Lewis vs. Anscombe

TimmyofOz

Well-known member
This may cause a lot of tempers to fly, but I saw that there was no thread on the Lewis and Anscombe so called debate. This subjects has been bought up occasionally on other threads but only in a passing by manor like recently in the Till We Have Faces thread. Now I don't have a 1947 edition of Miracles to go alone with my 1960 edition, and there is no transcript of the 1948 debate with Anscombe. In a search of the internet there are letters written of various persons reaction to the debate (including some by Lewis apparently found by Hooper). There are even a couple books written on the subject. But I felt that The Dancing Lawn would be the best place to explain what really happen in this debate and did it lead Lewis not to be so focused on apologetics but to go into existential focus in his later writings.

I get from my research that in the debate after Lewis refuted Naturalism by his usual apparent flawless logic, Anscombe used the logic of Sherlock Holmes, and basically followed the idea that, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Meaning that there are always other possibilities that both sides come later come up with. You may use logic to refute Naturalism, but they will always come back with other possibilities (even abstract and non-logical possibilities). Such a recent possibility is the ancient alien planting life on earth theory.

Now I may be all wrong in my interpretation of the debate and that is why I am opening this thread. I hope we can get into if there was a change in Lewis toward an existential focus later and what caused it.

P.S. If anyone could provide a pdf of the relevant chapter 3 of the 1947 edition, it would greatly help the discussion.

P.P.S. With some more searching I was able to find the following here:
A. C. S. Lewis: Miracles, first edition (1947), chapter III
B. Elisabeth Anscombe‟s “Reply to Lewis” (1948)
C. Miracles revised (1960): A survey of changes from irrational to non-rational
D. Miracles revised (1960): A survey of further changes
E. Miracles III, original and revised: parallel excerpts
F. Miracles III, original and revised: parallel summaries
 
Last edited:
One more thing. I know this thread could have been but in the Socratic Club, but that I was more interested about what happen at the debate, what was the point of contention, and what it lead to. I am not interested in the arguments made so much about how "because" is used in a "cause and effect" statement vs. a "ground and consequent" statement. To be honest a lot of what I read in Miracles went over my head. So going in dept about the actual arguments made may be of little interest to many on this thread. This is why I simplified my explanation to there are always possibilities that may be outside reason. If you can read Miracles and understand it great.
 
The way I heard it, Anscombe presented a paper that refuted Lewis' description of naturalism? And everyone who heard her refutation, including Lewis, thought it was right.

Later many people said that Lewis was devastated by this, but Anscomber herself and one other who was present said that he didn't have that much of a reaction at all to it. As to whether it shook his faith or caused him to stop writing apologetics, I can say clearly not to the former and who can tell to the latter?

He did not write much in the way of apologetics afterward, but maybe that is because, as you suggested in the other thread, Timmy, that he matured and came to the place where he was no longer interested in "defending" the faith with logic but instead wanted to explore it as a mystic. I tend to think that is more likely.
 
Yes Ink you give the basic story line that is shared on the internet. Like I said we don't have complete debate transcript. But we apparently have is the letter that Ms Anscombe originally read. It is among documentations I provided above. In it Ms Anscombe isn't arguing for Naturalism but trying better categorize the Naturalist arguments. That often their arguments are in the realm of non-reason using "ground and consequent" statements. That they will avoid "cause and effect" statements because the laws of science would show their weakness. To this Lewis agreed and we know that such theologians like Francis Schaeffer expanded on this idea. At the debate, other than agreeing with Ms Anscombe he had little other to say. Some say he was just being a gentleman and others said he was stumped. But the basic response of Lewis and others have given is that a Non-Reason argument is just a way to avoid defending Naturalism by the Naturalist.

Some seem to say that the debate had no effect on Lewis. This must be wrong because of it Lewis rewrote the entire chapter in question in his book Miracles (chapter 3 was doubled in size in the 2nd edition) and edited the rest of the book to account for the changes in chapter 3. Though Lewis took Ms Anscombe's arguments seriously, he was in his rewriting of Miracles able to refute them according to both herself and most scholars.

Again It would be difficult to do an in dept discussion of the book Miracles in this thread. Like I said much of the book is very scholarly, even above his other apologetic books. And this may be one of the reason why later in his life Lewis left apologetics and went into things like children fiction. He didn't like writing things for the general public that was scholarly and couldn't be appreciated by most of his readers. He had a love for the common Christian and wanted to give them something useful. He felt he had come to a point where he would leave apologetics to others saying, "having obliterated me as an Apologist ought she not to succeed me?"
 
