C.S. Lewis was a Theistic Evolutionist

[A Beautiful Truth]

I was wondering if any here knows how C.S. Lewis dealt with the outcroppings of his belief in Theistic Evolution.

I am especially interested how he figured sin and theodicy. Can anyone discuss this with me?

[kuboes1831]

I was wondering if any here knows how C.S. Lewis dealt with the outcroppings of his belief in Theistic Evolution.

I am especially interested how he figured sin and theodicy. Can anyone discuss this with me?


Like most of us he was TE but objected to evolutionary reductionism

He dealt with theodicy in The Problem of Pain.

Lewis also held the Bible not to be inerrant

[Ishmael]

Like most of us he was TE but objected to evolutionary reductionism

He dealt with theodicy in The Problem of Pain.

Lewis also held the Bible not to be inerrant

C.S. Lewis had very little in common with American Protestantism.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Like most of us he was TE but objected to evolutionary reductionism

He dealt with theodicy in The Problem of Pain.

Lewis also held the Bible not to be inerrant

I've heard others mention The Problem of Pain, I will have to read it.

Can you tell me more about his views on inerrancy?

[Strategos]

I've heard others mention The Problem of Pain, I will have to read it.

Can you tell me more about his views on inerrancy?

If I remember correctly, he believed in partial inspiration. That is, some parts of the Bible are more inspired than other parts. So, for example, John 3 is more inspired then a geneology list from Numbers.

[Calvinist4Him]

I was wondering if any here knows how C.S. Lewis dealt with the outcroppings of his belief in Theistic Evolution.

What makes C. S. Lewis an authority on Theistic Evolution? You suppose if you tell enough people that C. S. Lewis was a Theistic Evolutionist enough times you'll breakthrough their resistance by appealing to the authority of an expert in literature?

IMHO, Lewis is highly overrated as an apologist. His low view of Scripture is not commendable, and doesn't help in making a case for Theistic Evolution.

[kuboes1831]

What makes C. S. Lewis an authority on Theistic Evolution? You suppose if you tell enough people that C. S. Lewis was a Theistic Evolutionist enough times you'll breakthrough their resistance by appealing to the authority of an expert in literature?

IMHO, Lewis is highly overrated as an apologist. His low view of Scripture is not commendable, and doesn't help in making a case for Theistic Evolution.

It was reading CSLewis that helped me become a Christian.

However much of inerrancy today with its insistence on literalism and YEC is a very false view of scripture and everything else.

[Calvinist4Him]

It was reading CSLewis that helped me become a Christian.

So God uses fallible men to bring people to Him, so what's your point? With the exclusion of Jesus Christ, I believe all men are fallible. If God can use a donkey to bring glory to Him, He can even use C. S. Lewis. That doesn't change my opinon of C. S. Lewis in the slightest.

However much of inerrancy today with its insistence on literalism and YEC is a very false view of scripture and everything else.

What do you mean by "inerrancy today with its insistence on literalism"? Somehow although I am a biblical inerrantist, I doubt I'm the literalist you would insist that I am. On the contrary, you would probably balk at my insistance upon a non-literal interpretation in many passages. Many people today, couldn't explain what inerrancy is and is not. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.reformation.net/COR/cordocs/inerrancy.pdf) is a modern statement on biblical inerracy, and with the signatures of 300 noted evangelicals, including many scholars, it is an authoritative statement.

I don't believe the link between biblical inerrancy and YEC, is necessary. I believe one can be a YEC or an OEC, and hold consistantly to biblical inerrancy. Not that both views are correct, but that biblical inerrancy doesn't depend on the age of the earth, or Science and differences of interpretation. Honestly, I have come to be agnostic on the age of the earth issue. I couldn't tell you which Scientists are correct, and which Scientists are wrong. I know that Christians, in the field of Science, educated in a specialized field, sometimes come to different conclusions, all while maintaining biblical inerrancy. Some of the differences are a matter of interpretation, not which person is a biblical inerrantist.

