Talk:C. S. Lewis/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Not an Atheist

While Lewis certainly claimed to be an atheist, his beleif in the supernatural, paritcularly the occult, demonstrates that he used this title in error. A statement should be added to the main article page explaining that Lewis was not an actual atheist.

Backsliding

Under "Conversion to Christianity," this sentence doesn't seem right, "In doing so, Lewis also held a few 'fringe' beliefs that most self-proclaimed Christians would not advocate. In his famous book Mere Christianity, he seems to take a loose stand that one can lose their salvation, among other things."

First, I'd like to know what "other things." Did he not accept everything in the C of E's "Book of Common Prayer," and the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds?

Second, is it not the case that the majority of Christians belong to a denomination that allows for the possibility of apostacy or "backsliding?" I know Calvinists, found mostly in Presbyterian and some Baptist churches, believe, "Once saved, always saved," but aren't they about the only ones? 68.215.209.144 06:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that those two sentences are poorly phrased. If nothing else, the second comically suggests that a Christian might lose his car keys. More seriously, the phrase "self-proclaimed Christian" is IMHO inflammatory. As to your second point (Apostacy, Backsliding, Falling Away), there is nothing fringe about that. As was pointed out in the lo-o-ong earlier discussion, Lewis had many sympathies with Roman Catholicism, which asserts that a Christian can fall from grace and not reach heaven. But I am pretty sure (I read it somewhere in Lewis) he was all for the creeds and maybe the Book of Common Prayer. BUT, there is a kernel of truth here; the sentences are faulty but onto something! Mere Christianity has been remarked (by whom? can't recall -- Norman F. Cantor maybe) as being much more dualistic than your typical work of Christian theology; doesn't Lewis himself point out this distinctive in MC or elsewhere? Here is my proposed revision: "Lewis's Christian beliefs were orthodox but his points of view were somewhat idiosyncratic: his famous book Mere Christianity is an unusually dualistic presentation of a Christian worldview. On some issues he sides with Catholicism over Protestantism, although he was an Anglican." Help me with the last part of this sentence -- the "some issues" part sounds lame. LandruBek 13:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How about: "On some theological matters he sides with Catholicism over Protestantism, although he was a member of the Anglican Church"? Martin 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Fringe" Beliefs?

". . . Lewis also held a few "fringe" beliefs that most self-proclaimed Christians would not advocate. In his famous book Mere Christianity, he seems to take a loose stand that one can lose their salvation, among other things."

The idea that someone can lose their salvation is hardly a "fringe" belief within Christianity. A "fringe" belief, by definition is not believed by a majority, while in fact, Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and Anglicanism advocate this position (as well as a good portion of Lutherans and other various Christians) which means that well over half of Christianity believes it. This is only a "fringe" belief in Evangelical Protestant circles and thus shows an Evangelical Protestant POV. IamFingolfin 13:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the idea that someone can lose their salvation common in the Anglican Church? Doesn't sound like a terribly Protestant idea to me. Martin 14:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an issue on which Christians are divided. Lewis' view would certainly not be seen as 'fringe'. DJ Clayworth 15:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Anglicans are not generally considered to be the same as other protestents. They are essentially catholics who believe in divorce, and view the monarch as God's rep on earth rather than the pope. Rituals and materials are interchangeable, and often are in small towns where one group or the other has lost the use of their facility and books through fire or other disaster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.131.222 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 10 May 2006.

I'm not sure the differences between Anglicans and non-Anglicans are quite as simple as that. Anglicans are certainly "closer" to Catholics in both theology and practice than some Protestant denominations (as one would expect given the raison d'être of the Anglican Church). Members of the Church of England believe in the British monarch as the Defender of the Faith, and as far as I remember, they accept the Pope is the successor to St. Peter (though they don't believe he has authority over all Christians), but I don't think Anglicans accept the British monarch as God's mouthpiece. Martin 00:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

They most certainly do not. (Most Anglicans do not live under monarchs in any case e.g. US Episcopalians.) Anglicans can be seen as both (a) catholics who reject the supremacy and infallibility of the bishop of Rome (hence their links with Old Catholics) and (b) protestants who retain traditional liturgical and sacramental forms including episcopal governance (hence their links with some Lutheran churches). They tend to have a more moderate stance on divorce than RCs but do not 'believe' in it (any more than RCs 'believe' in the annulment of marriage), and they reject the imposition of clerical celibacy. They also traditionally adopt Arminian (non-Calvinist) theological positions, which hold that God allows us sufficent free will to reject his salvation even if we had once accepted it (a rejection which he may foreknow, but does not predestine). Myopic Bookworm 08:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Anglicans cover a huge range of churchmanship. Some branches of the Anglican church have very similar beliefs to Catholics, but some would be closer to Lutherans or baptists. None "view the monarch as God's rep on earth". But I don't think the poster who posted that is coming back to read this. Anyway the sentence has been removed, so it's not important. DJ Clayworth 15:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted Myopic Bookworm's last two edits, as as far as I can see, there is nothing typically Anglican about believing in Mortal Sin or Purgatory. Also, I seem to recall that in Mere Christianity (or was it the The Problem of Pain?), Lewis described himself as neither particularly High or particularly Low, so "High Church" might not be the best way to describe him. Dissenting opinions are, as always, welcome. Martin 22:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mortal Sin and Purgatory are Catholic concepts, and while some Anglicans would agree with them they are certainly not part of Anglicanism as such. I think Lewis' churchmanship was probably pretty middle-of-the-road for his time because the evangelical wing of the CofE was in recession at the time. Nowadays he would probably be seen as upper-middle church. DJ Clayworth 13:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadomasochism charge and C.S. Lewis - A Vote

I decided a vote was the next appropriate step in relation to the C.S. Lewis and sadomasochism charge.

Here is the passage in question:

There is speculation that the intense discipline at Wynyard greatly traumatised Lewis and developed what biographer Alan Jacobs described as "mildly sadomasochistic fantasies". Whatever its origins, the fact of Lewis' early interest in sado-masochism and sexual torture is supported by letters he wrote to Arthur Greeves, which were sometimes signed "Philomastix" ("whip-lover"). www.newyorker.com/critics/content/articles/051121crat_atlarge 1 gloriabrame.typepad.com/inside_the_mind_of_gloria/2004/11/cs_lewissubmiss.html 2

Votes for current passage being left out entirely:

I vote the passage not be left in. ken 22:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I think it should be removed as well.KaB 15:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Petty, non-encyclopedic (voyeuristic), and pretty much speculation. Pollinator 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

non-encyclopedic (irrelevant) whether or not it it true. LloydSommerer 03:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sepculation. FranksValli 21:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of place unless true relevance can be shown. Seems to be inserted to titilate, not to educate. 24.165.7.61 00:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Votes for current passage be left in as is:

Leave it in and move on. Jonathan Tweet 02:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Leave it in and move on. A brief mention such as this is certainly appropriate. If found necessary to remove it, then IMHO replacing it with some similar but modified version would be very appropriate. Writtenonsand 18:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Votes for current passage being modified in some way but left in:

I'm not in favour of simple votes before something has been discussed. There seem to be enough sources to justify at least some discussion, although I'm concerned that both the webs sources given are basically commentaries on the same book, so really we only have one source. Plus I'm wondering what the time frame is for these letters; when were they written and when did they stop? I'm not sure that letters written in adolescence are always a good indicator of state of mind. DJ Clayworth 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If the passage is to be left in surely the source given should be the collection of letters from Lewis to Arthur Greeves rather than a very unreliable New Yorker article and a blog.

Lewis and Greeves carried on a correspondence until Lewis died but the last letter in which sadomasochism is mentioned, as far as I can tell, was written in 1917, when Lewis was eighteen. Some of what was written may simply have been boasting. We are talking about two teenage boys here, after all.KaB 15:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Like DJ, I think a vote is premature. I'm writing here to agree that it would be nice if we had better references. Al 17:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If I have to make a choice, I vote to keep it, but modify it to show that it can only ever be speculation (as per my above comments). Martin 00:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Bracketing “C.S. Lewis” with “sado- masochism” will get you 10,600 Google hits. I think the biography by A.N. Wilson leaves little doubt that Lewis had an interest in this subject. The question nobody seems to have addressed is "does this have any relevance to Lewis’s work"? I would argue that it does and that there are fairly plain sado-masochistic overtones to “The Lion , the Witch and the Wardrobe” in particular. That there was a sexual element to the witch’s exploitation of Edmund is evident in both the book and the recent film and many have found this uncomfortable. For this reason the innocuous and non intrusive references to Lewis’s sexuality should remain in the article. They are not irrelevant, they aid understanding of the work. The tendency to "whitewash" Lewis and present him as a plaster saint should be resisted.Dave59 15:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. Al 16:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A few comments to Dave59 and others. What the recent movie does is not relevant. Hollywood takes liberties. Second, you never showed that a work by Lewis is laced with sadomasochism. Next, there seems to be dissent in using the New Yorker and the Gloria Brame webpage as a source. Thus, I removed those footnotes. Lastly, I replaced "early interest" with teenager so things are more clear. ken 00:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I have reverted Ken's last two edits. Firstly, the New Yorker and the Gloria Brame pages are not in dispute, as far as they do not provide original research, but merely comment on material contained within Lewis' biographies. If they are misquoting what is said in the biographies, then of course they should be removed; my preference would be for a direct reference to the relevant books. Secondly, noting that Lewis may have had an intereast in S&M "as a teenager" does not make things any clearer. As far as I'm aware, there is absolutely no evidence that any sexual interests Lewis had (of whatever nature) were solely confined to his teenage years. I have mixed feeling myself about mentioning Lewis' sexual fetishes at all, but adding something that is complete speculation without any kind of supporting reference or evidence hardly makes thing better. Martin 02:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You did the right thing, Martin. Al 03:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour of retaining this passage in modified form. Lewis's sexual proclivities are in the public domain, both in his letters to Greeves and in the comments of various biographers. Literary critics are entitled to discuss the possible relation of this to his writing, even if one may disagree with their conclusions, and Wikipedia users should be able to find out that there is some basis to the issue, even if its importance is disputed. My only objection is to the phrase "sexual torture", which is far too emotive and graphic to refer to the mild sadism which is the most that can be deduced from the evidence: remove it, and I think the result should stand. Myopic Bookworm 09:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a reasonable objection. What would you like to replace that phrase with? Al 12:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "sexual torture" has't been in the article since I removed it on the 3rd of June; I had the same objection you are expressing, and I felt sado-masochism covered whipping and spanking. Although, maybe "mild sado-masochism" would be better. It's not as though he liked dressing in leather and torturing people (as far as we know anyway). Martin 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then it sounds like the current version is generally acceptable. All things being equal, I prefer that text be stable, but we can revisit this in the future if any new considerations come up. Al 17:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I can’t resist one final comment. I did not “show” that there is anything masochistic about “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” because I didn’t think I had to.