Last edited:
If you don't mind waiting I will look up the 1947 version the next time I am at the Wade Center in May...
 
I have not heard that there was an actual debate? Maybe I misunderstood the event -- I thought Anscombe just read her paper, and everyone thought she had done what she set out to do.

Of course Lewis was impacted by her logic; he did rewrite the sections of the book which she'd spoken about -- but the idea that he gave up apologetics because of it I don't think is right.
 
We can take a look at what was written by C S Lewis before say 1950 and after and see if there is any difference in the focus of Lewis writings. As far as fiction goes he wrote fiction both before and after 1950. [The Pilgrim's Regress (1933), Out of the Silent Planet (1938), Perelandra (aka Voyage to Venus) (1943), That Hideous Strength (1945), The Screwtape Letters (1942), and The Great Divorce (1945), versus The Chronicles of Narnia (1950-1956) and Till We Have Faces (1956)]. But some would say The Chronicles of Narnia being written for children is unique. As far as apologetics goes it can be clearly shown that Lewis writes no original works after 1948. He did revise Miracles in 1960 and he did compile Mere Christianity in 1952 from earlier works. Lewis of course continues to do scholarly works that were part of his position as a fellow and tutor at Oxford University (Magdalen College), 1925–54, and Cambridge University (Magdalene College), 1954–63, threw out his life. He writes on the subject of Love both early in his life and later in his Life. From all this the only thing we can say for sure is that Lewis stopped doing apologetics late in his life. We could look at his essays for Lewis wrote a lot of essays. But that would be a lot of work and essays are often written at the requests of other and are not major works. He did write his autobiography, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life (1955). This work is considered uniquely existential. It focuses more on the experience of his conversion rather that the events of his conversion. If anyone else can draw anything out of the major works of Lewis to show a change in his focus, please share.
 
Last edited:
I do want to throw out two more quotes, one in a letter to Robert C. Walton of the BBC on July 10, 1951: "... like the old fangless snake in The Jungle Book, I've largely lost my dialectical power." (Letters 3:129) Another key piece is the letter of Sept. 28, 1955, to Carl F. H. Henry, who asked him to write some apologetic articles for Christianity Today: "I wish your project heartily well but can't write you articles. My thought and talent (such as they are) now flow in different, though I think not less Christian, channels, and I do not think I am at all likely to write more directly theological pieces. . . . If I am now good for anything it is for catching the reader unawares — thro' fiction and symbol. I have done what I could in the way of frontal attacks, but I now feel quite sure those days are over." (Letters 3:651; emphasis Lewis.)

I bring this up not to question Lewis' skill in apologetics. His skills are legendary. But as a professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature it might be said his heart was always more toward literature, allegory, and poetry, and not philosophy. He may have just been reacting to the Postmodern movement in philosophy. He saw his children's literature as a way reach those being lead toward modern skepticism. While it can be said that Mere Christianity and The Problem with Pain set the standard for modern apologetics, The Chronicles of Narnia were Lewis' master piece. But one of the things I want to add is this all seems to started before his relationship with Joy came into full bloom.
 
One thing not to forget in all this, and this is the thing which I think the Anscombe debate may have sharply reminded Lewis of: he wasn't formally trained in either philosophy or theology. He was brilliant and (what is more) a very disciplined intellect. Just by informal study as well as the education which is discipleship, he was very well educated in his faith. Furthermore, he was a unique voice in a time that needed it: an intellectually robust voice in the empty room that was popular Christian thought in Europe in the middle 20th century. But as you point out, his training and love were in the world of literature – he only landed the role of lecturer and popular apologist because he was so good at it, and there was nobody else doing it. I could easily believe that he overextended himself into realms in which he had not formally studied, with Miracles being the end result, a work that might have been better penned by, or in cooperation with, a more experienced philosopher. (And, as it happened, it was, with Anscombe's suggestions incorporated.)

Lewis himself admitted in some of his essays that the very act of intellectually defending a point of faith made it harder to appreciate and live out that point – that there was a detachment that seemed to kick in. He’d always felt this, even at the fullness of his time as an apologist. Perhaps he just tired of it.

Personally, I can’t help but wonder how much of this maturing had to do with Lewis learning more about knowledge-by-union. This is one of the most useful distinctions I’ve learned in my life, first and a healing prayer conference sponsored by the Ministry of Pastoral Care, and then by reading a book they recommended, Flight from Woman by Dr. Karl Stern. Dr. Stern points out that classically human knowledge has been understood as being two-pronged. Some things we come to know by standing apart from them, by analyzing and dissecting. This is knowledge by detachment, and is the basis for the scientific method. But some things we come to know by coming into union with them, taking us into them or them into us – what classically has been understood as poetic understanding. This is an equally valid way of knowing.

