Miracles,   ISBN:9780060653019

Customer Rating: 

"Miracles" is a book by Christian apologist C.S. Lewis. It was first published in 1947 and subsequently revised in 1960. It's Lewis' most philosophical book, and could be read as a heavier sequel to "Mere Christianity", Lewis' most well known non-fiction work. Both books explain and defend a fairly traditional form of Christianity. Lewis was an Anglican, but usually attempted to write from a kind of all-Christian perspective. Both Protestants and Catholics appreciate his works.

"Miracles" became quite notorious due to a debate between Lewis and the analytic philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe in 1948. The latter supposedly demolished Lewis' entire argumentation, and made him withdraw from philosophy, humiliated. This version can be found in "Jack", a friendly biography of Lewis by George Sayer. Interestingly, Anscombe herself denied that this is what happened, pointing out that Lewis actually rewrote one chapter of "Miracles" to better counter her arguments - hardly an action taken by a humiliated man who broke with philosophy. Anscombe believed that it might have been *Sayer* who was shocked by her criticisms. Besides, Anscombe was a Christian herself, so the point of her arguments was hardly to disprove the existence of God.


Lewis deals with two principal issues in this book. First, he argues that the supernatural exists and that miracles are therefore possible. This is the most interesting part of the book for a non-Christian (roughly chapters 1 - 13). Second, he explains from a more theological viewpoint how the miracles of Jesus should be interpreted. He also briefly deals with some other issues, for instance the difference between theism and pantheism. The book is well written, lucid and occasionally witty.

But is it convincing? Personally, I don't think so. First, I'm sceptical to Lewis' metaphysical angle. To Lewis, the existence of miracles cannot be proven or disproved empirically, unless we first solve the philosophical issue of whether they are possible at all. I disagree. The existence of miracles is an empirical question. A virgin birth is supposedly an empirical event in the material world. Therefore it should, in principle, be possible to detect scientifically. The same is true of miraculous healings, prophecies of future events, and the like. Science have systematically disproved virtually all concrete claims about miracles, and also proposed reasonable naturalistic explanations for problems previously considered intractable, such as the origins of species. Lewis is, of course, quite correct that one cannot ultimately prove naturalism or disprove God, but this is at best an argument for agnosticism.

Lewis believes that the existence of reason must be supernatural, since no naturalistic process could give us true knowledge. This is a very odd argument. Lewis seems oblivious of the explanatory force of evolutionary theory and seems to have a prejudiced idea about animals as "irrational". But there is nothing "irrational" about animals: to survive, they obviously need to have true knowledge about the outside world. Humans have a more highly evolved mind than other animals, and can therefore discover other truths than those immediately necessary for survival (no mystery either, unless you are an extreme Neo-Darwinian adaptationist). What on earth is the problem? Perhaps it's the metaphysical angle once again. Human brains also have the capacity to produce loads of truly irrational bunk, something no other animal can do, which surely proves that evolution isn't preplanned or conscious! Much of what passes for philosophy, theology or religion is such bunk. I'm simply not as impressed as Lewis by "human reason".

Further, Lewis argues that logic must be supernatural. Once again, why? Logic is an abstraction. A natural world must exist before such an abstraction can be made. It cannot be made out of thin air. There is no mystery about an intelligent being (one that evolved) drawing the conclusion that one piece of pebble plus another piece of pebble makes two pieces, and that this is necessarily true. Besides, the real world is in constant change and flux, hence "illogical", which shows that logic is an abstraction, not something Platonically "real".

Lewis is on somewhat firmer terrain when debating morality. I agree that morality is ontologically weird, since moral principles apparently have to be derived from other moral principles. And a moral principle, of course, isn't "material" in the strict sense of the term. Still, Lewis underestimates the power of naturalistic explanations. The great apes (and perhaps other mammals) have empathy, a sense of rough justice, reconcile after fights, etc. Human morality could have evolved out of these building blocks. Lewis concedes that evolution can explain the existence of moral impulses, but believes that it cannot tell us which moral impulses are the right ones. But why not? I'm sure Lewis agrees that self-preservation is moral, all other things being equal, while courageous self-sacrifice is necessary on some occasions. So does natural selection. Perhaps the problem is that Lewis subconsciously thinks of the unusual parts of *Christian* morality, say the Sermon on the Mount, asceticism or martyrdom. However, it could be argued that these moral principles are irrational, precisely because they don't further the survival or happiness of the individual or the community!