There is (of course) nothing overt or explicit, but ,lets face it, Jadis is a 6 foot 2 ice-queen with waist length raven hair. Her “pale, slender” arms have the strength to bend iron bars. She enjoys enfolding naughty little boys in her fur wrap and filling their mouths with pink sticky confectionary. She is accompanied by a servile dwarf who addresses her as “Your Majesty”. She carries a whip. I could go on.

Am I alone in raising a quizzical eyebrow?Dave59 18:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I decided to go straight to the horse's mouth. Lewis himself writes in the preface to The Problem of Pain that "I have never for one moment been in a state of mind to which even the imagination of serious pain was less than intolerable." Lewis here explicitly denies any charge of masochism that one can level at him. Perhaps forgetful or hyperbolic, he even denies ever being masochistic. This doesn't deal with issues of sadism, but combined with Lewis' other writings, how can one believe that sadomasochism followed Lewis in his later life? His words on love, marriage, and sex are numerous and easy to find: read them to find out what Lewis thought. The real issue here is whether or not one buys into Freudian speculation, whether straight from the mouth of biographers or original research by Wikipedians. I, personally, can't stand this psychoanalysis (even by qualified biographers) of events and thoughts from letters nearing a century in age. Perhaps it deserves mention in the article, but it would not find its way in if I were the sole author of it. Srnec 19:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To be fair I do remember reading somewhere a letter from Lewis in which, following his experiences in WW 1.(or it could have been after learning of the holocaust) ,he says that if he ever had an interest in “cruelty” he was now cured of it. Unfortunately I can't remember where I came upon this and can't now find it. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Lewis was an out and out sado- masochist and I agree that his Christian writing suggests a deeply moral and thoughtful man who would not knowingly hurt anyone. Nevertheless the Philomastix letters do exist and they are in the public domain. I still think there are some distinctly kinky elements to the childrens stories (which haven’t stopped me from enjoying them and reading them to my own children) and ,Godless scientific rationalist that I am ,I find these idle speculations interesting rather than distasteful.Dave59 20:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Srnec, but I think that's a very simplistic way to look at it. Being in serious pain is of course intolerable to most people. In The Problem of Pain however, Lewis states that pain isn't always bad, and a small amount can even be pleasurable (I believe he gives the example of sore feet after a day's hiking). And I think it woud be inherently POV for us to state that there is something unchristian or immoral about mild spanking and eroticism, or are we to believe that Christians only do it in the missionary position once a month with the lights off? ;) Martin 23:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Martin, I never suggested adding anything to the article, certainly nothing about Christian morality. Indeed, I never referenced his Christianity. I suggest that all of this "idle speculation" (to borrow from Dave59) is not encyclopaedic material. A greater word on his obsession (that may be a strong word) with the darker elements of Norse mythology would be more to the point, it is certainly something that Lewis himself admits of and it has indisputable bearing on his writings: The Pilgrim's Regress addresses the nihilism he later saw in it and Surprised by Joy accounts his own experiences with it, yet such mythology still greatly influenced his fiction and his nonfiction.

To Dave59: as a scientific rationalist, what is your opinion of psychoanalysis? I can find nothing scientific or rational about it and there is something distinctly distasteful to me about speculating about someone's hundred year-old fetishes, but as it is not original research, I cannot really oppose such a small addition. Srnec 01:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Srnec, my reference to Lewis' Christianity was in response to Dave59's comment that Lewis' "Christian writing suggests a deeply moral and thoughtful man who would not knowingly hurt anyone". I'm sorry for any confusion. As for your last comment, I do have some reservations myself about mentioning any of this in the article, but don't forget that it is not we who are indulging in "idle speculation", but Lewis' biographers. All we have done is noted this in an entirely factual manner; proving whether Lewis had any sort of sexual peculiarities is of course beyond the scope of the article. Martin 00:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the second of the two sentences, the one that details his letters to Greeves. If we're going to include this information then I believe that it should be as accurate as possible, so I added some numbers instead of the vague amounts that were there before. I don't think this adds to the article, but I believe it puts the quantity in perspective. And although I'm clearly all for accuracy, I should point out that my page number in the citation is a guess. I forgot to write down the page number when I looked up the book in the library. Sorry about that. LloydSommerer 22:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, the letters he signed in this manner were letters 53 (pp 160-162), 55 (pp 162-165), 56 (pp 166-168), and 57 (pp 168-170). Those page numbers refer to the 1st Collier Books edition (I think; that's what our catalog says and I forgot to write down the edition when I found the books in the stacks; let me know if you need me to double-check that). I didn't see anything in the index or the introduction regarding these topics so it's possible there are other letters or references in letters that I missed. --ElKevbo 23:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done both of you. You've done your homework and put the situation into its true perspective. 24.165.7.61 00:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Deeper experience"?

The section on Conversion to Christianity contains a sentence that makes very little sense to me. In context, here it is:

This interpretation appears to be contradicted by a letter to a friend, in which he said: "all religions, no, mythologies to give them their proper name, have no proof whatsoever!" Later in his life, however, he began to believe in a deeper experience of some fundamentals of Western thought.

At first I thought the last sentence was a non sequitur, then I thought it was POV, and now I think it's just generally nonsensical. I'm not familiar with Lewis's conversion, though; this is actually why I was reading the article to begin with. Does that sentence make sense to anyone else, or can I delete it? JoomTory 00:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears fairly meaningless to me. Myopic Bookworm 09:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole paragraph really isn't very useful. It's talking about Lewis "being angry with God for not existing", which in reality is trying to express the paradox that young Lewis didn't intellectually believe there was a God, but nonetheless felt anger towards him. The paragraph is trying to turn that into rational coherent statements and then pick holes in Lewis' view, which strikes me as a singularly pointless exercise. I think the best bet is to leave Lewis' own words to stand alone. I think they sum the situation up better than any interpretation is going to. DJ Clayworth 15:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That sits well with me. -Shazbot85 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Reconversion?

I would like to erect this sentence up for discussion: "When he later wrote an account of his adult reconversion to Christianity". I hold that if Lewis was an atheist throughout his youth and up to his adult conversion, he could not be "reconverted", but rather he was simply "converted". If this raises no serious issue or discussion, I'm going to make the edit. -Shazbot85 05:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited it. If this brings up any discussion I'll gladly engage. I also made some other minor grammatical edits. No idea or fact changing involved. It's in the edit history if you want to review. -Shazbot85 06:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that Lewis was born into a practising Christian family, but he gradually grew away from the Christian faith. I'm not sure whether Lewis could be said to have been a Christian, so I don't know whether "converted" or "reconverted" is appropriate. However, he did refer to himself as a convert so perhaps that is the best choice. 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny that he was or that they were. However, your family being Christian doesn't make you a Christian, as Lewis would have well recognized, for there is no salvation through association, only faith. This is not the place for me to bash on "reconversion", but I truthfully don't think the term can be held up here as he was merely associated with Christianity through his family. -Shazbot85 03:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lewis himself always referred to it as a 'conversion" not a 'reconversion'. That should be a good guide for us. DJ Clayworth 03:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds solid to me. Anyone catch a wiff of the removal of the deviant sex claim? Check it on the edit page. I thought it was sourced fairly well, providing a link to a New Yorker article and a page for a Lewis biography. I dunno if the information they provide is nuetral or unbiased, however. If it's one thing I hate, it's philosophy students that vehemantly defend their philosophers from factual scrutiny. I'll be derned before I do it with one of my theologians or writers. -Shazbot85 03:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's Make a Push for a Good article Rating

What can we do to start improving this article to meet the standards of WP:WIAGA, or the GA (Good Article) standards. Give them a read if you already havn't and let's start picking through and get this article ready for review. -Shazbot85 15:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal life

Why does this article make no mention of his personal life, but merely his career. I'm thinking of the fact that one of his step-sons converted to Orthdox Judaism, which must have had an interesting effect on Lewis. Dev920 22:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This article does speak of his personal life. Conversion, career, early influences, all seem fairly personal to me. I was unaware of his step-sons' conversion to Orthodox Judaism. If you can source it and include it in a fitting manner, do so! -Shazbot85 00:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

His step sons were from a Jewish background. One eventually embraced his roots and one embraced Christianity. What does that have to do with Lewis? 24.165.7.61 07:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and then it stops there. It's like he became a writer and stopped existing as a person. And I would source it but I don't know where to put it. Dev920 00:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would start a new section for sheerly biographical information. Maybe plug it after or before the sections relating to his career information. -Shazbot85 00:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User:24 is right. How come we never noticed this before? There seems to be no section about his Marriage to Joy Davidman. Did someone remove a section while we weren't looking? DJ Clayworth 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know whether something fell out, but it seems a significant omission, so I've put something in. Myopic Bookworm 09:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Dev920 11:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Auto peer review suggestions

C. S. Lewis

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[1]
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.

Removed some stand alone years as I don't believe they really provide context for the article and most of them are linked elsewhere anyway. If someone disagrees about the lack of context feel free to revert but please explain why here so I'll have a better understanding. -Shazbot85^Talk 15:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

~~If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.~~
When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.^[2]
As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
~~As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.~~
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
~~Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.~~^[3]
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.^[4]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
- apparently
- is considered
- might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).^[5]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
~~You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 2(c) highly recommends.~~
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. ^[6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 06:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Mal! Martin 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

reference section

I don't think this is a huge deal, but I don't see any reason to change the citation style currently in use on the article. I believe that cite.php will be the best referencing style someday, but I don't think it is now, and it has some serious drawbacks.

The largest concern in my mind is that because of the "inline" placement of the reference the article is harder to edit for new users. There are other issues, and you can read about them at meta:cite and in way way too much detail on the associated talk page. Clearly, my main concern and a host of others are being addressed, and once they are cite.php will be the way to go.

I chose the harvard reference/citation style when I added the reference section, not because I think it is the wave of the future, but because I think it will be the easiest to convert to cite.php once the kinks are ironed out, while being easy for new editors in the mean time. LloydSommerer 03:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have already changed the reference style over; I feel if we want to get this article up to FA article quality, then we should heed the advice given at WP:WIAFA. I also find it more useful that all references (whether they be webpages or books) appear in the same format in the text (i.e as a footnote).

I admit, I hadn't stopped to consider that there would de dissenting opinions. I would be interesed in hearing others' take on this issue. Martin 03:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA doesn't require cite.php, it requires inline citation, so we are fine with the Harvard Citation style. There are some other guidelines at Citing sources#How and where to cite sources that should also be considered. LloydSommerer 23:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Declined a CBE

The article puts Lewis in Category:People who have declined a British honour, but currently gives no details. A little Googling found that Lewis was offered a CBE (see Order of the British Empire) in 1951 by the new Churchill government, but declined on the basis that:

There are always knaves who say, and fools who believe, that my religious writings are all covert anti-Leftist propaganda, and my appearance in the Honours List wd. of course strengthen their hands. It is therefore better that I shd. not appear there.

