The Allegory of Love

The cover was wrapped around all of the pages and glued very neatly to the spine. All pages were of an off-white of which facilitated a more pleasant reading experience. The inked letters had clearly defined edges and all of the words were legible. All in all a very well made book.

I was disappointed that I ordered directly from the store and received books that had a different cover than was pictured, were made of poor quality "pulpy" material and one of the books actually had ~25 pages folded over and glued into the binding! The delivery took longer than it had in the past but I did not pay for expedited shipping.

The returned product was refunded without issue but I was short one book for my bookclub. Not good.

I hope this is not the new level of service the store will be providing.

Reading C.S. Lewis elaborate on theology is no easy task. But for those willing to work through his profound thoughts, a treasure trove of new insights into Scripture await. Miracles: How God Intervenes In Nature And Human Affairs is no exception to this.

“Miracle” is directly mentioned so 30 times in Scripture, but the Bible never explicitly defines miracle. Lewis gives this definition: “I use the word Miracle to mean an interference with Nature by supernatural power.” He then proceeds to explain what philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle meant by “nature” and “super-nature” and how those understandings have been dismissed, adapted or corrupted throughout history.

Lewis moves through several chapters without admitting miracles are probable (or even possible) and without ascribing any possible miracles to God. When he finally reveals that there is a God, he states, “From the admission that God exists and is the author of Nature, it by no means follows that miracles must, or even can, occur.” He then moves to the Scripture to show how God could—and indeed, does—work miraculously.

Even after all of Lewis’ brilliant arguments, I appreciate one of his final admissions in this book: “If you find that [these ideas] so distract you, think of them no more. I most fully allow that it is of more importance for you or me today to refrain from one sneer or to extend one charitable thought to an enemy than to know all that angels and archangels know about the mysteries of the New Creation.”

Even for those who accept his arguments, Lewis offers this counsel: “My work ends here. If, after reading it, you now turn to study the historical evidence for yourself, begin with the New Testament and not with the books about it.” Ultimately I recommend this book for this one reason—Miracles creates a hunger to study God’s Word more.

To pick this book up and expect anything other than a treatise on miracles seems naive. However, I would not recommend this as the first of Lewis' books one uses to become indoctrinated to his style and non-fiction prose, miracles or not.

The material is thick, and as some might say, "over my head" at [most] times. I found in half hour increments I could do reasonably well to digest what was being provided. However, any amount of time over that, and far too many thoughts and discussions were wagered inside my head.

For anyone that struggles to get through this one, I say push yourself through to the end. The final chapter and the epilogue (to a degree the next to last chapter as well) provide a nice, well-rounded summation of Lewis' thoughts on the nature and existence of miracles.

For those looking to find written, sustainable proof of miracles, you may finish this read still lacking. This is not a bad thing. As Lewis points out, miracles, at least those recorded for us, tend more often to happen in the company of martyrs and rather awful circumstance. Consider yourself blessed if you haven't seen one, but keep vigilant as such a thing may still be in your future.

Those who do not allow themselves to believe in miracles cannot believe in the Gospel either. Understanding this, C.S. Lewis wrote Miracles: A Preliminary Study as a means to gently nudge skeptics away from assuming that their philosophical rejection of the miraculous is actually reasonable. Lewis sets out to demonstrate that miracle rejection is a tenuous position to hold philosophically, and most thoughtful readers, I believe, tend to agree he succeeded.

Lewis turns the tables on those who assume that Christians believe what they believe because of social conditioning, illogical superstition, and emotion by arguing that Naturalism and Pantheism et al. arise from those very sources. He also explains that Christianity cannot be separated from the miraculous. Lewis manages to logically assert that unbelief is born of fallacy.

Knowing that philosophical positions cannot be proven, Lewis sought to logically coax those hesitant to relinquish their secular worldview into considering what believers already recognize as the most significant paradigm change of life: the claims of the Bible are true. Miracles are not illogical at all. Lewis explains why.

My version is an older edition. It actually says 99 cents in the upper right corner, but aside from that, it looks just like the 2 of 3 (yellow) alternate cover Customer image. I assume the few typos and other minor glitches were corrected in later versions such as what is pictured here.

