Tag: Miracles

Further Up and Further In A Year with C.S.Lewis

Miracles: A Preliminary Study

DETAILS:
Publisher: Collier Books
Publication Date: 1960
Format: Mass Market Paperback
Length: 168 pg.
Read Date: March 2-9, 2025

…the shock comes at the precise moment when the thrill of life is communicated to us along the clue we have been following. It is always shocking to meet life where we thought we were alone. “Look out!” we cry, “it’s alive.” And therefore this is the very point at which s many draw back—I would have done so myself if I could—and proceed no further with Christianity. An “impersonal God”—well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads—better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap—best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at an infinite speed, the hunter, king, husband—that is quite another matter. There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall? There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion (“Man’s search for God”!) suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He had found us?

So it is a sort of Rubicon. One goes across; or not. But if one does, there is no manner of security against miracles. One may be in for anything.

What’s Miracles About?

In this book, Lewis sets out to defend the idea of miracles. The possibility of them. He flat out says he won’t defend the historicity of Christian miracles—that’s not his field (of course, neither is theology, but that doesn’t stop him). He wants to lay the groundwork. If he can convince the reader that miracles are possible—even better they expect them and appreciate the relationship between them and Christianity—well then, he hopes the reader will—like Lewis himself did—examine the claims of Christianity on a more reasonable and ready basis.

The Direction of the Argument

First, Lewis starts with Supernaturalism vs. Naturalism (and it’s here that he might be at his best for the book)

Belief in miracles, far from depending on an ignorance of the laws of nature, is only possible in so far as those laws are known. We have already seen that if you begin by ruling out the supernatural you will perceive no miracles, We must now add that you will equally perceive no miracles until you believe that nature works according to regular laws. If you have not yet noticed that the sun always rises in the East you will see nothing miraculous about his rising one morning in the West.

His point is essentially that his readers will fall into two camps: those who will refuse to accept a miracle because they can’t happen or those who are willing to accept there are—or at least might be—supernatural possibilities in the world. If you are a committed reader in the former camp, there’s nothing that Lewis can do or say to make you change your mind. He will, at least, help you to see that—and lay out the possibilities of a supernatural explanation.

If you’re open to a supernatural explanation for things—like a miracle. Then Lewis has some things he’d like to talk to you about.

…it is mere confusion of thought to suppose that advancing science has made it harder for us to accept miracles, We always knew they were contrary to the natural course of events; we know still that if there is something beyond Nature, they are possible. Those are the bare bones of the question; time and progress and science and civilisation have not altered them in the least.

Then he moves into Christian miracles—or at least the miracles that Christians claim as part of their story—their Scriptures, their religion.

…you cannot [remove miracles] with Christianity. It is precisely the story of a great Miracle. A naturalistic Christianity leaves out all that is specifically Christian.

This is, he suggests, part of the path that he took to get to where he is.

If at any point along the line of argument, Lewis loses you, he will not ask you to accept his conclusion—or at least he has no basis to do so. Otherwise…

So, what did I think about Miracles?

You are probably quite right in thinking that you will never see a miracle done: you are probably equally right in thinking that there was a natural explanation of anything in your past life which seemed, at the first glance, to be “rum” or “odd.” God does not shake miracles into Nature at random as if from a pepper-caster. They come on great occasions: they are found at the great ganglions of history—not of political or social history, but of that spiritual history which cannot be fully known by men. If your own life does not happen to be near one of those great ganglions, how should you expect to see one? If we were heroic missionaries, apostles, or martyrs, it would be a different matter. But why you or I? Unless you live near a railway, you will not see trains go past your windows. How likely is it that you or I will be present when a peace-treaty is signed, when a great scientific discovery is made, when a dictator commits suicide? That we should see a miracle is even less likely. Nor, if we understand, shall we be anxious to do so. “Nothing almost sees miracles but misery.” Miracles and martyrdoms tend to bunch about the same areas of history—areas we have naturally no wish to frequent. Do not, I earnestly advise you, demand an ocular proof unless you are already perfectly certain that it is not forthcoming,

I enjoyed it—this was the second or third post-Narnia book I read by Lewis, and it’s one of them I’ve returned to the most. It’s also less and less effective to me the more times I read it. I just don’t like his line of argument. Nor do I appreciate some of what he says about the Scriptures. But, I do enjoy reading this.

