VE83MZF98ITY on 2004-02-08
  C.S. Lewis was a rare individual. One of the few non-clerics to be recognised as a theologian by the Anglican church, he put forth the case for Christianity in general in ways that many Christians beyond the Anglican world can accept, and a clear description for non-Christians of what Christian faith and practice should be. Indeed, Lewis says in his introduction that this text (or indeed, hardly any other he produced) will help in deciding between Christian denominations. While he describes himself as a `very ordinary layman' in the Church of England, he looks to the broader picture of Christianity, particularly for those who have little or no background. The discussion of division points rarely wins a convert, Lewis observed, and so he leaves the issues of ecclesiology and high theology differences to `experts'. Lewis is of course selling himself short in this regard, but it helps to reinforce his point.

  The book looks at beliefs, both from a `natural' standpoint as well as a scripture/tradition/reason standpoint. Lewis looks both at belief and unbelief - for example, he states that Christians do not have to see other religions of the world as thoroughly wrong; on the other hand, to be an atheist requires (in Lewis' estimation) that one view religions, all religions, as founded on a mistake. Lewis probably surprised his listeners by starting a statement, `When I was an atheist...' Lewis is a late-comer to Christianity (most Anglicans in England were cradle-Anglicans). Thus Lewis can speak with the authority of one having deliberately chosen and found Christianity, rather than one who by accident of birth never knew any other (although the case can be made that Lewis was certainly raised in a culture dominated by Christendom).

  Lewis also looks at practice - here we are not talking about liturgical niceties or even general church-y practices, but rather the broad strokes of Christian practice - issues of morality, forgiveness, charity, hope and faith. Faith actually has two chapters - one in the more common use of system of belief, but the other in a more subtle, spiritual way. Lewis states in the second chapter that should readers get lost, they should just skip the chapter - while many parts of Christianity will be accessible and intelligible to non-Christians, some things cannot be understood from the outside. This is the `leave it to God' sense of faith, that is in many ways more of a gift or grace from God than a skill to be developed.

  Finally, Lewis looks at personality, not just in the sense of our individual personality, but our status as persons and of God's own personality. Lewis' conclusion that there is no true personality apart from God's is somewhat disquieting; Lewis contrasts Christianity with itself in saying that it is both easy and hard at the same time. Lewis looks for the `new man' to be a creature in complete submission and abandonment to God. This is a turn both easy and difficult.

  `Mere Christianity' was originally a series of radio talks, published as three separate books - `The Case for Christianity', `Christian Behaviour', and `Beyond Personality'. This book brings together all three texts. Lewis' style is witty and engaging, the kind of writing that indeed lives to be read aloud. Lewis debates whether or not it was a good idea to leave the oral-language aspects in the written text (given that the tools for emphasis in written language are different); I think the correct choice was made.
  
  

• A Timeless Defense of Timeless Truth
  By A25AMBAAZLNTQT on 2005-05-03
  Though over sixty years old (in their first incarnation as radio broadcasts), C. S. Lewis' insights into the validity of Christianity remain as current as today's internet blogs. "Mere Christianity" answers the intellectual questions of post-modern intellectuals and provides nourishment for the spiritual hunger of Gen X/Gen Y seekers.
  
  Lewis writes in the style of his intellectual mentor, G. K. Chesterton. Both men entered adulthood as agnostics. Both men spent their careers defending the rational integrity of Christianity. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy" addressed the questions typical of the agnosticism of his era (1900). Lewis' "Mere Christianity" addresses the hardened agnosticism of his WW II generation.
  
  Like Chesterton, Lewis not only discusses how Christianity is rationally consistent, but also how it meets the "real world/real hunger" test. That is, he demonstrates how Christianity is relationally fulfilling, meaningful, and consistent.
  
  "Mere Christianity" also reads something like a Christian version of Plato's "Republic." In the "Republic," Plato attempted to define the shape of a society that would produce "happiness"--meaningful, purposeful existence for the individual and the society. Philosophically, Lewis offers the Christian version of the ideal individual, in the ideal society, following the ideal Supreme Being. Stepping back and seeing the big picture, you finish "Mere Christianity" and realize, "Christianity really does make sense. It works. It fits the world as it is and the world as we wish it to be."
  
  Reviewer: Dr. Robert W. Kellemen is the author of "Soul Physicians: A Theology of Soul Care and Spiritual Direction," "Spiritual Friends: A Methodology of Soul Care and Spiritual Direction," and the forthcoming "Sacred Companions: A History of Soul Care and Spiritual Direction."
  
