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

[Me Died Blue]

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]

Excellent! Thanks for sharing that Chris.

 

[RamistThomist]

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]

Originally posted by Paul manata
The above argument is expounded more fully in this book.

Here's a critique of the argument.

And a reply to Carrier.

Is the dangerous idea book worth getting?