To be honest though, I find it telling that TE have a tendency to also be errantists. The message it sends to me, is that certain people professing to be Christians, place more trust in secular Science, than they do in the Creator of Science. I think these same people are like grass, blowing wherever somebody's "Science" leads them, and lead them it does because the field of Science is ever changing. At one time the design argument seemed to be dead, but along with the discovery of DNA, came the question, can Science prove God? Of course that is just one example of how Science is ever changing as new discoveries are made.

[James Peter]

What makes C. S. Lewis an authority on Theistic Evolution? You suppose if you tell enough people that C. S. Lewis was a Theistic Evolutionist enough times you'll breakthrough their resistance by appealing to the authority of an expert in literature?

IMHO, Lewis is highly overrated as an apologist. His low view of Scripture is not commendable, and doesn't help in making a case for Theistic Evolution.

I think that very little work has been done looking at the implications of T.E. and whether they are quite as dire as some pretend. As Lewis has dealt with the issue then asking what his conclusions were, especially if you like his intuitive solutions to other 'problems', is perfectly reasonable. It isn't an appeal to Lewis as an authority, it is asking for an argument so the argument can be evaluated...

Yes, Lewis may not have much to do with american protestantism (if that means conservative evangelicalism) but I don't think that has to be seen as a bad thing.

[Ryokan]

I agree with Lewis position. Maybe not for the same reasons, but...

On the other hand, I agree with C4H that too much is made of Lewis. He was a good professor, medoicre apologist, and a nice, if lonely man. If he had not written the Chronicles of Narnia, an above average example of Children's literature, nobody would remember him. The fact he believed something is no reason too on its own.

[sylas]

On the other hand, I agree with C4H that too much is made of Lewis. He was a good professor, medoicre apologist, and a nice, if lonely man. If he had not written the Chronicles of Narnia, an above average example of Children's literature, nobody would remember him. The fact he believed something is no reason too on its own.

I know what you mean... but it goes a bit too far to suggest he is only remembered because of the Narnian Chronicles. He wrote a lot of material, which is widely read by many fans. The Narnia Chronicles expanded his reader base considerably, but without them he would still have an extensive fan base for classics like Great Divorce, Miracles, Problem of Pain, Surprised by Joy, Screwtape Letters and sequel, Pereladra trilogy, and much else besides.

The Great Divorce is my favourite Lewis book. I've read quite a number of others. He's a popular writer, but not a theologian. His books leave plenty of scope for criticism by those who have an interest in theology; but he writes well and has struck many a chord with readers.

Cheers -- Sylas

PS. Ooops. I should have asked for permission before posting. I will do so retroactively. You may wish to hold off reply until an admin checks it out.

[Ryokan]

I know what you mean... but it goes a bit too far to suggest he is only remembered because of the Narnian Chronicles. He wrote a lot[/] of material, which is widely read by many fans. The Narnia Chronicles expanded his reader base considerably, but without them he would still have an extensive fan base for classics like [i]Great Divorce, Miracles, Problem of Pain, Surprised by Joy, Screwtape Letters and sequel, Pereladra trilogy, and much else besides. I have read the Great Divorce, the Screwtape Letters, and the Perelandra trilogy. And they were pretty good. But the general public hasn't. He would not be widely known, as he is today, if he hadn't written Narnia, which just about every kid in the world has read.

The Great Divorce is my favourite Lewis book. I've read quite a number of others. He's a popular writer, but not a theologian. His books leave plenty of scope for criticism by those who have an interest in theology; but he writes well and has struck many a chord with readers.

Cheers -- Sylas
True.
PS. Ooops. I should have asked for permission before posting. I will do so retroactively. You may wish to hold off reply until an admin checks it out.
Well, I am living dangerously. :wink:

[kuboes1831]

So God uses fallible men to bring people to Him, so what's your point? With the exclusion of Jesus Christ, I believe all men are fallible. If God can use a donkey to bring glory to Him, He can even use C. S. Lewis. That doesn't change my opinon of C. S. Lewis in the slightest.



