1

Socrates in Service to Christ: The Formation of an Apologist

1
Angus J. L. Menuge
Dept. of Theology and Philosophy
Concordia University Wisconsin
1!"" #. La$e %hore Drive&
Me'uon& W( )*"+,
-.ail/ Angus.Menuge0cu1.edu
A2%T3ACT
Peter e4horts all Christians to 5e prepared 1ith a defense for the faith 61 Peter */1)7. 8et
the 5est 1ay to train the laity in apologetics is a neglected area of spiritual for.ation. (n
this paper& ( argue that .uch can 5e learned fro. a careful study of 94ford University:s
%ocratic Clu5& under the presidency of C. %. Le1is fro. 1+; to 1+);. ( argue that& in
virtue of its founding vision and the cali5er of its participants& the %ocratic Clu5 has never
5een surpassed as a foru. for e4a.ining the case for and against the Christian faith& and
provides the ideal .odel for training Christians 1ho 1ish to respond effectively to the
real pro5le.s and o5<ections raised 5y atheists& agnostics& and so.eti.es Christians
the.selves. After an e4a.ination of the ground=rules and 1or$ of this historic society& (
.ove to an assess.ent of the %ocratic spirit today. ( argue that there are encouraging
signs of vitality& 5ut that a pervasive incivility and anti=intellectual irrationalis. are
o5stacles that .ust 5e ta$en seriously if the case for Christ is to 5eco.e again a .a<or
part of our cultural conversation.
1. Introduction
The Christian faith has co.e under increasing attac$ 5y .ilitant atheists such as
%a. >arris and 3ichard Da1$ins. (n response& Christians are floc$ing to presentations
and classes on Christian apologetics& and it is gratifying to see the laity ta$e seriously the
defense of Christian truth clai.s. 2ut so.ething is often .issing/ direct engage.ent
1ith the concerns and o5<ections of the un5eliever. To 5e faithful to Peter:s call 61 Peter
*/ 1)7& Christians .ust reply to the actual 'uestions un5elievers pose& and a live& fran$
de5ate re.ains the 5est for.at. (n this paper& ( 1ill suggest that& in virtue of its founding
1
?ersions of this paper 1ere presented during the series @C. %. Le1is ?isits #ashotah >ouse&A held at
#ashotah >ouse& Wisconsin& and at the national -vangelical Theological %ociety .eeting in %an Diego&
5oth in "",.

vision and principles of operation& the 94ford University %ocratic Clu5 provides an
unsurpassed .odel for the $ind of constructive de5ate 5et1een Christians and
un5elievers 1hich is necessary to for. faithful apologists. %ince the ti.e of that Clu5&
ho1ever& there has 5een a .ar$ed decline in civility 6epito.iBed 5y ad hominem
argu.ent& electronic ghettoes& .edia 5ias& and attac$s on Christian acade.ic freedo.7
and a cynicis. a5out truth and reason 1hich present for.ida5le& though 6( thin$7
sur.ounta5le o5stacles to the e.ergence of a si.ilar institution today.
2. The Founding of the Socratic Club
%ocrates insisted that the une4a.ined life is not 1orth living& and e4horted honest
en'uirers to follo1 the evidence 1herever it leads. The .odel he provided for the search
for truth 1as one of ro5ust& pu5lic dialogue. %ocrates co.pared hi.self to a .id1ife&
1hose 'uestioning 1ould elicit the 5irth of an idea. >is thought 1as that the true
strengths and 1ea$nesses of a vie1point only 5eco.e clear 1hen it is developed under
close& critical scrutiny. The e4perience is not al1ays pleasant& and .ay reveal that
so.eone:s deeply held convictions are unsu5stantiated pre<udice. 2ut there are .any
5enefits as 1ell. 9ne .ay learn hu.ility& realiBing that so.eone 1ith an opposing vie1
has a 5etter case than one thought. 9ne has the opportunity to refine or .odify one:s
vie1 to overco.e o5<ections. 9ne .ay finally give up an idea that si.ply holds no 1ater
and e.5race an idea one long re<ected. Li$e Aslan& the %ocratic .ethod is not @safe.A
2ut it is good& if one:s goal is to do one:s 5est to find truth.
While the %ocratic .ethod is co.pletely general& the 94ford University %ocratic
Clu5 chose to apply it .ore specifically to @the pros and cons of the Christian religion.A

C. %. Le1is& @The Counding of the %ocratic Clu5&A God in the Dock 6Drand 3apids& M(/ -erd.ans& 1+,"7&
p. 1E.
*
(t is 1ell $no1n that C. %. Le1is 1as the President of the Clu5& chairing it for 1* years&
fro. 1+; to 1+);. 2ut it is significant that Le1is did not 5ring the clu5 into e4istence.
The clu5 1as student=driven/ the clu5 1as for.ed 5ecause students 1anted a full and
open discussion of the case for and against the Christian faith& a discussion that 1as not
happening in any of the classes or other clu5s. (n 1+;1& %tella Ald1inc$le 1as on the
94ford pastoral staff 6i.e. ca.pus .inistry7& and as Christopher Mitchell recounts& a ne1
student& Monica %horten&
@co.plained...that no one see.ed ready to seriously discuss the deeper 'uestions raised
5y agnostics and atheists. FThe ser.ons and the religious clu5s <ust ta$e the real
difficulties as solvedGthings li$e the e4istence of Dod& the divinity of Christ and so
on.:A
*
Monica %horten 1as not alone. (t turned out that there 1ere several groups of students
1ho 1ere favora5le to the idea of the clu5. These included/ 617 a nu.5er of atheists and
agnostics& at least so.e of 1ho. 1ere generous=spirited and open to hearing the 5est that
could 5e said for and against the clai.s of ChristianityH 67 Christians 1ho 1ere secure in
their faith& 5ut 1ho 1anted to give 5etter replies to the pro5le.s raised 5y un5elieversH
6*7 Christians 5eset 1ith unans1ered dou5ts of their o1nH 6;7 people of any conviction
1ho si.ply en<oyed a vigorous de5ate 1here a lot 1as at sta$e.
%tella Ald1inc$le called an initial .eeting to discuss the idea of such a clu5& 5ut
realiBed it could not succeed 1ithout the right President. The fact that C. %. Le1is 1as
on ca.pus& had 5een an atheist for .any years 5efore co.ing a Christian& and had a
strong interest in Christian apologetics& .ade hi. the ideal candidate. Le1is:s response
to Ald1inc$le:s re'uest is e4traordinary. Le1is treated the re'uest not& as he <ustifia5ly
.ight have done& as a trou5leso.e intrusion on his a5surdly 5usy schedule& 5ut as a
*
Christopher Mitchell& @C. %. Le1is and the 94ford University %ocratic Clu5&A in ed. Angus Menuge& C. S.
Lewis: Lightbearer in the Shadowlands 6Wheaton& (L/ Cross1ay& 1++,7& p. **".
;
su..ons fro. Dod to serve the 94ford co..unity 1ith his special gifts. >e 1rote&
@Dear Miss Ald1inc$le& This clu5 is long overdue. Co.e to coffee on Tuesday evening
in .y roo.s to discuss plans.A
;
The clu5 had official approval 5y the 5eginning of 1+;&
and had its first .eeting on January E
th
& 1hen 3. -. >avard presented the paper& @Won:t
Man$ind 9utgro1 Christianity in the Cace of the Advance of %cience and of Modern
(deologiesIA
3. The Success of the Club
Cro. its .odest 5eginnings in a student co.plaint& the %ocratic Clu5 5eca.e far
and a1ay @the .ost flourishing and influential of undergraduate societies.A
)
Although
.eetings 1ere late on Monday evening& running fro. !/1) to 1"/*"& there 1ere @usually
5et1een E" and 1"" .e.5ers in attendance at every .eeting& and unless one arrived
early one 1as luc$y to find a seat on the floor.A
E
(n the great encounter 1ith Professor C.
-. M. Joad& @)" people cro1ded into Lady Margaret >all.A
,
There are a nu.5er of
reasons for the Clu5:s success.
Cirst& the %ocratic clu5 1as driven 5y a perceived need. When Peter delivers the
apologist:s .andate in his first epistle& he 1rites that Christians should al1ays 5e
@prepared to .a$e a defense to anyone 1ho as$s you for a reason for the hope that is in
youA 61 Peter */ 1)7. Christians are called to defend the faith& 5ut 1hat drives their
defense& Peter says& is not 1hat the apologist feels .ost co.forta5le in e4pounding& 5ut
the 'uestions of others. The %ocratic Clu5 1as faithful to this calling& 5y centering on the
;
Audio intervie1 1ith %tella Ald1inc$le& 'uoted in Mitchell& @C. %. Le1is and the 94ford University
%ocratic Clu5&A **1.
)
Walter >ooper& @94ford:s 2onny Cighter&A in ed. Ja.es T. Co.o& C. S. Lewis at the Breakfast Table and
Other Reminiscences 6#e1 8or$/ Mac.illan& 1+,+7. 1;).
E
(5id& 1;".
,
(5id& 1;).
)
actual pro5le.s and o5<ections students and faculty encountered or har5ored& rather than
on 1hat Christian leaders 1ould prefer to say to the..
%econd& the clu5 1as specifically stdent driven. (n .y e4perience& it is only
ca.pus clu5s strongly supported 5y a cadre of loyal students that usually succeed. 9ver
1" years ago& 1hen ( first taught a class on the life and 1or$s of C. %. Le1is and said that
the %ocratic Clu5 1as an e4e.plary organiBation& it 1as a highly co..itted student 1ho
for.ed and ran a clu5 of the sa.e na.e. After he graduated& this student continued to
engage atheists in de5ate via his internet .inistry& and the clu5 1as reincarnated as @the
Tea %ociety&A and then @the TD2 society&A 6@TD2A stands for the classic values of Truth&
Doodness and 2eauty7. 2y contrast& clu5s that are started 5y faculty 1ith the goal of
enlightening students 1ith the faculty .e.5ers: preferred political ideologies 6e.g.
@progressiveA or @conservativeA clu5s7 are not 1ell=received. They co.e across as
condescending and propagandistic& as a place for fortifying the already convinced and for
dis.issing the 5enighted& rather than an open foru. 1here opposing ideas are given a
fair hearing.
A third reason for the success of the %ocratic clu5 1as that it courageously
esche1ed such a partisan agenda& there5y .a$ing 5oth the critics and the defenders of
Christianity feel 1elco.e. Le1is clai.ed that& so far as he $ne1& there had never 5een a
clu5 'uite li$e the %ocratic.
There had 5een plenty of organiBations that 1ere e4plicitly Christian...and there had 5een
plenty of others& scientific or political& 1hich 1ere& if not e4plicitly& yet profoundly anti=
Christian in outloo$.... J2Kut an arena specially devoted to the conflict 5et1een Christian
and un5eliever 1as a novelty.
!
9n reflection& Le1is sa1 that the lac$ of such a society had har.ed 5oth 5elievers and
un5elievers. 2elievers could not 5e faithful to Peter:s call to defend the faith if they
!
C. %. Le1is& @The Counding of the %ocratic Clu5&A 1,.
E
never encountered the real pro5le.s of un5elievers first=hand& 5ut only as descri5ed& at a
safe distance& 5y fello1 5elievers. Un5elievers 1ere allo1ed to react to untutored
caricatures of Christian doctrine& o5<ecting to clai.s that thoughtful Christians need not
.a$e. Wrote Le1is& in a co..ent that 5rilliantly e4poses the folly of today:s electronic
ghettoes&
(n any fairly large and tal$ative co..unity such as a university there is al1ays the
danger that those 1ho thin$ ali$e should gravitate together into coteries 1here they 1ill
henceforth encounter opposition only in the e.asculated for. of ru.our that the
outsiders say thus and thus. The a5sent are easily refuted& co.placent dog.atis. thrives&
and differences of opinion are e.5ittered 5y group hostility. -ach group hears not the
5est& 5ut the 1orst& that the other group can say. (n the %ocratic all this 1as changed.
>ere a .an could get the case for Christianity 1ithout all the paraphernalia of pietis.
and the case against it 1ithout the irrelevant sansclottisme of our co..on anti=Dod
1ee$lies.
+

The e4clusion of pietis. .eant that appeals to inner religious e4perience and
personal testi.onies& ho1ever valua5le 1hen shared a.ong 5elievers& had no place in the
%ocratic. 2y its very nature& the Clu5 had to offer a level=playing field to 5oth 5eliever
and un5eliever. The fra.e1or$ had to 5e neutral regarding the validity of religious
e4perience since that 1as one of the very 'uestions at issue. Li$e a court of la1& the
%ocratic confined itself to pu5lic evidence and rational argu.ent 1hich could 5e assessed
5y all interested parties. The e4clusion of @sanscullotis.eA .eans that the e.otionally
charged propaganda of popular atheis. 1as also e4cluded. The ter. @sanscullotis.eA
literally .eans @1ithout $nee=5reachesA and 1as coined 5y the aristocracy in the Crench
revolution as a ter. for the lo1er class revolutionaries. (n this conte4t& it i.plies that the
anti=Dod 1ee$lies 1ere e4tre.ist and populist in tone& and therefore that presentations at
that level 1ere not up to the scholarly standards e4pected at a .a<or university.
A fourth reason for the %ocratic Clu5:s success 1as the cali5er of its spea$ers.
While the %ocratic ai.ed to include all sides in its discussion of the Christian 3eligion& it
+
(5id.
,
1as concerned to field the 5est representatives possi5le. A typical %ocratic .eeting had
t1o 1ell=.atched spea$ers& one opposing& and one defending a core clai. of
Christianity& 1ith Le1is hi.self e4pected to defend Christianity in the ensuing
discussion. >ooper 1rites&
%hould the first spea$er 5e a Christian& the reply 1ould co.e fro. an atheist 6if one
could 5e found7& and !ice !ersa should the first spea$er 5e an un5eliever. (n fairness to
5oth sides& the second spea$er 1as usually allo1ed to see the other:s paper in advance of
the .eeting in order that he .ight have a chance to fra.e his reply.
1"
Le1is tells us that the clu5:s co..ittee @scoured "ho#s "ho to find intelligent atheists
1ho had leisure or Beal to co.e and propagate their creed.A
11
A co.plete listing of the
papers and spea$ers at the %ocratic Clu5 fro. 1+; to 1+); is provided 5y Walter
>ooper
1
& and although .any of the participants are no longer 1ell=$no1n& they included
figures at the height of their profession. A.ongst those 1hose na.es are still 1idely
re.e.5ered are/ the philosophers -liBa5eth Ansco.5e& J. L. Austin& A. J. Ayer& 3enford
2a.5rough& 2rand 2lanshard& Crederic$ Copleston& Michael Du..ett& Antony Cle1&
Peter Deach& 3. M. >are& C. -. M. Joad& John Lucas& 2asil Mitchell 61ho chaired the
%ocratic Clu5 after Le1is until it ended in 1+,7& P. >. #o1ell=%.ith& >. >. Price&
Dil5ert 3yle& %tephen Toul.in& 2ernard Willia.s and John Wisdo.H the scientists Jaco5
2rono1s$i& Conrad LorenB and Michael PolanyiH i.portant literary figures such as (ris
Murdoch and Dorothy %ayers& and theologians such as Christopher Da1son and Austin
Carrer& 1ho so.eti.es stood in for C. %. Le1is 1hen he 1as sic$ or had another
engage.ent.
A fifth reason for the clu5:s success 1as the openly stated convictions of its
founders and participants. Today& it is co..on to find a $ind of nihilistic .odel of
1"
Walter >ooper& @94ford:s 2onny Cighter&A 1;".
11
(5id& 1!.
1
Walter >ooper& @94ford:s 2onny Cighter&A 1,;=1!).
!
de5ate& 1here the i.portant thing is that 5oth sides are heard& 5ut no=one is greatly
concerned ho1 the de5ate turns out& 5ecause no=one has a deep co..it.ent to either
side in the first place. The co..on refrain& @( can see 5oth sides&A 1hich .ight .ean
only that one respects the position of one:s opponent& is often used to convey a settled
indifference to the 1hole .atter. >earing 5oth sides is i.portant to 5e @niceA to
everyone& 5ut the de5ate 5egins and ends 1ith the .antra& @Whatever...A 2y contrast& the
%ocratic clu5 1as founded 5y open Christians 6Le1is and Ald1inc$le7 1ho @never
clai.ed to 5e i.partialA
1*
and recruited other professing Christians& atheists and agnostics
as participants. The clear identification of sides 1ith a strong& vested interest in
presenting the 5est case they could is 1hat .ade the %ocratic so appealing. There 1as a
sense of dra.a& 5ecause a lot 1as at sta$e. A 5ad argu.ent or a 1ea$ reply 1ould let
do1n one:s side. A point 1ell .ade could sho1 the 1ea$ness of an opponent:s position
for everyone to see. The %ocratic 1as a $ind of arena& and although no physical violence
1as per.itted& participants ran the ris$ of receiving a .ortal& intellectual 5lo1.
Cinally& vital to the %ocratic clu5:s success 1as its choice of President. -ven so
distinguished a Christian philosopher as 2asil Mitchell& 1ho too$ over as President in
1+);& 1as not a5le to .aintain the high level of popularity that the clu5 en<oyed under
Le1is. This is partly 5ecause Le1is 1as a noted pu5lic intellectual and a cele5rity
a.ong thin$ing Christians& and even a.ong their critics. 2ut a .ore funda.ental factor
is the 5readth and depth of Le1is:s education. Le1is had si.ply read far .ore than .ost
people& in -nglish& Philosophy& the classics and theology. Many of the 'uestions raised
5y the s$eptics and atheists of Le1is:s day had 5een raised 5efore and addressed a5ly 5y
1*
C. %. Le1is& @The Counding of the %ocratic Clu5&A 1!.
+
thin$ers of the past. Le1is:s catholic reading ha5its and prodigious .e.ory .eant that
he 1as 1ell=ar.ed to enter the de5ate.
(n addition& Le1is 1as a clear thin$er& 'uic$ on his feet& 1ith gifts of ver5al
repartee. >is elo'uence traced to nu.erous sources& including his father 6a la1yer7 and
@%.ugy&A an -nglish teacher at Malvern College& 1ho taught Le1is to attend closely to
the .usic of language/
@-very verse he read turned into .usic on his lips/ so.ething .id1ay 5et1een speech
and song... >e first taught .e the right sensuality of poetry...A
1;

This sensitivity to language developed Le1is:s rhetorical po1ers& so that he could select
<ust the right turn of phrase to .a$e a point clearly& effectively and .e.ora5ly. A good
e4a.ple of ho1 Le1is e.ployed rhetoric at the %ocratic Clu5 is recounted 5y Walter
>ooper/
@Le1is 1as a .aster of the instant riposte.... Austin Carrer told .e of a .eeting at
1hich the first spea$er& 1ho 1as a 3elativist& ended his tal$ 1ith the assertion/ FThe
1orld does not e4ist& 94ford does not e4ist& and ( a. confident that $ do not e4istLA
Le1is& standing up to reply& said& F>o1 a. ( to tal$ to a .an 1ho:s not thereIA
1)
Le1is:s rhetoric did not 5eco.e .ere sophistry 5ecause he also had a strong 5ac$ground
in logic. As Christopher Mitchell has noted& Le1is 1as hi.self trained in the %ocratic
.ethod 5y his tutor& Willia. T. Mir$patric$Galso $no1n as @Mir$A and @The Dreat
Mnoc$&A 5efore studying at 94ford University. A fa.ous e4change 5et1een Le1is and
Mir$patric$ 1as to set the tone for their 1hole ti.e together. Le1is& 5orn near 2elfast
1ith its hills& .ountains and lochs had e4pected %urrey& a county near London& to 5e a
dis.al& non=descript area of su5ur5ia. >e 1as therefore surprised to discover @steep little
hills& 1atered valleys& and 1ooded co..onsA 1ith @5rac$en every1hereA.
1E
Then he
1;
C. %. Le1is& Srprised b% &o%& 111.
1)
>ooper& @94ford:s 2onny Cighter&A 1;E.
1E
C. %. Le1is& Srprised b% &o%& 1*.
1"
.ade the fatal .ista$e of @F.a$ing conversation:A 1ith Mir$patric$& saying that the
scenery of %urrey 1as @.uch F1ilder: than JheK had e4pected.A
@%topLA shouted Mir$ 1ith a suddenness that .ade .e <u.p. @What do you .ean 5y
1ildness and 1hat grounds had you for not e4pecting itIA
.... As ans1er after ans1er 1as torn to shreds it at last da1ned upon .e that he really
1anted to $no1... A fe1 passes sufficed to sho1 that ( had no clear and distinct idea
corresponding to the 1ord F1ildness&: and that& in so far as ( had any idea at all&
F1ildness: 1as a singularly inept 1ord. @Do you not see& then&A concluded the Dreat
Mnoc$& @that your re.ar$ 1as .eaninglessIA....>aving analyBed .y ter.s& Mir$ 1as
proceeding to deal 1ith .y proposition as a 1hole. 9n 1hat had ( 5ased 6he pronounced
it bai'ed7 .y e4pectations a5out the Clora and Deology of %urreyI Was it .aps& or
photographs& or 5oo$sI ( could produce none......Mir$ once .ore dre1 a conclusion...
@Do you not see& then& that you had no right to have any opinion 1hatever on the
su5<ectIA
1,
Cro. Mir$patric$& Le1is learned the i.portance of t1o .ental disciplines& 5oth
of 1hich 1ere e.phasiBed 5y %ocrates and 1hich 1ere vital for an effective de5ater and
defender of the faith. Cirst& Le1is learned the crucial i.portance of clear and precise
definitions of the ter.s of the de5ate. De5ates can go 1rong 5ecause an a.5iguous ter.
is used e'uivocally so that parties spea$ past each other. -ven such 5asic ter.s as
@religionA and @ChristianityA fre'uently have different .eanings in the .inds of 5elievers
and un5elievers. Unless so.e co..on ground is fi4ed 5y ver5al precision& such a de5ate
can degenerate into a stra1=.an side sho1. %econd& Le1is 1as trained 5y Mir$patric$ to
see that in a de5ate& very little can 5e ta$en for granted. Cor any clai. one intends to
.a$e& one had 5etter 5e a5le to provide a reasoned argu.ent that supports the clai. 1ith
pu5licly accessi5le evidence. Ceelings count for nothing in the %ocratic arena& only the
'uality of the case one can present for one:s convictions. While Le1is:s scholarship and
the fact that one of his three degrees 1as in classical philosophy 1ere good preparation& it
1as also i.portant that Le1is learned to thin$ 1ell on his feet& for the %ocratic arena 1as
dyna.ic& fast=paced& unpredicta5le and co.plicated 5y the fact that any of its diverse
1,
C. %. Le1is& Srprised b% &o%& 1*;=1*).
11
participants could inter<ect. This is 'uite unli$e a scholar responding to the final and
co.forta5ly fi4ed version of an acade.ic paper read slo1ly and in solitude.
. Some Famous !ebates
The %ocratic 1as e4traordinary not .erely for its depth& 5ringing in opposing
e4perts to fra.e each de5ate& 5ut also for its 5readth. Loo$ing at the full listing of
.eetings re=printed 5y Walter >ooper& one sees that Christianity is understood as a
co.prehensive 1orldvie1& 1ith so.ething to say a5out everything. While s$eptics
certainly could and did present their dou5ts a5out specific 2i5lical clai.s& they 1ere also
per.itted to 'uestion the social and cultural i.plications of the Christian faith. Topics
for de5ate included/
17 (s Christianity an outdated 5elief syste. that that hinders progress& and 1hich 1ill 5e
replaced 5y a purely secular& scientific vie1 of the 1orld 6the continuing challenge of
Daniel Dennett and 3ichard Da1$ins7I
7 (s 5elief in Dod <ust 1ish fulfill.ent or so.ething to 5e e4plained a1ay 5y Creudian
psychoanalysis 6a 'uestion fre'uently addressed 5y Le1is7I
*7 (s faith rational& and in 1hat sense 6a 'uestion that cul.inated in the fa.ous
sy.posiu. of Antony Cle1& 3. M. >are and 2asil Mitchell& all participants in the
%ocratic Clu57I
;7 What is prayer and ho1 can it 1or$I
)7 Mechanis. vs. design in the universe.
E7 The relation 5et1een Christianity and other faiths.
,7 Christian ethics and se4ual .orality.
!7 The e4istence of Dod.
1
+7 The divinity of Christ.
1"7 Can Christian .orality 5e separated fro. the rest of the faithI
117 The relia5ility of the #e1 Testa.ent as evidence.
17 The possi5ility of .iracles.
1*7 The pro5le.s of evil& pain and suffering.
1;7 Does .an have a soulI
1)7 Does .an have free 1illI
1E7 >u.anis. as an alternative to Christianity.
1,7 The 5earing of psychical research on faith.
1!7 The case for the incarnation and resurrection.
1+7 The nature of .yth and the relation of .yth to the Dospels.
"7 >o1 do 1e $no1 DodI
%everal de5ates stand out as especially note1orthy. 9n ;
th
of January& 1+;;& a
huge cro1d gathered to hear C. -. M. Joad spar 1ith C. %. Le1is. Joad 1as a
distinguished professor of philosophy at 2ir$5ec$ College& London University& and also a
national cele5rity 5ecause of his presentations on the 22C radio 6and later television7
progra.& The Brain#s Trst. Joad 1as as 1ell $no1n as 2ertrand 3ussell& and had
1ritten several& po1erful criti'ues of the Christian faith. Li$e .any atheists& Joad had
thought that @the pro5le. of pain and evilA 1as an @insupera5le o5<ection to
Christianity&A
1!
5ut had 5een greatly helped 5y reading Le1is:s first 1or$ of for.al
apologetics& The (roblem of (ain. This 5oo$ convinced Joad that if Dod 1anted to
create sons capa5le of love and o5edienceGrather than auto.ata that 5lindly follo1ed
1!
C. -. M. Joad& @The Pains of Ani.als a Pro5le. in Theology&A reprinted in ed. Walter >ooper& God in
the Dock& 1E1=1EE.
1*
his decrees li$e planets in their or5itsGhe 1ould have to give the. free 1ill& and that
since this gift can 5e a5used& evil is possi5le& 1ith pain 5eing its 5yproduct. According
to Christopher Mitchell& 5y the ti.e Joad appeared at the %ocratic in 1+;;&
>e 1as already .oving in the direction of Christianity...and his paper& @9n 2eing
3evie1ed 5y Christians&A 1as only .oderately critical of the Christian faith. -ven so&
the at.osphere 1as co.5ative and the interchange electrifying.
1+
With t1o such 1ell=.atched opponents& the de5ate 1as clearly hard 1or$. %tella
Ald1inc$le told Walter >ooper that& @despite the freeBing te.peratures outside& 5oth
Le1is and Joad 1ere soon dripping 1ith perspiration&A and 1hile Joad re.oved his coat&
Le1is 1as una5le to do so& o1ing to the e.5arrassing fact that @he had a large hole in his
shirt.A
"
Joad& li$e Le1is& did not give in easily& ho1ever& and for several years after this
encounter& continued to 1restle 1ith the pro5le. of ani.al pains. >u.an free 1ill .ay
e4plain .oral evil and the pains it produces& 5ut .any ani.al pains have nothing
o5viously to do 1ith hu.an choice. Le1is hi.self& a great ani.al lover& 1as .ore
concerned a5out this pro5le. than .ost apologists and .ade so.e very speculative
suggestions on this topic in the ninth chapter of The (roblem of (ain. Joad found these
suggestions inade'uate& leading to an e4change of papers 6one of 1hich& together 1ith
Le1is:s reply& is reprinted in God in the Dock
1
7. What 5egan in the %ocratic and spilled
over into a printed de5ate cul.inated in Joad not only accepting a resolution for the
pro5le. of pain& 5ut also& at so.e point& in his 5eco.ing a Christian. (n 1+)& 1hen Joad
realiBed he 1as dying of cancer& and had to face the pro5le. of pain in an intensely
personal 1ay& he pu5lished The Reco!er% of Belief: ) restatement of Christian
1+
Christopher Mitchell& @University 2attles&A *;1.
"
Walter >ooper& @94ford:s 2onny Cighter&A 1;).
1
%ee @The Pains of Ani.als&A in ed. Walter >ooper& God in the Dock.
1;
philosoph%& ta$ing 5ac$ a life=ti.e:s contri5ution to defending atheist and hu.anist
causes and affir.ing the coherence of his Christian faith.
We are fortunate to $no1 even .ore a5out several other fa.ous de5ates 5ecause
associated papers 1ere later pu5lished in 1idely accessi5le places. Cor e4a.ple&
professor >. >. Price delivered the paper& @The Drounds of Modern Agnosticis.A to the
%ocratic Clu5 on the *
rd
9cto5er& 1+;;& and Le1is .ade his reply at another .eeting on
the "
th
May& 1+;E. 2oth papers 1ere su5se'uently pu5lished in the (hoeni* +arterl%&
and Le1is:s is reprinted in God in the Dock. Price:s position 1as su..ariBed 5y Le1is
in four 5asic propositions/
617 That the essence of religion is 5elief in Dod and i..ortalityH 67 that in .ost actual
religions the essence is found in connection 1ith Faccretions of dog.a and .ythology:
1hich have 5een rendered incredi5le 5y the progress of scienceH 6*7 that it 1ould 5e very
desira5le& if it 1ere possi5le& to retain the essence purged of the accretionsH 5ut 6;7 that
science has rendered the essence al.ost as hard to 5elieve as the accretions. Cor the
doctrine of i..ortality involves the dualistic vie1 that .an is a co.posite creature. 2ut
in so far as science can successfully regard .an .onistically& as a single organis. 1hose
psychological properties all arise fro. his physical& the soul 5eco.es an indefensi5le
hypothesis. (n conclusion& Professor Price found our only hope in certain e.pirical
evidence for the soul 1hich appears to hi. satisfactoryH in fact in the findings of
Psychical 3esearch.

Le1is:s reply to Price is a super5 e4a.ple of his application of the %ocratic

.ethod he learned fro. Mir$patric$. Le1is successfully 'uestions 5oth Price:s
definitions and his supporting argu.ents. Le1is first pointed out that Price:s definition
of religion .ust 5e 1rong& since so.e religions& such as early Judais. do not su5scri5e
to i..ortality& and there are others& li$e 2uddhis.& 1hich ad.it it& 5ut give it no
religious significance& since they teach @%alvation fro. i..ortality& deliverance fro.
reincarnationA
*
regarding it @as a night.are& not as a priBe.A
;
Le1is:s o1n e4perience
of 5eco.ing a theist 5efore 5eco.ing a Christian had taught hi. to 1orship Dod for 1ho

C. %. Le1is& @3eligion Without Dog.aIA in God in the Dock& 1+=1*".

*
C. %. Le1is& @3eligion Without Dog.aIA 1*".
;
C. %. Le1is& @3eligion Without Dog.aIA 1*1.
1)
>e is& 5efore he had any idea that Dod offered the re1ard of eternal life. This had helped
hi. avoid a corrupted .otive to 1orship Dod. Perhaps Le1is shares this personal
insight 1ith Price 5ecause he sensed the desperation lying 5ehind Price:s clinging to
Psychical research as grounds for 5elieving in survival.
Cor ( cannot help thin$ing that any religion 1hich 5egins 1ith a thirst for i..ortality is
da.ned& as a religion& fro. the outset. Until a certain spiritual level has 5een reached&
the pro.ise of i..ortality 1ill al1ays operate as a 5ri5e 1hich vitiates the 1hole
religion and infinitely infla.es those very self=regards 1hich religion .ust cut do1n and
uproot. Cor the essence of religion& in .y vie1& is the thirst for an end higher than
natural endsH the finite self:s desire for& and ac'uiescence in& and self=re<ection in favour
of& an o5<ect 1holly good and 1holly good for it.
)
(n response to Price:s second proposition& Le1is goes on to criticiBe Price:s naive&
.onolithic definition of @.yth&A 1hich si.ply assu.es so.e naturalistic e4planation can
5e given for all .yths. >o1ever& if li$e Le1is& one allo1s the supernatural& other
e4planations are possi5le. Christianity itself can 5e understood as the special case in
1hich .yth 5eca.e fact& 1here Dod told a story via real historical figures and events.
2ut even pagan .yths need not 5e dis.issed as entirely false/
( could not 5elieve Christianity if ( 1ere forced to say that there 1ere a thousand religions
in the 1orld of 1hich +++ 1ere pure nonsense and the thousandth 6fortunately7 true. My
conversion& very largely& depended on recogniBing Christianity as the co.pletion...of
so.ething that had never 5een 1holly a5sent fro. the .ind of .an.