  
  
• Bad Theology
  By A3IXFL8FXHPCF9 on 2005-07-29
  I got through 2/3rds of the book and could not finish it. The first 5 chapters were very good. However, in 6 he simply assumes Christianity. So he builds the case never finishs it and then assume Christianity. I fail to see the point in the first five chapters then.
  
  He then purports the Christ-life through Baptism and Communion. Since Lewis is an Anglican no surprise. He then says well some exceptions may occur. Whoa. The scriptures point to either Grace or Works. Lewis the calls God a Risktaker. Do the scriptures portray them this way.
  
  Lewis then hits the issue of will and then strays from it saying we are venturing into "Deep Waters" he is right Christianity is deep what he is putting forth is not.
  
  Then Lewis throws a Chapter in about Sex. He claims to be unmarried. Therefore Dr. Lewis is speaking from experience relating to sex he has had outside of marriage. Hardly a context suited to speak of martial sex or he has no idea and is speaking from his imagination. Hardly convincing to those of us who are married. Nor does he go to the scriptures on this matter.
  
  He then claims how things are to be in a marriage. He alludes to the scriptures finally on the matter of women submitting. Yet never mentions Husbands loving their wives like Christ loved the Church. He also claims to understand domneering women. He apparently never has been around one. They don't feel sorry for other men being domineered most would give the other woman a high-five. I am not stating right or wrong on this issue. It is clear Lewis is giving his opinions on something he has never experience. At this point I closed the book.
  
  I can see why it is popular. The truth rarely is.
  
  
• Well written, but poorly reasoned
  By A2JC0MDMR128C9 on 2005-08-01
  This book was recommended to me by a friend who claimed that it provided a very logical defense of Christianity. After reading it, I concluded that if this is the reputation that this book has, then it is certainly undeserved. I gave this book 2 stars instead of one only because Lewis is a decent writer. He is clear and easy to understand. Other than that, however, the arguments in this book are very poorly reasoned. Below I have provided just some out of numerous examples of Lewis's fallacious arguments.
  
  1) Lewis discusses what he calls the "Rule" or "Law of Right and Wrong." On p. 5, Lewis states that in regard to this law "everyone knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it." On p. 12, he says that "I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behavior...as we learn everything else. " On p. 29, he talks of the "Moral Law which He put into our minds" and on p. 56 that "He left us conscience, the sense of right and wrong." So which is it? Do we know this law automatically by our nature? Do we learn it? Or does God implant this knowledge into our heads? Logically, it cannot be all three. Obviously, Lewis cannot make up his mind.
  
  2) In chapter 2, Lewis makes the point that morality is not a mere social convention; that moral laws "like mathematics, are real truths" (p. 12). On this point, I fully agree with him. However, mathematical truths, like all scientific truths, are established through logic and/or evidence. Moral truths have to be established in the same way. Yet Lewis doesn't even offer an argument for the fundamental moral "truth" which he endorses. On p. 20, he states that "...all you are really saying is that decent behavior is decent behavior. You would have said just as much if you had stopped at the statement, `Men ought to be unselfish.' And that is where I do stop." So Lewis openly admits here that he has no reason as to WHY you ought to be unselfish. This is no coincidence since no valid reasons exist to be unselfish. Unselfishness does not simply mean being benevolent and fair towards others. A morality of unselfishness means that one ought to be unconcerned and indifferent to one's own life and welfare - "...a really humble man...will not be thinking about himself at all" (p. 128). Practiced consistently and as a matter of principle, unselfishness can only lead to self-destruction. Is this an exaggeration? I'll let Lewis answer this question for me. On the last page of "Mere Christianity," he states "Submit to death, death of your ambitions and favorite wishes every day and death of your whole body in the end." If anyone reading this would like to learn about a rational morality that is logically derived from facts, then I would highly recommend the introductory book "Loving Life" by Craig Biddle.
  
  3) On p. 69, Lewis expresses frustration that when most people think of morality, they think of "something that interferes, something that stops you having a good time." Yet, he has a whole chapter devoted to the alleged "virtue of chastity" and on p. 202 he suggests that masturbation is a sin. Also, on p. 86, he claims that "the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare... If our charities do not pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we like to do and cannot do because our charities expenditure excludes them." Now, if people accept this view of morality, then Lewis has absolutely no reason to be indignant that people view morality as "something that interferes" and "stops you having a good time" because that certainly IS an accurate assessment of Christian morality.
  