What do you mean by "inerrancy today with its insistence on literalism"? Somehow although I am a biblical inerrantist, I doubt I'm the literalist you would insist that I am. On the contrary, you would probably balk at my insistance upon a non-literal interpretation in many passages. Many people today, couldn't explain what inerrancy is and is not. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.reformation.net/COR/cordocs/inerrancy.pdf) is a modern statement on biblical inerracy, and with the signatures of 300 noted evangelicals, including many scholars, it is an authoritative statement.

I don't believe the link between biblical inerrancy and YEC, is necessary. I believe one can be a YEC or an OEC, and hold consistantly to biblical inerrancy. Not that both views are correct, but that biblical inerrancy doesn't depend on the age of the earth, or Science and differences of interpretation. Honestly, I have come to be agnostic on the age of the earth issue. I couldn't tell you which Scientists are correct, and which Scientists are wrong. I know that Christians, in the field of Science, educated in a specialized field, sometimes come to different conclusions, all while maintaining biblical inerrancy. Some of the differences are a matter of interpretation, not which person is a biblical inerrantist.

To be honest though, I find it telling that TE have a tendency to also be errantists. The message it sends to me, is that certain people professing to be Christians, place more trust in secular Science, than they do in the Creator of Science. I think these same people are like grass, blowing wherever somebody's "Science" leads them, and lead them it does because the field of Science is ever changing. At one time the design argument seemed to be dead, but along with the discovery of DNA, came the question, can Science prove God? Of course that is just one example of how Science is ever changing as new discoveries are made.

Predictable, but then I am a Calvinist ala Calvin and not the so called Calvinism popular today.

Calvin wisely was not an inerrantist so I am good company!!!!

[seer]

I've heard others mention The Problem of Pain, I will have to read it.

Can you tell me more about his views on inerrancy?

Yes, in the Problem of Pain he discusses His views on "evolution." Though, if I remember correctly, his views were not written in stone. He was guessing and and said as much. And his views on inerrancy can be found in "Reflections on the Psalms." He says at one point that the bible was "full of errors and contradictions." He also makes the case (a good case) that the Pslamists contradicted the teachings of Christ. That Christ taught us to love our enemies, while the Psalmist taught us to hate our enemies... Stuff along those lines...

[A Beautiful Truth]

Yes, in the Problem of Pain he discusses His views on "evolution." Though, if I remember correctly, his views were not written in stone. He was guessing and and said as much. And his views on inerrancy can be found in "Reflections on the Psalms." He says at one point that the bible was "full of errors and contradictions." He also makes the case (a good case) that the Pslamists contradicted the teachings of Christ. That Christ taught us to love our enemies, while the Psalmist taught us to hate our enemies... Stuff along those lines...


Thanks. And that is interesting for Christ then "contradicted" the law many times with the "you have heard...but I say to you...". Did Christ believe the scriptures were also contradictory?

Thank you for the name of the other book as well.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I think that very little work has been done looking at the implications of T.E. and whether they are quite as dire as some pretend.

And this is what I must discover. I wish I could talk with someone who could answer the questions I have.

As Lewis has dealt with the issue then asking what his conclusions were, especially if you like his intuitive solutions to other 'problems', is perfectly reasonable. It isn't an appeal to Lewis as an authority, it is asking for an argument so the argument can be evaluated...

Yes, and it is hard to find people who want to look at TE from a theological point of view rather than a scientific one.

Yes, Lewis may not have much to do with american protestantism (if that means conservative evangelicalism) but I don't think that has to be seen as a bad thing.

This also I must discover. What are some differences?

~Charleen

[seer]

Thanks. And that is interesting for Christ then "contradicted" the law many times with the "you have heard...but I say to you...". Did Christ believe the scriptures were also contradictory?

Thank you for the name of the other book as well.

Well some would say that Christ was bringing in a higher law. One that the Mosaic law only hinted at. And yes "Reflections on the Psalms" is an interesting book. Many here do not like Lewis, but He had a first rate mind - not equaled on these boards...

[A Beautiful Truth]

I know what you mean... but it goes a bit too far to suggest he is only remembered because of the Narnian Chronicles. He wrote a lot of material, which is widely read by many fans. The Narnia Chronicles expanded his reader base considerably, but without them he would still have an extensive fan base for classics like Great Divorce, Miracles, Problem of Pain, Surprised by Joy, Screwtape Letters and sequel, Pereladra trilogy, and much else besides.

