Why C. S. Lewis gives me the creeps
One of the books I use in my Introduction to Philosophy course is Lewis’s Mere Christianity. It’s very clear and accessible and covers a wide range of traditional religious philosophical themes. I’m reviewing it now in preparation for the new semester which begins (yikes) in two weeks.
I find Lewis’s chummy, let’s-pop-round-to-the pub-for-a-quick-one writing style a bit much — and especially irritating when combined with breathtakingly anti-human statements.
For example, in a chapter (Book 3, Chapter VIII) lambasting pride as “The Great Sin” and as the “complete anti-God state of mind,” Lewis contrasts it to humility. Humility is based upon a full realization of your original sinfulness and helplessness. When that realization happens and you accept it, Lewis states, you feel “the infinite relief of having for once got rid of all the silly nonsense about your own dignity.” Humility enables us to “take off a lot of silly, ugly, fancy-dress in which we have all got ourselves up and are strutting about like the little idiots we are.”
All of that set us up for a right relationship with God: “The real test of being in the presence of God is, that you either forget about yourself altogether or see yourself as a small, dirty object.”
Wow. Tell us what you really think, Clive.
If philosophy is autobiography, that’s quite a statement.
It’s quite a statement even if it isn’t: the generalization about human nature is audacious.
Tags: C. S. Lewis, humility, Mere Christianity, pride, virtue ethics
This is the 3rd post I’ve read today reporting on the anti-man drivel of lesser minds. The other two concerned environmentalists who (as reported by Ari Armstrong) regard every human birth as an assault against the earth and (via Popehat) those who approvingly regard bridge suicides as “soil replenishment.” Creepy indeed. Too bad these creatures don’t practice what they preach and cease to exist altogether. I think I’ll go off and read some life-affirming authors who have a bit of self esteem now!
Likewise, Susan. Any religion teaching that human beings are born in need of redemption is profoundly wicked.
I’m not a professional philosopher, nor Christian, nor a fan of C.S. Lewis (or of anyone who likes to habitually dance with words for that matter), but I also don’t think that “Lewis gives me the creeps” is productive at all.
I found this post after a Google search looking for another of Lewis’ quotes: “humility is not thinking less of yourself but thinking of yourself less” — which seems to conflict with “seeing yourself as a dirty little object”.
Clearly Lewis isn’t completely consistent in regards to that notion, but it does suggest that he’s not entirely “anti-human” either, as you seem to suggest, and that philosophy, at least in practice, is not autobiographical.
And sure, Lewis’ statement you’ve posted here are audacious and creepy, but surely “audacious and creepy” isn’t a widely accepted reason to dismiss an idea in philosophy.
In response to Susan and Terry, I don’t think that an emotional appeal to nature is an effective way to argue against Lewis either. If we are to speak of matters of value, by, for instance, accusing certain religions of being wicked, then we also need to acknowledge that one does, under some circumstances, need to be “redeemed” — even if only for practical reasons, i.e. for the sake of society. By Terry’s reasoning, Christians all need to be redeemed from the wickedness of Christianity. How much less wicked is it to claim that one needs to be redeemed from the wickedness of their religion (which they might in fact have been born and immediately indoctrinated into, for better or worse) than it is to say that one needs to be redeemed from the wickedness of their own birth?
Also, there is a difference between the statement that humans are inherently bad and must be punished or removed, and the statement that humans are inherently bad and are in need of some kind of positive change. From what I know, the former is understood as spite; the latter, misanthropy. To compare Lewis’ misanthropic comments to the spiteful comments of environmental fundamentalists and suicide cults, to me, seems like a bit too much scarecrowing.
How dare Lewis, in a piece of light writing meant for live radio talks to a wide audience and, as such, meant to be sound conversational, suggest that there might be some relief in surrendering that part of our nature that takes the trouble to identify oneself as “Ph.D.” Why not just a simple “Stephen Hicks”? Think about that moment when setting up your profile to include this detail. You had to make a choice to type those letters in a data field. Why? Why is it important that I think you are more “professionally qualified” to blather about Lewis than the stoned blogger living with his mum?
