This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

The Abolition of Man

Comprising most of Lewis' writings.
Forum rules
Please keep all discussion on topic and in line with our code of conduct.

re: The Abolition of Man

Postby MikeoftheLollards » November 25th, 2005, 6:01 pm

MikeoftheLollards
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Nov 2005

re: The Abolition of Man

Postby Shasta » November 25th, 2005, 6:56 pm

"... I am telling you your story, not hers. I tell no one any story but his own."
User avatar
Shasta
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, WA

re: The Abolition of Man

Postby WolfVanZandt » April 16th, 2006, 9:42 pm

WolfVanZandt
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Selma, Alabama

re: The Abolition of Man

Postby Arend Smilde » May 3rd, 2006, 8:12 pm

To all readers of The Abolition of Man who find it difficult to get the point: I have recently posted a summary of it, followed by a briefer summary. I hope this will be helpful:
Good luck!
Arend Smilde
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

re: The Abolition of Man

Postby Carlko » May 21st, 2006, 2:58 am

I think the fundamental point of the book is to attack moral relativism. I think he does an excellent job and very clearly demonstrates what would happen if mankind really lived moral relativism (no one does so consistently).

But I have a major problem with his presentation of the Tao. To keep it brief I will quote from the book:

"It (the Tao) is the Reality behind all predicates, the abyss that was before the Creator Himself". p. 28

I'm not going into a long statement of all that I believe is wrong with this and how I can show that it's little different from the moral relativism he attacks. Instead, I would just like to say that this is an unscriptural statement. Though I love C.S. Lewis and owe more to him than I could ever repay, he had a low view of Scripture and that statement flows from having a low view.

If you substitute "Scripture" for "Tao" and make God the Source I believe you approach the truth more closely.

To be fair, there is a place in Mere Christianity where Lewis, after demonstrating that all people recognize the Moral Law, says that a Mind must stand behind that Law, which seems to indicate that his position was that God is the Source. This seems to contradict the above statement on the Tao.
Carlko
 
Posts: 9
Joined: May 2006

Re: re: The Abolition of Man

Postby Marcus_P_Hagen » May 21st, 2006, 3:10 am

User avatar
Marcus_P_Hagen
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Mar 1999
Location: Bloomington, MN [USA]

re: The Abolition of Man

Postby Carlko » May 21st, 2006, 4:49 am

Carlko
 
Posts: 9
Joined: May 2006

re: The Abolition of Man

Postby WolfVanZandt » May 21st, 2006, 5:03 am

WolfVanZandt
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Selma, Alabama

re: The Abolition of Man

Postby Carlko » May 21st, 2006, 5:34 am

Carlko
 
Posts: 9
Joined: May 2006

re: The Abolition of Man

Postby WolfVanZandt » May 21st, 2006, 6:12 am

WolfVanZandt
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Selma, Alabama

Re: re: The Abolition of Man

Postby mgton » May 22nd, 2006, 7:41 am

User avatar
mgton
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Dec 2005

re: The Abolition of Man

Postby Carlko » June 2nd, 2006, 7:30 am

Carlko
 
Posts: 9
Joined: May 2006

Re: re: The Abolition of Man

Postby Kolbitar » June 2nd, 2006, 2:35 pm

Hello Carlko.

In his essay The Poison of Subjectivism Lewis write:

"But it might be permissible to lay down two negations: that God neither obeys nor creates the moral law. The Good is uncreated; it never could have been otherwise; it has in it no shadow of contingency; it lies, as Plato said, on the other side of existence. It is the Rita of the Hindus by which the gods themselves are divine, the Tao of the Chinese from which all realities proceed. But we, favoured beyond the wisest pagans, know what lies beyond existence, what admits no contingency, what lends divinity to all else, what is the ground of existence, is not simply a law but a beggeting love, a love begotten, and the love which, being between these two, is also imminent in all those who are caught up to share the unity of their self-caused life. God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine but God."

I think that Lewis, coming from the Sacramental Tradition, does not have a low view of Scripture, but neither does he demand Scripture support a weight it was never intended to bear. He is quite content to let Scripture be taken side by side with tradition and with the conclusions of the body of the Church. This is now my view as well, one I think is Scriptural. I really don't intend to start an endless debate about this issue, I only want to defend a charge that often amounts to saying, "you don't agree with my interpretation, or the way I interpret, so your view is a low view." I'm not necessarily charging you with saying that, but it seems the case in general that when, say, Catholicism--and Scripture itself--speaks of the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth, and that the Bible is just one element included in that pillar, it's by default a view subordinating Scripture while exalting "religion" and "institutions" and "man's interpretation." The charge can be question begging for it often starts a-priori (it's just assumed) when the Traditionalist rightly notes it should begin a posteriori (a starting point that's itself a conclusion from experience).

Also within that Tradition, the Anglo-Catholic tradition especially, I think, is the acknowledgment of the distinction between reason and revelation. Mathematics is not specially revealed to us, it is known through human reason. Lewis' point in speaking of the moral law which sometimes leaves God out of the context concedes nothing but that basic moral precepts are rationally perceived--similar to mathematics in the sense that they do not require, in principle, revelation. This is why Lewis speaks of the natural virtues in Mere Christianity. The distinction also safeguards the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and love, which proceed from revealed knowledge and stand in that lofty realm above the summit of reason: where truth known to our limited faculties gives way to the beauty of transcendent truths, as of yet known only in the darkness of faith.
User avatar
Kolbitar
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Feb 2000
Location: Exile

re: The Abolition of Man

Postby Sven » June 4th, 2006, 12:16 pm

Split off Kolbitar and WolfVanZandt's digression about Scripture and moved it to the General Christianity forum with the thread title 'Scripture'.
Rat! he found breath to whisper, shaking. Are you afraid?
Afraid? murmured the Rat, his eyes shining with unutterable love.
Afraid! Of Him? O, never, never! And yet -- and yet -- O, Mole, I am afraid!
Then the two animals, crouching to the earth, bowed their heads and did worship.
User avatar
Sven
 
Posts: 2883
Joined: Aug 1996
Location: Greenbelt, MD, near Washington DC

re: The Abolition of Man

Postby Carlko » June 4th, 2006, 3:10 pm

Carlko
 
Posts: 9
Joined: May 2006

PreviousNext

Return to Apologetics & Other Works

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 15 guests

cron