The Great Divorce is my favourite Lewis book. I've read quite a number of others. He's a popular writer, but not a theologian. His books leave plenty of scope for criticism by those who have an interest in theology; but he writes well and has struck many a chord with readers.

Cheers -- Sylas

PS. Ooops. I should have asked for permission before posting. I will do so retroactively. You may wish to hold off reply until an admin checks it out.

Sylas, though you are not a Christian, you do handle things so very fairly. I appreciate your comments and wish you could continue in this thread. I don't know if my request as the thread originator carries any weight in the admin's decision to let you post or not, but there it is for what it is worth...

[A Beautiful Truth]

Well some would say that Christ was bringing in a higher law. One that the Mosaic law only hinted at.

So the "contradictions" Lewis notes in "Reflections on the Psalms" between David and Christ may be in the same vein?

[A Beautiful Truth]

He was a good professor, medoicre apologist, and a nice, if lonely man.

What makes him medoicre to you?

If he had not written the Chronicles of Narnia, an above average example of Children's literature, nobody would remember him. The fact he believed something is no reason too on its own.

I don't think this is right. I've heard people mention time and again "Mere Christianity" and "The Problem of Pain".

And you are right that just because someone believed something is no reason in and of itself to also believe it. But just as our fellow poster here James Peter said, "As Lewis has dealt with the issue then asking what his conclusions were, especially if you like his intuitive solutions to other 'problems', is perfectly reasonable. It isn't an appeal to Lewis as an authority, it is asking for an argument so the argument can be evaluated..."

Lewis obviously was an intelligent enough man to have looked into the implications of his beliefs. I hoped to find others here who know enough about his views to answer these questions since I do not know so much about Lewis myself.

[seer]

So the "contradictions" Lewis notes in "Reflections on the Psalms" between David and Christ may be in the same vein?

No, I don't think the law ever taught one to hate your enemy like the Psalmist did. Which Lewis saw as a direct contradiction...

[dizzle]

Lewis called Matthew 24:34 the most embarassing verse in the Bible which intimates that Jesus was a false prophet. Thusly I hold Lewis in little esteem when it comes to exegesis and would not consider him competent in examining the consequences of his position on Scripture.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Lewis called Matthew 24:34 the most embarassing verse in the Bible which intimates that Jesus was a false prophet.

I wonder why he said that? Was it his understanding of "generation"? I don't understand.

Thusly I hold Lewis in little esteem when it comes to exegesis and would not consider him competent in examining the consequences of his position on Scripture.

It is true that being wrong on one issue tends to taint our view of them in other areas. It has happend to me as well with other ministers.

[Meh_Gerbil]

First a comment on the Psalms vs. Christ:
The Psalms weren't intended to be law or an explicit declaration of how we should live. The Psalms are a series of songs written by people in various emmotional states from joy right on down to agony. They are describing how they feel as they call out to G_d -- but that is something different than being a model of how we should live. Sheesh, that is like saying we should all commit adultery because of David's example.

Second, a comment on CS Lewis:
I don't think CS Lewis ever set out to be an apologist. His writing seems to be more along the lines of 'here are some thoughts I've been having on this matter'. His writing should be read that way. Ironically enough, his criticism of the Psalms (as I understand it) mirror the criticism his writings get - that is, people are misapplying them.

Thirdly, a comment on Apologists:
One cannot construct arguments that will win over people who don't want to be won over. Also, apologists need to recognize that most skeptics have a ridiculously skewed view of truth detection and not submit to playing the game with a stacked deck of cards. I'd recommend Schaeffer's approach and talk about the implications of Naturalism until the realization sinks in that it is something from which any rational man must flee.

[JonAdams]

I was wondering if any here knows how C.S. Lewis dealt with the outcroppings of his belief in Theistic Evolution.