Considering human beings track record, I think we can say for a fact - that human beings are more often then not pretty evil. Nuclear weapons, constant wars, famine, capitalist economic exploitation… how many people kill themselves over their finances or jobloss, etc, etc? How many people would take a homeless person into their own house, etc? I could go on about all the great and nice things human beings DO NOT DO.
Nietzsche thinks most human beings are not worthy of life, and I agree that if you objectively viewed human beings, that’s a valid conclusion given our bloody history and our lack of kindness towards one another.
US –> Cuban relations are a case in point. Two children bickering over how they should organize themselves.
“Any religion teaching that human beings are born in need of redemption is profoundly wicked.”
Nice to see another bit of tolerance from the tolerance and basic human goodness crowd. Sheesh.
I believe Lewis’s point was in keeping with the teachings of Jesus, who compared the Pharisees, who were outwardly the most pious and self-righteous of their day, to white-washed tombs full of corruption.
To repent of sins, first a sinner has to shed the self-justification that protects our self-image and keeps us from seeing ourselves as sinners. Jesus spent an enormous amount of time preaching against hypocrisy. Hypocrites become convinced that what they say is what makes them righteous, while their deeds show the opposite.
The pride and dignity Lewis speaks of is the facade of righteousness akin to the hypocritical Pharisees. True dignity is contained in the commandments Jesus called the most important- love the Lord with all your heart, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.
Hypocrites justify their own actions, regardless of how contradictory they are to what they preach, and place unrealistic expectations on others. That is the “pride” Lewis addresses.
It is not demeaning to man to admit pride, and ask forgiveness.
Hi Eric:
The creepy part about Lewis is his assumption that everyone is a hypocrite. Your comment too equates pride and dignity with hypocrisy. Why is that?
It’s one thing to say that some people are hypocrites — which is fine, as long as one accurately identifies them. It’s another thing to slander every human being with such accusations.
Lewis believes that everyone is by nature weak/evil/sinful, and that is what I am objecting to.
By contrast, I believe that deserved pride is possible, normal, and healthy for humans.
“All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23
This is a core teaching of Christianity. Without it, there exists the possibility that man might achieve perfection on his own merits, without the grace of God. Lewis supports this.
In my experience, all of us are weak/evil/sinful, to varying degrees. Anyone claiming to have never had an impure thought is lying, myself included. We all cover our tracks when it comes to thoughts that would cast us in a bad light, which is human nature. Human nature= instincts for self-preservation of our self image+ a natural curiosity about sordid things.
The bad news, that we are sinful, comes with good news, that we can be forgiven, even in our current state, and all our sins wiped away as if they never happened. Admission of guilt (or, rather, honesty,) is not a prison, but a step to opening the prison door.
This belief also keeps the hypocrites and self-righteous (at least in theory) from browbeating those they consider greater sinners than themselves.
Perhaps your term “deserved pride” which you describe as healthy, might be better understood as “peace,” in the Christian tradition. Pride comes from the self, peace from the fruits of the Spirit. The following link lays out part of Galatians rather simply. Gal. supports the idea that it is not slander to shine a light on our own hypocrisy, and to turn to the fruits of the spirit and peace, rather than living in the flesh. http://www.loveallpeople.org/pearl-fruit.html
Dignity is a tricky word. It means self-respect, or or elevation of character. Christians are required to treat others with respect, so why would Lewis insist that dignity is false? I believe that Lewis meant that it was false only when applied to cover up our own human nature (sinfulness), before the perfection of God. In that case, it is merely an edifice, or as he puts it, “fancy dress”.
Eric,
You write, “Anyone claiming to have never had an impure thought is lying, myself included.”
In opposition, have you ever had a pure thought? While accepting the possibility of sounding like a moral relativist, I’d be interested for you to articulate 1. What impure is to you. 2. Why it should be for me or anyone else. 3. How your or my thoughts translate into anything that could be construed as good or bad in the physical world?
You define something you call “human nature” as “= instincts for self-preservation of our self image+ a natural curiosity about sordid things”. That is not a definition of human nature that I have heard or read before. I’m curious if it is something you have made up?
