# C. S. Lewis on the transcendental nature of Christianity's truth



## Me Died Blue (Sep 21, 2005)

> Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpouse of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for certain physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, that gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But if it is so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought; so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.



That is an excerpt from Lewis' _The Case for Christianity_. While he still held onto some evidentialist tendencies even in that statement (e.g. probability), and was not always consistent elsewhere in his apologetics, it is interesting that he at least realized in one sense the transcendental nature of Christianity's biblical defense.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 21, 2005)

Excellent! Thanks for sharing that Chris.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 21, 2005)

When explaining Christianity to Christians, he was an evidentialist/classicist. When defending Christianity against pagans, he was a radical presuppositionalist (see _Miracles_ and _C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea_).


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> The above argument is expounded more fully in this book.
> 
> Here's a critique of the argument.
> ...



Is the dangerous idea book worth getting?


----------

