Talk:C. S. Lewis

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

Moved from Talk:C. S. Lewis

Timeline of school background:

  • 1898 Born
  • 190?-1908 Private tutors
  • 1908 Wynyard School in Watford, Hertfordshire
  • 1910 Wynyard School closed, attended Campbell College in Belfast
  • 1911 Went to England and studied at Cherbourg House
  • 1913 Enrolled at Malvern College
  • 1916 Accepted to Oxford

He was educated at home until the age of 10 by private tutors. From age 10 to 18, he was enrolled at various schools. --Mtur 21:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Evolution and materialism

"Although he was not an ardent anti-evolutionist" leads into the section on Materialism. I'm not sure what his views on evolution (actually, they were theistic evolution, to be specific) have to do with Materialism. DanH 15:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is a materialist philosophy. Further, although Lewis never rejected evolution, it is clear that he was moving away from it, but not being a scientist, it seems that he didn't feel qualified to actually make the decision to reject it publicly. See the link in reference 4 of the article (Barnes). Philip J. Rayment 23:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't see that in the reference, and no evolution is not necessarily materialistic. As Dan observed theistic evolution is not materialistic. JoshuaZ 18:36, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't follow exactly what it is that you don't see in the reference. That some people try to add God to evolution doesn't mean that it isn't inherently materialistic. Philip J. Rayment 10:04, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
It is no more materialistic than plumbing or Newton's theory of gravity. Furthermore, the reference talks about a) astronomy not evolution and b) specificially essentially atheistic versions of that. If God set in motion the formation of earth and all subsequent events it is far from clear that Lewis would have had any theological problem with that. Indeed, I suspect he would not. JoshuaZ 10:52, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
It is "more" materialistic than plumbing and the theory of gravity because it relies on excluding God, which was its purpose, which is not true of those other two.
The reference includes "the whole evolution of man"; it is not just about astronomy.
If God had set things in motion, then it wouldn't be materialistic, but evolution is designed to replace God, so evolution is materialistic, and Lewis was speaking against materialism.
Philip J. Rayment 23:04, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Evolution isn't designed to replace God. Darwin didn't intend that and even if he had intended it as some form of replace it wouldn't matter because scientists don't generally intend it to be some sort of replacement. If it were intended as such one wouldn't have all the proponents of theistic evolution. Furthermore, from what I can parse of the quote he is if anything advocating some form of theistic evolution. "If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too" that seems to be taking for granted that evolution occured, he objects to such evolution being an accident. At best, this quote leaves his position ambiguous. JoshuaZ 23:33, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Gould said that Darwin's intention was to replace God, and Ruse has said that it was intended to replace Christianity. A lot of scientists (and others) do consider it a replacement for God. But of course the atheistic evolutionists like to keep the theistic evolutionists on side to use against the creationists, so they present evolution as dispassionate science rather than the philosophy it is. This has convinced many Christians that evolution is a fact, so they add God to evolution, despite this contradicting what the Bible says (as many anti-creationist realise, but don't let on in such cases).
The quote you provide from Lewis seems to me to be nothing more than describing evolution, not a taking for granted that it happened. But I'm wondering if we are wandering off the point. What exactly did the article say that you disagree with, that we haven't already covered?
Philip J. Rayment 02:56, 28 May 2007 (EDT)


As noted on Fox's talk page:

The page should be under the title "C. S. Lewis" because this is the form of his name he used himself when publishing his books, and the form by which other writers (biographers, etc) refer to him. It is even the way library catalogs refer to him; for example, a search on my local library for books by "Lewis, Clive Staples" returns:

Lewis Clive Staples 1898 1963 is not used in this library's catalog.
Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples), 1898-1963 is used instead.

Putting it under the full name is just confusing. None of us are his family or his close friends, we are his readers, and we should use the same entry that libraries and standard references works such as encyclopedias use. And we shouldn't move the famous movie actor well known by his stage name to his real name, Marion Morrison, either. Dpbsmith 17:39, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't George W. Bush be moved wholesale to Dubya then, with the former acting as a redirect to the latter..? A google of his full name returns plenty of results - maybe you should talk your local librarians into doing their job a little more efficiently? Fox 17:52, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
No, George W. Bush should not be moved to Dubya, because although Dubya is a well-known informal nickname for him it is not the form of his name that is used by himself (in his campaigns), not the way his name appears on ballots, and not the way biographers, newspapers, and reference books refer to him.
Google searches are often misleading for various reasons, but your Google search on Lewis is faulty because you did not put the name within quotation marks. Didn't you notice that most of the hits in your top results were websites with titles like "Into the Wardrobe :: a C. S. Lewis web site," "C.S. Lewis," and so forth? One of them, [ The Long, Long Trail: The British Army in the Great War of 1914-1918" uses the full name, but that's because the context of the entire article is his war service... and it even adds
"Clive Staples Lewis is better known as C.S. Lewis, the author of, among other works, the Chronicles of Narnia"
By not enclosing the name in quotation marks, you are picking up many irrelevant entries, and many that give the full name in passing but use "C. S. Lewis"
Now, I don't like Google searches on the Web as anything but very rough measures, because they're easily distorted by search engine optimization and because they pick up all sorts of informal writing, but nevertheless if I search on the exact phrases "Clive Staples Lewis" and "C. S. Lewis" I get 263,000 and 1,730,000 hits, respectively.
(Similarly, dubya and "George W. Bush" return 3,230,000 and 62,800,000 hits, respectively).
If we're going to use Google at all, I much prefer searches on Google Books because using only print sources reduces search engine optimization effects and adds a certain sanity filter. In this case, we find:
"Clive Staples Lewis", 70 hits
"C. S. Lewis", 2670 hits
Dpbsmith 06:57, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
I really don't get what your problem is, you are like a terrier yapping at the postman and passers-by. You have moved the article to C. S Lewis, and got what you wanted. What is it with the carping aftwerwards?? We disagreed, you unilaterally reverted the edit, and now you seem to want to crow about it incessantly. Get over it! Do something constructive! Fox 07:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT) Added: Apologies if that sounded like a personal attack, the point I was trying to get across is that you have made 4 consecutive edits to this talk page, essentially over a subject that is no longer up for discussion. As I said, it is now moved and I personally would prefer to go back to working on the article rather than be tied up in this discussion :) Fox 07:18, 28 May 2007 (EDT)


Thank you for the extensive updates Fox, but I also hope there is a common understanding that some alterations may be done on your work. For instance, on the front page of conservapedia talking about the number of entries, they are referred to as "concise". Information on the chest measurements of Lewis, both relaxed and extended, may go beyond that description. Learn together 11:52, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Debatable: As far as physical descriptions of a man go, I would suggest you don't often see much more concise than that :P File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:17, 29 May 2007 (EDT)


This seems debatable. Most, I think, would describe him as British. Is there a citation that claims that he was Irish? Ajkgordon 08:50, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Not only did he self-identify as Irish ("I'm Irish not English! Did you ever know an Irishman who didn't puff and blow?" - C. S. Lewis(1958)) note also that his nationality exempted him from conscription. This is mentioned also with regard to his brother (Warren Lewis was a volunteer (he was Irish by nationality, hence not subject to conscription)). See also C. S. Lewis: My Irish Life. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 10:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Also, partition didn't occur until 1920. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 11:12, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Ah, OK, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajkgordon (talk)