I agree with Lewis that reality is complicated and that we don't really have the right to expect that it should be smooth and easy to understand. One cannot therefore argue against Christianity simply by pointing out that the Trinity or the Incarnation are "illogical", "incoherent" or "too complicated" by some kind of metaphysical standard (a naturalist metaphysics, this time). However, this works both ways. It could also mean that *naturalism* is true, and that seemingly immaterial phenomena such as minds, reason or morality can be given purely naturalistic explanations. These may be very exotic and strike us as "illogical" or "incoherent" but might be true nevertheless (intelligent design is more "logical" than evolution, yet evolution is the true position). It could also mean property dualism or some form of ontological pluralism, two positions compatible with both theism and atheism. Finally, it could mean that the only honest position to take is ontological agnosticism. Lewis narrows down the options to just three: Christianity, naturalism and pantheism. This may be understandable, given the target audience of his book (presumably naturalists), but the weirdness of the world means that other options are on the table, too.

I'm not saying "Miracles" is a bad book. Another atheist reviewer here at Amazon has repeatedly called Lewis "the atheist's favourite Christian apologist". I agree. It's not so much the arguments that mark him out. It's his style of writing. Lewis is strangely unassuming and yet completely unapologetic (in the vernacular sense). In plain English, he is honest. This is not a man who flees to some kind of pseudo-postmodernist ivory tower every time his beliefs are challenged. Nor is he on the attack, in that rabid sense typical of fundamentalists. No, he wants us to "reason together". And although I disagree strongly with his conservative political outlook (his anti-feminism being particularly galling), he even makes salient points. His criticism of logical positivism in this volume is a case in point. Indeed, how could the positivists be anti-Nazi if they believed that moral commandments were simply a way of saying "boo to killing"? If chimpanzees could speak, they would probably ream out such "philosophers". Or bash their skulls, as it were.

"Miracles" may not be convincing to atheist-agnostic-seekers like myself, but it's nevertheless a relatively competent introduction to the Christian criticism of naturalism.

Customer Rating: 

After finishing C.S. Lewis's MIRACLES, I was reminded of a comment by one of the participants leaving a seminar on some convoluted, abstract subject: "We still don't understand," he said," but now we feel we don't understand on a much higher level." Lewis's book might well have been the topic of that seminar, and for that reason I rated MIRACLES 3 stars worth of understanding.

Lewis begins his case for miracles by defining them as "...an interference with Nature by supernatural power" and devotes the better part of his book laying the groundwork to prove the existence of the faith-based phenomenon. The author's argument is a series of proofs progressing from the concept of Nature to that of Supernature--the Supernatural; Lewis establishes that a Supreme Being--God, the King--exists, a necessary proof if one is to believe in miracles.

Lewis applies logic to validate religious faith, the Christian faith, in particular; rather than simply saying, "I believe," he makes his thesis an exercise in logic (Lewis contends that Man's reasoning, logical thought, and moral choice are manifestations of the Supernatural at work):"If one accepts A, then B must follow." One has to attend closely to this proper Brit's thoughts; because of Lewis's formal style, I sometimes found myself simply decoding words instead of following the thread of his arguments.

It is when Lewis applies his logic to the miracles themselves: Old Creation miracles and New Testament miracles (The Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension) that MIRACLES comes to life. Of particular interest to me in this section is the author's attempts to shed light on the nature of Christian Heaven: where it is, what it is, who will gain its glory and in what form. [It is because of the Ascension miracle, I believe, that Heaven has always been thought of as UP THERE somewhere.] Those of faith might take heed when Lewis states, "The letter and spirit of scripture, and all of Christianity, forbid us to suppose that life in the New Creation will be a sexual life..." and address such worldly concerns while they are still "in the, and of the flesh."

