A small but not insignificant correction, George: he was already a deist by the time of the walk. In fact, the more I read the less convinced I am by CSL's 'famous' atheism. His heart was never in it. Atheists are nothing but progressive – and Lewis was anything but progressive. But I loved our walk. I managed to shut up and you made a good case for magic.
I did wonder about this a bit. But I went with atheism as there are those (of us) who would claim, especially during those tween-war years, that deism denies the divinity of the Christ in favour of the discernment of design (rather than the divine) in nature, which is a pantheism that is tantamount to atheism - certainly a heresy. I take the point though that CSL was a reluctant pantheist - that chimes with his "surrender" to faith rather than conversion. You can't surrender to someone who isn't there.
More like this, please George ! Perhaps something on John Polkinghorne, who worked to bridge the gap between science and religion? Polkinghorne observed that "debating with Dawkins is hopeless, because there's no give and take. He doesn't give you an inch. He just says no when you say yes." We all need to yield a little, never more than in these increasingly secular days when we need to have the curiosity accompanying agnosticism rather than the certainty of atheism. And we must all be grateful to C S Lewis for our sense of the numinous.
I think it would be helpful to know what has traumatised Dawkins - he displays classic symptoms of that. Helpful not just for us, but for him too. And it's complicated by his making a very handsome living out of it too. Thankyou for taking the trouble to respond.
A small but not insignificant correction, George: he was already a deist by the time of the walk. In fact, the more I read the less convinced I am by CSL's 'famous' atheism. His heart was never in it. Atheists are nothing but progressive – and Lewis was anything but progressive. But I loved our walk. I managed to shut up and you made a good case for magic.
I did wonder about this a bit. But I went with atheism as there are those (of us) who would claim, especially during those tween-war years, that deism denies the divinity of the Christ in favour of the discernment of design (rather than the divine) in nature, which is a pantheism that is tantamount to atheism - certainly a heresy. I take the point though that CSL was a reluctant pantheist - that chimes with his "surrender" to faith rather than conversion. You can't surrender to someone who isn't there.
More like this, please George ! Perhaps something on John Polkinghorne, who worked to bridge the gap between science and religion? Polkinghorne observed that "debating with Dawkins is hopeless, because there's no give and take. He doesn't give you an inch. He just says no when you say yes." We all need to yield a little, never more than in these increasingly secular days when we need to have the curiosity accompanying agnosticism rather than the certainty of atheism. And we must all be grateful to C S Lewis for our sense of the numinous.
I think it would be helpful to know what has traumatised Dawkins - he displays classic symptoms of that. Helpful not just for us, but for him too. And it's complicated by his making a very handsome living out of it too. Thankyou for taking the trouble to respond.