Despite a few points where I briefly disagreed with him, (e.g., he refers to the Incarnation as "the central miracle asserted by Christians") Miracles is, in my opinion, a philosophical masterpiece. I do not believe, as some Christians do, that Jesus Christ lived before he was born. I would have identified the resurrection of Christ as the central miracle. To see more about why I disagree with Lewis about the Incarnation, see: One God & One Lord : Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith.

Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) was a novelist, academic, medievalist, lay theologian, and Christian apologist who held academic positions at both Oxford University and Cambridge University. He wrote many other books, such as Mere Christianity,Problem of Pain,The Screwtape Letters,A Grief Observed,The World's Last Night,The Abolition of Man,The Great Divorce,God in the Dock,Christian Reflections, etc.

He wrote in the first chapter of this 1947 book, "This book is intended as a preliminary to historical inquiry. I am not a trained historian and I shall not examine the historical evidence for the Christian miracles. My effort is to put my readers in a position to do so. It is no use going to the [biblical] texts until we have some idea about the possibility or probability of the miraculous. Those who assume that miracles cannot happen are merely wasting their time by looking into the texts; we know in advance what results they will find for they have begun by begging the question." (Pg. 8-9)

He argues, "If we are to continue to make moral judgments... then we must believe that the conscience of man is not a product of Nature. It can be valid only if it is an offshoot of some absolute moral wisdom, a moral wisdom which exists absolutely 'on its own' and is not a product of non-moral, non-rational Nature... this leads us to acknowledge a supernatural source for our ideas of good and evil." (Pg. 38-39)

He suggests, in [Christianity] the Miracles, or at least some Miracles, are more closely bound up with the fabric of the whole belief than in any other. All the essentials of Hinduism would, I think, remain unimpaired if you subtracted the miraculous, and the same is almost true of Mohammedanism. But you cannot do that with Christianity. It is precisely the story of a great Miracle. A naturalistic Christianity leaves out all that is specifically Christian." (Pg. 69)

He gives his famous counter-argument to Hume's argument against miracles [found in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section 10]: "There is, in fact, 'uniform experience' against Miracle; otherwise, says Hume, it would not be Miracle... It is always more probable that the witnesses were lying or mistaken than that a Miracle occurred. Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely 'uniform experience' against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know the experience them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle." (Pg. 105)

He proposes, "We have ... found... a criterion whereby to judge the intrinsic probability of an alleged miracle. We must judge it by our 'innate sense of the fitness of things,' that same sense of fitness which led us to anticipate that the universe would be orderly... Whatever men may SAY, no one really thinks that the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection is exactly on the same level with ... how Mother Egarée Louise miraculously found her second best thimble by the aid of St. Anthony... Even those who think all stories of miracles absurd think some very much more absurd than others... The criterion which both parties are actually using is that of fitness. More than half the disbelief in miracles that exists is based on a sense of their UNFITNESS..." (Pg. 110-111)

He admits, "I am in no way committed to the assertion that God has never worked miracles through and for Pagans or never permitted supernatural beings to do so... But I claim that the Christian miracles have a much greater intrinsic probability in virtue of their organic connection with one another and with the whole structure of the religion they exhibit... Thus miracles are (in late documents, I believe) recorded of the Buddha... [But] The more we respect his teaching the less we could accept his miracles. But in Christianity, the more we understand what God it is who is said to be present and the purpose for which He is said to have appeared, the more credible the miracles become." (Pg. 138)

This book is a true "classic" of modern apologetics, and more Christians should actually READ it, rather than just hear a few passages quoted or paraphrased.

Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) was a novelist, academic, medievalist, lay theologian, and Christian apologist who held academic positions at both Oxford University and Cambridge University. He wrote many other books, such as Mere Christianity,Problem of Pain,The Screwtape Letters,A Grief Observed,The World's Last Night,The Abolition of Man,The Great Divorce,God in the Dock,Christian Reflections, etc.

