C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason

By Victor Reppert

Book Overview

Who ought to hold claim to the more dangerous idea--Charles Darwin or C. S. Lewis? Daniel Dennett argued for Darwin in Darwin's Dangerous Idea (Touchstone Books, 1996). In this book Victor Reppert champions C. S. Lewis.Darwinists attempt to use science to show that our world and its inhabitants can be fully explained as the product of a mindless, purposeless system of physics and chemistry. But Lewis claimed in his argument from reason that if such materialism or naturalism were true then scientific reasoning itself could not be trusted. Victor Reppert believes that Lewis's arguments have been too often dismissed. In C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea Reppert offers careful, able development of Lewis's thought and demonstrates that the basic thrust of Lewis's argument from reason can bear up under the weight of the most serious philosophical attacks. Charging dismissive critics, Christian and not, with ad hominem arguments, Reppert also revisits the debate and subsequent interaction between Lewis and the philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe. And addressing those who might be afflicted with philosophical snobbery, Reppert demonstrates that Lewis's powerful philosophical instincts perhaps ought to place him among those other thinkers who, by contemporary standards, were also amateurs: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke and Hume. But even more than this, Reppert's work exemplifies the truth that the greatness of Lewis's mind is best measured, not by his ability to do our thinking for us, but by his capacity to provide sound direction for taking our own thought further up and further in.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0830827323
• ISBN13: 9780830827329
• Release Date: September 2003
• Publisher: IVP Academic
• Length: 132 Pages
• Weight: 0.43 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.5" x 5.3" x 8.5"

Customer Reviews

Excellent refutation of materialism

The title of Dr. Reppert's "C.S. Lewis' Dangerous Idea" was inspired by Daniel Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea." Darwin's dangerous idea, according to Dennett (a philosopher of the materialist school) is that all things, in the final analysis, can be explained not by teleological principles of meaning and intelligence, but by mechanistic processes. Also, materialists hold that the physical world (which comprises all things) is causally closed. The existence of everything thing and the occurrence of every event is due to a prior physical cause. Mental states (which extreme materialists deny exist at all) are considered to be determined by the physical processes of the brain. Thus, materialism holds that we acquire knowledge of the world and of ourselves through science (all things in existence being governed by the laws of physics). C. S. Lewis' "dangerous idea" is that scientists draw their conclusions from evidence through rational inference. But can materialism account for human reason itself? Lewis and Reppert argue convincingly that it cannot. In the first two chapters, Reppert refutes what he calls the "Anscombe Legend." This refers to a public exchange at Oxford that Lewis had with Catholic philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe. Many of Lewis' critics such as A. N. Wilson, Humphrey Carpenter, and John Beversluis have written that Anscombe so devastatingly refuted Lewis' argument from reason published in his "Miracles" that he abandoned Christian apologetics for good and was reduced to writing children's stories. Reppert argues that even if this were true (which it isn't) it would tell us nothing about the value of either of their theories. It certainly would not confirm that the arguement from reason is wrong, but this is precisely what his critics claim it does. As Reppert shows, the encounter itself has been hugely overblown. Lewis taught philosophy at Oxford and was quite familiar with professional philosophers. Others who attended the debate did not believe it was terribly dramatic. Anscombe herself provides a moderate account of its importance in her memoirs. Lewis himself revised his argument in the next edition of "Miracles." He did not abandon his position and this is evident in the subsequent articles and books he wrote. One of Anscombe's criticism's was that Lewis was wrong to say that "If materialism is true it can be fully explained as the result of irrational causes." Lewis simply corrected the problem by substituting "nonrational" for "irrational". This doesn't seem like a big deal. More importantly, Anscombe argues that "reasons-explanations are not causal explanations and therefore cannot compete with causal explanations" [105]. Lewis' revised argument was [57-8]: (1) No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes. (2) If materialism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes. (3) Therefore, if materialism is tru

Utterly Fascinating Hypothesis & Theological Investigation!

If you love C.S. Lewis's works then this book is well worth taking the time to read. The author has taken a closer look at Lewis's defense and proposal that reason has a strong place in the Christian faith. I had not considered that before I read this book. This is a thoroughly researched and enlightening book, and will hopefully be pondered for years to come.

