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.....

[Divine Insight]

Science
Plantinga's Science: where the conflict lies - is an argument for why the Christian worldview is the best foundation for the scientific method.

There's also loads of history books looking at why modern science emerged in Europe a society shaped by the Christian Worldview e.g.
Edward Grant Foundations of Modern Science.
Peter Harrison. Fall of Man and Foundations of Science

This is absolute nonsense. The Church was against most of the major discoveries of science.

They opposed Copernicus when he suggested the Sun-centered solar system.
They opposed Galileo when he proved the Sun-centered solar system.
They opposed Gregor Mendel when he discovered genetics and the fact that the female parent contributes to the offspring.
They opposed Charles Darwin when he discovered evolution.

In fact, many factions of Christianity today still oppose Charles Darwin and evolution. Along with opposing much of science that has since proved that Darwin's discovery was indeed the truth.

This religion continues to this very day to oppose science on many issues.

This religion was actually a major factor in suppressing the advancement of scientific knowledge, and continues to attempt to suppress it to this very day.

[dakoski]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

This is absolute nonsense. The Church was against most of the major discoveries of science.

They opposed Copernicus when he suggested the Sun-centered solar system.
They opposed Galileo when he proved the Sun-centered solar system.
They opposed Gregor Mendel when he discovered genetics and the fact that the female parent contributes to the offspring.
They opposed Charles Darwin when he discovered evolution.

In fact, many factions of Christianity today still oppose Charles Darwin and evolution. Along with opposing much of science that has since proved that Darwin's discovery was indeed the truth.

This religion continues to this very day to oppose science on many issues.

This religion was actually a major factor in suppressing the advancement of scientific knowledge, and continues to attempt to suppress it to this very day.

Peter Harrison was a Professor of Science and Religion at University of Oxford and Edward Grant was a Professor of the History of Science. They're far from cranks - why don't you read their books then provide a critique of their arguments?

[Divine Insight]

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....

Surely you're joking? This is nothing more than a semantic trick. If you were trying to show a four-fold feature all you would need to do is look up one more term in your thesaurus.

knower, knowledge, known, knew
sight, seer, seen, seeing
love, lover, beloved, cherished
past, present, future, now
beginning, quarter, middle, end

You're going to try to use word-tricks to try to support a "Trinity"?

I can hardly think of a more ridiculous argument to be quite honest with you.

For example, everything has an opposite. So everything is actually binary.

black, white
slow, fast
silence, loud

And all these can be made into "Trinities".

back, gray, white
slow, medium, fast
silence, soft, loud.

And if you want to expand on those just expand in the "gray" areas.

In fact, I would say that if we're going to make any claims at all we'd need to say that everything is binary, where all the ranges in between the extremes are simply increments between the binary opposites. (i.e. a mixture of the opposites)

Trying to claim that everything is trinary in an effort to support a Trinitarian religion is kind of silly don't you think?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

This is absolute nonsense. The Church was against most of the major discoveries of science.

They opposed Copernicus when he suggested the Sun-centered solar system.
They opposed Galileo when he proved the Sun-centered solar system.
They opposed Gregor Mendel when he discovered genetics and the fact that the female parent contributes to the offspring.
They opposed Charles Darwin when he discovered evolution.

In fact, many factions of Christianity today still oppose Charles Darwin and evolution. Along with opposing much of science that has since proved that Darwin's discovery was indeed the truth.

This religion continues to this very day to oppose science on many issues.

This religion was actually a major factor in suppressing the advancement of scientific knowledge, and continues to attempt to suppress it to this very day.

Peter Harrison was a Professor of Science and Religion at University of Oxford and Edward Grant was a Professor of the History of Science. They're far from cranks - why don't you read their books then provide a critique of their arguments?

Why waste my time reading their books when I already spent a lifetime learning history?

They are clearly wrong if they want to lay claim that religion is responsible for science. Historically religion was clearly opposed to science just about every major step of the way, and still is today.

So if they think otherwise then they are clearly wrong. I don't care how many degrees they boast of.

Just look around today, you can see religious fanatics trying to have "Creationism" taught in schools as though it qualifies as a "science".

In fact, if they actually think that Creationism qualifies as a science then they have no clue what they are talking about already.

[Dimmesdale]

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....

Surely you're joking? This is nothing more than a semantic trick. If you were trying to show a four-fold feature all you would need to do is look up one more term in your thesaurus.

knower, knowledge, known, knew
sight, seer, seen, seeing
love, lover, beloved, cherished
past, present, future, now
beginning, quarter, middle, end

You're going to try to use word-tricks to try to support a "Trinity"?

I can hardly think of a more ridiculous argument to be quite honest with you.

For example, everything has an opposite. So everything is actually binary.

black, white
slow, fast
silence, loud

And all these can be made into "Trinities".

back, gray, white
slow, medium, fast
silence, soft, loud.

And if you want to expand on those just expand in the "gray" areas.

In fact, I would say that if we're going to make any claims at all we'd need to say that everything is binary, where all the ranges in between the extremes are simply increments between the binary opposites. (i.e. a mixture of the opposites)

Trying to claim that everything is trinary in an effort to support a Trinitarian religion is kind of silly don't you think?

I didn't say they were good arguments.. but these are some examples of the arsenal some people use...

[dakoski]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

This is absolute nonsense. The Church was against most of the major discoveries of science.