He wrote in the first chapter of this 1947 book, "This book is intended as a preliminary to historical inquiry. I am not a trained historian and I shall not examine the historical evidence for the Christian miracles. My effort is to put my readers in a position to do so. It is no use going to the [biblical] texts until we have some idea about the possibility or probability of the miraculous. Those who assume that miracles cannot happen are merely wasting their time by looking into the texts; we know in advance what results they will find for they have begun by begging the question." (Pg. 8-9)

He argues, "If we are to continue to make moral judgments... then we must believe that the conscience of man is not a product of Nature. It can be valid only if it is an offshoot of some absolute moral wisdom, a moral wisdom which exists absolutely 'on its own' and is not a product of non-moral, non-rational Nature... this leads us to acknowledge a supernatural source for our ideas of good and evil." (Pg. 38-39)

He suggests, in [Christianity] the Miracles, or at least some Miracles, are more closely bound up with the fabric of the whole belief than in any other. All the essentials of Hinduism would, I think, remain unimpaired if you subtracted the miraculous, and the same is almost true of Mohammedanism. But you cannot do that with Christianity. It is precisely the story of a great Miracle. A naturalistic Christianity leaves out all that is specifically Christian." (Pg. 69)

He gives his famous counter-argument to Hume's argument against miracles [found in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section 10]: "There is, in fact, 'uniform experience' against Miracle; otherwise, says Hume, it would not be Miracle... It is always more probable that the witnesses were lying or mistaken than that a Miracle occurred. Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely 'uniform experience' against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know the experience them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle." (Pg. 105)

He proposes, "We have ... found... a criterion whereby to judge the intrinsic probability of an alleged miracle. We must judge it by our 'innate sense of the fitness of things,' that same sense of fitness which led us to anticipate that the universe would be orderly... Whatever men may SAY, no one really thinks that the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection is exactly on the same level with ... how Mother Egarée Louise miraculously found her second best thimble by the aid of St. Anthony... Even those who think all stories of miracles absurd think some very much more absurd than others... The criterion which both parties are actually using is that of fitness. More than half the disbelief in miracles that exists is based on a sense of their UNFITNESS..." (Pg. 110-111)

He admits, "I am in no way committed to the assertion that God has never worked miracles through and for Pagans or never permitted supernatural beings to do so... But I claim that the Christian miracles have a much greater intrinsic probability in virtue of their organic connection with one another and with the whole structure of the religion they exhibit... Thus miracles are (in late documents, I believe) recorded of the Buddha... [But] The more we respect his teaching the less we could accept his miracles. But in Christianity, the more we understand what God it is who is said to be present and the purpose for which He is said to have appeared, the more credible the miracles become." (Pg. 138)

This book is a true "classic" of modern apologetics, and more Christians should actually READ it, rather than just hear a few passages quoted or paraphrased.

Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) was a novelist, academic, medievalist, lay theologian, and Christian apologist who held academic positions at both Oxford University and Cambridge University. He wrote many other books, such as Mere Christianity,Problem of Pain,The Screwtape Letters,A Grief Observed,The World's Last Night,The Abolition of Man,The Great Divorce,God in the Dock,Christian Reflections, etc.

He wrote in the first chapter of this 1947 book, "This book is intended as a preliminary to historical inquiry. I am not a trained historian and I shall not examine the historical evidence for the Christian miracles. My effort is to put my readers in a position to do so. It is no use going to the [biblical] texts until we have some idea about the possibility or probability of the miraculous. Those who assume that miracles cannot happen are merely wasting their time by looking into the texts; we know in advance what results they will find for they have begun by begging the question." (Pg. 8-9)

He argues, "If we are to continue to make moral judgments... then we must believe that the conscience of man is not a product of Nature. It can be valid only if it is an offshoot of some absolute moral wisdom, a moral wisdom which exists absolutely 'on its own' and is not a product of non-moral, non-rational Nature... this leads us to acknowledge a supernatural source for our ideas of good and evil." (Pg. 38-39)

He suggests, in [Christianity] the Miracles, or at least some Miracles, are more closely bound up with the fabric of the whole belief than in any other. All the essentials of Hinduism would, I think, remain unimpaired if you subtracted the miraculous, and the same is almost true of Mohammedanism. But you cannot do that with Christianity. It is precisely the story of a great Miracle. A naturalistic Christianity leaves out all that is specifically Christian." (Pg. 69)

He gives his famous counter-argument to Hume's argument against miracles [found in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section 10]: "There is, in fact, 'uniform experience' against Miracle; otherwise, says Hume, it would not be Miracle... It is always more probable that the witnesses were lying or mistaken than that a Miracle occurred. Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely 'uniform experience' against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know the experience them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle." (Pg. 105)

