Lindsay's Analysis of "What Christians Believe"

Lindsay Painter
Spencer
Writing 150 H MWF 12pm
10 October 2011
Logically, What Christians Believe

A great controversy in the world today questions religion on the basis that it seems illogical. In fact, that appears the problem with convincing anyone of truth. In persuasion, an appeal to the emotions proves the strongest approach to call people to action, but in changing one’s attitude or opinion, an appeal to logos, or the logical approach to an argument, remains the most effective method. Lewis employs an appeal to logos throughout his article, “What Christians Believe,” to describe his case and persuade his audience to agree with his definition of Christian beliefs.

As with all good arguments, Lewis opens his argument where his audience and he share a common belief. He states that being Christian does not mean you “have to believe that all other religions are simply wrong all through” (175). By stating this, he sooths the immediate reaction of most to being told what they believe. This statement is logical, general and not offensive. Then Lewis proceeds to make clear that Christians agree with most of the world that deity exists. This faith lines up with a vast majority of the world. Again, this simple and gentle logic leads his reader in the pattern of agreeing with Lewis’ statements. Lewis proceeds further to embellish on his own experience in accepting the existence of God. He logically follows his own thought process in determining that God does indeed live. He explains it in his own ideal of justice. His logical argument in the past against the existence of God relied on the fact that the world seemed unjust. However, for Lewis to see the world as unjust there had to be some alternative that he could compare it with. Lewis reasons that there has to be opposition for one to recognize the state of one or the other. He could not know what unjust was unless there was a God who was just. Lewis states that if he were to relinquish the idea of just and unjust, then his argument against there being a God would also crumble. He found that “in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist… I found that I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense,” and so he could not claim that there was no God because of the logic of opposition (177).

Up to this point, Lewis has only argued logically for principles that most Christians would naturally agree with. His second section in his article takes that same logical approach to prove ideas that some Christians would find contentious. However, he uses natural laws to support his statements giving his claims logical foundations. He begins by establishing that religion is not simple by stating “real things are not simple” (177). This statement seems obvious, but it proves a natural law that may be applied to religion and therefore, logically, ground Lewis’ point. He then almost mocks the idea of simple religion by questioning people believing that God would make religion simple “as if ‘religion’ were something God invented, and not His statement to us of certain quite unalterable facts about His own nature” (177). By drawing this rational conclusion he convinces his reader, almost unnoticeably, that religion is complicated and it is unalterably so. He continues by explaining that “besides being complicated, reality… is usually odd” (177). He says that one of the reasons he believes it is because “it is not a religion you could have guessed” (178). If it had been predictable, it would be reasonable to assume that men made it up. But, because it is so unexpected, it is more plausible.

Lewis even goes so far as to explain the nature of “bad” or “evil” in a logical manner. He defines “bad” as pursuing good things—money, or power, or safety—by the wrong method (179). He claims it is “the pursuit of some good in the wrong way” (179). It is an easy thing to believe when examined in this way. So, when Lewis proposes that “badness is only spoiled goodness” it is easy to agree with him on a logical base. We believe him because his logic holds no fault that we can see. And this makes it simple to believe his ideas surrounding Dualism and the notion that the world is in a civil war between spoiled goodness in the form of a fallen angel; Satan, and Christ, the perfect example of goodness. His logical approach to all of his assertions being based in natural laws allows the reader to easily be swayed into agreeing with Lewis.

Lewis concludes in his final section by explaining why God allows sin and evil to exist logically. He opens this with another example, a natural occurrence in the home, of a mother giving her children the agency to pick up after themselves or to live in a messy environment (180). This is a highly relatable example and one that people believe is an action on the mother’s part of a caring and wise parent. Lewis parallels this example to what he believes God does for us. He gives his children free will as it is “the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having” (180). In using this simple story, not only does Lewis explain the existence of evil, but logically shows God to be a loving and nurturing parent. He then follows by explaining, then, what was the original sin. He explains that “putting yourself first—wanting to be the center—wanting to be God” was the original sin; this “was the sin of Satan” (181). Lewis is again starting from a point where it is easy to agree and by following his logic, his audience is more willing and more able to agree with his stronger, harder concepts. When his hard concept that “the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy” explains the misery in the world, his readers almost unwittingly agree with a statement that they may not have been willing to concede without his logical foundation.

The last point C.S. Lewis makes in his article, is the hardest; it is the Christian ultimatum. He explains the nature of Christ as either being “the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse” (182). People try to rationalize that, even if Jesus was not the Son of God, he was still a great moral teacher, but Lewis logically explains this cannot be so. If he is not deity, he is heretic. There is no middle ground. This is what Lewis builds up to in all his logical foundations. This is the keystone of Christian religion; that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

By logically setting up a foundation for each of his claims, Lewis slowly leads his audience to agree with his statements concerning what Christians believe. He masterfully uses concepts that are familiar and accepted to stabilize and support his claims. Because he relies so heavily on an appeal to logos, his article is neither offending nor unreasonable. He succeeds in his purpose because he does not waver from logic to emotional appeals or fall into logical fallacies. Lewis’ argument is sound and logical and therefore, effectively persuasive.