—John G West Jr, citing Letters of C.S. Lewis by W.H. Lewis (ed)

Space Trilogy

I would like to pull most or all of the paragraph(s) on The Dark Tower out of this article, despite my hard work to make it readable and neutral. What do you think of moving that whole section to the Space Trilogy page? It's really not that important in the larger scheme of Lewis's life & work, and it takes up half the section. Mdotley 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Martin 02:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Links in Lead

Concerning the recent removal of all links from the lead: After reading Wikipedia:Guide to layout, I'm not convinced that the intention of the phrase "Avoid links in the summary" is a prohibition on all links in the lead. It may very well be that the current lead was over linked (I couldn't say either way), but I don't think removing all of the links is necessary. After all, the example leads on Wikipedia:Guide to layout do have links in them, and Wikipedia:Lead section does not mention avoiding links at all. LloydSommerer 00:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your objections, but in this article the lead functions as the summary, and Wikipedia:Guide to layout recommends avoiding links in the summary. Everything covered in the lead is mentioned in more detail later in the article, so it makes more sense to link from there. I guess there's no real problem linking to things if it's necessary (the dates should certainly be linked, and I'll do that now), but I feel it should be avoided if the topics mentioned are expanded upon elsewhere in the article. Martin 14:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've went and linked some items in the lead because I saw that it looked rather bare of them. Feel free to de-wikify some or all as is seen fit per MOS or whatever. --Mal 18:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

For more information...

The author section states "(For more information about those works, see their individual articles.)". I think this should maybe be moved or deleted.--roger6106 14:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've made a few changes that I believe to be more in line with the Manual of Style. Martin 13:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That looks good to me.--roger6106 13:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Statue of Lewis

The sentencs referencing the bronze statue of Lewis seems like it should be moved or rewritten.--roger6106 14:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Granted, it could do with being expanded a bit, but what about it do you particularly dislike? Martin 12:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was reading the section "Legacy" and that line seems out of place. The section rapidly jumps from thought to thought.--roger6106 13:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean; it reads more like a list than prose. There is also a C. S. Lewis mural in Belfast - next time I'm up there, I'll see if I can get a picture of it and we can maybe put them in a separate section. There are quite a few Lewis-themed memorials and events in Northern Ireland as I'm sure you can imagine. Martin 16:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Critics of Lewis

I most welcome all suggestions in regards to this section. Currently, it is very difficult to find a specific critic of Lewis' who overtly mentions his name when discussing views of his type. This limits human history to only that of the past 50 years and implies none can be a critic of his philosophy, to which the number of critics of this type of philosophy is endless, unless Lewis and these critics have a sparing of words. This makes "official criticism" of Lewis' all but impossible. As an aside, perhaps the most famous critic of Lewis' philosophy is Freud. PBS even did a highly publicized documentary on this "sparing" yet to my knowledge Freud never uttered a syllable about Lewis.

To summarize, I hope we can resolve this issue by thinking of a new proposition. Limiting criticism to "specific mentions" is not realistic in my view and I would very much like for others to suggest new alternatives. I welcome all suggestions and hope we can all agree on a suitable solution.

74.129.230.61 18:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi 74.129.230.61 (I'd encourage you to register if you're planning on making major contributions), I appreciate that due to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy you feel that all sides to an issue should be covered in each article, but the examples you have added to the article are not specifically relevant to CS Lewis, and so cannot constitute a criticism section. Only criticism directed specifically at Lewis would be appropriate; there are hundreds of biographical articles on Wikipedia that you could add the same section to. Just because Lewis was a Christian, it doesn't mean that it is appropriate to add a general critique of Christian thought - there are other places on Wikipedia for that purpose.

As I suggested in my edit summary, if you want direct criticism of Lewis, check out Philip Pullman's opinions of the Chronicles of Narnia:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/guardianhayfestival2002/story/0,11873,726818,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4347226.stm

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_051017narnia.shtml

Martin 20:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removing the criticism but on slightly different grounds: criticism of Lewis' philosophy and intellectual works should be placed in another article, perhaps in a unique, dedicated article. I'd prefer this article remain biographical. A brief mention of direct criticism and notable critics would be welcome; large new sections of text not directly related to Lewis and his life would not be welcome. --ElKevbo 20:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Martin's statement. If "specific mentions" cannot be found a criticism section probably isn't needed. --roger6106 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the objections mentioned have been fair. Perhaps "criticism of Lewis" is too ambiguous a term as it seems to imply the dissenters specifically directed their comments at Lewis. Instead they deal entirely with Lewis' philosophy. I do think this can get a bit misconstrued, Lewis was an amazing thinker and eloquent writer but I am reminded that these and his physical attributes were not what made him a revered thinker. His praise is directed at his theory on Christian morals and its adaptation to the modern era, perhaps it was inappropriate to suggest Lewis' critics directed their dissents at anything other than his philosophy. As a result of this I will appropriately change the name of the section. Perhaps 'alternative views' would be more appropriate as this falls in with all other religious Wikipedia articles. I think it best if we start with some brief material and then add in more once things have been agreed upon.

74.129.230.61 03:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I think you misunderstand the objections being raised. It is not merely that the material is not suited to a "criticism" section; it is not suitable at all. What people like Freud might have possibly thought of people like Lewis, if he had ever got round to thinking about it, while may be interesting to speculate upon, is not really terribly relevant to anything at all. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and inclusion of this kind of speculation violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. What's more, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Content has to be relevant to the subject.

If you can find verifiable quotes from notable persons, specifically naming and criticising Lewis, his works, or the beliefs he advocated, then by all means add it to the article. I'm sure you won't have to look very far. Check out the links I provided above for starters. But I feel strongly that your recent addition is not appropriate. Martin 04:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The responses relative to criticism have been most helpful but I do not think they conform to Wikipedia policy. If we are to limit our definition of criticism to that which "specifically names and criticizes Lewis", Lewis' most famous documentary involving Freud was mistaken. Let me explain, Lewis scholars maintain Freud is his biggest critic, yet our definition implies he is not. Perhaps the specific page here can shed more light on this; also Wikipedia’s policy is best exemplified on Saint Paul's page. Indeed, it is not Wikipedia policy to limit criticism to that which "specifically names and criticizes Lewis", rather it requires listing alternative views that only need critique the philosophy, not the person. In other words, criticism of Lewis need only address Lewis' views on moral relativity and moral authority, Wikipedia does not require the critics mention Lewis in a derogatory way.

Also I think if one were to criticize Lewis overtly the critic is more concentrated on him than his philosophy. Only those of a lowly origin would stoop to this level, this is perhaps why it is not Wikipedia policy that critics be limited to this view. Indeed, it is unfair to completely ignore the critiques offered by Freud and Einstein because they were not uneducated. They were instead objective scholars who critiqued Lewis philosophy without ostracizing him, views only appropriate for Wikipedia. I think it best if we continue to reference Wikipedia's policy and we keep the web page objective. If not, criticisms of Lewis would entail only those of biased viewpoints, these are usually hodge-podge anyway; they are most often rants against Lewis rather than scholarly debates. Do continue to offer suggestions; if not the critics section will only list opinions on Lewis that degrade him rather than offer suggestions as to how to fix some views.

74.129.230.61 15:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If Lewis scholars maintain that Freud is Lewis' biggest critic, then a quote from them, with a source or reference, could be appropriate for the article. However, criticism of the sort whereby we say "X held view A, and Y held view B, therefore they would have disagreed" is not informative. It would only be informative if Lewis originated the theology he espoused; in that case a criticism of said theology would of course deserve a mention in the article. St. Paul was the founder of Pauline theology, so criticism of Pauline theology would be appropriate in Paul's article. The point of a criticism section is not to offer a balanced viewpoint, or present the opinions of those who who are unbiased, or present "constructive criticism"; if a notable person criticises Lewis, then it deserves a mention, no matter how unfair or unjust or biased that criticism is. Wikipedia is not censored, but it is also not a soapbox. It is not necessary to present a case for and against every opinion a person holds.

As I said above, the kind of speculation the PBS documentary engages can be interesting, but it is nothing more than that: speculation. Who knows what Freud would have made of Lewis' writings if he had lived to read them? The documentary seems to be about atheism vs. theism, rather than Freud vs. Lewis, and they could have chosen any prominent atheist and Christian as its subjects.

If you have a look at the criticism section I have added, you'll see that it contains direct criticism of Lewis' work, and there isn't a single word of it not supported by the references given. What's more, it is the people quoted who are doing the criticising, not the editors of Wikipedia; this is how it should be. Martin 16:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You make a valid case for criticism but I wish to maintain this is not "how it should be". If this were indeed how it should be, Lewis' critics would be limited to those already mentioned. I do not understand how interpretations of Narnia perversion are worthy of mention yet we are to obstain from scholarly views which contrast with Lewis simply because they do not mention him. In summary the inference given that one must directly critique Lewis is wrong, demonstrated in Saint Paul's webpage. It is not Saint Paul that the criticism is over, it is his views. I do not wish to throw rocks from an ivory tower, but I wrote most of those particular criticisms and am familar with Wikipedia policy. I have already demonstrated how criticism is not limited to those who argue against Lewis specifically, one only need argue against his views. If we are to accept the above argument, we are accepting the idea that Lewis was not original in his apologetics, such a suggestion denies the reason he is held in reverence to begin with. This view therefore diminishes the importance of Lewis as a thinker and subsequenetly causes critics of Lewis' to be restricted to only those who stoop to personal insults and perverse suggestions

I have institued information in constrast with Lewis' views, it is not the purpose of the writer to pass arguments as you are indeed correct, however it is the responsibility of the writer to present various viewpoints, to which seem to be entirely fitting with the current critics section of the webpage.

please re-explain your inference that implies critics of Lewis must overtly criticize him in a derogatory manner rather than address his views. I think you'll find your proposition is implausible, this would imply that critics of Einstein's view of Quantum theory were only critics if they critisized him, thus implying critics of Lewis' views on moral authority must therefore criticize Lewis. This proposition would render critics illogical barbarians who are forced to pass off Lewis in a derogatory way. I am simply seeking to understand your argument. This matter can easily be solved if we change the topic to "criticism of Lewis' views" or "alternative views" which I have prior suggested, these suggestions that are in complete conformity with Wikipedia and are encouraged viewpoints for religious figures.

74.129.230.61 17:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

How can Freud be a critic of Lewis' view on Christianity, when Freud was dead when Lewis wrote most of them? Freud was not "Lewis' biggest critic" unless he haunted him from beyond the grave. Lewis wasn't even a Christian when Freud wrote Civilization and Its Discontents, so how can it be presented as a critique of Lewis' religion beliefs? Freud was a critic of religion, not CS Lewis. This is an article about CS Lewis, not religion.