You might look at Lewis' book as an attempt to reconcile the doubters and scoffers of the world with those who steadfastly believe in the Christian story by applying logic to the issue. And while Lewis makes you ponder--perhaps question--your own beliefs, the truth of the matter is, whether you believe in a Divine Power, that there is a God and a Heaven, whether miracles have happened, can happen, or whether the whole thing is merely fol-de-rol, just a fanciful story, where it concerns faith, you either have it or you don't. No Venn diagram will convince you otherwise.

Customer Rating: 

The greatness of Lewis' books on theology/God/religion/faith/etc. is that even the most hardcore atheist will come out of these books with something. *Miracles* is full of intelligent thought, brilliant philosophy, witty remarks, and everything that makes a classic Lewis book. This one is no exception.

*Miracles* is subtitled *A Preliminary Study* and indeed it does the groundwork one must do before tackling actual miracles; so do not expect this book to be an enquiry into specific miracles with historical details and such: this is more of a philosophical enquiry into the possibility and nature of miracles, what they are, what they imply if they exist, and how they could exist.

*Miracles*, as any other book by Lewis I read, is a delicious read. Not one page is dull, not one empty moment. This is one of the few philosophers that I really feel like are bringing something true and important to my life.

Customer Rating: 

I first read the book in my late teens or so. Impressed as always by Lewis' brilliant writing, the book furnished my mind with arguments and ways of looking at life that have benefited me ever since. But Lewis didn't really answer my main question. My question (overlooking the subtitle, maybe) was not, "Might miracles happen in theory?" It was "Do they happen in reality?" Reading Miracles, I felt a bit let down, as the atheist Alan Orr felt when reading Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion:

"Since when is a scientific hypothesis confirmed by philosophical gymnastics, not data!"

Afterwards I went to Hong Kong as a missionary with lots of questions, and found empirically that sometimes, God does answer prayer in remarkable ways. I wrote a book (Jesus and the Religions of Man) with chapters on "Miracles" and "Impractical Magic" arguing that allegedly supernatural events fall into distinct patterns, and that one set -- exemplified by the works of Jesus -- do seem to happen. (Not recognizing, perhaps, how many of my insights might be traced originally back here!)

This summer I was back in Hong Kong. A church that I spoke at gave me a gift certificate to their book store, and I renewed my old acquaintance with this book again.

How much rich and profound thinking is in it! This is a gold-mine of lucid, important thinking, maybe the best of Lewis' directly apologetic books. The book is not just about miracles; it is an introduction to life, from a Christian point of view.

Talking with skeptics recently, I wanted to quote long passages from this book at them. Lewis answers, in a balanced and simple way, so many of the challenges skeptics continue to offer about miracles, showing that far from "violating" the laws of nature, they show that the Lord of Nature continues to work in the world, in ways that lend new meaning to Nature's otherwise sterile patterns. Miracles are, Lewis teaches us, the least arbitrary events in the universe. They make Nature itself arbitrary by comparison.

If you're a skeptic, you'll need an open mind to benefit from Lewis' argument. He doesn't overawe you with scientific data; he coaxes reader to conclusions as the sun coaxes flowers to open in the spring. But if you take in his arguments, and consider human experience from this perspective -- talk to a few missionaries! -- I think you'll find, as I have over the past 30 years, that Lewis' comments here are deeply illuminating.

Customer Rating: 

The bad reviews of this book just don't seem to understand it. One reviewer says Lewis 'shoots himself in the foot' on page 8. The reviewer says that on the one hand, Lewis says the Naturalist doesn't believe in free will; but on the other hand, the reviewer notes that Lewis says we can 'circumvent the natural order'. The reviewer, I guess, sees an inconsistency. Really? Is he serious? Lewis says a Naturalist doesn't believe in free will for a reason. Namely, if Naturalism is true (as Lewis defines it), Nature is all there is; if Nature is all there is, then there is nothing but this grand, 'interlocked', series of events, all of which are causally related to each other. Free will implies 'independence' from such an 'interlocked' nexus. And that is why Lewis said the Naturalist doesn't believe in free will. Now, is there inconsistency between this and Lewis' earlier comment that everyone believes we can circumvent the natural order? Well, let's look at the context.