  4) On p. 55, Lewis states that "A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed, he certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it." This is total nonsense and completely backwards. You do not have to accept a theory first in order to know and understand it. The proper course of action is to learn what a theory states first. Only after you know and understand it should you then decide if you will accept or reject the theory based on the logic and/or evidence that either supports or refutes it.
  
  5) The most muddled chapter in the whole book is chapter 8, "The Great Sin," which is "Pride or Self-Conceit." The Christian opposition to pride is not simply an opposition to self-conceit, but an opposition to self-respect, dignity, and self-esteem as well. Lewis makes this explicitly clear. On p. 125, he states that "Pride can often be used to beat down the simpler vices. Teachers...often appeal to a boy's...self-respect, to make him behave decently: many a man has overcome cowardice, or lust, or ill-temper, by learning to think that they are beneath his dignity - that is, by Pride." If Lewis were talking strictly about self-conceit, then he would have made a couple of valid points in this chapter. Unfortunately, he lumps together very different and even opposite things all under the banner of "pride." There is a fundamental difference between, on the one hand, arrogance, vanity, and self-conceit, and on the other hand, self-respect, dignity, and self-esteem. The latter set of qualities are have to be earned through being a decent person and are psychologically healthy, yet Christians, or at least Lewis, not only think that they are essentially no different from the former set of qualities, but that they are sinful as well.
  
  It didn't surprise me that Lewis failed to make a logical case for Christianity since most Christian claims and Christian principles simply defy logic and can only be accepted on faith.
  
  
  
• cheap rhetoric, cheap shots, and poor arguments
  By on 1999-04-16
  Note that this book began life as a series of radio broadcasts, and it may have been all very well for radio (if you assume that it's okay to insult the intelligence of radio listeners). But it is now a book, and ought to be judged as such.

  The first section is a defense of Christianity, although most of it is spent defending Mere Theism - a much weaker doctine, needless to say, but Lewis seems to think that once he has established theism most of the hard work has been done. His central argument for theism is the moral argument: the key premise is, moral claims ("it is wrong to steal") cannot be true unless there is a god. There are three kinds of objections to this premise: (1) it's mysterious how the existence of the supernatural could make moral facts true, especially if we agree with Lewis that they are necessary truths; (2) there are any number of explanations of the truth of moral claims which don't involve the existence of anything supernatural, and (3) maybe moral claims aren't true after all - an idea we may not find pleasant, but which may be true for all that. Lewis's strategy of dealing with these objections is simplicity itself. He doesn't mention them. That's not quite true. He does briefly consider two alternate explanations of moral claims, but he takes care to pick the silliest two, and then has the gall to pretend that he has exhaustively covered the territory. In fact, that's a general strategy throughout the book. Find three or four positions that are superficially similar to each other, conflate them all with the most ludicrous of the three or four, and then argue against *it* - often failing to find good opposing arguments even then.

  You might be wondering what arguments Lewis has in favour of Christianity itself, as opposed to Mere Theism. You would be wrong. The word is argument, singular. That's right: after a hundred bad arguments for theism, just one bad argument in favour of the divinity of Christ, a claim he takes to be absolutely central, and it's all over in two pages. It goes as follows. Jesus claimed to be the son of God. He was either lying, mad, or speaking the truth. The biblical evidence indicates he was neither lying nor mad. Therefore he was speaking the truth. Naturally, if you must read Lewis's treatment of this subject, don't expect him to answer obvious objections, or indeed to go into much more depth than I just have.

  The later chapters are better but still bad. You'll just have to take my word for it since I lack the space and time to mention every single glaring fallacy. But please, please realise that this is by far Lewis's worst book. He usually has better ideas and his writing style is not usually so hectoring. Some of his fiction is superb. Please, please, read something else instead.
  
  

• Primitive concepts outdated by todays understanding
  By AMKVTIV5H977R on 2005-02-01
  I have no doubt that C.S. Lewis was a fine man and he certainly set out to achieve a noble goal here. Making the spiritual more understandable through the application of logic has an undeniable appeal. Unfortunately, his assumptions about some of the basic concepts of human nature look positively naive by modern standards. He comes off sounding like, as one of my psych professors was fond of saying, a "park-bench philosopher". Behavioral science just had not developed to the point it has today, so he had no way of knowing that his basic assumptions about some things he viewed as givens were, in fact, not given at all. In the end, trying to make the subject of religion something that one can put to the test of "logic" is an exercise in futility. That's why it's called faith.
  
  

• The Screwtape Letters
• The Problem of Pain
• The Great Divorce
• The Four Loves
• The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus