Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

C.S. Lewis on the Reading of Old Books

reasonabletheology.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 179 posts

Re: C.S. Lewis on the Reading of Old Books

#121

Post by NateEag »

smcameron wrote: post #110
brink wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so bad about Mere Christianity? It ranks among my top 5.

It's completely idiotic. Lord, Liar, or Lunatic? Um, lunatic, obviously. He dismisses atheism with a single sentence, and exhibits an astonishing level of ignorance. If you read it as a Christian, you might not notice the idiocy, but if you aren't a Christian, it's really really bad, so many assumptions, so many times something is glossed over as if "obviously so", when it's so not. Fucking terrible, and obviously so…

The irony of your "Um, lunatic, obviously," followed by loud complaints about things being "...glossed over as if 'obviously so', when it's so not" is hard to ignore.

Regardless, I don't recall him dismissing atheism in a single sentence, but it has been years and it's quite possible I've just forgotten.

What's the sentence?

Re: C.S. Lewis on the Reading of Old Books

#122

Post by nwatson »

panarky wrote: post #119
sverige wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite Bible interpreters are all 19th century English, Scottish, and Irish writers. They all knew Greek and Hebrew, and some of them studied the ancient manuscripts themselves. Their writing is clear and cogent and their interpretations are still very much relevant. Sadly, I've little use for most contemporary writers on the same subjects. They just aren't up to the same standard.

If God wants to communicate with humanity through the Bible, why make it so difficult to understand the real message? Instead of requiring years of study of ancient manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek, why not just deliver the message in clear, modern, unambiguous language that the reader understands?

Maybe the context is a bit different (that's always the way with the Bible, I guess, which is why getting a "clear message" is always hard) ... but Matthew 13:12-13 ...

>> (Jesus' words -->) (12) Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. (13) This is why I speak to them in parables: (Jesus quoting older scripture -->) “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

Many evangelicals would say the passage might represent the complexity of interpreting scripture in general, and the the divine purposeful obfuscation of truth. And here's a slew of commentaries about these two verses, giving various scholars' / theologians' perspectives on these two verses:

For commentaries on verse (12): https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/13-12.htm

For commentaries on verse (13): https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/13-13.htm

I haven't yet fully read the commentaries referenced above, but I think the verses and the commentaries will give much Christian perspective on why "the truth" is so obfuscated and hard to find.

Re: C.S. Lewis on the Reading of Old Books

#123

Post by smcameron »

brink wrote: post #112
smcameron wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's completely idiotic. Lord, Liar, or Lunatic? Um, lunatic, obviously. He dismisses atheism with a single sentence, and exhibits an astonishing level of ignorance. If you read it as a Christian, you might not notice the idiocy, but if you aren't a Christian, it's really really bad, so many assumptions, so many times something is glossed over as if "obviously so", when it's so not. Fucking terrible, and obviously so…

How can you say "Lunatic, obviously"? What makes him an obvious lunatic?

What makes David Koresh an obvious lunatic? Are you serious?

Re: C.S. Lewis on the Reading of Old Books

#125

Post by NateEag »

smcameron wrote: post #123
brink wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you say "Lunatic, obviously"? What makes him an obvious lunatic?

What makes David Koresh an obvious lunatic? Are you serious?

David Koresh's followers were burned to death after he incited them to violence against the authorities.

Jesus, if the Bible is to be believed, healed people, told his countrymen to pay taxes to the empire that had conquered and subjugated them, and died quietly after stopping one of his followers from starting a fight with the mob that took him to be murdered.

They seem like pretty different people to me.

Edit: factual error. I thought Koresh started the fire, but Wikipedia says it's unclear how it began.

Re: C.S. Lewis on the Reading of Old Books

#126

Post by smcameron »

NateEag wrote: post #121
smcameron wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's completely idiotic. Lord, Liar, or Lunatic? Um, lunatic, obviously. He dismisses atheism with a single sentence, and exhibits an astonishing level of ignorance. If you read it as a Christian, you might not notice the idiocy, but if you aren't a Christian, it's really really bad, so many assumptions, so many times something is glossed over as if "obviously so", when it's so not. Fucking terrible, and obviously so…

The irony of your "Um, lunatic, obviously," followed by loud complaints about things being "...glossed over as if 'obviously so', when it's so not" is hard to ignore. Regardless, I don't recall him dismissing atheism in a single sentence, but it has been years and it's quite possible I've just forgotten. What's the sentence?

I can't seem to find my copy of the book right now, having recently moved, it's somewhere among the books in my shelves, but... can't find it. The sentence in question is near the end of one of the chapters in the first half of the book. The second half of the book seems to assume the first half of the book is a given and is consequently a complete waste of time, being built upon a false premise.

The only people who think this is a reasonable book are people who are already Christians.

Re: C.S. Lewis on the Reading of Old Books

#127

Post by FPGAhacker »

kd5bjo wrote: post #16
brlewis wrote: post #3

If we were to apply this idea to computer science or software engineering, where would we draw the line between old and new books?

I can think of a few different eras that will likely have different insights: * Foundations, before any computer was feasible to build: Newton, Boole, Babbage * Early computing, when everything was custom-built: Alan Turing, Vannevar Bush, Claude Shannon * Mainframes, where computer access is rare and precious * Personal computers and early networking * Mobile computing and ubiquitous internet

You may find this interesting:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/sketch.html

(emphasis on Ada Lovelace)

> Sketch of The Analytical Engine Invented by Charles Babbage

> By L. F. MENABREA of Turin, Officer of the Military Engineers

> from the Bibliothèque Universelle de Genève, October, 1842, No. 82 With notes upon the Memoir by the Translator

  ADA AUGUSTA, COUNTESS OF LOVELACE

Re: C.S. Lewis on the Reading of Old Books

#128

Post by hnuser355 »

FiatLuxDave wrote: post #18

I rather enjoyed this essay, not because I am into theology, but because I also see the value of old books. I think that I am a bit of a heretic (if I can use that word in a theology thread) because I strongly believe that there is advantage to be gained by reading old books of... science! It is often presumed that because we learn new things as time goes on, and old theories are discarded as new information comes to…

This is practiced at St. John’s school or whatever where I believed students are made to read that comic sections book, newton principia, that book about blood

Re: C.S. Lewis on the Reading of Old Books

#129

Post by smcameron »

NateEag wrote: post #125
smcameron wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes David Koresh an obvious lunatic? Are you serious?

David Koresh's followers were burned to death after he incited them to violence against the authorities. Jesus, if the Bible is to be believed, healed people, told his countrymen to pay taxes to the empire that had conquered and subjugated them, and died quietly after stopping one of his followers from starting a fight with the mob that took him to be murdered. They seem like pretty different people to me. Edit: fact…

Have you read the Bible? Jesus as the Bible presents him is quite different than the popular conception. I thought the popular conception was a kind of "dumbed down" version, but then, I read the Bible, and found that no, the Bible is even dumber, the popular conception is a "smartened up" version to make it seem more palatable.

Why should we suppose Jesus was not a lunatic and was instead a god? For that matter, Why shoukd we suppose Jesus was not a liar and instead was a god? (After all, Jesus proposed to teach others to be "fishers of men", what do you suppose he meant by that, other than to teach them to be con-men?). C.S. Lewis's arguments on these points are to me, not convincing, to say the least.

Post reply on HN