E
When Le1is had hi.self 5een an atheist& he had 5elieved the anthropological argu.ent
against Christianity& that the rese.5lances of Christianity to other .yths proved that it
had 5orro1ed fro. the. and 1as only another .yth. The pro5le. 1ith the
anthropological argu.ent& ho1ever& is that it assu.es that 1e already $no1 that .yths
can 5e e4plained naturalistically. (f instead they result fro. drea.s and visions sent 5y
Dod& then they can 5e e4pected to contain so.e truth& and their rese.5lances to
Christianity do not de.onstrate 5orro1ing 5ut rather a co..on source. The naturalist
)
(5id.
E
(5id& 1*.
1E
has si.ply not thought through ho1 the topic of .yth .ay loo$ if 1e assu.e as a
hypothesis that Dod does e4ist and 1ishes to reveal hi.self to us in .any and diverse
1ays.
Price had also .aintained that Christian accounts of .iracles 1ere o5vious
.ythological accretions rendered incredi5le 5y .odern science. >o1ever& Price si.ply
assu.es that la1s of nature are inco.pati5le 1ith .iracles. Le1is pointed out that in
those areas of science& such as Nuantu. physics& 1here only statistical la1s are possi5le&
individual events are not produced 5y the interloc$ing syste. of nature and if so& the
naturalistic idea that nature is a co.pletely non=porous& self=contained .achine has 5een
a5andoned/ @Cor if nature .eans the interloc$ing syste.& then the 5ehaviour of the
individual unit is outside nature. We have ad.itted 1hat .ay 5e called the su5=natural.
After that ad.ission 1hat confidence is left us that there .ay not 5e a supernatural as
1ellIA
,
Curther.ore& even if la1s are @regularities&A this does not sho1 that .iracles are
i.possi5le. Cor Le1is& la1s are conduits or recipes or rules. Diven a certain cause as
input& they tell you 1hat effect you 1ill get as output& other things being e,al. 2ut the
la1s do not provide the causes the.selves any .ore than a recipe provides ingredients or
a train ti.e=ta5le provides trains& and they do not ensure that other things al1ays 1ill 5e
e'ual/ a correct recipe does not prevent a .alfunctioning oven fro. 5urning ca$es& and
train ti.e=ta5les do not prevent derail.ents& floods and signal failures. As Le1is notes&
@8ou cannot discover e4tra half=holidays 5y studying a school ti.eta5le/ you .ust 1ait
till they are announced.A
!
,
(5id& 1**.
!
(5id& 1*;.
1,
The fact that the rules neither predict nor preclude e4ceptions& 1hether naturally
or supernaturally caused& sho1s that la1=5ased science cannot capture all of history.
This is hardly surprising 5ecause history consists of singular events& events that in all
their specificity& never recur/ @8ou cannot find out 1hat #apoleon did at the 5attle of
AusterlitB 5y as$ing hi. to co.e and fight it again in a la5oratory 1ith the sa.e
co.5atants& the sa.e terrain& the sa.e 1eather& and in the sa.e age.A
+
While la1s .ay
reflect i.portant regularities and si.ilarities 5et1een events& every event in its entirety is
uni'ue and unrepeata5le. La1=5ased science is therefore si.ply the 1rong 1ay to
investigate particular events. (n this area& all that .atters is historical evidence& and there
is no reason 1hatever 1hy the 5est e4planation of a historical event cannot 5e that a
.iracle occurred. Anticipating the o5<ection that .odern historians vie1 accounts of the
.iraculous as unrelia5le& Le1is points out that this is 5ecause they have presu.ed a
s$eptical stance of higher criticis. that 1as already 5eing a5andoned in -nglish
literature. >e co..ents 1ryly that
The period of ar5itrary s$epticis. a5out the canon and te4t of %ha$espeare is no1 over/
and it is reasona5le to e4pect that this .ethod 1ill soon 5e used only on Christian
docu.ents and survive only in the Thinkers Librar% and the theological colleges.
*"
#e4t& Le1is <u.ps to Price:s fourth proposition& and counters the clai. that
.aterialistic science has under.ined 5elief in the soul& 5y presenting an early version of
his argu.ent fro. reason against naturalis.. This argu.ent appeared in the follo1ing
year in the first 61+;,7 edition of his 5oo$ -iracles as chapter *& @The %elf=Contradiction
of the #aturalist.A Le1is starts 5y noting that if .aterialis. is true& then 5lind&
i.personal causes suffice to e4plain every event in the universe& including the 1riting of
Professor Price:s paper. 2ut then& argues Le1is&
+
(5id.
*"
(5id& 1*).
1!
What 1e should thin$ of as his Fthoughts: 1ere .erely the last lin$ of a causal chain in
1hich all the previous lin$s 1ere irrational. >e spo$e as he did 5ecause the .atter in his
5rain 1as 5ehaving a certain 1ay/ and the 1hole history of the universe up to that
.o.ent had forced it to 5ehave in that 1ay. What 1e called his thought 1as essentially
a pheno.ena of the sa.e sort as his other secretionsGthe for. 1hich the vast irrational
process of nature 1as 5ound to ta$e at a particular point of space and ti.e.
*1
Le1is goes on to argue that if our thoughts can 5e co.pletely e4plained 5y irrational and
a.oral causes& then 1e are not capa5le of rational thought or .oral conduct. We then
could not understand scientists: devotion to truth 6a .oral cause7 or even ad.ire their
s$ill in e.ploying reason to uncover nature:s secrets. Most telling of all&
(t 1ould 5e i.possi5le to accept naturalis. itself if 1e really and consistently 5elieved
naturalis.. Cor naturalis. is a syste. of thought. 2ut for naturalis. all thoughts are
.ere events 1ith irrational causes. (t is& to .e at any rate& i.possi5le to regard the
thoughts 1hich .a$e up naturalis. in that 1ay and& at the sa.e ti.e& to regard the. as a
real insight into e4ternal reality....Cor .eaning is a relation of a 1holly ne1 $ind& as
re.ote& as .ysterious& as opa'ue to e.pirical study& as soul itself.... Therefore&
naturalis. is 1orthless. (f it is true& then 1e can $no1 no truths. (t cuts its o1n throat.
*
>aving argued that science does not e4clude .iracles and that naturalis. is self=
refuting& Le1is has no reason to re.ove the supernatural @accretionsA fro. religion to
find a si.pler& lo1est co..on deno.inator. >o1ever& he does consider 1hether this
.ini.al religion could 617 @give fresh heart to society& strengthening the .oral 1ill& and
producing all those 5enefits 1hich& it is clai.ed& the old religions have so.eti.es
produced&A and 67 @5e the true oneA.
**
(n response to 617 Le1is points out that vital
religions that have transfor.ed cultures have 5een rich& not .ini.al& and that dog.a is
unavoida5le to protect any idea in its purity& even .ini.al religion. Lo1est co..on
deno.inator approaches to religion either 5eco.e dog.atic& 5y e4plicitly e4cluding
developed religions 6e.g. 5y denying that 1e need Christ to 5e saved7 or they .aintain
indifference to the developed religions& in 1hich case they are not really an alternative for
*1
(5id& 1*E.
*
(5id& 1*,.
**
(5id& 1*!.
1+
anyone 1ho is already a follo1er of one of the.. Le1is clearly sa1 ho1 the faOade of
unity could 5e achieved 5y using vague& ecu.enical language/
they 1ill hold conference at 1hich they all spea$ the sa.e language and reach the .ost
edifying agree.ent/ 5ut they 1ill all .ean totally different things. The .ini.al religion
in fact cannot& 1hile it re.ains .ini.al& 5e acted upon. As soon as you do anything you
have assu.ed one of the dog.as. (n practice it 1ill not 5e a religion at allH it 1ill 5e
.erely a ne1 colouring given to all the different things people 1ere doing already.
*;
(n fact the idea of @.ere Theis.&A is co.pletely unappealing& 5ecause unless 1e .a$e
so.e assu.ptions a5out Dod:s character and identity& >e 1ill not even support ideas of
social salvation/ @The .ini.al religion 1ill& in .y opinion& leave us all doing 1hat 1e
1ere doing 5efore.A
*)
People 1ill stay 1ith the Dod they $no1 and trust and not .ove to
a vacuous a5straction.