Similarly, Einstein did not argue that Lewis was mistaken in his beliefs about moral authority coming from God, but that everyone who held those beliefs was mistaken. It would be appropriate to mention this in an article about those beliefs, not an article about CS Lewis.

Have you thought through the logical consequences of your arguments? Why does Lewis get singled out for special treatment? Should every biographical article contain criticism of the individual's beliefs? Are you seriously arguing that every biographical article about someone who believed in divine moral authority, should contain a section detailing how Einstein disagreed with them? You'd better get busy! Martin 18:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Martin. Do we need to add an extensive criticism section to the articles on Philip Pullman, et al? Pat Mustard 18:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement "it would only be informative if Lewis originated the theology he espoused" rebuffs the newest one suggesting one shouldn’t refute Lewis' views because the page is about Lewis. Yet Lewis' is revered for his views and his apologetics proclaiming a divine moral authority. He cannot be revered for the later and yet rejected for the former. If this is difficult to understand, either Lewis' views are irrelevant and thus should not be mentioned on the page at all, or they are relevant, and criticism of his views are warranted and encouraged by Wikipedia policy. I ask that you stop appealing to diversion in this discussion, you should attempt to research the information and not appeal to Wikipedia policy, and then the idea that critics must address his name, and then the idea that he one shouldn't rebuff views he had... all of which lead me to simply pointing their contradictions. I will repost my edited edited edited version and await a new excuse. I would prefer a liaison the more and more this goes on as I feel this is not worth the trouble over an individual who expresses bias over the man in question. 74.129.230.61 20:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon, you have pointedly ignored almost every single argument I have raised regarding the addition of this material, and what's more, you have ignored the views that ElKevbo, roger6106, Pat Mustard and myself have expressed here.

1. Have you added this information to every Christian's biography? If not, why not?

2. Why should an article about CS Lewis attempt to rebuff his personal beliefs?

3. How can Freud be a critic of Lewis' work when he never read it?

4. Should every article about a Christian have a section about how Einstein would disagree with their views? If not, why must the Lewis article?

A "critic" of Lewis either criticises some aspect of his work, or criticises him personally. None of the quotes you added are about Lewis' work, and none of them knew Lewis personally, therefore they are not relevant. Just because Lewis was a Christian, it does not mean that it is appropriate, informative, or desirable to add refutations to various aspects of Christian doctrine to the article. The material you have added is not criticism of CS Lewis, it is criticism of theism and Christianity in general. There is already a separate article dealing with objections to Christianity, as you well know.

I am more than prepared to discuss this here, but I really can't stress enough how little I feel this adds to the article. What's more, I resent being referred to as an "individual who expresses bias over the man in question". I'm not sure what bias you're referring to; I took the time to create a section dealing with criticism of Lewis' work partly to counter any accusation that I'm being "biased", but that doesn't seem to have been noticed. Martin 20:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this section in a biography of Lewis, especially dealing with quotes from a man speaking 40 years after Lewis' death who never knew him? That might be appropriate to the biography of the person doing the critisizing if it is relevant to him; it is not relevant to Lewis. If you look at the biography for Walt Disney, you won't find a section of criticisms about how unrealistic Bambi was and he should have had the animals eating each other (there were many references to that over the years). It just doesn't belong in a personal biography. Bbagot 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow up: I have checked other biographies including Al Sharpton, Idi Amin, and Adolph Hitler. None have a critics section. This seems greatly out of place. The critisims should be under discussed under the separate links if they are appropriate at all. Bbagot 16:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how to properly formuate an answer so you can understand, I acknowledge your addition of the criticism section, for that I am greatful. I will try to elaborate once again on why your argument against a critique of Lewis' views is flawed.

A-Either Lewis is unique in his views and thus revered...

or

B-Or he is not and not revered

You have been arguing position B, Lewis is a simply a "Christian", his Wikipedia page is in no way unique as he is not unique in his views whatsoever. This in turn causes all of us to question why he is revered in the first place.

This question is answered in proposition A, which you argued for earlier, if someone indeed is unique in their views and revered, they therefore warrant there views being listed on Wikipedia. CS Lewis cannot be a mere Christian who holds views just as everyone else, yet be revered for his bourgeois views. If you still cannot understand, I have an example:

A man named Ptolemy believed the universe revolved around the earth... a most ridiculous view. Ptolemy is unique in this view because it was supported by the church for 1500 years yet it is now openly accepted as wrong. His Wikipedia mentions his unique view and welcomes a view that discusses its fault. CS Lewis holds unique views also, one's that are mentioned on his Wikipedia web page, his views are open to discussion if indeed some find them faulty. This is what you have not grasped.

I will reference your last response: "A critic of Lewis either criticizes some aspect of his work, or criticizes him personally." His work, like Ptolemy, is his views about "theological morality". What this means is an authority is required for morality, he argues for this method via moral relativity in promotion of Christianity. These two views which are most unique to Lewis are the background for all his books, all of his writings, and the sole reason for why he is revered. To deny this is to deny that he is an apologist. If we are to accept your statement, we would limit critics only to those who mention "mere Christianity" or "the chronicles of narnia". We do not do such things in relationship to Ptolemy or any other thinker who held infamous views... much less I do not understand how one must criticize one of Lewis' work, when all of them are founded on the same fundamental viewpoint. I would also like to mention I have exhausted myself going through your arguments to refute them. Please look at any other wikipedia webpage, I do not honestly understand how a fan of CS Lewis, (I am simply assuming), can take the stance that Lewis is not unique in his views, therefore criticism is not warranted. That is simply preposterous. I will continue trying to come to an agreement. 74.129.230.61 21:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Lewis' views about Christianity are notable because he was a Christian apologist author. Criticism of his views should be in the form of criticism of his work. Goodness knows there's enough of it; I don't quite understand why you are choosing to focus on this obviously disputed "2nd-hand" criticism, when there is so much direct criticism of his work out there. I do grasp that some disagree with Lewis' theology, but you have not added any criticisms of it to the article. Noting that the prophet Mohammed disagreed with Lewis' views on the resurrection would be just as relevant as the material you continue to add. What exactly do you mean by "he argues for this method via moral relativity"? Moral relativity and absolute morally are two mutually exclusive ideas.

"Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate." You have me interested though; what aspects of Lewis' personal beliefs do you find unique? If there is some aspect of theology that originated with Lewis, then it would be appropriate to talk about it in the article. However, Freud certainly cannot have anything to say about the matter, as he was dead.

If Lewis' ideas were unique, how do you hope to present arguments against them using general critiques of Christianity? If he was unique, surely only criticism of him specifically would be appropriate?

I have moved the disputed text here to the talk page. I feel it's the best place for it until some sort of consensus is reached, and it makes it easier to discuss it. Martin 21:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous poster completely misses the point of the respect in which Lewis is held. It is not b/c his ideas were new, but b/c he expressed them in a way that resonated with his readers. Mdotley 22:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the 1st time I've tried entering a Wiki discussion; please let me know if I do something wrong.

I find this discussion very interesting, but I notice that there is one thing overlooked, throughout. It is this statement: "Lewis anomalous philosophy promotes Christianity through the divine command theory, or through the belief that morals must be based on an authority such as God."

In fact, Lewis explicitly denied believing this. E.g., "Poison of Subjectivisim" in Xian Reflections:

"...if good is to be defined as what God commands, then [it is] emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us..."

He acknowledges the dilemma between "good because God says it is" and "God says so, because it is good", & grants it is, at that level, unresolvable. He suggests the resolution will lie in the nature of God, a view I think he's getting from the doctrine of the simplicity of the divine nature, though I don't claim to understand it very well. Anyway, it's not my intention to defend the position, just to point it out.

I want to make one distinction here. It is one thing to attack this view as incomplete (it is) or incoherent (it may well be). It looks as if the common assumption, in the above discussion, is that any defense of moral absolutes must be, per se, based on the "command" model. This would seem to be incorrect; at least in Lewis's case. He did, on this point, agree with Kant. Of course, anyone may reasonably argue that Lewis's position (or any other "absolutist's") will ultimately lead to the command view. But it doesn't follow from this that he, in fact, took the command position. Probably none of us sees the ultimate conclusions to which our views lead, & we'd all probably be appalled at some of them.

I don't know if this discussion is still active, but I thought this worth pointing out.George LeS

Disputed text (see discussion above)

Though there are some critics who strictly critique Lewis' works, there are many more scholars who critique his philosophy. Academic scholars who address Lewis' Christian philosophy reside mainly in the field of moral philosophy or the discernment and establishment of right and wrong.

Lewis anomalous philosophy promotes Christianity through the divine command theory, or through the belief that morals must be based on an authority such as God. This theory is seen as a self-defeating to some philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Moral philosopher and Professor of philosophy J. David Velleman of New York University writes about this theory:

If we were subject to moral requirements because they were imposed on us by God, the reason would have to be that we are subject to a requirement to do what God requires of us; and the force of this latter requirement, of obedience to God, could not itself depend on God's authority. (To require obedience to God on the grounds that God requires it would be viciously circular.) The requirement to obey God's requirements would therefore have to constitute a fundamental duty, on which all other duties depended; and so God's authority would not account for the force of our duties after all... We can always ask why we should obey a particular source of authority, whether it be a desire, the U.S. Government, or even God. But the requirements of morality, being categorical, leave no room for questions about why we ought to obey them...moral requirements must not depend for their force on any external source of authority. ^[7]

In addition, Lewis' support of morality based on authority, seen in almost everyone of his works, specifically in Mere Christianity, is mistaken to some such as Einstein because it associates ethics with religious views. Einstein argues that this view is not necessary and instead provokes the idea of a personal God, a view he most disagrees with in regards to Lewis. Einstein further maintains that ethics should not be associated with a God, a view that requires much "conscious thought and self-education." ^[8] To illustrate, Einstein states in his The World as I see it that views such as Lewis on moral authority are wrong, furthermore, they are simply based on needs for love and guidance:

File:Einst 3.jpg

Albert Einstein, picture taken in 1940.

The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes, the God who, according to the width of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even as such, the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing, who preserves the souls of the dead... Only individuals of exceptional endowments and exceptionally high-minded communities, as a general rule, get in any real sense beyond this level...A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it goes through... A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear and punishment and hope of reward after death

— Albert Einstein, Religion and Science, The World as I see it

Lewis' unequaled apologetics also were consistent with arguments against moral relativity, or arguments against the notion that morals should be based on relative circumstances. This theory which Lewis aptly argues in most all of his works is condoned by many moral philosophers but none so much as the founder of modern psychology, Sigmund Freud. Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, believed that Lewis' disposition to argue against moral relativity in favor of the divine command theory was psychoanalytically, or genetically, explainable. Freud's explanation for this is even the subject of a documentary, ^[9] as he maintained that Lewis' did not care for objective analysis of a system of morals, but instead was in search of meaning in life and the desire to limit human suffrage. Freud maintained Lewis did this through the promotion of Christianity:

File:Freud24.jpg

The founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud.