There are two major aims for an apologetic work, as I’ve heard from a few apologetic professors/writers. The first is to present a defense for the faith to unbelievers—to convince them, to provide evidence for the faith to them, or at least to show that Christianity has a rational basis (things along those lines). The second aim is to buttress the confidence of the believer that they haven’t taken a blind leap of faith, that their convictions can stand against a hostile culture—or a disinterested one. I don’t see this working to well with the unbeliever (outside of maybe stressing that they’re committed to not accepting the possibility of miracles), rather the strength of his book falls into the latter category.

I appreciate what Lewis attempted to do here. I enjoy seeing him think through these things, and generally have a good time with his language. But it’s not the best thing he penned, and I’m not sure it’s all that useful.

Still, I like it. And anyone who’s going to name a chapter what he called Chapter 9? I want to spend a little time with.

3.5 Stars

This post contains an affiliate link. If you purchase from it, I will get a small commission at no additional cost to you. As always, the opinions expressed are my own.
Irresponsible Reader Pilcrow Icon

Opening Lines: Miracles by C.S. Lewis

By HCNewton

On March 9, 2025

In Fiction, Mystery/Detective Fiction/Crime Fiction/Thriller, News/Misc., Opening Lines, Quotations

We all know we’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover (yet, publishing companies spend big bucks on cover design/art and we all do judge them that way). But, the opening sentence(s)/paragraph(s) are fair game. So, when I stumble on a good opening (or remember one and pull it off the shelves), I like to throw it up here. In these few paragraphs, you see exactly how he argues for the rest of the book.

from Miracles by C.S. Lewis:

In all my life I have met only one person who claims to have seen a ghost. And the interesting diing about the story is that that person disbelieved in the immortal soul before she saw the ghost and still disbelieves after seeing it. She says that what she saw must have been an illusion or a trick of the nerves. And obviously she may be right. Seeing is not believing.

For this reason, the question whether miracles occur can never be answered simply by experience. Every event which might claim to be a miracle is, in the last resort, something presented to our senses, something seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted. And our senses are not infallible. If anything extraordinary seems to have happened, we can always say that we have been the victims of an illusion. If we hold a philosophy which excludes the supernatural, this is what we always shall say. What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience. It is therefore useless to appeal to experience before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical question..

If immediate experience cannot prove or disprove the miraculous, still less can history do so. Many people think one can decide whether a miracle occurred in the past by examining the evidence “according to the ordinary rules of historical enquiry.” But the ordinary rules cannot be worked until we have decided whether miracles are possible, and if so, how probable they are. For if they are impossible, then no amounnt of historical evidence will convince us. If they are possible but immensely improbable, then only mathematically demonstrative evidence will convince us: and since history never provides that degree of evidence for any event, history can never convince us that a miracle occurred. If, on the other hand, miracles are not intrinsically improbable, then the existing evidence will be sufficient to convince us that quite a number of miracles have occurred. The result of our historical enquiries thus depends on the philosophical views which we have been holding before we even began to look at the evidence. The philosophical question must therefore come first.

Here is an example of the sort of thing that happens if we omit the preliminary philosophical task, and rush on to the historical. In a popular commentary on the Bible you will find a discussion of the date at which the Fourth Gospel was written. The author says it must have been written after the execution of St. Peter, because, in the Fourth Gospel, Christ is represented as predicting the execution of St. Peter. “A book,” thinks the author, “cannot be written before events which it refers to.” Of course it cannot–unless real predictions ever occur. If they do, then this argument for the date is in ruins. And the author has not discussed at all whether real predictions are possible. He takes it for granted (perhaps unconsciously) that they are not. Perhaps he is right: but if he is, he has not discovered this principle by historical inquiry. He has brought his disbelief in predictions to his historical work, so to speak, ready made. Unless he had done so his historical conclusion about the date of the Fourth Gospel could not have been reached at all. His work is therefore quite useless to a person who wants to know whether predictions occur. The author gets to work only after he has already answered that question in the negative, and on grounds which he never communicates to us.

Opening Lines Logo