I am especially interested how he figured sin and theodicy. Can anyone discuss this with me?From what I've read by him, I think C.S. Lewis accepted evolution because it was (is) the most widely accepted theory in the field. Since he was not a biologist he would not have felt qualified to comment so simply accepted what the experts said whilst allowing that they may be wrong. (He briefly mentions this in, I think, the Problem of Pain but I can't get to my copy to check...)

Jonathan.

[seer]

I wonder why he said that? Was it his understanding of "generation"? I don't understand.

Because it did not happen in that "generation." That Christ did not know the hour or the day and that He made an educated guess.

[seer]

First a comment on the Psalms vs. Christ:
The Psalms weren't intended to be law or an explicit declaration of how we should live. The Psalms are a series of songs written by people in various emmotional states from joy right on down to agony. They are describing how they feel as they call out to G_d -- but that is something different than being a model of how we should live. Sheesh, that is like saying we should all commit adultery because of David's example.

Sure, I tend to agree. But the conclusion follows that David was wrong. Wrong on how we are to treat our enemies, wrong on how we are to pray for our enemies.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Sure, I tend to agree. But the conclusion follows that David was wrong. Wrong on how we are to treat our enemies, wrong on how we are to pray for our enemies.

David was wrong on many things -- the Bible is a record of people who were wrong in many instances. I think the man was just ranting and the lesson is that G_d wants to hear the rants as well.

[James Peter]

So in some places the bible is wrong because it records the opinions and beliefs of individual humans but as a whole it is inerrant and, for example, Paul is never wrong because the Spirit guided what he wrote? Why can David be wrong but not Paul (or any other writer)?

[dizzle]

I wonder why he said that? Was it his understanding of "generation"? I don't understand.

He had the correct understanding of generation but an abysmal understanding of what was being communicated by Christ. But he surely didn't follow through with the logical consequences of following a false prophet.


It is true that being wrong on one issue tends to taint our view of them in other areas. It has happend to me as well with other ministers.

While that very likely is true, this is not [i]another area]/i] - it is directly related to his ability to see the implications of his statements and/or beliefs.

[kuboes1831]

He had the correct understanding of generation but an abysmal understanding of what was being communicated by Christ. But he surely didn't follow through with the logical consequences of following a false prophet.



While that very likely is true, this is not [i]another area]/i] - it is directly related to his ability to see the implications of his statements and/or beliefs.

I suppose this is no worse than being a YEC which stems from abysmal misunderstanding and ignorance!

[Darth Executor]

Lewis called Matthew 24:34 the most embarassing verse in the Bible which intimates that Jesus was a false prophet.

Or that the Bible isn't inerrant.

[dizzle]

Or that the Bible isn't inerrant.

True. But not inerrant in an extremely important part - the promises of Christ.

[dizzle]

I suppose this is no worse than being a YEC which stems from abysmal misunderstanding and ignorance!

Do I smell jerky? Yes, I believe I do.

[Calvinist4Him]

Or that the Bible isn't inerrant.

Which is a slippery slope. Who decides which parts are true and not true, and how do they know? I am reminded of Bbible critics, who at one time claimed a certain city found in the Bible did not exist, that the city recorded was an error in the Bible, lo and behold, today archaeologists have uncoverd more evidence for that city, than any other city in the Bible! Any errantists staking their view on that claim, ended up with egg on their face.

[Calvinist4Him]

Do I smell jerky? Yes, I believe I do.

:hehe: Some jerky I like, but other jerky I can't stand. Dry and hard jerky isn't nearly as good as moist and tender jerky.

[Darth Executor]

Which is a slippery slope. Who decides which parts are true and not true, and how do they know?

Textual criticism helps with some parts. However, Lewis could simply say that the bible erred in the parts that are not true. If Jesus says something will happen in a generation and it doesn't, then either the Bible lied or Jesus lied.

[Calvinist4Him]

Textual criticism helps with some parts. However, Lewis could simply say that the bible erred in the parts that are not true.

Which merely begs the question.

If Jesus says something will happen in a generation and it doesn't, then either the Bible lied or Jesus lied.

