I've given C.S. 5 stars (for [b:Till We Have Faces|17343|Till We Have Faces|C.S. Lewis|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1381692105s/17343.jpg|2072983]s) and 2 stars (for [b:Till We Have Faces|17343|Till We Have Faces|C.S. Lewis|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1381692105s/17343.jpg|2072983]Perelandra) and 4 IIRC (for [b:Out of the Silent Planet|25350|Out of the Silent Planet (Space Trilogy, #1)|C.S. Lewis|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1310984018s/25350.jpg|879622]). Now here I am again with a 2 star rating.

This is a book which (judging from the other reviews I scanned) people mostly loved or hated. Those who hated it were most often forced to read it. It attempts to give a rational account of Christianity or, at least, a logical argument in its favor, and often the ratings were split between the Christians (giving it 5) and the Lions (giving it 1 or 2). I am in neither camp and was attracted to his mission. I think that the spiritual world (if I may use that phrase) has a lot of rational things that need to be said in its favor at a time when the atheists are claiming the logical high ground, and wanted to see what C.S. had to contribute.

To start with the good, I thought he approached his subject seriously. This is stuff he's clearly thought a lot about and is convinced about and moved by. By "mere," which I took at first to be an adjective of humility, he meant he was looking for common Christian ground that would be uncontroversial. Though I didn't grow up Christian, and thus lack a point of view about what is common, I was surprised at some of his statements. I also lack the background to be able to say which of his arguments are original with him, but on both these issues, I thought he was pretty out there at times. Maybe England in 1943 (date of first publication) was a very different place than I imagine but I found what he had to say about, say, evolution, to be far from the mainstream.

I thought he had in some respects deep spiritual understanding and was trying to speak from it. Let me make clear the assumption that I believe there is such a thing as spiritual understanding and that it is, in my experience, uncommon. I think the mistake he ultimately made is not to realize his understandings did not inexorably lead to the conclusions he reached. Furthermore, it would have helped his argument if he had read more heathen (or otherwise) philosophy rather than to try and create it from scratch. In particular, arguments about moral reasoning and free will have already been done and done better. Even done better by Christians.

In the end, he was extremely culture-bound and unaware of it, often taking his limited points of view as showing him universalities. Still, I forgive him.