The god of 1ho. no dog.as are 5elieved is a .ere shado1. >e 1ill not produce that
fear of the Lord in 1hich 1isdo. 5egins& and& therefore& 1ill not produce that love in
1hich it is consu..ated.... There is in this .ini.al religion nothing that can convince&
convert or 6in the higher sense7 consoleH nothing& therefore& 1hich can restore vitality to
our civiliBation. (t is not costly enough... A flag& a song& an old school tie& is stronger
than itH .uch .ore& the pagan religions.
*E
(f 1hat Price really 1ants is a religion that 5est captures the vitality of all the
others& then Le1is points hi. to Christianity& 1here 1e see .ost clearly the co..on
the.es
of sacrifice& of .ystical co..union through the shed 5lood& of death and re5irth& of
rede.ption.... We .ay still reasona5ly attach ourselves to the Church& to the only
concrete organiBation 1hich has preserved do1n to the present ti.e the core of all the
.essages& pagan and perhaps pre=pagan& that have ever co.e fro. 5eyond the 1orld& and
5egin to practice the only religion 1hich rests not upon so.e selection of certain
supposedly Fhigher: ele.ents in our nature& 5ut on the shattering and re5uilding& the
death and re5irth& of that nature in every part/ neither Dree$ nor Je1 nor 5ar5arian& 5ut a
ne1 creation.
*,
After such a thorough reply& Le1is .ight have 5een te.pted to end his paper 5y
saying& @Do you not seen then& Professor Price& that you had no right to have any opinion
*;
(5id& 1;"=1;1.
*)
(5id& 1;1.
*E
(5id& 1;=1;*.
*,
(5id& 1;;.
"
1hatever on the su5<ectIA 2ut it 1as a good thing he didn:t& 5ecause a $ey part of his
reply& the argu.ent fro. reason& provo$ed an i.portant criti'ue fro. the highly
respected analytical philosopher and devout 3o.an Catholic& -liBa5eth Ansco.5e. At a
.eeting of the %ocratic Clu5& on Ce5ruary
nd
& 1+;!& Ansco.5e presented the paper&
@FMiracles:GA 3eply to Mr. C. %. Le1is.A This paper 1as su5se'uently printed in The
Socratic Digest& and is no1 1idely availa5le as chapter 1 of -etaph%sics and the
(hilosoph% of -ind& the second volu.e of the collected philosophical papers of D. -. M.
Ansco.5e. Ansco.5e:s reply ta$es into consideration not only the short version of the
argu.ent fro. reason he presented in reply to >. >. Price& 5ut also the longer version
pu5lished as chapter * of the first edition of -iracles 6hence Ansco.5e:s title7.
%ince the longer version is .ore careful& it is helpful to see 1hat the su5stance of
that argu.ent is. Le1is argues that/
6P17 @./0o thoght is !alid if it can be fll% e*plained as the reslt of irrational
cases.A
*!
Cor e4a.ple& if so.eone only 5elieves so.ething as a result of 5rain=da.age&
superstitious association of ideas& or a delusion& 1e have no confidence in his thin$ing
5ecause it did not result fro. reasoning.
6P7 (f naturalis. is true& then reality& the @Total %yste.A is one of 5lind& undirected
cause and effect/ @the Total syste. is not supposed to 5e rational.A
*+
Le1is e4plains that rationality re'uires that @the feeling of certainty 1hich 1e e4press 5y
1ords li$e mst be and therefore and since is a real perception of ho1 things outside our
.ind really F.ust: 5e.A
;"
2ut the pro5le. is that naturalis. understands all pheno.ena
*!
C. %. Le1is& -iracles 6#e1 8or$/ Mac.illan& 1+;,7& ,.
*+
(5id& !.
;"
(5id& E.
1
as si.ply chains of events that cause each other regardless of 1hether they involve
logical insight or not. %o& he argues&
6P*7 (f naturalis. is true& then @All thoughts 1hatever are the result of irrational causes
and nothing .ore than that. The finest piece of scientific reasoning is caused in
<ust the sa.e irrational 1ay as the thoughts a .an has 5ecause a piece of 5one is
pressing on his 5rain.A
;1
2ut then&
"P;7 (f naturalis. is true& then naturalis. is the result of irrational causes.
%o& given 6P17& that no thought is valid if it can 5e fully e4plained as the result of
irrational causes& 1e conclude/
6C7 (f naturalis. 1ere true& then it is invalid& or in other 1ords& if naturalis. 1ere
true& then no=one could 5e rationally <ustified in 5elieving it. %o naturalis. is
self=defeating in the sense that it under.ines its o1n <ustification.
(n Ansco.5e:s reply to this argu.ent& she .a$es several critical points. Cirst& she
points out that the opposite of @rationalA is not @irrational&A 5ut @non=rational.A The
naturalist can clai. that 1hen he studies the events in so.eone:s 5rain that lead to a
5elief& these events& physically considered& are neither rational nor irrational& 5ut si.ply
non=rational. That is& they are vie1ed si.ply as physical occurrences& and the 'uestion
of 1hether these occurrences follo1 a rational or irrational path is set to the side. %he
then argues that a physical account of so.eone:s thoughts is co.pati5le 1ith a
co.pli.entary evaluation of the rationality of that thin$ing. Thus& she 1rites/
Whether his conclusions are rational or irrational is settled 5y considering the chain of
reasoning that he gives and 1hether his conclusions follo1 fro. it. When 1e are giving
a causal account of his thought& e.g. an account of the physiological processes 1hich
issue in the utterance of his reasoning& 1e are not considering his utterances fro. the
point of vie1 of evidence& reasoning& valid argu.ent& truth at allH 1e are considering
the. .erely as events.
;
;1
(5id& !.
;
D. -. M. Ansco.5e& -etaph%sics and the (hilosoph% of -ind& vol. of The Collected Philosophical
Papers of D. -. M. Ansco.5e 6Minneapolis& M#/ University of Minnesota Press& 1+!17& ,.

Ansco.5e there5y dichoto.iBes the order of causes and the order of reasons& and
suggests that since they are co.ple.entary orders& the naturalist:s causal account of
thin$ing 1on:t under.ine the idea of rational thought. (n a sense& this is true. #o .atter
1hy so.eone thin$s 1hat they do& it is certainly possi5le that they thin$ in accordance
1ith reason. %uppose that a patient 1ho is 5arely conscious 5elieves that A P 2 and also
that 2 P C& 5ut is too lethargic to dra1 the o5vious conclusion that A P C. #o1 suppose
that a .ad scientist sti.ulates part of the patient:s 5rain in such a 1ay that he
involuntarily 5elieves that A P C& 5ut 1ithout his other 5eliefs playing a role. Then the
patient:s thin$ing 1ill 5e in accordance 1ith reason& since& o5<ectively& the thought that A
P C is the correct logical conclusion. >o1ever& the pro5le. is that the patient did not
reason to that conclusion. The content of his other 5eliefs played no role in leading hi.
to conclude A P C. (t 1as not as a result of the logical insight that since A P 2 and 2 P
C& therefore A P C that the patient had the thought that he did. (n other 1ords& thin$ing
in accordance with reason is not the sa.e as thin$ing from reason.
%o 1hile Ansco.5e is correct that the naturalist:s account of thought is
co.pati5le 1ith so.eone thin$ing in accordance 1ith reason& it does not address t1o
deeper 'uestions/
617 What is the relationship 5et1een the order of causes and the order of
reason& and specifically& granted naturalis.& is it possi5le for reason itself
to play a causal role in 1hy so.eone thin$s as heQshe doesI
67 Can the naturalist give an accont of reasoning itself 1ithout
a5andoning naturalis.I
(n Le1is:s reply to Anco.5e at the %ocratic clu5& he conceded that he should have
carefully distinguished @causeA and logical @ground&A 5ut @said that the recognition of a
*
ground could 5e the cause of an assent& and that assent 1as only rational 1hen such 1as
it cause.A
;*
%o& for Le1is& the real pro5le. 1ith naturalis. is that it cannot give an
account of ho1 logical insight plays a causal role in thin$ing.
Ansco.5e recogniBed this& 5ut appears to argue that hu.an rationality does not
re'uire that our reasons play a causal role in our thought. %he says& star$ly/
@(t appears to .e that if a .an has reasons& and they are good reasons& and they are
genuinely his reasons& for thin$ing so.ethingGthen his thought is rational& 1hatever
causal state.ents 1e .a$e a5out hi..A
;;
(t see.s to .e& ho1ever& that this is si.ply
false. The patient ( descri5ed does possess e4cellent reasons for thin$ing that A P C& 5ut
they have nothing to do 1ith 1hy he in fact thin$s so& and so he cannot clai. to have
reached that conclusion as the result of reasoning. (n response to Ansco.5e:s criti'ue&
Le1is clarified this idea in his second version of the argu.ent fro. reason& 1hich
appeared as a ne1 chapter *& @The Cardinal Difficulty of #aturalis.&A in the %econd
-dition of -iracles& pu5lished in 1+E". This chapter replaces ) pages of the original
chapter 1ith 1" ne1 pages and is .ore carefully argued.
