Philosophical Themes from C.S. Lewis Steven Jon James Lovell Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD Department of Philosophy University of Sheffield August 2003 Summary of Thesis Philosophical Themes from C.S. Lewis Steven Lovell C. S. LEW I S WAS PER HAP S the most popular and influential Christian apologist of the zo" Century, and his work is full of philosophical themes and arguments. Despite this, the main body of Lewis' work has received only scant attention from academic philosophers. Although countless books and articles have been written about C.S. Lewis and his writings, we are without a balanced and sustained evaluation of the philosophical themes and arguments to be found in his works. This is unfortunate for, in the words of James Patrick, the philosophical aspects of Lewis' work "constitute the very texture of his apologetic". It is hoped that this dissertation goes some way towards changing the situation. The dissertation contains five mam chapters, addressing four issues in the philosophy of religion through the writings of C.S. Lewis. Those issues are: the Euthyphro dilemma, the philosophical status of miracles, the Freudian critique of religious belief, and an argument from Lewis that has been dubbed 'the argument from desire'. While disagreeing with Lewis in some of the details, the dissertation defends a broadly Lewisian (and therefore broadly Christian) approach to each of these issues. Indeed, these Lewisian positions are defended with refurbished versions of Lewis' own arguments. In addition to a summary of some of the philosophical themes and arguments from C.S. Lewis that are not addressed in this dissertation, the work also includes two appendices. Appendix A is a short biography of C.S. Lewis. Appendix B offers a few thoughts on Lewis' general stance on the relation between faith and reason. Acknowledgements o LORD my God. I will give you thanks forever. (Ps. 30v12b) I TWO ULD BEl M PO S SIB LE to list all those whose input and assistance have helped to make this dissertation what it is. But a few names stand out as deserving of special mention. Particular thanks must go to my PhD supervisors, Stephen Makin and Richard Joyce, who gave detailed constructive criticism on countless draft chapters. Robert Trexler and Bob Merchant (of the New York C.S. Lewis Society) kindly checked my biography of C.S. Lewis for factual accuracy, as did Professor David Jesson, whose corrections saved me from much embarrassment. Chris Friel made some helpful suggestions for the improvement of my chapter on the argument from desire. My thanks also go to Lucy Huskinson and Charmaine Coyle, organisers of the 8th International Postgraduate Philosophy Conference (Essex, 2002); which conference provided a forum to explore my ideas on C.S. Lewis' argument from desire, the Freudian critique of religious belief, and the relationship between the two. For providing a pleasant and stimulating work environment, thanks are due to the postgraduates and staff within the philosophy department at Sheffield. I am also grateful to the Arts and Humanities Research Board, who have funded my research. My good friend Dan Watts not only offered insightful comments on much of my work; his companionship and conversation (and chess-playing) have helped to keep me going. I have received much encouragement from Michael Ramsden and Amy Orr­ Ewing of the Zacharias Trust, and from the members of our church family - especially the Moffetts, the Hills, the Harveys and the Hawkins. I'm also very grateful for the support of two sets of parents. Finally, and most importantly, unceasing thanks is due to my wife, Heather, who ­ in addition to diligently reading and commenting on much of my work - has given me constant encouragement and invaluable support throughout my studies. Steven Lovell Sheffield, 2003 II Contents Thesis Summary I Acknowledgements /I 1. Introduction 1 2. C.S. Lewis and the Euthyphro Dilemma 12 3. C.S. Lewis and the Possibility of Miracles 35 4. C.S. Lewis, David Hume and the Credibility of Miracles 55 5. C.S. Lewis and the Freudian Critique of Religious Belief 88 6. C.S. Lewis' Argument from Desire 119 7. Conclusion 146 Appendix A: Short Biography of C.S. Lewis 177 Appendix B: C.S. Lewis on Faith and Reason 186 Notes 189 Bibliography 203 111 Chapter 1 Introduction [Lewis had] read Greats, he'd taught philosophy for a while, he was well acquainted with the philosophical classics, he had the sort of mind which, had he addressed himself to the questions that engrossed philosophers of the time, would have made him into a good philosopher by professional standards.... [He] produced some good searching arguments and clearly had a feeling for what was philosophically interesting and what wasn't. (Basil Mitchell in Walker 1990: 14) C. S. LEW I S WAS PER HAP S the most popular and influential Christian apologist of the zo" Century, and his work is full of philosophical themes and arguments. Despite this, the main body of Lewis' work