And I have no idea where on page 7 Lewis says that everyone believes they can circumvent the natural order. That's because it's not there. The only context clues that are given are examples Lewis gave to illustrate different meanings people attatch to the word 'Nature': the unwashed dog in its 'natural' state: and the 'natural' way it felt to kiss a girl, even if you felt it to be wrong. Okay . . . But how in the world does this mean that people believe they can circumvent the 'Natural Order', as Lewis defines it? In this sense, 'Nature' means 'the grand interlocked set of events stretching back to the beginning of time and forward to the end of time, all of which are connected by the relation of cause and effect'. In sum, where is the inconsistency? There is none. The reviewer is just a bad reader. He can't follow a line of argument, and, because of that, he gives it one star. What else does he say?

The reviewer then says Lewis just assumes what 'Naturalism' means, and then argues against that assumption. As far as I can tell, Lewis defines 'Naturalism' in a very fair way. The spirit of the definition is in line with how many philosophers of religion define it. Almost no Naturalist disbelieves in what's called the 'casual closure thesis', which is basically Lewis' definition stripped of the jargon. The reviewer also says that Lewis doesn't provide examples for his assumptions. Excuse me? This is one of the main reasons why I love the book. It is chock-full of examples, analogies, metaphors, and similies. Lewis was a literature professor, and could bring to philosophy a wealth of imagery, which assists our imaginations in better understanding abtruse concepts. Lewis excels at this brilliantly. In terms of philosophical sophistication, Lewis isn't an authority, for that wasn't his specialty. But he did get a '1st' in philosophy from Oxford and taught and mentored students for a while, before moving on to English. His philosophical intuitions are better than average, and his style of argumentation is some of the best I've read. He combines Chesterton's wit with Aquinas' rigor for 'form', all salted with a poetic imagination. It's just such a great mix to feed off of. It just makes me sad that the reviewer is too obtuse to notice this. It's not given a second chance, and he clumsily gives it one measley star.

Lewis is then accused of hypocrisy, since he said that historians sometimes bring their naturalistic assumptions to their work. I've read about this tendency from alot of places. Historians are also regular men and women. They have beliefs about the world, what it is, what it is made of. Lewis is making a very good point. Historians aren't philosophers. When they do their history, they don't notice, and they sometimes don't feel the need to notice, that they judge some things to not have happened because their philosophy of the world excludes it. But somehow the reviewer thinks that Lewis can't say this because he's not a historian. What? Why do you need to be a historian to say this? Lewis isn't saying it as a historian; he's saying it as a philosopher - he's commenting on how historians also have a philosophy, and that philosophy can shape how a historian studies historical events. And it's true. It's a good point. But the reviewer is blind to it.

The reviewer then quits here with a quote from Joseph Cambell. It's utterly irrelevant. Lewis doesn't try to prove God's existence in the book, which the reviewer would know if he read the book. It looks like he got to page 9 and put the book down. Nothing else is said anywhere about any other point Lewis made in the book as a whole. Nothing about Lewis' brilliant arguments in chapter 3, being resurrected in various ways by Reppert and Plantinga. Nothing is said about Lewis' thoughts on the relation between language, thought, and imagination in 'Horrid Red Things'. No thoughts on 'watered down religion' in 'Christianity and Relgion. No thoughts on Lewis' critique of David Hume in 'On probability'. No thoughts on Lewis' eye-opening exploration of the Incarnation in 'The Grand Miracle', or his musings on the miracles of the old and new creations.

The book is given 1 star. I pick on this one review because it is a microcosm of how Lewis is treated by people who probably just don't like him. They heard from others how blindingly awesome he is, and they go to the books to prove that wrong somehow, no matter how dumb they sound. Sorry folks! Lewis was a 1st-rate scholar, and he's deserved that honor. These petty, amateurish reviews are laughed at by people who actually took the time to read his book.