(n the ne1 version of the argu.ent& Le1is 5egins 5y clearly distinguishing t1o
senses of the 1ord @5ecause.A There is the @Cause and -ffectA sense 6Le1is:s e.g./ @>e
cried out 5ecause it hurt hi.A7 and there is the @Dround and Conse'uentA sense 6Le1is:s
e.g./ @A P C 5ecause& as 1e already proved& they are 5oth e'ual to 2A7.
;)
>e then argues
that our thin$ing can only 5e logical 6in the sense of arguing fro. reason7 if the Dround
Conse'uent relation e4plains it. 2ut& if naturalis. is true& Cause and -ffect co.pletely
accounts for our thin$ing. Le1is anticipates the o5<ection/ 1hy can:t the naturalist clai.
;*
@3eligion 1ithout Dog.aIA& God in the Dock& 1;).
;;
D. -. M. Ansco.5e& -etaph%sics and the (hilosoph% of -ind& +.
;)
C. %. Le1is& -iracles& 3evised -dition 6#e1 8or$/ Mac.illan& 1+E"7& *.
;
that Cause and -ffect so.eho1 1or$s through the Dround Conse'uent relation& so that
reasons 5eco.e causes. (f naturalis. is true& @(t loo$s...as if...these t1o syste.s of
connections .ust apply si.ultaneously to the sa.e series of .ental acts.A
;E
2ut the
pro5le. is that& given naturalis.& causes 1or$ inevita5ly and in apparent indifference to
logical connections/
(f it is an event it .ust 5e caused. (t .ust in fact 5e si.ply one lin$ in a causal chain
1hich stretches 5ac$ to the 5eginning and for1ard to the end of ti.e. >o1 could such a
trifle as lac$ of logical grounds prevent the 5elief:s occurrence or ho1 could the
e4istence of grounds pro.ote itI
;,
Le1is goes on to argue that rational thought re'uires that logical insight plays a
causal role in 1hy so.eone thin$s as they do. (f rational thought is possi5le& @9ne
thought can cause another not 5y being& 5ut 5y 5eing seen to be& a ground for it.A
;!
And
here 1e get to the cru4 of Le1is:s argu.ent against naturalis.& 1hich is really an
argu.ent fro. intentionality. Thoughts are said to 5e intentional 5ecause they are a5out
so.ething other than the.selves 1ith 1hich they need not stand in any current physical
causal relation. Thus one can thin$ right no1 a5out the -iffel to1er 1ithout its 5eing the
case that the -iffel to1er is currently causing one to thin$ a5out it. Le1is argues that the
a5outness or intentionality of thought is essential to understanding reasoning& 5ut cannot
5e e4plained 5y the naturalist.
Acts of thin$ing are no dou5t eventsH 5ut they are a very special sort of events. They are
Fa5out: so.ething other than the.selves and can 5e true or false. -vents in general are
not Fa5out: anything and cannot 5e true or false.
;+
Le1is further points out that 1hile the naturalist .ay e4plain 1hy thought 2
follo1s thought A 5y 1ay of association& this is not the sa.e as e4plaining ho1 so.eone
grasps that 2 follo1s fro. A in the logical sense. %o.eone .ay 5e afraid as a result of
;E
(5id& ;.
;,
(5id& ;=).
;!
(5id& ).
;+
(5id& )=E.
)
seeing a 5lac$ cat 1ith no logical insight 1hatever& 5ut they are only rationally <ustified
in 5elieving so.ething if they see that it follo1s fro. evidence. This act of seeing or
$no1ing .ust 5e deter.ined 5y its o5<ect& not .erely a cause in the 5rain& and so it
@.ust 5rea$ sufficiently free fro. the universal chain Jof natural eventsK in order to 5e
deter.ined 5y 1hat it $no1s.A
)"

Le1is anticipates that the naturalist 1ill atte.pt to sho1 that logical insight can
itself 5e reduced to natural causes. Perhaps& as Nuine suggested& natural selection 1ould
favor logical thin$ing over illogical thin$ing. The pro5le. 1ith this idea is that selection
i.proves responses to the environ.ent& 5ut it is perfectly conceiva5le that an auto.aton
1ould have useful responses 1ithout rational thought. -ven if selection favors 5eings
1hose 5ehavioral responses are in accordance 1ith reason& there see.s no particular
advantage in having 5eings 1ho really thin$ rationally. 2ut perhaps logical thin$ing
could arise fro. e4perience. The pro5le. 1ith this is that e4perience conditions
associations 6e.g. if ( touch this red=hot stove& ( e4pect to 5e 5urned7& 5ut these are not
logical insights. Associations are 5ased on 1hat has contingently 5een the case in the
past& and the e4pectation that the future 1ill 5e si.ilar is natural& 5ut logically invalid.
Logical insight allo1s us to grasp that so.ething is necessarily the case/ @(f it ever
Ffollo1s fro.: in the logical sense& it does so al1ays.A
)1
Logical insight is deter.ined 5y
o5<ective& non=contingent rational connectionsH it does not arise fro. the contingencies of
natural selection or psychological association/
My 5elief that things 1hich are e'ual to the sa.e thing are e'ual to one another is not at
all 5ased on the fact that ( have never caught the. 5ehaving other1ise. ( see that it
F.ust: 5e so.
)"
(5id& *).
)1
(5id& E.
E
(n its necessity and independence fro. contingent causal connections& reason therefore
clearly transcends nature& 1hich is nothing 5ut a contingent collection of contingent
events. 2ut if reason transcends nature& and our thin$ing involves real insight into
reason& then our thin$ing is connected to so.ething that transcends nature& and if that is
so& and our thought is deter.ined 5y 1hat 1e thin$ a5out& then necessarily& rational
thought 5rea$s free fro. the causal ne4us descri5ed 5y the naturalist.
(f genuinely rational thought is inco.pati5le 1ith naturalis.& then there can 5e no
good reason to 5e a naturalist. We need a 1orldvie1 1hich allo1s reason to 5e
independent fro. nature. The vie1 is of course Theis.. The Theist
is not co..itted to the vie1 that reason is a co.paratively recent develop.ent .oulded
5y a process of selection... Cor hi.& reasonGthe reason of DodGis older than #ature&
and fro. it the orderliness of #ature& 1hich alone ena5les us to $no1 her& is derived. Cor
hi.& the hu.an .ind in the act of $no1ing is illu.inated 5y the divine reason.
)
Much has 5een 1ritten a5out the Le1is=Ansco.5e e4change. %o.e of it is 'uite
unhelpful& 5ecause it adopts a <ournalistic @he said& she saidA approach that does not
engage the su5stance of the argu.ent. We have A. #. Wilson clai.ing that Le1is 1as
utterly defeated 5y Ansco.5e
)*
& and gave up rational apologetics for the rest of his
career. 8et this is clearly false& since Le1is too$ the trou5le to revise his early version of
the argu.ent fro. reason& re.ained President of the %ocratic Clu5 for another E years
6only a5andoning the position 1hen he .oved to Ca.5ridge7& 1rote a nu.5er of other
apologetic papers& and presents i.portant argu.ents even 1ithin his fictional 1or$s.
Ansco.5e herself chided so.e Christians for e4aggerating the e.otional reaction Le1is
had to the encounter/
My o1n recollection is that it 1as an occasion of so5er discussion of certain 'uite
definite criticis.s& 1hich Le1is: rethin$ing and re1riting sho1ed he thought 1ere
accurate. ( a. inclined to construe the odd accounts of the .atter 5y so.e of his friends
)
(5id& *;.
)*
A. #. Wilson& C. S. Lewis: ) Biograph% 6#e1 8or$/ #orton& 1++"7.
,
G1ho see. not to have 5een interested in the actual argu.ents or the su5<ect=.atterGas
an interesting e4a.ple of the pheno.enon called @pro<ectionA.
