C.S. Lewis on the Reading of Old Books • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by NateEag » Tue, Dec 04, 2018, 1:15 PM UTC

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…

I have read the Bible several times. Not more than fifteen, I think.

I don't see much overlap between the popular conception of Jesus and who the Bible depicts him as, but that may be due to growing up in hyperconservative culture, which is oddly unfamiliar with the text it claims to be based on.

The more I've read the Bible, the more impressed I've become with Jesus as depicted. Your perception of him as necessarily a lunatic or liar puzzles me.

If he was insane, he shouldn't be able to make coherent arguments, let alone handily stump the most talented scholars in his culture. More to the point, I feel like he wouldn't have so consistently focused on taking care of others nor preached such a consistent message.

If he was a systematic liar, he must have had a motivation for being one. Perhaps I'm indoctrinated, but I can't see what that could have been based on my knowledge of the text.

I assume you're reading the Bible as a pseudohistorical document, with the a priori assumption that all the supernatural events must be false?

The arguments for him being God do largely hinge on the Bible being true (perhaps not in every single tiny detail, but certainly on the major claims). If his miracles are lies, then your position makes more sense to me (though they'd be lies from his followers, not him, and I'd wonder why the early Christians went with it, as they were promised the opposite of wordly wealth and power).

Note that I wasn't trying to defend Lewis' argument - if you don't find it convincing, you don't, and there's little point trying to persuade you otherwise.

I'm mostly puzzled by your perception of Jesus. I myself do believe he is God Incarnate, but I'm used to people seeing him as fictional, a moralist, or a guru, not a madman.

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

#162

Post by 0x445442 » Tue, Dec 04, 2018, 1:23 PM UTC

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.

Agreed... Man's sinful nature, wages of sin is death, deity of Christ and sacrificial atonement with man's sinful nature as root. It's the root premise which I find to be the biggest stumbling block for most.

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

#163

Post by sudosteph » Tue, Dec 04, 2018, 1:43 PM UTC

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…

I truly appreciate your insightful and detailed reply! I've got some reading and thinking to do for sure, your links about hermeticism are particularly new to me.

I've always found the "hidden" aspect of gnosis to be strange, and perhaps even antithetical. There's a piece in Thomas that's equivalent to Luke 8:16-17 which to me seems to scream "share what you learn", but with the historical norm of persecuting gnostics, it's not surprising that they valued some degree of secrecy for protection. Though you're right that it does seem to go further than that, ie, witholding info as a means of controlling membership in the group in many cases. But thankfully yes, the internet has blown the lid off many "secret" sources indeed!

Again, I appreciate you sharing all of this with me and look forward to learning more through continued study.

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

#164

Post by n4r9 » Tue, Dec 04, 2018, 2:29 PM UTC

brink wrote: post #105

smcameron wrote: post #90

Don't know why anyone pays any attention to C.S. Lewis. The books he's most famous for, (e.g. "Mere Christianity") are laughably bad.

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

I read it in my early twenties and found it unconvincing. To my young and admittedly probably overly stubborn mind, both the "trilemma" and the argument from morality appeared to be based on either: a lack of imagination; discomfort in the idea of a world without Christianity; or both.

Re. the trilemma: I wouldn't go so far as others here in saying that Jesus was "obviously a lunatic". I would say that there isn't enough in the bible or following writings to dismiss the idea as readily as Lewis seems to.

Re. the moral argument: maybe I'm unfairly advantaged by reading about evolutionary psychology but it's fairly natural/straightforward for me to conceive of a world in which humans share something like an innate core of moral values without any need for a supernatural explanation. In fact Lewis' apparent conviction about this reminds me of someone like Samuel Harris at the other extreme, who thinks we can do away with the is-ought problem by stipulating that there's a "worst possible world" which obviously all moral people would jointly want to move away from.

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

#165

Post by veddox » Tue, Dec 04, 2018, 2:33 PM UTC

auxbuss wrote: post #151

veddox wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Wulfs book was what got me to read the original Humboldt ;-)

I've admired Humboldt ever since I was a child - her book reawakened that interest and gave me the impetus to read some of his own writings.

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

#166

Post by creep » Tue, Dec 04, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

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?

Symbols reveal what is hidden to those in the know.

The bible is full of symbolism, real events in context, doctrine, wisdom, etc. It's not a matter of one language vs another, it's a matter of universal symbolism that can be applied to any age. The monkey as trickster, the poison as subversion. It is incredibly difficult to communicate complex thoughts in plain language, and even then it is liable to a misunderstanding. The bible is not without its misunderstandings, but the point of it is that it's made to be universal in a way that complex meaning is communicated to every age. Every age has its interpretation, and every age is structured by how it puts that interpretation into action.

It evolves with time.

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

#167

Post by creep » Tue, Dec 04, 2018, 5:51 PM UTC

kybernetikos wrote: post #152

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?

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.…

Yep. I wrote in a comment above that the bible evolves over time, depending on interpretation and context. That would seem necessary to me for teachings that are intended to survive into humanity's future.

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

#168

Post by anongraddebt » Tue, Dec 04, 2018, 9:57 PM UTC

jolmg wrote: post #95

anongraddebt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I discussed this problem with a professor-friend (philosophy of science) of mine. He made two solid points: (1) The pressure and rapidity of publishing - for many authors - means less time spent on individual projects. (2) Your expectations as a reader partially determine your judgement as to how much value a book has. As your expectations increase...

> (2) Your expectations as a reader partially determine your judgement as to how much value a book has. As your expectations increase... I understand this to mean that my ever-improving taste might make it seem like, as time goes by, a greater and greater proportion of books seem to be of low quality. However, it works the other way around, too: As people through new generations become ever more easily satisfied with…

Good point. I think both can be happening simultaneously.

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

#169

Post by budadre75 » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 1:17 AM UTC

How about old tech and science books? Anyone has experience in going back to the classics? My first thought is just they are outdated and not really relevant to the latest development and better explanations in the newer books, but I can be wrong.

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

#170

Post by inimino » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:12 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #147

inimino wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best geometry textbook hasn't changed for more than 2000 years. Mathematics textbooks are just as likely as anything else to suffer from modern pedagogical theories that have not been tested by time and will come to be regarded as mistakes.

Professors in universities don't consider Euclid's textbook the "best" currently available text in geometry or use it on 101 geometry (except as a historical appreciation/reference). It's the one with the most historical importance, but it hardly covers modern geometry.

Of course I'm aware of that, but it would be a shame if most people's first exposure to geometry was in university!

I would argue that the fact that it does not cover modern geometry is exactly what makes it valuable. Learning is best as a process of rediscovery.