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

151–160 of 179 posts

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

#151

Post by auxbuss »

veddox wrote: post #141
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…

Absolutely. I found reading A. v. Humboldt absolutely fascinating. (He has the added merit of not only having been a brilliant scientist, but also a gifted prose writer.) And James Watson's "The Double Helix" was an intriguing insight into a period in biology when much of what we take for granted was just being discovered. One gains a deeper understanding for any system of thought when one learns how it came to be.

Indeed.

re Alexander von Humboldt: Andrea Wulf’s, The Invention of Nature[0], is an excellent overview of his work and impact.

It's quite shocking how little he is known; somewhat similar to James Clerk Maxwell.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23995249-the-invention-o...

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

#152

Post by kybernetikos »

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?

If I were a supreme being trying to communicate with humanity, I would definitely and purposefully try to force them to engage their brains to understand what I was trying to say.

Most of the worst aspects of religion come when people don't think at all about nuance or that there might be a variety of reasonable views about how to understand a sacred text, or the need to apply it thoughtfully to their own situation. I'd want to make any sacred text I was inspiring as far from clear, modern and unambiguous as possible.

Not to mention, if your aim is to inspire a work that can be usefully read in nomadic farming communities thousands of years ago and also in the AI, VR infused future, you're going to need a certain amount of ambiguity.

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

#153

Post by robin_reala »

pmoriarty wrote: post #74
genghisjahn wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read Epictetus if you liked MAs Mediations.

Read Seneca if you liked Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. He's better than both, imo.

Nice CC0 ebooks of the above three:

https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/seneca/dialogues/aubrey-st...

https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/epictetus/the-enchiridion/...

https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/marcus-aurelius/meditation...

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

#154

Post by tomohawk »

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?

When you take a new job and there is a large, existing code base - you will not understand the whole of it immediately - even if you are already an expert in the technology/language. Some parts of it you will not understand until you cover the breadth of it, or understand more about the problem domain.

The Bible is the same way.

The Bible is a collection of many books written over a long period of time on many subjects: law, poetry, history, prophesy, etc. It was originally written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, and has flavorings from many cultures.

It can take a while to cover the breadth of it, but is not actually difficult to understand. However, you may have to go over the breadth of it a few times to understand some of the nuances.

If you're interested in studying it, there are many "read the Bible" plans out there. Pick one and give it a go. There are also many Bible study groups out there such as Bible Study Fellowship that are dedicated to helping people in this task.

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

#155

Post by [deleted] »

veddox wrote: post #140
panarky wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The "real message" of the Bible is clear and plain to anyone who reads it (no matter the language). The biggest arguments in Christianity are often on issues that the biblical writers considered side topics, and thus only touched briefly - such as the form of worship services.

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by yourik »

cousin_it wrote: post #93
camelNotation wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were part of the literature discussion group The Inklings, which met mostly on Tuesdays at The Eagle and Child pub in Oxford. Tolkien is the one that convinced Lewis to leave atheism behind and become a Christian. Tolkien's poem "Mythopoeia" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoeia_(poem) - was instrumental in that process. It's worthwhile to read it, but as a warning, it was written from one (highly educated)…

Thank you for that link. What an amazing poem! > All wishes are not idle That line alone could tip me over to Christianity. I'll have to think more about this.

I highly recommend delving more into both Tolkien and Lewis, if you haven't. Basically this single poetry line is reflected in so much of both their works: Silmarillion has several threads of this sentiment woven into it.

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

#157

Post by roca »

smcameron wrote: post #129
NateEag wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> what do you suppose he meant by that

That his disciples would carry on Jesus' work and teaching, which would attract more followers. That does not make them con-men. If they believed Jesus' message then of course they'd want as many people to receive it as possible, indeed it would be irresponsible to withhold it.

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

#158

Post by NateEag »

mjrpes wrote: post #137
NateEag wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 have the book and the argument is on pg. 33-34 in my edition: 1. There exists a moral law within ourselves that instructs us on what we "ought" to do. 2. There must be a "mind" behind this force, as "you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions". I think Lewis would revise or abandon his argument if he lived in our age.

Okay, thanks for the info.

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

#159

Post by jkingsbery »

davebryand wrote: post #97
sudosteph wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's very cool. I'm just now attempting to study religion from a historical standpoint myself, and have been finding myself drawn to older sources as well. Though I must ask, can you explain what you mean by "non-duality"? Is duality something you experienced from the Catholic perspective? I ask because I actually find myself very drawn to some ancient texts from Gnostic perspectives (Book of Thomas, some Mandean t…

Duality, for me, in the Catholic sense meant that there is "God" and then there is little old me. Non-duality is the realization that is available to all humans that we are not actually separate from the Tao, God, the Universe, or whatever label you care to place on the invisible power that governs the realm that we inhabit. You are an interconnected piece of life that through consciousness can impact future frames o…

As Lewis said, it's valuable to read old books. I would recommend Augustine's Confessions - he, having considered these various other ways of thinking, finally found his spiritual rest in Trinitarian Christianity.

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

#160

Post by 0x445442 »

sverige wrote: post #113
elihu wrote: post #98

In the realm of Christian theology (and perhaps other areas too), I think there's a related pitfall which is to assume that by reading the Bible exclusively, you can understand what the writers meant when they wrote it without confusing the issues with all the various modern debates about interpretation. The problem with that is that many passages could have several interpretations, and by default the average Bible r…

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennox continues the tradition in the 21st century.
Post reply on HN