A significant element of apologetics is grounded in one’s ontological and epistemological stance. In fact, it is often the case that a key point of one’s apologetic is defending one’s ontological and epistemological stance. It stands to reason that a key component of understanding the apologetic of an individual is understanding their epistemological point of view. However, epistemological stances are notoriously difficult to parse. In the case of C.S. Lewis this is no different. However, a deeper understanding of Lewis’s epistemological stance may be useful as the Church, amidst post-modern culture, seeks to maintain relevance while standing firm in doctrinal absolutes.
William Trochim has accurately claimed that the study of epistemological traditions is not for the faint of heart [1] . The sheer variety of literature shows that understanding the epistemological perspective of C.S. Lewis is challenging. Indeed, many have attempted to understand Lewis’s epistemological tradition. Within these attempts at understanding, Lewis has been placed on opposite sides, being labeled a rationalist and a post-modernist [2] . Close examination of Lewis demonstrates that he had deep understanding of knowledge and this author argues that Lewis, ahead of his time, appears to more closely match the post-positivist perspective described by Trochim. The ultimate goal of this paper will be to better understand Lewis’s writing in light of the proposed epistemology.
Lewis wrote with an astounding level of insight into areas in which he had no formal training. Lewis’s lack of training, however, is not grounds to dismiss his arguments. Despite his training in Classics and English, the reader of Lewis is forced to recognize cogency in many of his arguments in the fields of theology, philosophy, and history [3] . Notwithstanding his regular insight into the theological, Lewis at times, demonstrated profound theological misunderstanding. Not everything Lewis wrote edifies the body of Christ and so a question emerges, “does the epistemology of C.S. Lewis edify the body of Christ?” and in particular, “Should Christians allow themselves to be influenced by the epistemology of C.S. Lewis?”
Webster defines epistemology as “the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity [4] .” Within research literature the term narrows to what many might call “ways of knowing.” For example, in his research methodology book, Trochim places emphasis on the concept of how one comes to know something [5] . It might be said that, epistemology studies how one comes to know of and understand what is in existence. Ontology, on the other hand, looks at what exists and what does not. Epistemology and ontology are closely related, but also distinct elements of one’s world view. One’s epistemological tradition refers to the specific epistemological lens through which one might view the world and is an important component of one’s world-view.
There is an incredible variety of epistemological traditions and a complete discussion of this variety would be well-outside the scope of this analysis. Even this analysis itself will barely scratch the surface of the primary epistemological traditions that may be applied to Lewis. Within this analysis, three primary epistemological traditions emerged and hence will be discussed here. It is especially important to note that this discussion paints with board strokes and falls short of many nuances present in any of the epistemological traditions. This limitation is purposeful and it is hoped that by limiting the depth of analysis a wider audience will have access to the understanding of Lewis than a more thorough epistemological analysis provides.
As stated previously there is a great variety and nuance to epistemological perspectives. However, three important perspectives will form the background of this analysis and are hence introduced here.
Positivism, according to Webster, asserts that “knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations as verified by the empirical sciences [6] .” Central components of positivism are the rejection of metaphysics, emphasis on the deterministic nature of science, and overall emphasis on empiricism. It is worth noting that positivism approaches ontology from an objective stance, that is the positivist will tend to accept the notion of objective truth and trust the observer to remove all subjectivity from observation.
Rationalism is a natural extension of positivism with the added assumption that there is knowledge outside of our ability to observe and measure. Rationalism claims that human reason can make that knowledge known [7] . According to Webster, Rationalism is “a theory that reason is in itself a source of knowledge superior to and independent of sense perceptions [8] .”
Subjectivism argues that there is no external reality [9] . That is, all observations and interpretations are relative. In this sense, subjectivism is post-modern and heavily skeptic. A key component of the subjective epistemology is the belief that all observations and interpretations are mediated through the individual. That is each individual sees the world through their own lens. While the subjective nature of individual perception is an interesting concept, many Christians reject subjectivism on the grounds that it leads to metaphysical nihilism [10] . For the Christian, ontological reality is firmly grounded in God.