You write “The bad news, that we are sinful, comes with good news that we can be forgiven, even in our current state, and all our sins wiped away as if they never happened”.
Sinful? Forgiven? Forgiven by whom? Your writing reflects that you are both articulate and intelligent. Unfortunately, in your post all you do is simply regurgitate unfounded, uni-dimensional, theistic assertions without any evidentiary support. That makes what you are doing tantamount to preaching your theology. This is fine in the confines of your church, but mythology and fairytales cannot be awarded any credibility in logical, reasoned discourse.
I have put Lewis’s description of pride, and by extension Dr. Hicks statement “…the generalization about human nature is audacious” into the context of Christian theology. “Mere Christianity” is, after all, an attempt to explain Christian beliefs in terms that would help a non-Christians and Christians alike understand the theology. Otherwise Lewis would have titled it “Mere Philosophy based upon a Deity that cannot be proven by empirical means.”
A short summary of the book, attached to a study guide for it supports that it is a work of theology: http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-mere-christianity/plot.html
Theology: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God’s relation to the world. (Merriam Webster dictionary)
You asked for my definition of what is impure, which is irrelevant. Biblical descriptions of what impure, or rather “sinful” thoughts and deeds are contained in Galatians, which contrasts the fruits of the Spirit with the works of the flesh. http://www.loveallpeople.org/pearl-fruit.html The works of the flesh are impure, while the works of the Spirit are pure, according to this passage.
Many other biblical passages have specific descriptions of what is acceptable, among them Luke 10:25-37, which contains the golden rule and the parable of the Good Samaritan. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10%3A25-37&version=NIV
James 1:27 describes it this way: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Thus the “pure” thoughts and deeds you asked me to elaborate upon are when we help others, even our enemies. Samaritans and Jews despised one another, yet the Samaritan is the one in the story who does what is right, even though the more acceptable religious types passed the victim by.
Human Nature, as defined by the Oxford dictionary: “The general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioural traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans.”
In Christian theology, the definition of the behavioural traits of mankind is summed up by the passage “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Using the passage in Galatians alone, the works of the flesh (and humans are all made of flesh,) contends with the Spirit, the very nature of God.
In my experience, people who do bad things justify it with moral relativism, because of the psychological need to protect one’s own self-image. Perhaps a psych teacher would have a better description of this aspect of human nature than mine.
As I stated before, Jesus railed against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who appeared to be outwardly pious, yet were inwardly filled with pride and corruption. The Pharisees are the model upon which Lewis’s description of our own human nature can be explored. Humility enables us to “take off a lot of silly, ugly, fancy-dress in which we have all got ourselves up and are strutting about like the little idiots we are.”
You asked who has the power to forgive sins. Here is a discussion of the topic: http://bible.org/seriespage/authority-forgive-sins-matthew-91-8 . You then asked for empirical proof to all of my statements. Despite seminaries and thousands of years of anecdotal evidence, the empirical proof that God either exists or does not exist has eluded man. Nonetheless, the basis of this discussion is about a book that explores the Christian interpretation of the nature of man, and how it relates to God. In the end, belief in God is based upon faith. My aim is merely to clarify and support what Lewis has written about his religion, supporting his statements both biblically and with my own experience.
Little attention is paid to what Lewis stated, and conditions are now what we have and deserve.
To the PhD: Saw your video on H&N. Was very nice intellectual stimulation. Will serve up a couple of pronunciation hints:
Sartre is not pronounced “Sartrah”
Forte is not pronounced “Fortay”
All German words that begin with “v” have an “f” sound. So, Volk is pronounced, “Folk”
It is clear your education did not include German language, and hence the rather grating mispronunciations. Rather ironic that your livelihood comes from talking about what all those famous Germans had to say.
Please check these online pronunciation guides, George:
Sartre: http://www.forvo.com/word/sartre/.
forte: http://www.forvo.com/search-fr/forte/.
Also note the common practice of Anglicizing foreign words when speaking for an English-speaking audience.