Or somebody needs to revise their interpretation. Errantists are so arrogant, so as to not consider that maybe it's not the Bible in error, but their interpretation is in error. Pride has a way of putting the blinders on though.

[A Beautiful Truth]

He had the correct understanding of generation but an abysmal understanding of what was being communicated by Christ.

Perhaps not his forte. Did he write any about eschatology?

[A Beautiful Truth]

No, I don't think the law ever taught one to hate your enemy like the Psalmist did. Which Lewis saw as a direct contradiction...

Back to Christ "contradicting" the law...

You remember Christ saying, "You have heard that is was said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.'" (Matt. 5:43) So the hate was not spelled out like David, it was still hate and Christ did come and give us something new.

So you are saying that this was the sort of thing counted against the Bible, that made it contradictory?

I will have to look into his "Reflections on the Psalms" and see if this is what he is saying.

[Kenny]

Perhaps not his forte. Did he write any about eschatology?

Good question.

Dee Dee's whole line here is ridiculous. The fact that Lewis made an error, even a significant error, even a stupid, boneheaded error (pile it on as much as you like) entails at most that he had a lapse or a bad day. It does not entail that he was incompetent in his abilities to assess his views of Scripture across the board. I'm sure we could dig up boneheaded statements from just about every great thinker in church history if we wanted to play that game.

My understanding of Lewis' views on origins is that he believed that there was a historical state of innocence and a historical fall, but that the description of these events in Genesis is couched in symbolic, mythic terms (so that the actual events may not have involved a literal talking snake or the literal eating of fruit from a tree). Lewis, unlike many in our post enlightenment age, appreciated the significance and value that mythical representations had in ancient cultures.

[seer]

Back to Christ "contradicting" the law...

You remember Christ saying, "You have heard that is was said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.'" (Matt. 5:43) So the hate was not spelled out like David, it was still hate and Christ did come and give us something new.

So you are saying that this was the sort of thing counted against the Bible, that made it contradictory?

I will have to look into his "Reflections on the Psalms" and see if this is what he is saying.

Lewis would say that it was a contradiction. I'am not so sure...

[seer]

Good question.

Dee Dee's whole line here is ridiculous. The fact that Lewis made an error, even a significant error, even a stupid, boneheaded error (pile it on as much as you like) entails at most that he had a lapse or a bad day. It does not entail that he was incompetent in his abilities to assess his views of Scripture across the board. I'm sure we could dig up boneheaded statements from just about every great thinker in church history if we wanted to play that game.

My understanding of Lewis' views on origins is that he believed that there was a historical state of innocence and a historical fall, but that the description of these events in Genesis is couched in symbolic, mythic terms (so that the actual events may not have involved a literal talking snake or the literal eating of fruit from a tree). Lewis, unlike many in our post enlightenment age, appreciated the significance and value that mythical representations had in ancient cultures.


Hello Kenny, long time no see (or read). How is the new family?

[Kenny]

Hello Kenny, long time no see (or read). How is the new family?

Hi Seer!

They are doing quite well. Wilma is crawling and on the verge of walking. She's talking as well. She says "dolly" (anything she thinks she can play with, toy or not, is a "dolly" to her), "so big" and (although not quite discriminately) "da da" :teeth:

Hope all is well with you.

[shunyadragon]

Which is a slippery slope. Who decides which parts are true and not true, and how do they know? I am reminded of Bbible critics, who at one time claimed a certain city found in the Bible did not exist, that the city recorded was an error in the Bible, lo and behold, today archaeologists have uncoverd more evidence for that city, than any other city in the Bible! Any errantists staking their view on that claim, ended up with egg on their face.

This is a classic oft regurgitated erroneous generalized view of the more respected academics of Biblical History and Archeology, and a common smoke screen to avoid dealing with the real issues. It is rare that respected academics will flatly state that a city, place, person or event never existed or took place. They draw there conclusions in their literature based on the current state of the evidence available, and rarely if not never in the amateurism absolute terms of layman skeptics. There is often strong disagreements beween different academians as to the veracity and interpretation of the available evidence, but this reflects the nature of historical academics in general.

Good examples are as follows.