For instance, if I had a glass of wine, I could do may analyses of it: I could check its PH, its color, its viscosity, its specific gravity. All these tests would tell me true things about the wine. But I could also take a sip of the wine and experience it by coming into union with it. This would also be true knowledge, but of a different type.

Our knowledge of all things needs to have balance. Stern’s contention is that since the Enlightenment, our epistemology has been heavily weighted toward knowledge by detachment. I’d submit that there’s been a backlash even in the current generation into a mushy pseudo-mysticism that mocks true knowledge by union. Lewis, especially after his studies under the rigorous rationalist Kirkpatrick, would probably have been well developed in knowledge by detachment. My guess is that his faith expression reflected that, which was why apologetics was such an easy fit for him.

But as we all mature, we (hopefully) balance out. As you point out, Timmy, Lewis’ interests started to flow in different channels – not because he felt that they’d been flowing in bad channels, but because he was broadening as a man. Christianity is ultimately about knowledge by union: we come into union with the source of all Being, from Whom we have been separated by sin. Personally, I see Till We Have Faces as a bit of an expression of this, though Lewis might not have articulated it just like that. Orual becomes more and more detached from the world around her, particularly after the debacle on the mountain. All her knowledge becomes knowledge by detachment. Psyche, on the other hand, desires to know by union – and like a vitamin-deficient patient who craves citrus, Orual longed for that from her. I think this is where the figure of The Fox fits in – his rational viewpoint is not so much invalid as insufficient. He is able to accompany Orual on part of the journey, but not all of it. Perhaps that’s what Lewis learned.
 
Well Stephen Hawking did say philosophy is dead. Lewis tended to use classic logic in his apologetics, but under modern philosophy even logic is questioned. Christian philosophy really hit a brick wall against the modern philosopher. To be honest I always felt that in order debate modern philosophy Lewis had to argue premises that wasn't in his heart. When you read Lewis' fiction you can see a love for the creation story, because of his love of myths. But in the Darwinisic modern philosophy there is no room for the creation story. Talking about prehistoric man in The Problem of Pain is difficult for a man like Lewis. He would obviously rather deal with just the creation story with all its symbolism.
 
One thing Steven Hawking isn't is a philosopher. Very bright physicist, but not trained in the least in either philosophy or theology. And yes, the main thrust of modern philosophy has run into a wall, but that is not a problem with the Truth, but with modern philosophy, whose point of departure is that there is no truth.

Lewis didn't buy into that, and neither did Anscombe, who had a long and rich career as a philosopher, albeit one who bucked the trends of the day, but a true philo-sophia (i.e. friend of wisdom). I think you're right that he wasn't comfortable debating philosophy, not just because he wasn't formally trained in it (though that was true) but because he was more at home where such matters were not debated but assumed. It's significant that one of Lewis' most memorable phrases is, "It's all in Plato." The Socrates of Plato assumed that there was a truth, and that true lovers of wisdom could discover the truth by seeking it diligently. The reductionist framework of modern thought seeks to shred every assumption in a frenzy of denial. That there should be truth, or beauty, or suitable things, is a very affront to the modern mind. Lewis lived in a world where one simply lived in the midst of such things. (A good example here might be the simple lives of the hrossa of Malacandra.)
 
Maybe the question is what kind of apologetics was Lewis most comfortable with. The are several kinds:
1. Classical Method
2. Evidential Method
3. Historical Method
4. Experiential Method
5. Relational Method
6. Presuppositional Method
7. Cumulative Case Method
8. Cultural Method
9. Ref. Epistemological Method
10. Imaginative Method.

Actually the list depends on the scholar. And where Lewis is on the list also also depends on the scholar. Lewis is often thrown in the Cumulative Case Method.

I will give this description of the cumulative method I found written by Russ White, REVIEW OF APOLOGETIC METHODS.