A key difference between subjectivism and positivism lies in their individual views of ontology. For many, the notion of an objective lens sounds reasonable, but the rejection of external reality is bothersome. One might wonder; can ontological reality be accepted while allowing for the subjective nature of individual perception? The answer lies in post-positivism. Post-positivism allows for the existence of ontological reality but also accepts the subjective perception of reality. This broadly stated view of post-positivism admittedly oversimplifies the concept but will allow for a rudimentary analysis of Lewis. For the purposes of this paper post-positivism will refer to a post-positivist critical realist epistemological view. The critical realist holds that the goal of observation is to uncover truth, yet this goal is impossible [11] . Whenever the term post-positivism is used in this paper it will refer to the epistemological stance that objective reality/truth exists, but all human endeavors to discover reality are fallible [12] .
For much of the early 20th century, positivism ruled the day. Indeed, even the social sciences approached their field from a positivist stance in the early 20th century. John Watson argued that psychology needed to be objective and pushed the field into a positivist tradition. This push led to the behavioral theories of human psychology advocated by individuals like B.F. Skinner [13] . However, as science developed in the middle of the 20 century, the perspective began changing. The advent of relativistic physics, quantum physics, and human psychology have all moved epistemology away from the positivist tradition.
It is fairly clear that Lewis believed more than mere positivism was required to understand the world. As mentioned earlier, psychologists, like B.F. Skinner, were strong supporters of positivism. In seeming response to their insistence that the human mind was not a legitimate object of study and regard of people as scientific objects, Lewis writes
And in a period when factual realism is dominant we shall find people deliberately inducing upon themselves this doglike mind. A man who has experienced love from within will deliberately go about to inspect it analytically from outside and regard the results of this analysis as truer than his experience. The extreme limit of this self-binding is seen in those who, like the rest of us, have conspicuousness, yet go about to study the human organism as if they did not know if was conscious [14] .
Lewis did not hold a very high view of phycologists who approached psychology from a strictly positivistic stance. One might ask if this was not just some negative response Lewis had to all science. However, Lewis was clear that he did not see science as an enemy, and in fact, that his theology and science did not disagree, nor was science ever likely to discover something that disagreed with his theology [15] .
For Lewis, it appears theism is itself a strong argument against positivism for God lies outside the realm of naturalism. In The Pilgrims Regress and The Screwtape Letters Lewis presents a theism that requires more than mere head knowledge. In the Great Divorce Lewis even appears to take a negative view of those who approach God from a purely academic perspective. The concept of something outside of the naturalistic world permeates Lewis’s writing.
Other writers have also found that Lewis places heavy influence on existence beyond naturalism. Loomis and Rodriguez argue for a philosophy of education based on Lewis. A key component of their philosophy of education is the notion that knowledge and hence education must be grounded in some outside force, not merely naturalism [16] . Theroux further supports this claim by arguing against naturalism from a perspective to which he holds that Lewis would have held [17] . Ultimately, according to Edwards, “Lewis was a lifelong anti-positivist, opposing the notion that there could be a neutral, "scientific" way of speaking that avoided metaphor or "poetic diction [18] ." For many, Lewis was more than a positivist, but for others, the evidence is not nearly as clear.
Wilson suggests that Lewis was actually a positivist, or at the very least a rationalist. Wilson claims that “Lewis bases his entire apologetics approach upon the assumption that human consciousness is able to comprehend in a rational manner, a reality that exists beyond the natural realm - the supernatural [19] .” What Wilson presents would certainly be rationalism, but a critical eye should ask, is this true, is this really where Lewis landed? It is certainly the case that Lewis values rational thought. However, there is evidence that Lewis actually views knowing in a way that is beyond rationalism. In fact, some of what Lewis says might actually cause one to mistakenly take Lewis for a relativist [20] . Downing notes that Lewis spoke of the oddity of ultimate truth, “whatever it may be [21] .”
One is forced to consider, could Lewis have been a post-modernist? A complete discussion of post-modernism is outside the scope of this paper. Instead of focusing on the whole of post-modernity the arguments in this paper will look at the notion of human values and morality within post-modernism. Winter’s holds that “the now standard (if somewhat overstated) axiom of postmodernism, everything about humanity is socially contingent [22] .” Winter later argues that “Values are not to be found elsewhere, outside ourselves and our practices; they are profoundly human products made real by human action [23] .” In his dissertation, Barkman argues that Lewis moved from an epistemological realist stance to an epistemological idealism in the period from 1923 to 1924 [24] . Barkman further argues that for a period of many years Lewis would oscillate between subjective idealism and absolute idealism. For many writers, Lewis seems to have a subjective bent that they feel compelled to address [25] .