(1) Hitites - There have always been unanswered questions as to who the Hitites were, and where in when they lived. Respected academians never said that the Hitites never existed. More evidence is available today concerning the Hitites, and a lot of the evidence does not agree with the Biblical stories, in particular as to when the Hitites were a powerful kingdom.

(2) Sodom and Gomorah - The location and nature of these two cities is very much in doubt because of the lack of evidence. The claims that the locations have been found, or the claim that they never existed are two extremes that do not reflect the current real academic view.

Skeptical laymen or fringe academics who make extreme claims may have egg on their faces, but in general the knowledge of the respected academic world of Biblical archeology and history changes over time based on the most current research and digs available. This a strength of all sciences, including those sciences dealing with evolution, and historical academics that seems to lost to those that tend to reject change and call it a weakness, while clinging to past.

Apparently CS Lewis felt that the evidence and the scriptures were i favor of Theistic Evolution.

[seer]

Hi Seer!

They are doing quite well. Wilma is crawling and on the verge of walking. She's talking as well. She says "dolly" (anything she thinks she can play with, toy or not, is a "dolly" to her), "so big" and (although not quite discriminately) "da da" :teeth:

Hope all is well with you.

Enjoy these days Bro. They go by fast. Pretty soon she will be asking for the car keys to go to the mall and see her "boy friend." You know - the one you hate so much... Girls should be locked in the basement until they are 30.... ; )

[shunyadragon]

Which merely begs the question.



Or somebody needs to revise their interpretation. Errantists are so arrogant, so as to not consider that maybe it's not the Bible in error, but their interpretation is in error. Pride has a way of putting the blinders on though.

There is good evidence of enough pride blinders being strapped tightly to the heads and minds of the extremists on both sides of the fence.

[A Beautiful Truth]

My understanding of Lewis' views on origins is that he believed that there was a historical state of innocence and a historical fall, but that the description of these events in Genesis is couched in symbolic, mythic terms (so that the actual events may not have involved a literal talking snake or the literal eating of fruit from a tree). Lewis, unlike many in our post enlightenment age, appreciated the significance and value that mythical representations had in ancient cultures.

This is helpful. So, even though he believed in evolution and that the garden was symbolic/mythical, he also believed that there was an historical innocence and historical fall. Kenny, I think I have to agree with him. I've been trying to work this out over in Cosmogony. And I think it is important to try to understand things in the way they were orginally written. The Gen. account was written in an age where such matters were discussed in mythological terms. To have it addressed in this way would fit in with the ancient near east culture and would have been an acceptable way to communicate theological truth. God reached them and ministered to them "where they were at". Now, I think we can keep Paul in Romans as long as we recognize that the account, though communicating the truth in a symbolic way, is rooted in reality. What do you think and why don't I ever see you in Cosmongony?

[Amazing Rando]

The Great Divorce is my favourite Lewis book. I've read quite a number of others. He's a popular writer, but not a theologian. His books leave plenty of scope for criticism by those who have an interest in theology; but he writes well and has struck many a chord with readers.


Me too- I just got done reading through it, and it's a work of profound imagination combined with a deep appreciation for the life of faith. I'd highly recommend it.

[Amazing Rando]

Lewis did indeed believe that God utilized evolutionary processes in creating the Earth, but his view of evolution was a good deal more nuanced than that. I submit for your examination "Evolutionary Hymn", a brief poem Lewis wrote on the subject of evolution. It's really rather witty.

Lead us, Evolution, lead us
Up the future's endless stair;
Chop us, change us, prod us, weed us.
For stagnation is despair:
Groping, guessing, yet progressing,
Lead us nobody knows where.

Wrong or justice, joy or sorrow,
In the present what are they
while there's always jam-tomorrow,
While we tread the onward way?
Never knowing where we're going,
We can never go astray.

To whatever variation
Our posterity may turn
Hairy, squashy, or crustacean,
Bulbous-eyed or square of stern,
Tusked or toothless, mild or ruthless,
Towards that unknown god we yearn.

Ask not if it's god or devil,
Brethren, lest your words imply
Static norms of good and evil
(As in Plato) throned on high;
Such scholastic, inelastic,
Abstract yardsticks we deny.