Reppert Carries Lewis to a New Generation

My only disappointment with Reppert's book is that it's too short. His multi-pronged Argument from Reason could benefit from further explanation and defense. (Much of this has already occurred in some journals since the publication of the book.) He marshals a powerful case against philosophical naturalism that could be even stronger, if more space was devoted to eliminating the ways naturalists could rebut his arguments. But with all of that said, I have to recommend this book with the highest accolades I can muster. Reppert is a fine writer and represents the academic spirit of C. S. Lewis with accuracy and originality. In addition to the "dangerous idea," this book is worth buying for the historical analysis of C. S. Lewis's alleged "falling out" after his wife died of cancer. Reppert shows that this widely circulated story is an unsubstantiated myth. Also, the reader will benefit from some general advice on the adapting ideas from great thinkers of the past, like Lewis, and how we are to manifest their ideas in the contemporary marketplace of ideas. The statements of the various Arguments from Reason are an excellent introduction to the overwhelming problems of naturalism. These problems are often ignored, but they show how naturalism fails to account for a capacity with which we are intimately acquainted and upon which we depend to reason. If naturalism cannot give a plausible account for rationality, then we should suspect it is an incomplete theory. Building upon the ideas developed primarily by C. S. Lewis in Miracles, Reppert lucidly instructs his reader in the fundamentals of a variety of metaphysical and epistemic problems with naturalism. One of the strengths of Repperts book is its wide range of accessibility. Those untutored in advanced philosophy will find Reppert's style and exposition cogent and enlightening. Moreover, those well-versed in philosophy will discover that Reppert, much like C. S. Lewis, can present serious, challenging arguments that will give them plenty with which to grapple. I find myself returning to it frequently for clarification and inspiration. I gladly recommend it to those who wish to engage in a stimulating discussion about the place of mind in reality. Two excellent books that can accompany Reppert's are William Hasker's The Emergent Self and Angus Menuge's Agents Under Fire.

What Lewis scholarship should be

Far too many books on C. S. Lewis are really just commentaries full of quotations, or extended biographies, treating Lewis as a luminary whose views are so obviously true as not to require defense. This approach may be encouraging to the choir, but is hopeless as outreach and does a disservice to Lewis himself, who was trying with all his might to get Christians to think for themselves. Reppert's wonderful book goes the extra mile and shows how Lewis's powerful intuitions can be developed into strong philosophical arguments that engage the contemporary academic scene, and makes a case that is persuasive for those outside the faith. He shows that one can isolate not one, but many distinct arguments from reason. These arguments all aim to show that there are characteristics of rationality which cannot be explained if we limit ourselves to the resources of scientific materialism, but point instead to some transcendent entity who many would identify as God. Inevitably a book like this, which challenges contemporary naturalism at its very foundation, will receive some hostile responses, but do read the book for yourself, and if you agree with my assessment of it, do recommend it to those who are searching for meaning and ultimate answers (whether believers or unbelievers). This is easily the best new popular book on C. S. Lewis's philosophy and sets the standard for Lewis scholarship to follow.

Thought provoking argument against naturalism

Although oft neglected in many philosophical circles, the writings of C.S. Lewis still have something to teach us about reason, human nature, and human existence. Reppert defends Lewis' argument against naturalism which simply states that mankind's reasoning abilities cannot be trusted if they are a product of Darwinian evolution; In other words, if the human brain is nothing more than a complex conglomeration of atoms and energy, then we have no reason to trust our reasoning abilities because it is the product of nothing more than a chaotic collision of atoms. Furthermore, since natural selection is completely blind in it's selective process evolution does not necessarily favor an advanced reasoning capacity. Natural selection could have just as easily favored a mutation that makes us perceive the world contrary to the way it is if this facilitated the survival of human beings. Since we cannot trust reason itself under the naturalist/Darwinian paradigm then the scientific enterprise becomes totally superfluous and meaningless. Although short, only 132 pages, I must admit Reppert's arguments are quite through and engaging. The only possible defense the Darwinist has against this argument is to say that advanced reasoning abilities favor man's survival and would thus be selected by nature. Yet, this argument doesn't necessarily have to be true and only begs the question since assumes what it is attempting to establish. In a discussion I recently had with an individual who studied psyhcolinguistics, I employed this argument against a materialist argument in favor of mind equating with brain. When I discussed Lewis' argument the individual I was talking with conceeded the point that relying on reason in the naturalist paradigm was tenuous and could not be relied upon. This compact book also delves into the issue of dualism vs. materialism, or the argument over mind is synonomous with brain or whether mind and brain are dichotomous entities. I personally favor the dualist view since it meshes with my views as a theist and safeguards human integrity. The materialist view must necessarily deny free will since our brains are ruled by natural laws and therefore the atoms in the brain operate according to fixed laws that can be studied and accurately predicted. If free will is denied, then this has serious implications for our society in areas such as law, education, and religion. Although Reppert's arguments for dualism are not as deep as they could be, he does an admirable job arguing in favor of the dualist position. For further study in favor of the dualist position I would recommend reading J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig.