Alister McGrath/ CS Lewis

PDN

This morning, being on holiday and having time to think about nothing in particular, I was struck by some parallels between two of my favourite authors - Alister McGrath and the late CS Lewis.

Both were born in Belfast.

Both were atheists who came to faith in Christ and subsequently joined the Church of England.

Both were Oxford professors yet also went to Cambridge (McGrath to study for the priesthood, Lewis to be a Cambridge professor).

Both were initially qualified in subjects other than religion or theology (Lewis was a Professor of Literature, McGrath holds a D.Phil in molecular biophysics) and went on to receive Doctor of Divinity degrees (McGrath's earned from Oxford, Lewis' an honorary one from St. Andrews).

Both have written books on apologetics.

Both have written fantasy/Science Fiction novels.

McGrath makes intentional nods to Lewis in his book titles. Two of Lewis' most celebrated books were Mere Christianity and Surprised by Joy. Two of McGrath's are Mere Theology and Surprised by Meaning.

McGrath is currently engaged in writing a biography of CS Lewis which is due to be published in November 2013 to mark the 50th anniversary of Lewis' death.

Some of these are coincidences, but others seem to be quite deliberate on McGrath's part.

marty1985

I was thinking the exact same thing the other day when I saw that McGrath had written fantasy novels for kids. I wasn't aware of some other details. Too many things to be coincidences. And both gentlemen.

Fanny Cradock

Yes, both gentlemen. I always enjoyed the way McGrath engages rather than argues. He has appeared on Unbelievable on a number of occasions if people are interested.

Manach

Both are excellent authors, having read some of their books. Mr Lewis has a more subtle style where topic meanings are uncovered whilst Mr McGrath to me seems a tad more confrontational. I never knew of the latter's fantasy novels, thanks for heads up.

soterpisc

I think everyone to some extent knows Lewis (if only for Narnia)

McGrath is lesser known, But his book the Dawkins Delusion is great.


In Oxford I used to go to the Pub that Lewis and Tolkien would frequent. Certainly the place was great for writing.

Tim Robbins

I would have thought McGrath more intelligent and far better at argument than Lewis. You left out another thing they have in common: although both as Christians have written plenty about Christianity which has impressed Christians, neither wrote anything as an Atheist about Atheism that impressed Atheists.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I would have thought McGrath more intelligent and far better at argument than Lewis. You left out another thing they have in common: although both as Christians have written plenty about Christianity which has impressed Christians, neither wrote anything as an Atheist about Atheism that impressed Atheists.

What has that got to do with the price of beans?

soterpisc

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I would have thought McGrath more intelligent and far better at argument than Lewis. You left out another thing they have in common: although both as Christians have written plenty about Christianity which has impressed Christians, neither wrote anything as an Atheist about Atheism that impressed Atheists.

Its a Christian forum... Whats the point of your post.. Lewis is without a doubt one of the best writters, religion aside his works are great.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

neither wrote anything as an Atheist about Atheism that impressed Atheists.

There you are, you have something in common with them too.

lmaopml

I got a present of 'Surprised by Joy' - I'm waiting for a good time to read it cover to cover, because I know I won't put it down once I start I love C.S. Lewis, I remember reading the childrens books as a child.

Fanny, that site has some seriously good debates - 'Unbelievable' - I've listened to quite a few, so thanks for recommending! I've yet to visit the forum though..Like a child in a sweet shop!!

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I would have thought McGrath more intelligent and far better at argument than Lewis.

Having read a lot of Lewis, and enough of McGrath to get a good feel for him, I have to disagree. The arguments of both are routine, but -- Screwtape Letters notwithstanding -- Lewis deploys them with far more skill. Lewis' prose is more fluent too and in the earlier books of his Narnia series, for example, wrote a readable and occasionally enjoyable fantasy.

Neither of them, however, have honestly addressed much, if anything raised by critics of religion, though McGrath has published several books in which he claims to. The latter's Dawkins Delusion sees McGrath engage in a weird, book-length bout of of shadow-boxing, refuting, at least in his mind, a long series of arguments that, by and large, Dawkins never made. The book would have been named more accurately if McGrath had managed to avoid using Dawkins' name in the title.

As PDN says, there are plenty of superficial similarities between the two, but McGrath is, and is almost certain to remain, the far lesser writer.

soterpisc

I would have preferred if Mcgrath had not titled the book as a ad-hom titled tirade. But McGraths Christian apologetics (from a Christian point of view) in the book are very good. I give him credit for having written the book in defense of his Christian beliefs. Dawkins does not believe in God... All his book did was to detail out his stance, while side stepping arguments that he could not fully argue. All McGrath does is to outline what Dawkins does not want to accept.

Onesimus

''If you look at ham and eggs with lust, you have already committed breakfast in your heart.'' CS Lewis.

robindch

soterpisc wrote: »

All McGrath does is to outline what Dawkins does not want to accept.

Not really. What McGrath does is (a) ignore many, perhaps most, of the points that Dawkins makes; (b) argue against positions that Dawkins doesn't actually hold and (c) argue against positions that Dawkins does hold, without apparently being conscious of holding similar or identical positions himself. Roughly as above, it's a peculiar form of shadow-boxing in which the only black eyes are the ones McGrath gave himself.

Had CS Lewis been around to cross swords with Dawkins, I'm inclined to think he'd have engaged more honestly, and certainly more wittily, than McGrath appears able to.

lmaopml

I think you are kinda duty bound as a really big ole atheist to believe that Dawkins is fabulous though Robin Which he is, when he's doing his science....

I think, from a Christian perspective, that what you say about Alistair is actually what a Christian would pretty much say of Dawkins - what a deadlock huh? I think Dawkins 'TGD' was so full of light weight philisophical arguements and not a grand masterpiece at all, nothing new in it - In fact, he only borrowed his ideas from atheists who had more decorum and indepth knowledge of Christianity - he just added intelectual snobbery and scientism into his writings.

I agree however that Lewis was more fluid and witty!

Morbert

I went to a conference which included Alister McGrath as a speaker, and my opinion of him is similar to my opinion of C.S. Lewis: He writes interesting articles about theology, but is less compelling when he talks about atheism.

I think C.S. Lewis is a better writer though. He's pithy.

robindch

lmaopml wrote: »

I think you are kinda duty bound as a really big ole atheist to believe that Dawkins is fabulous though Robin

Not at all. I think Dawkins is a poor enough writer in both describing religion and railing against it -- McGrath, Midgely and the truly execrable Eagleton aside, how many times have you seen him discussed at length in print by the religious, or quoted admiringly by the irreligious? Of the "four horsemen" (now three) referred to pejoratively, though inaccurately, as the leaders of the "new atheist" movement, Dan Dennet is the most original thinker, Hitchens is the best writer and Sam Harris, at some point between the first two, but rising to neither of their heights, with Dawkins some long way below Harris. Hitchens and Harris tend to be quoted, Dennet and Dawkins tend not to be.

The only wisdom McGrath has displayed is in his choosing to go after Dawkins, for the simple and obvious reason that he's the easiest to take on. McGrath avoided going after Dennet or Harris, since he lacks the intellectual ability to do so. And can you imagine that Hitchens would have done to McGrath, if the latter had written "The Hitchens Delusion"? It would have been embarrassing, and I'm saying that as somebody who would have been on Hitchen's side. McGrath's could well have gone down in history as a second Dr Nares.

In any case, Dawkins -- somewhat embarrassingly, since he's written about it -- rarely seems himself to realize intellectually that religions are little more than the eloquent and contradictory expressions of emotional argument. But then again, McGrath doesn't seem to get that either, so perhaps he and Dawkins are matched in a strange way after all.

As above, had CS Lewis debated Dawkins in print, and it would have been fun to see him try, I don't get the impression that he'd have forgotten about religion's single most effective selling point. He wouldn't have convinced the atheists regardless, but then again, that's not what religious writings are for.

lmaopml

I seem to recall a Hitchens V McGrath debate? It's not a game of Cat and Mouse, it's debate or don't - if you place yourself in the public domain - debate those who are in the public domain.

However, I do agree that Dawkins is not original.

To be fair, I actually quite liked Hitchens as a human, as a person, even if I singularly disagreed with him - I have a soft spot for charisma, and bluntness, and words, which he seemed to have in abundance!

soterpisc

http://fora.tv/2007/10/11/Christopher_Hitchens_Debates_Alister_McGrath

Alister McGrath Debates Christopher Hitchens