They opposed Copernicus when he suggested the Sun-centered solar system.
They opposed Galileo when he proved the Sun-centered solar system.
They opposed Gregor Mendel when he discovered genetics and the fact that the female parent contributes to the offspring.
They opposed Charles Darwin when he discovered evolution.

In fact, many factions of Christianity today still oppose Charles Darwin and evolution. Along with opposing much of science that has since proved that Darwin's discovery was indeed the truth.

This religion continues to this very day to oppose science on many issues.

This religion was actually a major factor in suppressing the advancement of scientific knowledge, and continues to attempt to suppress it to this very day.

Peter Harrison was a Professor of Science and Religion at University of Oxford and Edward Grant was a Professor of the History of Science. They're far from cranks - why don't you read their books then provide a critique of their arguments?

Why waste my time reading their books when I already spent a lifetime learning history?

They are clearly wrong if they want to lay claim that religion is responsible for science. Historically religion was clearly opposed to science just about every major step of the way, and still is today.

So if they think otherwise then they are clearly wrong. I don't care how many degrees they boast of.

Just look around today, you can see religious fanatics trying to have "Creationism" taught in schools as though it qualifies as a "science".

In fact, if they actually think that Creationism qualifies as a science then they have no clue what they are talking about already.

Unfortunately, that's the spirit of our times where even a Professor from the University of Oxford on the History of Science isn't worth reading on that subject if we happen to have a different view.

Often those who think differently from us can inform us the most as they see things that we are closed to because of our blind spots. But I agree its difficult to take the time to try and understand why others think differently from us. Its easier to read only the people who agree with us.

[Dimmesdale]

Unfortunately, that's the spirit of our times where even a Professor from the University of Oxford on the History of Science isn't worth reading on that subject if we happen to have a different view.

Often those who think differently from us can inform us the most as they see things that we are closed to because of our blind spots. But I agree its difficult to take the time to try and understand why others think differently from us. Its easier to read only the people who agree with us.

Go on. I'd like to hear what religion has to say about science and epistemology. I'm a little slow witted so it would be helpful to get an understanding from someone who is more knowledgeable. I can't really make heads or tails of what the "Christian worldview" is or how it logically excludes other worldviews, but perhaps that's where the conversation here has to start taking place.

[dakoski]

[Replying to 7homas]

Go on. I'd like to hear what religion has to say about science and epistemology. I'm a little slow witted so it would be helpful to get an understanding from someone who is more knowledgeable. I can't really make heads or tails of what the "Christian worldview" is or how it logically excludes other worldviews, but perhaps that's where the conversation here has to start taking place.

You're not slow witted at all. It can feel like that sometimes when people often respond with what seems like total certainty - but most of the time that's bluster and little more.

I agree its takes some time to think through what is distinctive about the 'Christian worldview'. Of course, worldviews overlap with one another on a number of issues as they are all attempting to account for the same reality we experience. Worldviews are tricky to discern as so many of our foundational assumptions are implicit and we're not aware of them. But thinking them through and their coherence with reality is really important.

I'm not sure I could really give you a decent reply in the context of a brief forum post. But I think its worth doing some reading and hopefully the distinctiveness of the Christian worldview will become clearer. Perhaps as you're reading them you could do a thread on the issues they raise, I'm not at the forum that often but I'll try and contribute where I can or you can also send me a PM if you have any questions.

For a Christian approach to epistemology - Alvin Plantinga's Knowledge and Christian Belief is a good introductory guide. Its a simplified version of his Warranted Christian Belief which is a classic in Christian epistemology.

Or else Plantinga's book I previously mentioned - where the conflict really lies: science, religion and naturalism - is a readable book comparing Christian and Naturalistic worldviews about science.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 1 by 7homas]

"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."

Hello, hope this finds you well, rested, and full of joy!

I believe that CS Lewis was referring to his believe in God, as certain as the sun comes up every morning. It isn't based on the evidence that man can supply, but rather because through his belief everything else makes sense. Through his belief in God, He clearly sees what God has done and what He continues to do. It is much like looking through glasses that are not the correct perscription and everything is distorted. Through His belief in God, he looks at the world through different lenses, and it is by these lenses that everything becomes clear.


I am taking care of my grandchildren. I stress about my relationship with their mother, to the point where it consumes my thoughts and interfers with my sleep. My vision is distorted concerning the situation because I feel it is up to me to keep the entire relationship afloat. When I put on new lenses and look at the situation from a different perspective, casting my cares on a God who is capable of restoration, the anxiety disapates and I rest well.


I hope this helps!

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 1 by 7homas]

"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."

Hello, hope this finds you well, rested, and full of joy!

I believe that CS Lewis was referring to his believe in God, as certain as the sun comes up every morning. It isn't based on the evidence that man can supply, but rather because through his belief everything else makes sense. Through his belief in God, He clearly sees what God has done and what He continues to do. It is much like looking through glasses that are not the correct perscription and everything is distorted. Through His belief in God, he looks at the world through different lenses, and it is by these lenses that everything becomes clear.


I am taking care of my grandchildren. I stress about my relationship with their mother, to the point where it consumes my thoughts and interfers with my sleep. My vision is distorted concerning the situation because I feel it is up to me to keep the entire relationship afloat. When I put on new lenses and look at the situation from a different perspective, casting my cares on a God who is capable of restoration, the anxiety disapates and I rest well.


I hope this helps!