Latest post in my blog on popular science:
Sin, Redemption and Extraterrestrial Intelligence
https://populscience.blogspot.com/2024/02/sin-redemption-and-extraterrestrial.html
Regards,
Manuel, your post was specially interesting since I just reread Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra in which Lewis works out the themes you mention in his stories. Very curious how Lewis depicts extra-terrestrial rational species before and after Christ’s Birth, Death, and Resurrection on Earth.
Ruby
Yes, Lewis makes several species of Martians unlike us, but the intelligent species in Perelandra is made exactly equal to us human because “since after [Maleldil] became a man, how should Reason in any world take on another form?”
Regards,
Hi Ruby,
I have been lurking for quite some time. I read the Space Trilogy 3 times many years ago. My favorite book in the world is Perelandra.
Blessings,
Elaine
Hi, Elaine,
Great to have two old timers like us surface! I remember those years when you, Ray, Lee, Lois, and Mary Stolzenbach, in Aslan’s Country now, were very active on MereLewis. Others whose names I can’t bring to mind at the moment. Oh, Don Williams and our Lord High Heretic (both alive and well), all from the 1990s and early 20 oughts. Doug Gresham would pop in now and then. I couldn’t wait to see what had been posted each day. Manuel has always been a faithful poster, sharing his lovely blog with SpareOom. He and Dimitry seem to be the only two who post regularly these days. I appreciate both of them very much.
How are you, Elaine? I’ve also read Lewis’s sci-fi trilogy several times and am re-reading it again these days. Curious what strikes one from the perspective of age and experience. Lewis never grows old; I treasure his wise insights more and more as I journey along. My favorite Lewis books have to be Miracles and Problem of Pain. But there’s no Lewis writing I don’t love with the exception of Reflections on the Psalms.
Blessings,
Ruby
I’ve also wondered how many of us old-timers are still around. And now that we’ve got a little conversation going, I wanted to ask Elaine what she likes about Perelandra. It’s been a very long time since I read it. And Ruby as well – what do you like about Miracles and Problem of Pain? And why don’t you like Reflections on the Psalms? And since Manuel mentioned Emeth, I thought I might like to talk about that a little, later on.
Dimitry
Dimitry, I believe Miracles helps us understand and commit to the supernatural source of rationality and the trustworthiness of logic as a process to at least approach truth. Having at least some confidence in reason as opposed to the contemporary inclination to blur rational and irrational assertions is essential to soundness of thinking. I use the word “approach truth” since someone will object that we humans’ knowledge is partial and it certainly is. But there is still are poles or a very steep gradient between those who have taken the care to analyze the available evidence and drawn warranted, supported conclusions and those who have made associations which couldn’t stand up to cross-examination.
I use the “this dog bites” example from Lewis with my students to help them differentiate between rationally derived conclusions and what are merely associations. I stress the criteria for causality—Lewis has helped me develop that careful thinking and I will always be in his debt for that.
Something of the same process happens when I read Problem of Pain but there it is the goodness of God and goodness as an abstraction in the face of suffering. Mere Christianity does it with moral reasoning and natural law. As the anthem goes in Perelandra, blessed be He!
I would not be the person I am today were it not for reading Lewis nearly every day since I was 12 years old. Today I am 70 and rejoicing in the loveliness of God under the mentorship of Lewis. Others have contributed significantly—Chesterton and Tolkien, for example. But Lewis is still my primary mentor.
Blessings,
Ruby
Ruby, I enjoyed reading your post, as I always have in the past. Remind me about Lewis’s “this dog bites”. I have a humorous connection with that, nothing to do with Lewis, of course. It is from a Pink Panther movie. Inspector Clouseau is talking with an innkeeper, and there is a small dog sitting next to Clouseau. Clouseau asks the innkeeper if his dog bites. The innkeeper replies - “No”. Clouseau then goes to pet the dog, who bites him. Exasperated, Clouseau says to the innkeeper, “I thought you said your dog doesn’t bite!”, to which the innkeeper replies, “That is not my dog!”
But remind us of Lewis’s take on this (:-).
Dimitry
“Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance. Love will last forever.” (1 Corinthians 13: 4-8)
Dimitry, I’m too lazy to get up and find the exact reference at the moment. Here is a summary: Lewis has two individuals making assertions about a black dog. One says, “That dog bites” because he was bitten by a black dog when he was a child. Another says, “That dog bites” because he’s observed the dog is always muzzled when it is out, mailmen (I use “mail carriers”) are cautious delivering mail, etc.
I make it a spotted dog given the sensitivity attached to black and white these days. And I augment the content: not only was he bitten by a spotted dog in childhood but he also thinks the dog looks mean and the owner was rude.
I tell the students that one can draw no conclusions about whether the dog bites or not from the strength of each belief. One can draw conclusions only from whether the evidence backing each belief is credible evidence for a biting dog or not. The point is to help them understand the difference between association of ideas and logical conclusions based on observable facts.
Lewis seems to believe (and I emphatically agree with him) that differentiating between the two is essential for clear, valid, rational thinking.
Blessings,
Ruby
Thank you. It seems very sensible.
Dimitry
The differentiation between logical deduction from observed facts and association of ideas is indispensable to clear, rational thinking. I found the reference: the third chapter in Miracles titled “The Self-contradiction of the Naturalist.”
Our animals associate ideas. They do not deduce from observed facts. This is especially important when we attribute causality between two events.
Blessings,
Ruby