[Man's religion is a] system of doctrines and promises which on the one hand explains to him the riddles of this world with enviable completeness, and, on the other, assures him that a careful Providence will watch over his life and will compensate him in a future existence for any frustrations he suffers here. The common man cannot imagine this Providence otherwise than in the figure of an enormously exalted father. Only such a being can understand the needs of the children of men and be softened by their prayers and placated by the signs of remorse. The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise about this view of life…[Religion's] technique consists in depressing the value of life and distorting the picture of the real world in a delusional manner – which presupposes an intimidation of the intelligence.

— Sigmund Freud, Civilization and it’s Discontents

Perhaps it should be my goal to explain why the issue is important. There are two themes:

1)the divine command theory is inadequate for a system of morals 2) promoting the divine command theory or moral absolutism by refuting moral relativity is to poke fun at another's 'perceived strife' 3) Due to #2, moral relativity is insufficient grounds to defend Lewis view of Christianity objectively

I think each point is relevant because each point is essentially Lewis' philosophy. Lewis claims 1) the divine command theory is necessary.... 2) moral relativity is wrong.. and 3) Since number two is wrong, therefore one.

Others may be more concerned with the nuances that Lewis' says... how to live given certain daily circumstances but the above arguments essentially refute his entire philosophy. How can Christianity be objectively promoted if morals based on an authority can always be questioned and his view on relativity has nothing whatsoever to do with promoting his apologetics. I must essentially say this to start the section... I think it most neccessary. Of course this is simply my vantage point but I think the supports mentioned more than cover the objections... I think it's very much like refutting someone's theory. Although this is a page on Lewis and his theory, if you can refute his theory, one that is unmatched in the modern era, where else to put it but on Lewis' page... as it is Lewis' theory. PS - I failed to mention Spinoza's critique in the above.. I shall add it once the above text is discussed. I apologize if it's difficult to comprehend but it seems 'of the essence' that this information is presented on his web page. What would happen if a follower of Lewis' philosophy was exposd to Velleman's contradiction in a random place? I think it would be shattered, at least putting critiques against Lewis' views here allow for refutation by others later on.

I think we might be having a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is for. Allow me, if you will, to quote:

"Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published."

"Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources."

"Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"."

"Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article and to adhere to what those sources say." (emphasis is not mine)

I would strongly urge you to read Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, no original research and what Wikipedia is not. It is not up to Wikipedia to advance, defend, attack or refute any opinion. Refutations of arguments should only be presented if they come from a reliable source, they should not be placed in articles for the sake of it. The reason the Philip Pullman criticism is acceptable, is that Philip Pullman is a notable person who said something about CS Lewis. It has very little (if anything) to do with what he actually said, and whether or not it was true or false, or a good argument or a bad one. Martin 23:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I welcome your comments with gratitude. Believe me, the books on my desk have not been ignored. It is actually to a detriment that I able to list sources for all of my material... this is why I often spend hours writing what I do, I don't think it's wise to question sorces such as Freud, Einstein, or Baruch Spinoza. I also do not push arguments that are strictly my own... less I would write "I" or something of that sort. Of course I would be right however :)

Nevertheless I am looking for suggestions on how to alter the material, everything above is completely in line with Wikipedia policy, I have written numerous articles, I am simply seeking your permission as you seem to be the lone ranger who thinks of numerous reasons to stop me in my tracks... yet I must refute them and wait for more. 74.129.230.61 23:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is perverse but I enjoy these conversations. I have been so immersed in waiting for your responses six hours have been bye and the sun has said "fair-well" to me for the day. How time flys when your writing about the views of CS Lewis. I do think my responses to your objections have adequately shown that blatant mention of Lewis is not requird, as it is his views that are disputed, critics need not mention his works, as his critics critique his views or his philosophy, a philosophy in almost all of his works, and the last dispute dealt with Lewis not being unique in his views as he is a mere Christian, and this is wrong because his views are his philosophy... which is so renowned people can't help but gobble them up! How great it would be if I could express simple views and people would just praise me.

Also, on the newest topic relative to Pullman, that is a good example. But I am not interested in "those of a lowly origin" who are interested in down-trodding Lewis. I could do that now myself, however, that is not objective. Objective scholarship has existed for over over 4,000 years, I do not think it fair we close our minds to 3,950 years worth because they were not 'of-the-type' who blatantly condones Lewis. After all, it is not Lewis' followers that follow Lewis for his looks.. his shoes, and so forth. They do so for his philosophy.. a philosophy my thinkers critique. Hooray for critiques.

74.129.230.61 23:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

lol....sorry Tonto, I'm just doing what I believe is best for the article, as I'm sure you are. :)

I don't doubt that you have meticulously researched everything you have written, but that is the problem: it is you your research, and as such it is you who is building a case to refute Lewis' theology, not Freud et al. The application of Freud's theories to refute Lewis' would be fine if it came from a reputable published source. Regardless of whether or not your argument is 100% true, it is original research."The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Just because something is true, or makes sense, or is a good argument, it does not mean that it meets the criteria for inclusion. Martin 23:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. If I present what Einstein says, then what Velleman says, then what all the others say... I am simply combining their views and comparing them with Lewis. Of course I can create my own arguments like I did above.. they are probably flawed I haven't even thought about them... but I wouldn't and couldn't put that on a wikipedia web page, so I must resort to posting the views of others.

I have thought more about criticism, I earlier referenced Einstein's webpage, there is a little bit of criticism and controvery there, but as with Saint Paul's page, his is litered with controversy...perhaps "scholarly views" would be a more appropriate title for the section I propose.

All are scholars, all are objective as non even blatantly mention Lewis, but they address components of Lewis philosophy. It seems like they directly address Lewis views which directly relate to Lewis' philosophy which directly relates to CS Lewis apologetics which directly relate to why is revered as a great thinker. It's a sort of casual chain. I'm quite sure this satisfies, I will even allow you to rephraise the whole thing if you would like, I simply did my best to solidify all the information so it is clear what issue is being addressed as well as how it all relates to Lewis philosophy. 74.129.230.61 23:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not presenting what Einstein says about Lewis though, you are merely presenting his views on religion/morality. Because none of the criticism deals with Lewis directly, its application to Lewis' beliefs constitutes original research - it would be "a new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". If everything you wish to add had been published in a paper by Mr World Famous Theologian, then it would warrant inclusion without question. But only because it had been mentioned by Mr World Famous Theologian, not because it was objective/subjective or true/false. In fact, if Mr World Famous Theologian had an emotional breakdown, and then published a paper claiming he didn't like CS Lewis because he sodomised leprechauns on St. Patrick's Day, that would even warrant inclusion in a criticism section, despite being obvious nonsense. (this is an extreme example of course, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point)

Am I making any sense?

p.s. perhaps I should also explain the rationale behind moving something to the talk page. The idea is that when a passage is disputed, it can be moved to the talk page for discussion among editors. People can suggest changes to it as they see fit, and it means that the main article doesn't get reverted every 10 seconds. If you make changes to the version on the talk page, it means that everyone who views the talk page can see your most recent revision and it makes it easier to follow a discussion about it. Martin 23:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the new reasons for editing. Once I refute it and explain why, I will request the page be locked if it is continually tampered with. I use the word tamper because all of the information has been erased over 6 times, with six new reasons from mostly the same individual. I do not understand how it can all be erased because it doesn't mention Lewis specifically... to being erased because it is not "original material".. though we skipped four other reasons which were refutted in between. As you can see, this is very tedious.. and raises questions to the motive for deletion.

The last reason for why the information was deleted was because it delt with Lewis' philosophy and not him as a person. This was thus refutted, the reason thus being it was almost "too specific". Now it's specific but not "original research". I do not think Professor Einstein or Sigmund Freud would agree that Wikipedia editors reject their quotes because they did not publish them properly. Perhaps there books were limited to a select few who cared to read them. Nevertheless, I have refrained from listing page numbers in their respective gray quote boxes, this because it clouds the page, I can still do that anyway if one so requests.

As for the name of the section, I maintain that it must be scholarly views. This because the views deal with Lewis' views.. it is implied. The name critics seems to imply they critic Lewis as a person or his work... instead all of the information so presented in the scholarly views section is original and done by scholars with professorships, I myself am a scholar and introduce no new material, all is accompanied with references.. the only words that I even create via the keys of my keyboard are inferences from one quote to the next. It is like a mother holdng the hand of a child and showing them why each quote is related, an absolute neccessity with wikipedia policy less the whole page would be quotes. Now I am told this "holding of the hand" is rejected, instead I must let the child run free and make sense of quotes that are garbled. We must now not write the birthdate of CS Lewis in the introduction, rather someone must quote another who speaks of it in a published work. I prefer not to classify the reader as a brute!

In all honesty it is "against wikipedia policy" to continually search for different reasons for objecting to material that compromises the philosophy of a particular person. I have already refutted at least 5, the latest one is that it's not original research. The information should be what's disputed, not it's relevance, not the fact that Einstein didn't mention Lewis when he was speaking about his view on morality. All of these are ad hominem fallacies that attack the person rather than the material. I will reinsert the quotes with inferences which explain everything, it is all neatly condensed to a form for the layman as if Mr. Wikipedia himself couldn't have done it better. If the material is completely erased for a seventh reason I will request the page be locked and the editor barred from further delay, if anyone can delete the page because he thinks published material is not "original", then I can choose to delete any page I so wish... simply because their material is not original to me. Where o where is Mr. Wikipedia.

74.129.230.61 01:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what Martin said. He is not a "lone ranger".--roger6106 01:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Much of it seems like original research to me. I also renew my request that a new article for this topic be created to (a) avoid making this article too long and (b) maintain the biographical nature of this article (i.e. it's about Lewis the man with incidental discussion of his ideas). --ElKevbo 01:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, at least regarding the support for what Martin said. (See also my question at the section bellow). --Leinad ¬

»saudações! 01:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

74.129.230.61, you still fail to grasp my objection. You should not write anything unless it is covered by a reference. If you read any of the books in the "Books about Lewis" section, you will no doubt find his date of birth. You cannot add your own theories about Lewis' philosophies to the article. It is not Freud or Einstein's quotes that are unpublished, it is your application of them to Lewis' beliefs. I have explained this several times now.

In every reply I have given you, I have told you that as the material you are adding is not about Lewis, its addition is not appropriate. Instead of taking this on board, you assert that I have presented a different reason each time. What's more, you have failed to respond to this. If someone raises a concern, simply replying to it does not magically refute it. You have not refuted anything, as there is nothing to refute. Adding non-verifiable original research promoting an original idea is against Wikipedia policy. End of story.