Far too long have sages vainly
Glossed great Nature's simple text;
He who runs can read it plainly,
'Goodness = what comes next.'
By evolving, Life is solving
All the questions we perplexed.

Oh then! Value means survival-
Value. If our progeny
Spreads and spawns and licks each rival,
That will prove its deity
(Far from pleasant, by our present,
Standards, though it may well be).

CS Lewis

From here. (http://www.poemhunter.com/p/m/poem.asp?poet=6792&poem=30924)

What do you think he's trying to say in this poem?

[kuboes1831]

Lewis did indeed believe that God utilized evolutionary processes in creating the Earth, but his view of evolution was a good deal more nuanced than that. I submit for your examination "Evolutionary Hymn", a brief poem Lewis wrote on the subject of evolution. It's really rather witty.

Lead us, Evolution, lead us
Up the future's endless stair;
Chop us, change us, prod us, weed us.
For stagnation is despair:
Groping, guessing, yet progressing,
Lead us nobody knows where.

Wrong or justice, joy or sorrow,
In the present what are they
while there's always jam-tomorrow,
While we tread the onward way?
Never knowing where we're going,
We can never go astray.

To whatever variation
Our posterity may turn
Hairy, squashy, or crustacean,
Bulbous-eyed or square of stern,
Tusked or toothless, mild or ruthless,
Towards that unknown god we yearn.

Ask not if it's god or devil,
Brethren, lest your words imply
Static norms of good and evil
(As in Plato) throned on high;
Such scholastic, inelastic,
Abstract yardsticks we deny.

Far too long have sages vainly
Glossed great Nature's simple text;
He who runs can read it plainly,
'Goodness = what comes next.'
By evolving, Life is solving
All the questions we perplexed.

Oh then! Value means survival-
Value. If our progeny
Spreads and spawns and licks each rival,
That will prove its deity
(Far from pleasant, by our present,
Standards, though it may well be).

CS Lewis

From here. (http://www.poemhunter.com/p/m/poem.asp?poet=6792&poem=30924)

What do you think he's trying to say in this poem?

Taking the mick out of the likes of Julian Huxley and all atheistic reductionism.

I have read absolutely nothing in Lewis which doubts an acient earth or evolution as science but not philosophy

[Kenny]

This is helpful. So, even though he believed in evolution and that the garden was symbolic/mythical, he also believed that there was an historical innocence and historical fall. Kenny, I think I have to agree with him. I've been trying to work this out over in Cosmogony. And I think it is important to try to understand things in the way they were orginally written. The Gen. account was written in an age where such matters were discussed in mythological terms. To have it addressed in this way would fit in with the ancient near east culture and would have been an acceptable way to communicate theological truth. God reached them and ministered to them "where they were at". Now, I think we can keep Paul in Romans as long as we recognize that the account, though communicating the truth in a symbolic way, is rooted in reality. What do you think and why don't I ever see you in Cosmongony?

I agree completely. I usually stay out of these debates around here, though, because all the vitriol that tends to surround them leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I agree completely. I usually stay out of these debates around here, though, because all the vitriol that tends to surround them leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Indeed, but you would be surprised by the new, improved Cosmogony. Not much vitriol over there in a while.

Pretty please with sugar on top? I've a place for you to start...look for my post #464 on page 29 of the thread "Deep Theistic Evolution", if you are interested.

[A Cup of Maybe]

After finishing the book Out of the Silent Planet by C.S. Lewis I asked myself the same question---- "Is C.S. Lewis a theistic evolutionist? or is he appealing to the evolutionary crowd"?
Well anyway, im glad im not the only one that thought this. :smug:

[shunyadragon]

After finishing the book Out of the Silent Planet by C.S. Lewis I asked myself the same question---- "Is C.S. Lewis a theistic evolutionist? or is he appealing to the evolutionary crowd"?
Well anyway, im glad im not the only one that thought this. :smug:

Well, ah . . . which is it? Regardless of your choice it still reflects C.S. Lewis's worldview.