Indeed, some of what Lewis writes leaves the reader with a distinct subjective feel. In Meditations in a Toolshed Lewis argues that one’s perspective is important. Lewis uses “looking along” and “looking at” to demonstrate his point [26] . On the surface these statements appear subjective. Downing took notice of these statements and argued that “Lewis emphasizes that all analysis is situated, that there is no position of utter objectivity from which one may think about thinking itself [27] .” How do these seemingly subjective statements fit with the clear statements Lewis made in The Abolition of Man against subjective morality?
In The Abolition of Man Lewis clearly takes a stand against subjectivism. One could argue the entire first chapter is a thesis against subjectivism and presents a rational argument against subjectivism. In fact, Lewis may be one of the most well-known early authors to take a stand against subjectivism. As Peters effectively argues, Lewis rejected some of the main elements of post-modernism, especially the subjectivity of human values [28] . Lewis was not a subjectivist.
The astute reader is left with an apparent contradiction. Lewis was definitely not a post-modernist. However, as evidenced by the previously mentioned literature and examples, Lewis wrote many items promoting a more subjective perspective. How can this apparent contradiction be resolved? Young, on the grounds of Lewis’s view of human personality, presents Lewis as a semi-post-modernist [29] and Moodie labels Lewis as a prophet to post-modernism [30] . Both of these statements demonstrate the difficulty with which researchers have dealt with Lewis and this apparent contradictory stance. The question remains, is there an epistemological stance that accurately captures Lewis’s view?
Brian Murphy argues that Lewis was a rationalist, in effect arguing that Lewis found himself depending on rational argument amongst those who rejected the rational [31] . Murphy accurately points out that Lewis “argues for the validity of Reason in The Abolition of Man, Miracles, Mere Christianity, and in a fictive form in his space trilogy; it even pops up here and there in the seven children's stories, the Narnian Chronicles [32] .” However, strictly speaking, philosophical rationalism holds that reasoning, not only experience is the source of knowledge. Rationalism alone does not really account for Lewis’s subjective statements
Post-Positivism provides exactly the necessary tools to resolve the tension between Lewis’s outright rejection of relativism and admittance there are subjective elements to knowing. In the post-positivist epistemology, objective truth can be retained while the subjective nature of knowing is also preserved. The real challenge to this claim is that many would trace post-positivism to a later date, possibly as late as Kuhn and his use of paradigms to describe the scientific world and the switch from “normal science”. This, however, does not preclude Lewis from holding a post-positivist stance. Post-positivism walks a fine line allowing for subjective human observation of an absolute. In Lewis, we see exactly this type of approach. It appears that Lewis, ahead of his time, approached the world from a post-positivist epistemological stance.
Many Christians, when encountering moral relativism or post-modernism are faced with what Berstein calls Cartesian Anxiety [33] . For these Christians, the rejection of an outside morality reduces to nihilism, an especially precarious condition. To a Christian who believes in an absolute source for all morality, the post-modernist rejection of absolutes is a significant source of tension. However, like Lewis, many Christians recognize the difference between “looking along” and “looking at”. In short, Christians are faced with a deep desire to posit absolutes but also understand and even appreciate the subjective nature of individual perception. Lewis appears to have coped with this challenge by adopting a form of post-positivism. The question remains, is this a healthy stance for a Christian today?
MacKay argues that the Christian should “strive for objectivity, wherever possible, as a God given ideal [34] .” MacKay quite strongly equates the dismissal of objectivity with what he calls “practical atheism”. However, it is interesting that MacKay goes on to argue that studying human cognition is an area where true objectivity cannot be expected and hence cognitive study should not be identified as science. MacKay is clear that he is not dismissing the study of cognition but instead would like for those studying cognition to freely admit they have lost some objectivity. MacKay seems to be arguing that while objective reality exists, there are components of it that will never be agreed upon. Is this not a version of post-positivism?
In fact, post-positivist thinking, in some way or another forms keys component of the preaching and teaching mission of the church.
Garrett Green actually calls for religion to learn from the scientific philosophies of Thomas Kuhn [35] . Green argues that Kuhn’s thesis is that “imagination plays a fundamental role in the origin, development, and ongoing work of the natural sciences [36] .” Is should be noted that Kuhn is held by some to be a founder of post-positivism and so Green’s call could be interpreted as a call to post-positivism.
Green focuses on the notion of paradigm shifts and argues that these same paradigm shifts can be seen in theology. Green sees the concept of a paradigm in the kerygmatic sermon of Acts 2:14-36. Another aspect of the paradigm that Green alludes to is the retrospective utility of a paradigm. A Christian has a profound ability to look back into the Old Testament and see Christ. Certainly, Old Testament events pointed to Christ. However, it is unlikely that Moses understood the salvific significance of the fact that the rock only had to be struck once and then forever merely spoken to for salvation to be accomplished. Christians can look back and see this story precursor to the message of salvation. The Savior only had to be killed once and now salvation is achieved merely by calling upon the name of the savior. Christians, because of Christ, can read the Old Testament with a new level of understanding that was not available to those prior to Christ.
In some sense Thomas Kuhn argued against a method of science whereby a collection of facts leads day-by-day to a progressively deeper and complete understanding of the universe. For Kuhn, the periods of factual accumulation are interrupted by periods of paradigmatic shifts. It is especially interesting that in Kuhn’s paradigm shifts, the laws of the universe themselves remain static, but the paradigms admit completely different ways of looking at the universe. In some sense, the notion of dispensations is no different. God’s administration has gone through paradigmatic shifts and these shifts have completely altered the way in which man views grace, and previous dispensations. However, in all of this God is immutable. God has not changed, but his administration of man and hence man’s understanding of Him has changed.
Another important notion in post-positivist thought is that of the model [37] . Within constructivist epistemology (closely related to post-positivism) there is an idea that people cannot generate complete understanding of absolute truth so instead researchers develop models. The goal is for a model to be both specific enough to describe phenomena, and general enough to account for variation. Within theology, the same goal is sought.
Consider the trinity. The trinity presents a significant theological challenge to many and must be handled with care. How can God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all be distinct and yet one? This question has challenged many theologians and many have chosen to address the question using the notion of a model. As early as Augustine, models of the trinity played an important role in theological discussion [38] . In modern times, people have tried to model the trinity with an egg, a directed graph, and many other structures. Each attempt to model the trinity seems fraught with obvious fallacies, but useful in other aspects. The point is that the trinity represents a concept that is outside of what can be understood. Most fundamental Christians take no issue admitting their limited understanding of the trinity and instead depend on models to understand.
Models are an important component of the teaching we do in churches. We use object lessons and other models of theological concepts to help us understand the deeper theology and make sense of theology. As people mature we do not do away with models, instead the models become more sophisticated. God is transcendent and finite man can only build models of the transcendent [39] .
How should Christians handle Lewis and post-positivist thought? Lewis understood the value of approaching thought with a humble spirit. Downing very accurately summarizes Lewis by stating that “I believe that Lewis's relevance—and prescience—in present day discussions of texts is rooted in this characteristic fusion of metaphysical affirmation and epistemological humility [40] .” In Mere Christianity Lewis readily admits that he is not an expert theologian yet he is able to form cogent arguments for Christianity all from a position of humility. Perhaps the best lesson Christianity can learn from Lewis is that of humility. There is much we do not understand about the infinite God and while we believe He is the embodiment of absolute truth, we must admit that a complete understanding of God is beyond human capabilities.
Post-Modernism presents a real challenge to the Church today. Many Christians have probably dealt with post-modern thinking but in our dealing with post-modernity we must remember to be humble. Perhaps we should less eager to simply reject post-modernism (we should reject it), but more willing to admit that there are components of God that are beyond our comprehension but that does not mean he does not exist nor does it require that we stop trying to understand God. We simply push forward always trying to develop a better more meaningful understanding of the transcendent.
Bibliography:
Bernstein, Richard J. Beyond objectivism and relativism: science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.
Barkman, Adam J. “The Philosophical Christianity of CS Lewis: Its Sources, Content and Formation.” PhD diss., Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 2009.
