5 ms·

Bear with a digression. CS Lewis was a professor at Oxford. His novel “That Hideous Strength” is about an organization that wants to use science to save humanit

Bear with a digression. CS Lewis was a professor at Oxford. His novel “That Hideous Strength” is about an organization that wants to use science to save humanity. “It’s a little fantastic to base one’s actions on a supposed concern for what’s going to happen millions of years hence; and you must remember that the other side would claim to be preserving humanity, too.” — That Hideous Strength: (Space Trilogy, Book Three) (The Space Trilogy 3) by C. S. Lewis Of course, it all goes very, very bad. The whole book can be read as a warning against what we now call transhumanism, obviously from a Christian perspective. Given CS Lewis’s Oxford connection, I have always wondered if some of the faculty had their doubts about the FHI

n4r9 3y ago
I doubt that the philosophy faculty would take CS Lewis' opinion seriously into consideration. He was a decent storyteller, but not much of a philosopher.
- busterarm 3y ago
  His work is often quietly cited by a handful of moral philosophers. In particular, The Discarded Image, anytime someone is writing about medieval philosophy. Anyway, being a philosopher simply isn't what the guy did and academics are fairly dismissive without consideration anytime religion (and specifically Christian apologetics) gets in the mix.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    I'd interested to take a look if you have any further info about which moral philosophers and which works cite The Discarded Image? I admit I haven't read that one myself; my own take on him as a philosopher stems from reading Mere Christianity and summaries of Surprised by Joy, and not being aware of any references to his work by more recent philosophers that I've been interested in such as Chomsky, Zizek, or Dennett. I got a strong feeling that Lewis' arguments and exposition were guided by something other than logic, though they pretended to be following it. The trilemma is an example of this.
    - undershirt 3y ago
      > I got a strong feeling that Lewis' arguments and exposition were guided by something other than logic, though they pretended to be following it. The trilemma is an example of this. One way to discover that we necessarily have worldviews outside of logic is to look at a statement like this, and realize it appeals to something outside of logic (feelings) to critique how someone else is only pretending to follow it.
      - n4r9 3y ago
        I am not saying that I or anyone am perfectly logical or uninfluenced by feeling. Hume was exactly correct when he said the reason is the slave of the passions. But - with his trilemma, Lewis claims "here is a logical argument for believing in the Christian god", and then presents a weak and illogical argument. It's difficult to know what to make of this except that Lewis was somehow blinded to the logical flaws.
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        What do you think are the logical flaws in the trilemma argument?
        n4r9 3y ago
        It's highly debatable whether Jesus believed himself to be divine. There are more than three options, for example Jesus may have simply made a mistake in his own reasoning. It is not as inconceivable as Lewis makes out that Jesus was a lunatic or a liar.
        cool_dude85 3y ago
        It's a false trilemma, as there are othe possibilities: he did not actually exist historically, or he was a wise, nice guy and others made up all the God stuff over the years, or he was a nice guy trying to help people and he thought tactically the mystical claims would allow him to help more people. One can probably imagine a bunch more or less realistic possibilities given a little while to think about it.
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    > academics are fairly dismissive without consideration anytime religion (and specifically Christian apologetics) gets in the mix. In fairness, it's a good heuristic. Most Christian apologetics are just less poetic subsets of the Book of Job, but their authors act like they have some new and exciting insight that will prove Christianity 100% for sure this time. It's a total waste of time to engage. C.S. Lewis's works are the exception, not the rule, since there's actually something there to engage with. Plus, he's just a good author.
    - busterarm 3y ago
      Maybe. I don't disagree with you at all really, but I don't think it's "Christian apologetics" who get derided in academic spheres. Being openly religious (specifically Western religions, other world religions get virtually no pushback) at all is considered gauche. People I've known to be religious in these spheres are typically very quiet about it. I'm not religious, but lean more towards agnosticism than atheism and I don't feel comfortable sharing that in these circles. If there's any place you should be comfortable saying "I don't know" it SHOULD be this one. It's also really weird in fields like archaeology/anthropology in North American institutions where western religious texts are given no consideration (not that they should) whereas Native American creation myths are given a kind of deference. White guilt is a powerful thing.
dylan604 3y ago
How is that any different than deity of religion will save humanity as any more/less believable?
- johngossman 3y ago
  Not defending it. Just think the parallels with the novel are amusing. John Gray has been arguing for years that humanism and transhumanism grew out of Christian millennialism
- arduanika 3y ago
  At least Lewis admits it. For me, that goes a long way.
  - bakchodi 3y ago
    [dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
arduanika 3y ago
While I do appreciate this reference and agree with CS Lewis here, I think it's a bit of a stretch to draw a connection between him and the present day Oxford philosophy faculty. He was a single don from nearly a century ago, who now really belongs to the canon at large rather than a single university. Perhaps the current faculty all hold some special reverence for him, but it seems more likely that modern mainstream philosophers (not only at Oxford) merely share with Lewis some basic grasp of common sense, which informs their skepticism of FHI and EA.
- johngossman 3y ago
  I agree with you completely. And yet...I can't imagine at least some of them aren't aware of it, and it might have planted a seed. I could totally believe there was a faculty meeting and someone said: "Didn't CS Lewis write a book or two about this?" followed by laughter (some of it nervous). It's just so odd to me that out of all the universities in the world, FHI ended up at the place CS Lewis was when he wrote this book. I can pull quote after quote out of it, that if you don't know it was written in 1943, you would think he was parodying FHI and EA. Which really reflects that these two movements aren't that new.