Whether or not you like Wikipedia's policies or think them "ad hominem" is totally irrelevant. I will continue to follow them to the best of my ability, and if that includes removing material that is in contradiction of those policies, then so be it. I have not only given you the appropriate links to read, but have quoted the relevant parts for your convenience. Something has to be verifiable in order to be included in Wikipedia, not true. You can tell me that the veracity of the information should be what's disputed all you like, but it isn't.

Every single editor who has seen your additions has raised concerns about them, yet you threaten me as though I was the one going against consensus. You continue to move disputed text back onto the article, despite me moving it here for discussion. If you "welcome all suggestions in regards to this section", I would have thought that you would want to leave it here to see what others think, but alas, this is not the case.

Threatening me with expulsion is also a very serious thing to do; I have been nothing but civil to you, so I'd advise you to tread carefully. Martin 01:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am blind. If the issue at hand has truly been this: "You cannot add your own theories about Lewis' philosophies to the article. It is not Freud or Einstein's quotes that are unpublished, it is your application of them to Lewis' beliefs. I have explained this several times now," and our goal is truly collaboration. Please provide sentences, words, paragraphs for us to fix so it applies correctly in your personal view rather than delete all of the material. 74.129.230.61 02:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Find a notable authority who has criticised Lewis' theology. Write about that. Do not directly criticise it yourself. Martin 02:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a new article being created as long as such a link is offered on Lewis' page. One thing I think unfair is that the rules on the new article would not apply to the old when I spent much time trying to conform to the latter. O well. All help appreciated, I am going to go eat some rice and some chicken, 74.129.230.61 02:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

on a completely personal note irrelevant of lewis

How do you defend Lewis under such objections from notable authorities? In many senses when Lewis appeals to God or scripture it is no different than one appeals to a scientist to believe a particular thing, however the psychology behind religion is very intriguing. Also a historical outlook on life, perhaps the idea that we descend from barbarians, makes it very difficult for me to entertain Lewis' views seriously. When I think of him I think of a human being striving for meaning... something that is inherent in all of us, the more powerful the search the more powerful the desire to overcome hardship or pain... its usually rare a man is granted fate's hand and becomes more devout religously on a permanent basis. This is not an attempt to debate... I actually feel like it's a couple making up after they've been in a fight...I am drawn into some of your views though you haven't proclaimed them. I am not interested in debate at all, I will even offer to keep quiet. :)

I feel like talking so I shall go further, have any of you pondered whether God can walk? Or does God see in color? It seems our ability to discern colors is not perfect, perhaps his is more perfect? Or is a god who made the laws of nature transcendent? 74.129.230.61 02:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The latter comments rather clearly suggest that you personally are concerned with general theological-philosophical problems, not with C. S. Lewis.

A-Either Lewis is unique in his views and thus revered... or B-Or he is not and not revered

You have been arguing position B, Lewis is a simply a "Christian", his Wikipedia page is in no way unique as he is not unique in his views whatsoever. This in turn causes all of us to question why he is revered in the first place.

This is simply an invalid argument (false dichotomy). Lewis is revered not because he held views which were in any sense unique, or particularly distinctive, but because he expressed widely held views in a way accessible to ordinary people, and did so in works considered by many commentators to have some literary merit. Myopic Bookworm 13:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

mediation

I have started a new section as there seems to be a discrepancy over the criticism section, if you wish to erase it, you must provide reasons for how to fix it, less this is just continually a cycle where the eraser proves he simply does NOT want the information. I find it odd that so many can dispute for hours yet the second suggestions are requested so the material can remain all stop offering comment. It seems many are more interested in leaving the material out for whatever reason than leaving it in, irrecovable of policy compliance. If you wish to suggest anything, do so here, and leave comments as to how to fix it so it can remain. Biblical1

I've removed the sections on Kant, Mills and Einstein, since there is no evidence supplied that any of these people commented on Lewis. I've also removed the photograph of Freud, which is likley a copyright violation and isn't appropriate to this article. If people want to see what Freud looked like, they can click on the link to the Freud article. Gwernol 12:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I responded on your talk and added the Velleman comment. His is directly on Lewis' theory of morals and suggests instead they require unconditional reasons. If I can convey this to the layman reader it would be most appreciated. Biblical1

But you re-added the claim that Kant criticised Lewis' position. Given that Kant died nearly 100 years before Lewis was born, its difficult to sustain the position that Kant in any way criticized Lewis' philosophy. I'm also not convinced that Velleman is speaking about Lewis, but at best about a philosophy that Lewis also espoused. Can you ptrovide some direct evidence that Velleman is specifically speaking of Lewis' work? Thanks, Gwernol 13:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right on Kant, Velleman is simply speaking on Kant about his theory of morals in response to the divine command theory. The theory is espoused by Lewis yet does not mention his name. It is difficult to leave such a thing out as there is no other summary in my recollection that can summarize this so well. I added Spinoza's remarks on relativity, he of course was dead before Lewis too, it simply explains the faults of moral relativity. Biblical1 13:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is about C.S. Lewis, not about the general philosophy of morals. Its simply untenable to include Spinoza as a critic of Lewis. At best Spinoza was a critic of a philosophy that Lewis was an adherent of, but even this is incorrect, as the philosophy Spinoza rails against is not accurately that which Lewis espouses. Please keep the section on Critisism of C.S. Lewis to specific criticisms of Lewis' particular views. Its not appropriate to open it out to a general discussion on moral relativity. Similarly I will remove the section on Velleman since it is far from clear he is speaking specifically of Lewis. The section on Lewis and Freud is appropriate. Gwernol 13:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

*tips hat* Biblical1 13:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No. The burden of proof is not on those seeking to remove the material. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. --ElKevbo 16:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The section on Freud is not appropriate, because he died before Lewis published his apologetics books. Using Freud's theories to rebuff Lewis' is your argument, not Freud's. Lewis wasn't even a Christian when Freud wrote the work quoted in the article. Freud said nothing about Lewis, so you cannot say "Freud believed that Lewis' disposition to argue against moral relativity...." or "he maintained that Lewis did not care for objective analysis".

How can you say how Freud would react to books written after his death? How do you know that he wouldn't have converted to Christianity because of them? Plenty of other people have. Granted, it seems unlikely, but that isn't good enough.

I'm not sure how many times I can say it, so here goes in bold: the only way you can add mention of Freud's theories as criticism of Lewis' is if you mention a notable authority who has used this argument in refuting Lewis.

Unless you can provide a reference for the application of Freud's theories to Lewis' work, please do not add it to the article. Martin 14:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

For balance we should now add a comparable criticism section under Pullman and extend the one under Toynbee. 12.24.233.2 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there's more to creating "balance" than simply adding criticism, but I'm surprised Pullman's article doesn't have a criticism section already, given that he expresses views quite a lot of people would regard as controversial. Didn't someone say has was "the most dangerous author in Britain" and "semi-satanic"? Martin 15:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, plus what qualifies someone's opinion as worthy of listing? As a physicist I have criticism for some of Einstein's opinions, the man argued with Neils Bohr and was far from right on all matters. Polly Toynbee does not even hold a Bachelor's degree, let alone have any academic achievement in a relevant subject area, so why is her opinion worthy of inclusion. Pat Mustard 16:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Polly Toynbee Criticism

I propose we remove the Toynbee comments for the reasons listed above, she is not qualified to have an informed opinion. Pat Mustard 16:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I have almost no respect for her views with regards CS Lewis, but to remove her opinions of the Narnia books based purely on this would be editorialising. Polly Toynbee is the most widely read newspaper columnist in the UK, so if she expresses her opinion of something in one of the UK's most popular newspapers, it should get a mention, regardless of the validity of her views. It is up to the readers of the article to make up their own minds; we should not be doing it for them. Martin 21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

The order of the subjects are confusing and out of order timewise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guolin (talk • contribs) 00:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC).

In what way? The article is divided into a biography section and a section dealing with his career. Each of the two sections is pretty much chronological. Martin 02:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

trilemma and the claim to be God

I'm trying to find a formulation that communicates the very common understanding in modern secular academia that Jesus didn't claim to be God without overstating the case. To say that "some scholars" reach such a conclusion is to understate the case. There's all manner of off-track, minority ideas that "some scholars" conclude. Jonathan Tweet 18:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

However, your citation only shows that one self described group of "liberal theologians" hold that view. Your current version seems balanced to me. 12.24.233.2 19:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Jesus Seminar is rather off track for an article on Lewis. At any rate, the basis of the trilemma is, "assuming that Jesus said what the Gospels say he did," which makes irrelevant any findings of a group that begin by denying that assumption. I'm not RVing what you've done, but I hope you can find some better (and more relevant) formulation.Sturgeonslawyer 19:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Lewis doesn't say, "assuming Jesus said what the Gospels say he did." He just assumes it and bases his argument on it. Jonathan Tweet 00:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether or no he explicitly states it (and I don't have my copy of MC handy to check it), it's pretty clear that this is the assumption under which the trilemma proceeds. Given that the Gospels are the only available witness for what Jesus may or may not have said or done, I think (and believe Lewis would agree) that a bunch of "experts" voting two thousand years after the fact isn't much help in deciding which of these things he did or didn't say. Certainly the Jesus Seminar, fifty years after Lewis, is of no relevance to an article on Lewis.

The trilemma gets a pretty good going over on another page. Let's cut the elaboration from this page and move all the arguments pro and con to the trilemma page. Jonathan Tweet 02:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on the academic context for Lewis's trilemma. It was effectively an answer to the ungodly view that had recently insinuated itself into academe -- that Jesus' miracles were mere myths and that Jesus was nothing more than a wise mortal man. Lewis's conflict with Wells shows up in That Hideous Strength, where "Jules" is a clear parody of the materialist, socialist Wells. Jonathan Tweet 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Issue with christian apologist heading.