Downing, David C. "C. S. Lewis Among the Postmodernists." November 1998. Accessed January 26, 2017. http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/1998/novdec/8b6036.html.
Edwards, Bruce L. "CS Lewis and the case for responsible scholarship." Discovery Institute (1998). Accessed February 4, 2017.
Gatta, John. "Reassessing the legacy of C.S. Lewis." Sewanee Theological Review 55, no. 2 (2012): 211-215. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost. accessed February 4, 2017.
Green, Garrett. "On seeing the unseen: imagination in science and religion." Zygon 16, no. 1 (March 1981): 15-28. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost. accessed January 27, 2017.
Lewis, C.S., The abolition of man. Las Vegas, NV: 2010.
Lewis C.S., "Meditation in a Toolshed." In God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics. Ed. by Walter Hooper. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1970. Pp. 212-215.
Lewis, C. S. The weight of glory: and other addresses. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2005.
Loomis, Steven R. and Rodriguez, Jacob P. CS Lewis: A Philosophy of education. Springer, 2009.
MacKay, Donald M. “Objectivity in Christian Perspective,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 36 (1984).
MacSwain, Robert, and Ward, Michael. The Cambridge companion to C.S. Lewis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Markie, Peter. "Rationalism vs. Empiricism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. August 19, 2004. Accessed February 05, 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/.
McGrath, Alister E. C.S. Lewis: a life: eccentric genius, reluctant prophet. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2013.
McGrath, Alister E. The intellectual world of C.S. Lewis. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, a John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication, 2014.
Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003.
Moodie, Charles Anthony Edward. "CS Lewis: exponent of tradition and prophet of postmodernism." ThD diss., University of South Africa, 2000.
Murphy, Brian. "Enchanted rationalism: the legacy of C.S. Lewis." Christianity And Literature 25, no. 2 (1976): 13-29. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost. accessed January 27, 2017.
Peters, James R. "C.S. Lewis and the enchantment of reason." Sewanee Theological Review 55, no. 2 (2012): 152-158. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost. accessed February 4, 2017.
Schunk D.H., Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed February 17, 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html.
Theroux, David J. Mere economic science: CS Lewis and the poverty of naturalism. The Independent Institute Working Paper, No. 67. 2007.
Trochim, William M. K. Research methods knowledge base. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Pub., 2001.
Walsh, Chad. CS Lewis: Apostle to the Skeptics. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008.
Wilson, Donald Neil. "Postmodern Epistemology and the Christian Apologetics of CS Lewis." PhD diss., University of Pretoria etd, 2007.
Winter, Steven L. "Human Values in a Postmodern World." Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 6, no. 2 (2013): 5.
Young, Bruce W. "Beyond personality: CS Lewis' semi-postmodern view of the human person." Appraisal 9, no. 1 (2012): 40-50.
[1] William M. K. Trochim, Research methods knowledge base (Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Pub., 2001), 20.
[2] Adam Barkman. “The Philosophical Christianity of CS Lewis: Its Sources, Content and Formation.” PhD diss., (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 2009).
Brian, Murphy. "Enchanted rationalism: the legacy of C.S. Lewis." Christianity And Literature 25, no. 2 (1976): 13-29.
Bruce W Young. "Beyond personality: CS Lewis' semi-postmodern view of the human person." Appraisal 9, no. 1 (2012): 40-50.
Charles Anthony Edward Moodie. "CS Lewis: exponent of tradition and prophet of postmodernism." ThD diss., University of South Africa, (2000).
David C. Downing, "C. S. Lewis Among the Postmodernists," November 1998, accessed January 26, 2017,
[3] Alister E. McGrath, C.S. Lewis - a life eccentric genius, reluctant prophet (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publ., 2013).
McGrath, Alister E. The intellectual world of C.S. Lewis. (Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, a John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication, 2014).
John, Gatta,. 2012. "Reassessing the legacy of C.S. Lewis." Sewanee Theological Review 55, no. 2: 211-215. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed February 4, 2017).
Robert MacSwain and Michael Ward, The Cambridge companion to C.S. Lewis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
[4] Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).
[5] Trochim, 18.
[6] Merriam-Webster
[7] Peter Markie, "Rationalism vs. Empiricism," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, August 19, 2004, accessed February 05, 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/.
[8] Inc Merriam-Webster
[9] Trochim, Page 19.
[10] In an effort to be fully transparent it is worth noting that this author also rejects subjectivism.
[11] Trochim, Page 19.
[12] Fallible does not mean wrong, simply that the observation could be wrong.
It is also important to note that we refer to human endeavors to know. It is certainly possible for the infinite to reveal Himself and retain a high view of Bibliology.
[13] D.H. Schunk, Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999.
[14] C.S. Lewis, The weight of glory: and other addresses. (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2005), 114.
[15] Chad Walsh. CS Lewis: Apostle to the Skeptics. (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008).
[16] Steven R Loomis and Jacob P Rodriguez. CS Lewis: A Philosophy of education. (Springer, 2009).
[17] David J Theroux. Mere economic science: CS Lewis and the poverty of naturalism. No. 67. The Independent Institute Working Paper, 2007.
[18] Bruce L Edwards. "CS Lewis and the case for responsible scholarship." Discovery Institute (1998).
[19] Donald Neil Wilson. "Postmodern Epistemology and the Christian Apologetics of CS Lewis." PhD diss., (University of Pretoria etd 2007).
[20] It should be noted that Downing is writing from a literary critical perspective not necessarily an epistemological one. However, many of his arguments would apply in an epistemological discussion. Downing further does not actually accuse Lewis of writing from a post-modern perspective, but highlights the similarities one can often find by Lewis’s writing. Ultimately, Downing attributes to Lewis a great deal of epistemological humility.
[21] In this section Downing points the reader to C.S. Lewis, Christianity and Culture, 1973.
[22] Winter, Steven L. "Human Values in a Postmodern World." Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities 6, no. 2 (2013): 5. Page 1
[23] Ibid., Page 3
[24] Adam Barkman. “The Philosophical Christianity of CS Lewis: Its Sources, Content and Formation.” PhD diss., (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 2009), 50.
[25] It should be noted that throughout this discussion we are slightly mixing terms and avoiding some very nuanced understanding. Epistemology is different than morality and values. However, in this paper we are taking the stance that all of these components interact and so understanding one’s epistemology can be helped by understanding ones stance on morality and values.
[26] C.S. Lewis., "Meditation in a Toolshed." In God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics. Ed. by Walter Hooper. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1970). 212-215.
[27] Downing
[28] James R. Peters. "C.S. Lewis and the enchantment of reason." Sewanee Theological Review 55, no. 2 (2012 2012): 152-158. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed February 4, 2017).
[29] Bruce W Young. "Beyond personality: CS Lewis' semi-postmodern view of the human person." Appraisal 9, no. 1 (2012): 40-50.
[30] Charles Anthony Edward Moodie. "CS Lewis: exponent of tradition and prophet of postmodernism." ThD diss., (University of South Africa, 2000).
[31] Brian, Murphy. "Enchanted rationalism: the legacy of C.S. Lewis." Christianity And Literature 25, no. 2 (1976 1976): 13-29.
[32] Ibid, 20.
[33] Bernstein, Richard J. Beyond objectivism and relativism: science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.
[34] Donald M. MacKay, “Objectivity in Christian Perspective,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 36 (1984),
[35] Garrett Green. "On seeing the unseen: imagination in science and religion." Zygon 16, no. 1 (March 1981): 15-28.
[36] Ibid, 16.
[37] It is important that we do not take this connection too far and find ourselves approaching theology as skeptics. However, with care the idea of a model can be very useful.
[38] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, , accessed February 17, 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html.
[39] The word transcendent here is an important word. The mathematical constant pi is a transcendental number and cannot be expressed algebraically using rational numbers. The number pi appears all over the place, but cannot be explained or expressed as a solution to an algebraic equation over the field of rational numbers. Throughout history civilizations have developed models of pi, like 22/7, but within the limited view of rational numbers the number pi cannot be fully understood. In a sense God is similar. God transcends human existence and so must be understood in models that only approximate the infinite God. Just as the Egyptian model of 22/7 was useful in calculations our models of God are useful in theology. However, these models fail to completely capture the infinite God.
[40] Downing
Created with Mobirise - Visit site