);
While Ansco.5e:s tone is perhaps a little un$ind& ( thin$ her re.ar$s are <ust.
Ansco.5e did not de.olish Le1is:s argu.ent as 1e have seen. What she did& .ainly&
1as sho1 that he had not ta$en sufficient care to distinguish ter.s& and had left the
naturalist so.e apparent escape routes 1hich he 1ould need to address& precisely 1hat he
did in the revised edition of -iracles. When loo$ing 5ac$ at her earlier criti'ue of
Le1is& Ansco.5e 1rote&
3ereading the argu.ent of the first edition and .y criticis.s of it& it see.s to .e that
they are <ust. At the sa.e ti.e& ( find the. lac$ing in any recognition of the depth of the
pro5le.... The argu.ent of the second edition has .uch to criticiBe in it& 5ut it certainly
does correspond .ore to the actual depth and difficulty of the 'uestions 5eing discussed.
( thin$ 1e haven:t yet an ans1er to the 'uestion... FWhat is the connection 5et1een
grounds and the actual occurrence of the 5eliefI:
))
Too .any of those interested in Le1is& 1hether friends or critics& have focused on the
historical and psychological characteristics of the Le1is=Ansco.5e de5ate& rather than on
the real issue& 1hether there are so.e pro.ising argu.ents 1hich can 5e developed&
so.ething that Ansco.5e herself never denied. Who @1onA an argu.ent rhetorically is
never as i.portant as 1hich argu.ent is in itself pro.ising and effective. #or does it
.atter that Le1is 1as not a professional philosopher. #either 1as %ocrates. The
i.portant point is that& as ?ictor 3eppert says& Le1is had @outstanding philosophical
instincts&A
)E
that .a$e his ideas 1orth pursuing. The %ocratic spirit is 5est sho1n 5y
those li$e 3eppert and Alvin Plantinga 1ho have rigorously e4plored the potential of the
argu.ent fro. reason to defeat naturalis.. When they have done so& developing
argu.ents inspired 5y Le1is:s 5asic proposal& 5ut far .ore sophisticated and careful&
);
D. -. M. Ansco.5e& -etaph%sics and the (hilosoph% of -ind& 4.
))
(5id.
)E
?ictor 3eppert& C. S. Lewis#s Dangeros $dea: $n Defense of the )rgment from Reason 6Do1ners Drove&
(L/ (nter?arsity Press& ""*7& 1.
!
they have de.onstrated that the nature of reasoning poses a for.ida5le challenge to
naturalis..
#. The legac$ of the Socratic Club
After Le1is stood do1n as president& the %ocratic Clu5 continued under 2asil
Mitchell. Nuestions a5out faith and reason discussed at the %ocratic 1ere evident in the
fa.ous sy.posiu. on theology and falsification 1ith Antony Cle1 defending atheis.&
3. M. >are defending theis. and Mitchell defending Christianity. %ince that ti.e& Cle1
fre'uently de5ated Christian apologist Dary >a5er.as& and has not only .oved fro.
atheis. to deis.& 5ut also concedes that the case for the resurrection is the 5est case for
any .iracle in any religion.
),
As 1e <ust sa1& Le1is has inspired other thin$ers to further
develop his argu.ent fro. reason. (n addition to his 1riting& ?ictor 3eppert .aintains a
popular 5log fre'uented 5y atheists and Christians& dangerousidea.5logspot.co..
)!
9n a
5roader level& there is rene1ed interest in having high=profile pu5lic de5ates 5et1een
atheists and Christians. Cor e4a.ple& 1e have seen 3ichard Da1$ins v. David Nuinn in
an intervie1& and Da1$ins v. Crancis Collins in Time .agaBine
)+
& and in Ce5ruary "",&
the #e1 9rleans 2aptist Theological %e.inary hosted the Dreer=>eard Point=
CounterPoint Coru. in Caith and Culture& a t1o=day e4change 5et1een Daniel Dennett
and Alister McDrath.
E"
The previous year& the foru. hosted Willia. De.5s$i and
Michael 3use for a spirited de5ate a5out the .erits of (ntelligent Design. The field of
apologetics in general is sho1ing resurgence 1ith .a<or& national events such as the one
at the McLean 2i5le church in Washington DC& 1hich overlapped 1ith the national
.eeting of the -vangelical Theological %ociety in #ove.5er ""E. We have <ournals
),
%ee the intervie1 5et1een Antony Cle1 and Dary >a5er.as at/ http/QQ111.5iola.eduQantonyfle1Q
)!
%ee/ http/QQdangerousidea.5logspot.co.Q
)+
2oth are availa5le fro./ http/QQcis.org.u$QresourcesQda1$ins.sht.l
E"
%ee/ http/QQ111.greer=heard.co.Q
+
li$e (hilosophia Christi that invite de5ates 5et1een the 5est atheist and Christian
philosophers. 9regon %tate University has its o1n %ocratic Clu5& and .any universities
have societies designed to de5ate secular ideologies at the highest level& including the
3ivendell %ociety of 8ale University and the MacLaurin (nstitute at the University of
Minnesota& Chesterton >ouse at Cornell University and .any others.
9n the other hand& there are .a<or challenges. Many in the culture see. infected
1ith a post.odern relativis. 1hich .a$es the. indifferent or opposed to vigorous
de5ates a5out ulti.ate truth. Civility has declined so that .any 1ould prefer to <eer and
sneer at stra1 .en fro. the coBy co.fort of their electronic ghettoesGa ghastly $ind of
cy5er=Dnosticis. that insulates people fro. authentic engage.ent 1ith real peopleGand
so never hear the 5est case for the opposition. An e.phasis on surface and sound 5ytes
and a decline in logic have developed too .any .inds that are incapa5le of appreciating
a good argu.ent. (t see.s ironic that 1hile Le1is:s .ain argu.ent fro. theis. rested
on hu.an reason& .any hu.ans see. intent on a5andoning that gift. And even 1here
there is a receptive audience and good argu.ents are given& these argu.ents are often
oversi.plified or .isrepresented 5y the .edia.
2ut all this sho1s is that the case for Christianity involves a 1ar on all fronts&
including the case for a solid classical education that e.phasiBes reason& truth& civility
and pu5lic de5ate the.selves. This reasoned pu5lic de5ate is essential if 1e are to
recapture the %ocratic idea that Christianity is not& as Le1is said& @F1hat a .an does 1ith
his solitude.:... (t is not even 1hat Dod does 1ith his solitude. (t tells of Dod descending
into the coarse pu5licity of history and there enacting 1hat canGand .ustG5e tal$ed
a5out.A
E1
As Austin Carrer& hi.self a participant in the %ocratic Clu5& put it/
E1
C. %. Le1is& @The Counding of the %ocratic Clu5&A 1!.
*"
(t is co..only said that if rational argu.ent is so seldo. the cause of conviction&
philosophical apologists .ust largely 5e 1asting their shot. The pre.ise is true& 5ut the
conclusion does not follo1. Cor though argu.ent does not create conviction& the lac$ of
it destroys 5elief. What see.s to 5e proved .ay not 5e e.5racedH 5ut 1hat no one
sho1s the a5ility to defend is 'uic$ly a5andoned. 3ational argu.ent does not create
5elief& 5ut it .aintains a cli.ate in 1hich 5elief .ay flourish. %o the apologist 1ho does
nothing 5ut defend .ay play a useful& though preparatory& part.
E
The %ocratic spirit is vital to supporting that @cli.ate in 1hich 5elief .ay flourish.A As
C. %. Le1is 1rote in his fa.ous essay& @9n Learning in War=Ti.e&A Christian scholars
are especially called to .aintain this cli.ate.
To 5e ignorant and si.ple no1==not to 5e a5le to .eet the ene.ies on their o1n ground==
1ould 5e to thro1 do1n our 1eapons& and to 5etray our uneducated 5rethren 1ho have&
under Dod& no defense 5ut us against the intellectual attac$s of the heathen. Dood
philosophy .ust e4ist& if for no other reason& 5ecause 5ad philosophy needs to 5e
ans1ered.
E*
E
Austin Carrer& @The Christian Apologist&A in Jocelyn Di55& ed. Light on C. S. Lewis 6London/ Deoffrey
2less& 1+E)7& E.
E*
C. %. Le1is& RLearning in War=Ti.e&R in The "eight of Glor% and Other )ddresses 6#e1 8or$/
Mac.illan& 1+E)7& ,=!.