This is a pejorative term to both C.S. Lewis and Christianity. I don't see why his writings on christianity should presuppose that a. he was engaging in some form of reconstruction of christan history or apologism, and b. that christanianity is indeed in merit of apologists. A title such as Christian writings, or something more eloquently put but similar in meaning and scope should suffice. 05:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.5.22.27 (talk • contribs) 05:47, November 2, 2006

The term "Christian apologist" is not a perjorative see Christian apologetics and Christian apologist for the meaning. Paul August ☎ 06:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

biography lead paragraph

I added a summary paragraph in the biography section. This paragraph lets the reader get a read on Lewis's personal life in one bite, much better than making them work through the very detailed biography proper. I make no pretenses to have done an excellent job, and it would not surprise me if I've made errors. Jonathan Tweet 05:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

his defense of pederasty

In Surprised by Joy there is a comment on the pederastic practices at his school, which he names "Wyvern" but I see here that the school he went to was actually named "Wynyard". Any thoughts on this discrepancy? Also any thoughts on including his defense of pederasty in this article? Haiduc 03:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Correction, it was at Malvern College, when talking about relations between the Bloods and the Tarts. The question about inclusion still stands. Haiduc 05:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems very peripheral to make special mention of such a passing side-issue in his autobiography, given the number of books he wrote on various subjects. It's not even a major source of comment, like the question of anti-Semitism in G. K. Chesterton. It might be worth mentioning in an article on Pederasty. Myopic Bookworm 12:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bio intro removal and restoration

I don't want to make a big deal of this, but it seems bad form to repeat material already addressed in the article intro, and if those major items are taken out the rest does not stand on its own. In brief, one appetizer is enough, now the main course. Haiduc 23:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the Talk page. I'm the one that added the intro to the biography section, so naturally I like it. Now that I reread it and compare it to the first lead paragraphs, I see that the summaries are too close together. My solution would be to remove the "Lewis remained a bachelor" paragraph from the lead section. Four paragraphs is a lot of lead paragraphs. "Three to four" lead paragraphs is the suggested maximum (see WP:LEAD), so it's not over, but it's pushing it. Removing that paragraph would cut it down to three. The reason there's a Lewis page is not because he married Gresham, etc. The other three paragraphs are "This is what's important enough about Lewis that there's this big page devoted to him." The "Lewis remained a bachelor" paragraph, on the other hand, is personal detail. With that paragraph gone, the article would have an intro about Lewis (the literary figure, not the bachelor/husband), and the bio section would have its own intro about Lewis's life story. The reason it's important to have an intro to the bio is that the bio material is really long. A typical Internet reader isn't interested in grinding through screen after screen of text unless they know it's going to be interesting. (It takes me 6 page scrolls to get through the bio material. That's longer than lots of articles.) But if the reader can get the summary up front, they know enough to decide whether to skip the bio, read the bio, or pick out the parts of the bio that sound interesting. I do some amount of professional, technical writing, and giving someone a bite-size summary is a real service. Wikipedia is hyperlinked with the assumption that readers are not usually going to read articles front to back. Summaries help them navigate. If someone wants to trim the intro down, I'd be happy to see what that looked like. I tried to be complete and concise. And maybe the "bachelor/husband" paragraph in the lead section could be trimmed down instead of just cut. Jonathan Tweet 02:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I read the second intro again, and it struck me as being essentially an abstract of his religious life. It is a very difficult task, this second distillation of material that is being attempted. I do not see how you can navigate between the twin rocks of redundancy and non-neutrality. But the initial intro reads better now, after Myopic Bookworm's edit. Haiduc 14:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not intend the bio intro to be an abstract of Lewis's religious life but as a neutral summary of the following material. If it's not neutral, edit it. As to redundancy, that's exactly what I'm after here: redundancy. One purpose of the intro is to give the reader enough information that, if they like, they can skip the following section altogether and still learn something. You can't do that without being redundant. If you think that the redundancy is a problem, I invite you to read the entire biography section word for word. If I'm right, you'll come away thinking that it's too long and detailed for the casual reader. Hypothetically, it could be spun out as its own page, leaving just my intro (or an expanded version therof). Jonathan Tweet 21:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see this entry made more digestible, but it's not clear to me how to split a biographical article: certainly not by removing the biographical section! Perhaps separate entries on "life" and "works" might be conceivable, though it would be a messy business. Myopic Bookworm 11:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Life" and "works." The article is already broken up into those two sections. "Biography" is Lewis's personal life, mostly. "Career" is his works. What other division would you consider? Jonathan Tweet 15:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

By "split" I meant not "subdivide within the article" but "move a chunk to a wholly separate article", which is what is generally done when an article becomes unmanageably long. All detailed discussion of Narnia has already been moved. Other possibilities might include a separate article n Jane Moore to cover the details of Lewis's relationship with her, and moving those parts of the "career" section which are about his books not his life to an article on "Writings of C.S.Lewis" Myopic Bookworm 12:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what purpose the intro to the biography section serves. I wrote the intro to the article with the intention that it would give enough of an overview of Lewis' life to cover the salient points. In my opinion, the intro to the biography section goes into more detail than the casual reader would require. I split the article into a biography section and a career section purely as an organisational tool; in my opinion it is quite impossible to separate the two in any meaningful sense for a man like Lewis. He was one of the most famous thinkers and authors of his generation, and was known the world over, yet the current intro to the bio tells use nothing particularly interesting, illuminating or worthwhile about him.

I believe the current intro to the article already covers the important facts about Lewis, and as such, another is not necessary, regardless of whether it concerns his personal or private life. Martin 00:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree: it seems pointless and I have removed it. Myopic Bookworm 10:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Martin, "He was one of the most famous thinkers and authors of his generation, and was known the world over, yet the current intro to the bio tells use nothing particularly interesting, illuminating or worthwhile about him." But the same can be said for the entire biography section! The intro would allow a reader to get a summary of the bio, realize that there's nothing in it about Lewis as a world-famous thinker and author, and skip to the next section. Without the intro, the reader has to slog through a long section (six screens on my machine) in order to reach the same conclusion, "Hey, this isn't about Lewis as a world-famous thinker and author!" Why make the reader do that kind of work? Alternatively, the information could go into the lead section. That way the lead section would summarize not just the man's work but also his personal life. Please don't make readers work their way through screen after screen of highly detailed biographical information when that information could be summarized in a paragraph. Jonathan Tweet 17:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan, the article is already divided into two sections, one dealing with his private life, and one dealing with his professional one. I'm not really sure how much clearer we could make it regarding where to find information about his career. Martin 08:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

pederastic

In September 1913 Lewis enrolled at Malvern College, where he would remain until the following June. Later he would describe its culture as a "burning desert of competitive ambition" relieved only by the "oasis" of pederastic loves between upperclassmen and the younger students, which he refused to criticise. (Lewis 1966, p. 107) After leaving Malvern he moved to study privately with William T. Kirkpatrick, his father's old tutor and former headmaster of Lurgan College.

I'm looking at this reference, and don't see how it supports saying "which he refused to criticise". What he said was that there were worse things to criticise than that. Can anyone point to another reference? or can this be removed? LloydSommerer 12:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see the removal of that last clause, which seems gratuitously loaded speculation, confusing "absence of criticism" with "refusal to criticize". He may have failed to criticize it explicitly, but the present wording implies that he condoned it, which is quite different and not clear from my reading. I cannot tell whether Lewis thought that transient homosexuality among schoolboys was (a) so obviously reprehensible as to need no explicit criticism from him, or (b) so obviously understandable in the context, harmless, and in tune with ancient Greek culture, as to need no criticism at all. (The equivalent homosexuality among schoolgirls is practically celebrated by many writers, rather than criticized, though I am not aware that Lewis commented on it.) Myopic Bookworm 12:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of "oasis" having a neutral or deprecating connotation. My formulation of "refused to criticize" was meant as an understatement. In reality, his calling it an oasis is clear and obvious praise and can be described as such in the article. Haiduc 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, he is not "praising" pederasty: he is contrasting the emotional relief of a personal relationship with the emotional "desert" of rivalry and competition. Myopic Bookworm 13:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the statement cannot be in any way interpreted as a blanket endorsement of pederasty anytime anywhere. However I do not see how you can possibly divorce the nature of the relationship from his positive valuation. The whole point of the passage is the implied surprise that this love, though blameable and "upside down" (a pun if I ever saw one) is still divine. Haiduc 17:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, what is presented is not strictly incorrect, but it is misleading. The problem is that the initial material from the chapter isn't presented. Lewis explicitly gives the reasons why he does not criticize pederasty. But even without criticizing you still get passages like "...is why I can't give pederasty anything like first place among the evils of the Coll.", "Because those of us who do not share the vice feel for it a certain nausea...", ..."that pederasty, however great an evil in itself...", and "...the one oasis (though green only with weeds and moist only with fetid water)...". Even quoting "upside down" is misrepresenting Lewis if you don't also continue as the passage does with "...upside down, blackened, distorted and filthy...". I think we are distorting Lewis' views if we leave the article as is. LloydSommerer 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So "which he refused to criticize" could actually say something more like "relationships which he criticized but refrained from condemning outright". Myopic Bookworm 22:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think with that we may be getting closer to the actual sense. How about, "which he criticized and yet welcomed as a relief to the otherwise oppressive school atmosphere"? Haiduc 22:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If we really must include this, then I think we need to put it into context a bit more. I would suggest: Later he would describe Wyvern, as Lewis styled the school, as so singularly focused on increasing one's social status that he came to see the pederastic loves between upperclassmen and the younger students as "the one oasis (though green only with weeds and moist only with fetid water) in the burning desert of competitive ambition. [...] A perversion was the only thing left through which something spontaneous and uncalculated could creep."(Lewis 1966, p. 107ff) I tried for a long time to summarize this part of the book, and couldn't come up with anything that worked anywhere near as well as Lewis's own words. LloydSommerer 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a very elegant and honest solution. Thank you. Haiduc 05:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(Northern) Irish revisited

I have again reverted attempts to label Lewis specifically as "Northern Irish". Lewis's self-identification as Irish is notable, because some contributors are under the mistaken impression that, because he was a British writer who wrote in English, he was of English nationality. It is not accurate to refer to him as Northern Irish, since he was born in a united Ireland under British rule, and before the introduction of the administrative entity called "Northern Ireland" in 1920. He was not "exempted from military service" in World War I, but the United Kingdom authorities recognized him as Irish (not "Northern Irish": the term didn't exist), and so exempted from compulsory military conscription, since conscription was (for political reasons) not introduced in Ireland. I think that the fact that he was born in Belfast, and that Belfast is now in Northern Ireland, is quite clear enough in the article. Myopic Bookworm 12:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Even if we accepted he was Northern Irish, people from the north who self-identify as Irish should be described as such. Martin 15:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Self identification is never an evidence. Maybe my English is bad, but my point gets through. What the government view him as is more important than his own view. His background tells us what he is, not himself. Anyone can call themselves anything, but it is never going to change any facts. Some one born in an Indian family calling himself Chinese is not going to make him one. Same story. MythSearcher^talk 17:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

His background is that he was born in Ireland; he was not born in Northern Ireland. Lewis was in his 20s by the time Northern Ireland existed. As for what the UK government says, the Good Friday Agreement states that it is "the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both". I am from Northern Ireland and I regard myself as Irish, not British or Northern Irish, a position fully endorsed by the British and Irish governments.

