To Christians: What did C.S. Lewis mean....

[Dimmesdale]

When C.S. Lewis said this:

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

I am having trouble understanding what is meant. That Christianity "explains" aspects of our existence, I gather. I am willing to grant that, but I have a hard time understanding such a fact. If any Christian or non-believer would care to put some flesh on this skeleton, that would be appreciated.....

[Elijah John]

But yeah, I too would like to know what other people think C. S. Lewis might have meant when he said that by Christianity he can see everything else. That certainly suggests that he felt that Christianity was explaining what he sees in the world around him. But other than human behavior I'm not sure what else it would explain.

Yeah, I can think of a few more things that could fit the bill. The notion of triads, for instance, and how they may reflect the Trinitarian nature of reality as evidenced in the world. That everything created has the mark of the Trinity in it.

For instance:

knower, knowledge, known
sight, seer, seen
love, lover, beloved
past, present, future
beginning, middle, end

I'm sure there are at least a few more....

Those "triads" are largely linguistic abstractions. Are there any or many physical scientific triads?Is the "Trinity" echoed in the physical world? As in "as above, so below"?

I see reality as more binary.

-Male and female.
-Day and night.
-Positive and negative.
-Hot and cold.
-High tide and low.
-Birth and death.
-Summer and winter.
-Liquid and solid.
-True and false.

And cyclical.

[Dimmesdale]

For instance:

knower, knowledge, known
sight, seer, seen
love, lover, beloved
past, present, future
beginning, middle, end

I'm sure there are at least a few more....

Those "triads" are largely linguistic abstractions. Are there any or many physical scientific triads?Is the "Trinity" echoed in the physical world? As in "as above, so below"?

I see reality as more binary.

Yes, they are linguistic abstractions, but they still describe relations, I believe. And those relations really do exist in reality.

Reality is also very dualistic, I can agree.

[Dimmesdale]

I'm also not convinced that it explains human behavior because the vast majority of people are not like how Christianity claims they should be. The vast majority of people are actually righteous people who would like to live in a world without crime.

The number of humans who are actually criminals are an extreme minority. Far less than 2% of the population actually. And I don't see how that matches up with the charge Christianity makes toward humanity. If Christianity were true we'd expect that it should be just the opposite where the vast majority of people are criminals and less than 2% are righteous people.

This is something I've thought about as well. However, the doctrine of Total Depravity does not posit that mankind is "utterly" depraved, as in, as depraved as one possibly could be. It's only that human beings are pervaded by sin completely such that even our best actions have some degree of stain. At least that is my understanding.

[bluethread]

Here is the web address of the entire quote, which is important for providing context.

www.cslewisinstitute.org/Christianity_M ... _the_World


It appears that he is referring to presuppositionalism. His point is that science can not verify consciousness. Even science, being nothing more than a process, can not work with out some kind of presumption. The secular humanist can make the same argument. Without the presumptive belief that the survival and prosparity of humans is sacrosanct, the secular humanist can not proceed. It illuminates everything that one sees. For Lewis, before he accepted Christian philosphy, he could find no philosophy that served as a sufficient presupposition. Specifically, his point is that science is not sufficient, because it is not a philosophy but a process; empiiricism is no better, because consciousness can not be found in biology; and rationalism did not work, because logic does not work without a premise either.

[Dimmesdale]

Here is the web address of the entire quote, which is important for providing context.

www.cslewisinstitute.org/Christianity_M ... _the_World


It appears that he is referring to presuppositionalism. His point is that science can not verify consciousness. Even science, being nothing more than a process, can not work with out some kind of presumption. The secular humanist can make the same argument. Without the presumptive belief that the survival and prosparity of humans is sacrosanct, the secular humanist can not proceed. It illuminates everything that one sees. For Lewis, before he accepted Christian philosphy, he could find no philosophy that served as a sufficient presupposition. Specifically, his point is that science is not sufficient, because it is not a philosophy but a process; empiiricism is no better, because consciousness can not be found in biology; and rationalism did not work, because logic does not work without a premise either.

That is helpful, thank you. Actually, I should have looked it up. But thanks!