Customer Reviews:
 'Oxford Retard' yet to receive a coherent rebuttal... November 18, 2008
I agree with the 1 star reviewers. This was no scholarly work. It wasn't nearly enough pages long. He didn't even use long words. If he was really an intellectual don't you think he would have used longer words?
Astounding October 31, 2008
This is an amazing read. The english is perfect and the logic is beautiful. Go ahead I dare you.
Recommend the writer to everyone September 30, 2008
Book was in okay shape but the material inside is a must for
anyone seeking truth.
Beautiful and Mentally Satisfying September 25, 2008
Reading this book I gained a logical confirmation of the natural beliefs of the heart, which in modern times are increasingly condemned as illogical. The best scholarly defense of religion/morality in general and Christianity in particular I've read! To make the most out of it, read "The Everlasting Man" by G.K. Chesterton, a book which greatly influenced Lewis and played a major role in converting him to theism: The Everlasting Man. These books go hand in hand. Read them both!!
 A Disappointing Defense September 14, 2008
3 out of 5 found this review helpful
C.S. Lewis presents a disappointing defense of Christianity and Christian Ethics. The primary advantage of this work is that it is clearly written, and uses many analogies to help illustrate its points to the reader. The major disadvantage, however, is that these analogies and analysis are far too simplistic. By introducing an analogy Lewis merely assumes it as proof of the very thing he is trying to argue. Page after page is filled with analogy and reasoning which seems to rest on an undefended assumption. His argument that Christ was either "Divine or a Madman" for calling himself the Son of God, and that therefore we must believe the former is really ludicrous. Any number of persons have been false prophets and made false claims, but because the claims are outrageous doesn't mean we must accept them. If Christ is any different, he has not shown how Christ's ideas were different, which is where he should have gone. I write this from the perspective of one friendly to the Christian religion and its ethics, and simply don't think Lewis has done a very good job in arguing for the Christian religion. Too many of his arguments are really thinly veiled theological assumptions that are uncritically presented in two-dimensional depth.
|