The cumulative case apologist gathers a series of proofs drawn from every area of life, combining them to provide an overwhelming probability of the truth of Christianity. The cumulative case is not an argument for the existence of God, or for the veracity of the Scriptures, but for the truthfulness of Christianity, drawn from many areas of experience within the range of normal human life. While other methods start from a definite point, the cumulative case can begin from any point and proceed, from there, to draw in other elements as needed. Seven tests are proposed by the cumulative case apologists for testing a worldview for truthfulness. The test of consistency determines whether the worldview or system of thought is internally consistent, or whether it contains contradictions. For instance, the atheist must assert evolutionary processes always work for the improvement of the species, but provides no basis on which to determine what “improvement of the species,” actually means, or why survival should be preferred over extinction. Correspondence attempts to determine whether or not the worldview of system of thought accurately reflects the real world. For instance, if all men are born “good,” then why do societies spend so much time and effort protecting against the indiscretions of youth? Wouldn’t it follow that those who have been least exposed to the world would also be the least likely to commit crime, act selfishly, or otherwise act in a way that most all societies consider “bad behavior?” The test for comprehensiveness states that we should prefer worldviews or systems of thought that explain more of the world as we find it over worldviews that explain less of the world as we find it. The test of simplicity argues that the worldview or system of thought which contains the least number of “moving parts,” is to be preferred. For instance, atheism requires one mechanism to explain multiple unrelated species with similar traits, and another to explain multiple related species with divergent traits. A system in which one explanation can suffice for both —such as a designer using similar structures across a broad spectrum of problems— would be superior to atheism. The test for livability states that if the worldview cannot be lived out on a practical basis, it must be discarded. The test of fruitfulness asks what the consequences are for living by the tenants established by the worldview. The test of conservation states that the worldview which requires the least radical modifications to accept new information is probably the closest to the truth itself.

Because the cumulative case method is not focused it is easy for other schools of apologetics to be critical of it. But it is also very effective, because it comes at you from so many directions that it overwhelms the skeptic. The point is Lewis was a very effective apologist, but open to much criticism by other scholars. Let us not forget the two favorite arguments Lewis used, The Argument from Desire and The trilemma, are common punching bags in academia.

P.S. It is nice we seem to agree on some things PotW.
 
Last edited:
I have been reading The Great Divorce, which goes back to 1945, years before the Anscombe debate. In it Lewis addresses his study of apologetics and even then sees the futility of it. In the book Mac Donald tells him, "It is nearer to such as you than ye think. There have been men before now who got so interested in proving the existence of God that they came to care nothing for God Himself . . . as if the good Lord had nothing to do but exist! There have been some who were so occupied in spreading Christianity that they never gave a thought to Christ. Man! Ye see it in smaller matters. Did ye never know a lover of books that with all his first editions and signed copies had lost the power to read them?"

You see a desire in Lewis to have a more mystic experience, rather than just to pursue a scholarly Christian life.
 
I agree, Timmy, good point. I had read that before, of course, but never thought about how it might reflect on Lewis himself as an apologist.
 
One thing not to forget in all this, and this is the thing which I think the Anscombe debate may have sharply reminded Lewis of: he wasn't formally trained in either philosophy or theology.... I could easily believe that he overextended himself into realms in which he had not formally studied, with Miracles being the end result, a work that might have been better penned by, or in cooperation with, a more experienced philosopher. (And, as it happened, it was, with Anscombe's suggestions incorporated.)

A couple things--

C.S. Lewis was relatively familiar with ancient and medieval philosophy. Plato, Aristotle, Boethius, and so forth. Anscombe was into modern analytic philosophy: she was a student of Wittgenstein and remained a friend of his, although she disagreed with him in many areas. That's the source of the weakness in Lewis's original argument. Ancient philosophy is less precise and, as PotW has pointed out, tends to assume more (usually). If you aren't a trained philosopher, understanding ancient philosophy is relatively doable. Understanding modern philosophy, especially analytic philosophy--not so much. I've read a couple of Anscombe's writings--her essay opposing Harry Truman being given an honorary doctorate (which I love) and Intention, which (I think) was considered her most important work at the time. Intention is really, really hard to understand. I say that as someone who likes philosophy. She builds a tight argument, but without a lot more philosophical training, I wouldn't know what she is arguing against. I read through the book feeling that I was missing the entire context. If other analytic philosophers write like she did, it's no wonder that Lewis hadn't read them. I think it takes a different sort of mind to be into the sort of literature that interested Lewis and the sort of philosophy that interested Anscombe. Obviously, he learned from her, but I doubt he would have enjoyed her particular specialization within philosophy.

Alister McGrath's recent biography of C.S. Lewis has...issues...but I do tend to agree with his assessment of the Lewis/Anscombe encounter. He believes that Lewis realized that he knew very little about modern philosophical developments as a result, and became more cautious about interacting with them. But a new caution about his grasp of modern philosophy is not the same thing as giving up on apologetics. I tend to agree with PotW (and McGrath) on this one--Lewis's post-Miracles writings reflect his abiding interests, but are not a declaration of withdrawal from (and certainly not a rejection of) apologetics per se.
 
Back
Top