has received only scant attention from academic philosophers. James Patrick writes: While several critical studies ... have been written, the philosophic presuppositions of [Lewis'] arguments ... have remained unexamined.... Lewis is usually considered an apologist and his relation to philosophy ignored ... [this interpretation robs] Lewis of the philosophic insights that constitute the very texture of his apologetic. (1985: 165) Although Lewis' thought remains largely unexamined by academic philosophers, he has not gone entirely unnoticed. Victor Reppert (1989a) notes "Selections from Miracles, The Problem of Pain, Mere Christianity, The Abolition of Man, as well as essays like 'The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment,' have all found their way into introductory philosophical anthologies." I suggest that Lewis' works have been anthologised because they are clearly written and therefore suited to the beginner in philosophy. It is more difficult to explain why Lewis' work remains largely unexamined. Fortunately, such explanation is not my task. Of the books and articles that do examine Lewis' work, the majority seem to be utterly uncritical; they swallow nearly everything whole. A notable exception is John Beversluis' C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion (1985). This book errs in the opposite direction. Thomas V. Morris, himself no partisan of Lewis, has this to say: My main overall philosophical criticism of this book is that Beversluis seldom comes anywhere near digging deep enough to really appreciate a line of thought suggested by Lewis. All too often he gives a facile. fairly superficial reconstruction of a line of argument. and after subjecting it to some critical questioning, declares it bankrupt and moves on. What is so disappointing to the reader who is trained in philosophy is that in most such instances a few minutes of reflective thought suffice to see that there are very interesting~ considerations to be marshalled in the direction Lewis was heading.'- considerations altogether neglected by lBeversluisI. (Quoted in Purtill 1990: 41) The publication of Beversluis' book initially provoked a handful of replies from a small number of academic philosophers. However, Beversluis book and the articles written in response have left the situation largely unchanged. We are still without a balanced and sustained philosophical evaluation of the philosophical themes and arguments found in the works of C.S. Lewis. It is hoped that this dissertation goes some way towards changing the situation. Note how restricted this aim is. I shall not be addressing all the philosophical themes to be found in Lewis' work - there are far too many for that to be possible ­ and even on the issues that this dissertation does address, I do not pretend to have said the final word. We begin, then, by outlining a few of the philosophical themes that are not addressed in depth here. Philosophical Themes from Lewis that are not Addressed in this Dissertation A theme that runs through much of Lewis' work is his rejection of moral (and conceptual) relativism. His most sophisticated writings on this topic appear in The Abolition ofMan (l943a). Similar arguments appear in Mere Christianity (1952b) and in various individual essays, notably "The Poison of Subjectivism" (l943b), "De Futilitate" (l967a) and "On Ethics" (l967b). I would go so far as to suggest that few have presented the case against such relativisms more clearly than Lewis does in The Abolition of Man. That book, based on his Riddell Memorial Lectures, also contains warnings about the hazards of setting the (human) sciences free from all ethical considerations.' Part of Lewis' defence of traditional morality was his rejection of ethical egoism. In a throwaway comment that anticipates the strategy of Thomas Nagel's The Possibility ofAltruism (1970), Lewis wrote, "To prefer my own happiness to my neighbour's was like thinking that the nearest telegraph post was really the largest" (1955b: 180). 2 Connected with this is Lewis' endorsement of the moral argument for the existence of God. Lewis' statement of the moral argument is one of the clearest available in contemporary literature. It has appeared in several anthologies.:' Another related issue is his discussion of the "Three Parts of Morality" (l952b). He contends that ethics (or at least ancient ethics) is concerned with three basic issues: Firstly, it is concerned with the interaction between indi viduals. This is social ethics. Secondly, ethics is concerned with virtues and vices, with the kind of character traits that an individual is developing. This is indi vidual or virtue ethics. Thirdly. ethics is concerned with "the general 1 purpose of human life as a whole: with what [i f anything] man was made for" (l952b: 67). This is what has been called essential ethics. Lewis compares Humanity to a fleet of ships, and the three parts of morality to the three elements essential to a successful voyage.