n4r9 3y ago

I doubt that the philosophy faculty would take CS Lewis' opinion seriously into consideration. He was a decent storyteller, but not much of a philosopher.

busterarm 3y ago
His work is often quietly cited by a handful of moral philosophers. In particular, The Discarded Image, anytime someone is writing about medieval philosophy. Anyway, being a philosopher simply isn't what the guy did and academics are fairly dismissive without consideration anytime religion (and specifically Christian apologetics) gets in the mix.
- n4r9 3y ago
  I'd interested to take a look if you have any further info about which moral philosophers and which works cite The Discarded Image? I admit I haven't read that one myself; my own take on him as a philosopher stems from reading Mere Christianity and summaries of Surprised by Joy, and not being aware of any references to his work by more recent philosophers that I've been interested in such as Chomsky, Zizek, or Dennett. I got a strong feeling that Lewis' arguments and exposition were guided by something other than logic, though they pretended to be following it. The trilemma is an example of this.
  - undershirt 3y ago
    > I got a strong feeling that Lewis' arguments and exposition were guided by something other than logic, though they pretended to be following it. The trilemma is an example of this. One way to discover that we necessarily have worldviews outside of logic is to look at a statement like this, and realize it appeals to something outside of logic (feelings) to critique how someone else is only pretending to follow it.
    - n4r9 3y ago
      I am not saying that I or anyone am perfectly logical or uninfluenced by feeling. Hume was exactly correct when he said the reason is the slave of the passions. But - with his trilemma, Lewis claims "here is a logical argument for believing in the Christian god", and then presents a weak and illogical argument. It's difficult to know what to make of this except that Lewis was somehow blinded to the logical flaws.
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        What do you think are the logical flaws in the trilemma argument?
        n4r9 3y ago
        It's highly debatable whether Jesus believed himself to be divine. There are more than three options, for example Jesus may have simply made a mistake in his own reasoning. It is not as inconceivable as Lewis makes out that Jesus was a lunatic or a liar.
        cool_dude85 3y ago
        It's a false trilemma, as there are othe possibilities: he did not actually exist historically, or he was a wise, nice guy and others made up all the God stuff over the years, or he was a nice guy trying to help people and he thought tactically the mystical claims would allow him to help more people. One can probably imagine a bunch more or less realistic possibilities given a little while to think about it.
- wizzwizz4 3y ago
  > academics are fairly dismissive without consideration anytime religion (and specifically Christian apologetics) gets in the mix. In fairness, it's a good heuristic. Most Christian apologetics are just less poetic subsets of the Book of Job, but their authors act like they have some new and exciting insight that will prove Christianity 100% for sure this time. It's a total waste of time to engage. C.S. Lewis's works are the exception, not the rule, since there's actually something there to engage with. Plus, he's just a good author.
  - busterarm 3y ago
    Maybe. I don't disagree with you at all really, but I don't think it's "Christian apologetics" who get derided in academic spheres. Being openly religious (specifically Western religions, other world religions get virtually no pushback) at all is considered gauche. People I've known to be religious in these spheres are typically very quiet about it. I'm not religious, but lean more towards agnosticism than atheism and I don't feel comfortable sharing that in these circles. If there's any place you should be comfortable saying "I don't know" it SHOULD be this one. It's also really weird in fields like archaeology/anthropology in North American institutions where western religious texts are given no consideration (not that they should) whereas Native American creation myths are given a kind of deference. White guilt is a powerful thing.

dylan604 3y ago

How is that any different than deity of religion will save humanity as any more/less believable?

johngossman 3y ago
Not defending it. Just think the parallels with the novel are amusing. John Gray has been arguing for years that humanism and transhumanism grew out of Christian millennialism
arduanika 3y ago
At least Lewis admits it. For me, that goes a long way.
- bakchodi 3y ago
  [dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

arduanika 3y ago

While I do appreciate this reference and agree with CS Lewis here, I think it's a bit of a stretch to draw a connection between him and the present day Oxford philosophy faculty. He was a single don from nearly a century ago, who now really belongs to the canon at large rather than a single university. Perhaps the current faculty all hold some special reverence for him, but it seems more likely that modern mainstream philosophers (not only at Oxford) merely share with Lewis some basic grasp of common sense, which informs their skepticism of FHI and EA.

johngossman 3y ago
I agree with you completely. And yet...I can't imagine at least some of them aren't aware of it, and it might have planted a seed. I could totally believe there was a faculty meeting and someone said: "Didn't CS Lewis write a book or two about this?" followed by laughter (some of it nervous). It's just so odd to me that out of all the universities in the world, FHI ended up at the place CS Lewis was when he wrote this book. I can pull quote after quote out of it, that if you don't know it was written in 1943, you would think he was parodying FHI and EA. Which really reflects that these two movements aren't that new.