Just as a side-note, I notice from your user page that you were born in Hong Kong, yet you are "proud to be British". Surely the Chinese government view you as Chinese, and your own opinions on the subject don't matter? ;) Martin 20:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my opinion will not matter. I got a British passport, I am British if it comes to nationality. However, because of my ethnic background, if ever I become famous and got a wiki article, people will address me as Chinese writer(or what ever job I did to make myself famous) Even though I am British and little tides me with the Chinese Government at all. MythSearcher^talk 02:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a good parallel, though, because after a millennium of colonization and migration in both directions between Ireland and Great Britain, there is not a genuine "ethnic" difference between the Irish and the English: it is almost entirely a matter of cultural and political self-identification. Myopic Bookworm 14:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You do know that it is pretty much the same thing in China, don't you... The main ethnic group might be Han, but there are already a great mix of Mogolian, Korean and such inside. There is not a genuine difference any more, and thus it is quite the same as calling an Irish British if you call somebody Chinese. MythSearcher^talk 14:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've opened up a discussion on this topic in the Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), as I feel some sort of wider consensus on this issue is necessary. Please feel free to voice your opinions there. Martin 14:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lewis was born into a Protestant family and not a Catholic family. I think this is much more important than his nationality and should be mentioned in the introduction. As for his nationality, he did call himself Irish but he also, at times, called himself English and he told Sayer that he was "more Welsh than anything." It is quite possible to feel that you belong to more than one country, after all. I think that the fact that Lewis felt that he was both Irish and English (and Welsh) should be mentioned.KaB 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be quite inappropriate in the introduction: it encourages the corrosive assumption that anyone from Belfast must be identified with one or other of the sectarian groups there, and it is particularly unapt for someone who abandoned the religion of his upbringing, later rejoining the least Protestant wing of the Anglican church, and becoming an advocate of "mere" Christianity (yes I know some Catholics think that is just "mere Protestantism", but that's not the point). The biographical section below says clearly enough that his family was Church of Ireland: it would be misleading to set him up from the outset as an "Ulster Protestant".

As for Welshness, Lewis had no special personal or cultural links with Wales so far as I know, and I suspect he may have been referring in passing to his more distant ancestry. There is no evidence that he "felt himself" to be Welsh, and he is on record as saying that he did not feel English. Myopic Bookworm 19:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is silly and pointless. Lewis was born in Ireland, considered himself Irish. Although he lived in England. He is and was Irish. Northern Irish doesn't come into the argument. Codu talk contribs email 14:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless because people keep ignoring the fact that Lewis was born in a land under British control, the only thing that matters is what the government view him as, not what he regards himself as. The readers can decide what he is, the editors should be informed about what the British government view him as, which is Irish, not English or British, not what his self preferences are. The most official data that no one can ignore is what the government called him. In any case, what a person identify himself as can be purely wrong or at least subjective. MythSearcher^talk 17:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why I made the original reversion from "Northern Irish" to "Irish", which you did not. You merely changed the comment to say that the government recognized him as Northern Irish, which they did not (they recognized him as Irish (at a time when all Irish people were British citizens). But several people clearly disagree with your view that Lewis self-identification "doesn't count", and that government designation is the only thing that counts. National identity is not simply the same as political citizenship, and national self-identification within the United Kingdom is a highly sensitive issue. Some governments systematically oppress populations by denying that their ethnic group exists: if the Chinese government were to define all its citizens as Chinese, that wouldn't stop Tibetans being Tibetan. But since the dispute was not even about the article text, but about the wording of the editorial warning, I agree that it is pretty pointless. Myopic Bookworm 17:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is my mistake, and if you went through the archive, you can see me agreeing on the Irish term, and actually fix the link to Irish people for a few times. However, I am not an expert on the subject and forgot about which one it should be, thus I only changed the comment to what the pass discussion led to how it should be(which is the government's view) when determining how the word should be used. If the Chinese government denies Tibetans being Tibetans, it is not the same as this situation where the British government agrees Irish being Irish. What I am saying here is, the comment by itself is pretty much meaningless and to a certain point confusing. What if today, I claim myself to be Irish, should I be listed as one when I happen to get my own wiki article? What I claim myself to be cannot change my ethnic background. It is confusing enough to say he is one just becuase he claimed to be one, it would be better to leave a comment saying the what the government identifies him as or stating his parents are Irish. By the way, Tibetans are Chinese, while they still can be Tibetans. The official government policy on this listed the Chinese people includes people of different ethnic background, and thus they did not deny their ethnic group exists, just including the ethnic group into a broader classification. MythSearcher^talk 03:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mythsearcher, people from Northern Ireland are as Irish as people from anywhere else in Ireland. If the person in question were Scottish we would not be having this conversation, yet as far as I'm aware, NI is the only part of the UK where an individual's right to assert their nationality is protected by law. Please see section 1 (vi) here. You seem to be confusing being from "The Republic of Ireland" with being from "Ireland". You cannot claim to be Irish because you are not from Ireland; CS Lewis was. He was born in Ireland, not Britain, grew up in Ireland, not Britain, and proudly identified himself as Irish, not British. I don't believe I've never met anyone, from Great Britain or Ireland, who has any problem with describing someone from Northern Ireland as "Irish". Martin 20:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point here. I am not claiming he is not Irish, I am saying the comment itself is confusing enough that saying he claimed himself to be one is going to introduce problems. If the comment is changed to what you have said here (NI is the only part of the UK where an individual's right to assert their nationality is protected by law. Please see section 1 (vi) here) It would make less confusion and is much more clearer than saying he claimed to be Irish therefore he is. MythSearcher^talk 06:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have changed the comment so that it merely says Lewis' nationality is discussed on the talk page. This is the place for any sort of discussion about the content of the article. The comment itself is changing so rapidly that it is becoming a discussion all by itself. Editors are now referred here if they wish to hear the views of their peers on the matter; if they choose not to do so, it's really up to them. The comment is not there to offer any sort of "proof" of Lewis' Irishness; it's only to inform editors who are thinking of changing it that this issue has been discussed. I'm not really sure why it's an issue at all - there is no need to state that Seamus Heaney, Oscar Wilde, William Butler Yeats, James Joyce, etc, are really Irish despite being born in the UK. Martin 14:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The comment should be good enough to stop people from changing the actual article over and over, and should be able to do so in the shortest possible manner. Not to introduce more controvesy. That is my point and the comment given now is better than before and I hope that it serves the purpose better than before. MythSearcher^talk 15:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A man from Northern Ireland today is British. Before the formation of Southern Ireland it was a mere convention to call someone Irish. The fact that C.S. Lewis was from Belfast, was Anglican and lived in England for much of his life; makes him as British as Me or any 'John Smith' one might meet on Baker Street. (Sorry to drag religion up again, but it seems that Irish Catholics consider themselves 'Irish' whilst Irish Protestants consider themselves as British - see 2004 census of Northern Ireland). Regards, Enoch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.3.89 (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Narnia

I was just wondering if any of you had access to original copies of any of the chronicles of narnia books. If you could upload the images for the cover art on the respective pages it would be much appreciated. Thanks. b_cubed 03:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "Criticism" section

I have reverted the removal of the criticism section because it is entirely appropriate here. Lewis is and has been a controversial figure for both his theological works and fiction. That biographies of him do not include such material is irrelevant - this is Wikipedia. Material of this nature can sometimes date quickly, and so any printed biography which included it would likely date badly. We of course, do not have to worry about concerns of that nature here. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Martin 17:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is an essay-- not official wikipedia guidelines. b_cubed 19:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As already stated, Al Sharpton, Idi Amin, and Adolf Hitler do not have Critisisms sections. When you are willing to explain how C.S. Lewis is more controversial than those figures, let me know. Bbagot 20:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Many articles on writers & political figures do contain criticism sections. The solution to this revert war is not hagiography & removal of the section, but to develop such a section such that both sides can live with its content & placement within the article --JimWae 20:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

When I start to see critisism sections as a standard practice, I would certainly agree. But my own search on wikipedia has shown it to be a rarity even for people who would be considered highly controversial. All of the critisisms noted have individual forks where that information could be discussed if deemed necessary. Bbagot 21:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I only looked up one person, but Ronald Reagan has a critism section. I don't happen to be a fan of his, but I think he isn't highly controversial and so it made sense to the authors of that article to put all of the critism in one place. Having said that, I don't have a problem with not having a critism section and instead puting the information in the relevant sections. I think just deleting the section is the wrong thing to do. LloydSommerer 02:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There are already fork sections for this information, and I believe it is already discussed in those areas. This is nothing more than personal redundancy, unnecessary, and unscholastic. 66.75.8.138 06:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a co-operative project --JimWae 21:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the second removal of the criticism section. It's wikipedia policy to be abundant and redundant, especially to settle revert wars. I recommend that we create a new page with this information and merely summarize it here. I also recommend we do that with the other sections, as this page is too long. Jonathan Tweet 03:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There are already forks for the "criticism" information, and, I believe at least the majority if not all of it already exists there. 66.75.8.138 06:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you referring to? To the link to the criticisms section of Narnia? Right. That lets us summarize rather than recounting criticisms concerning Narnia. Jonathan Tweet 07:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

An essay on the use of criticism in Wikipedia can be found here. A proportion and emphasis guideline suggests: "When possible within the limits imposed by Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources, all featured articles should contain criticism, either as necessary in each paragraph or in its own paragraph or ==Criticism== section, and all lengthy articles should do the same, such as in Igor Stravinsky. The exceptions include concepts, terms, or objects such as a basketball, an alphabet, the letter Q, the color blue, helium, or tea; things about which nothing positive could be said." There are certain circumstances when using a separate criticism section is not desirable, and criticism should be moved to the relevant sections, but I do not feel that is the case here.

It's really just an editorial call as to whether we should use a criticism section or not. I'm of the opinion that as it's a relatively small section which deals with the brand of Christianity espoused throughout Lewis' work, it's better off in its own section. A summary of the criticism wouldn't be much shorter than the existing section, and I doubt the resulting new article would ever move beyond a stub. Why not leave the criticism section there for now, and if it grows to the point at which enough material is available for its own article, move it then?

And remember, just because the Hitler article does not have a criticism section, it does not mean that the article does not contain criticism of his actions. In the second paragraph alone, he is described as a totalitarian anti-semetic dictator who triggered WWII by invading most of Europe, and instigated racial genocide which subsequently led to the deaths of six million people. Criticism? I'll say! :) Martin 02:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

^ See footnote
^ See footnote
^ See footnote
^ See footnote
^ See footnote
^ See footnote
^ J David Velleman, Self to Self. pg 17
^ Further words on the meaning of life, Albert Einstein.
^ The Question of God: PBS Special

[lead-1] See footnote

[linkdate-2] See footnote

[alpha-3] See footnote

[toc-4] See footnote

[awt-5] See footnote

[copyedit-6] See footnote

[7] J David Velleman, Self to Self. pg 17

[8] Further words on the meaning of life, Albert Einstein.

[9] The Question of God: PBS Special

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]