He proposes, "We have ... found... a criterion whereby to judge the intrinsic probability of an alleged miracle. We must judge it by our 'innate sense of the fitness of things,' that same sense of fitness which led us to anticipate that the universe would be orderly... Whatever men may SAY, no one really thinks that the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection is exactly on the same level with ... how Mother Egarée Louise miraculously found her second best thimble by the aid of St. Anthony... Even those who think all stories of miracles absurd think some very much more absurd than others... The criterion which both parties are actually using is that of fitness. More than half the disbelief in miracles that exists is based on a sense of their UNFITNESS..." (Pg. 110-111)

He admits, "I am in no way committed to the assertion that God has never worked miracles through and for Pagans or never permitted supernatural beings to do so... But I claim that the Christian miracles have a much greater intrinsic probability in virtue of their organic connection with one another and with the whole structure of the religion they exhibit... Thus miracles are (in late documents, I believe) recorded of the Buddha... [But] The more we respect his teaching the less we could accept his miracles. But in Christianity, the more we understand what God it is who is said to be present and the purpose for which He is said to have appeared, the more credible the miracles become." (Pg. 138)

This book is a true "classic" of modern apologetics, and more Christians should actually READ it, rather than just hear a few passages quoted or paraphrased.

Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) was a novelist, academic, medievalist, lay theologian, and Christian apologist who held academic positions at both Oxford University and Cambridge University. He wrote many other books, such as Mere Christianity,Problem of Pain,The Screwtape Letters,A Grief Observed,The World's Last Night,The Abolition of Man,The Great Divorce,God in the Dock,Christian Reflections, etc.

He wrote in the first chapter of this 1947 book, "This book is intended as a preliminary to historical inquiry. I am not a trained historian and I shall not examine the historical evidence for the Christian miracles. My effort is to put my readers in a position to do so. It is no use going to the [biblical] texts until we have some idea about the possibility or probability of the miraculous. Those who assume that miracles cannot happen are merely wasting their time by looking into the texts; we know in advance what results they will find for they have begun by begging the question." (Pg. 8-9)

He argues, "If we are to continue to make moral judgments... then we must believe that the conscience of man is not a product of Nature. It can be valid only if it is an offshoot of some absolute moral wisdom, a moral wisdom which exists absolutely 'on its own' and is not a product of non-moral, non-rational Nature... this leads us to acknowledge a supernatural source for our ideas of good and evil." (Pg. 38-39)

He suggests, in [Christianity] the Miracles, or at least some Miracles, are more closely bound up with the fabric of the whole belief than in any other. All the essentials of Hinduism would, I think, remain unimpaired if you subtracted the miraculous, and the same is almost true of Mohammedanism. But you cannot do that with Christianity. It is precisely the story of a great Miracle. A naturalistic Christianity leaves out all that is specifically Christian." (Pg. 69)

He gives his famous counter-argument to Hume's argument against miracles [found in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section 10]: "There is, in fact, 'uniform experience' against Miracle; otherwise, says Hume, it would not be Miracle... It is always more probable that the witnesses were lying or mistaken than that a Miracle occurred. Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely 'uniform experience' against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know the experience them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle." (Pg. 105)

He proposes, "We have ... found... a criterion whereby to judge the intrinsic probability of an alleged miracle. We must judge it by our 'innate sense of the fitness of things,' that same sense of fitness which led us to anticipate that the universe would be orderly... Whatever men may SAY, no one really thinks that the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection is exactly on the same level with ... how Mother Egarée Louise miraculously found her second best thimble by the aid of St. Anthony... Even those who think all stories of miracles absurd think some very much more absurd than others... The criterion which both parties are actually using is that of fitness. More than half the disbelief in miracles that exists is based on a sense of their UNFITNESS..." (Pg. 110-111)

He admits, "I am in no way committed to the assertion that God has never worked miracles through and for Pagans or never permitted supernatural beings to do so... But I claim that the Christian miracles have a much greater intrinsic probability in virtue of their organic connection with one another and with the whole structure of the religion they exhibit... Thus miracles are (in late documents, I believe) recorded of the Buddha... [But] The more we respect his teaching the less we could accept his miracles. But in Christianity, the more we understand what God it is who is said to be present and the purpose for which He is said to have appeared, the more credible the miracles become." (Pg. 138)

This book is a true "classic" of modern apologetics, and more Christians should actually READ it, rather than just hear a few passages quoted or paraphrased.

The first few chapters are great in explaining why physical reductionism (Lewis calls it Naturalism) is false because it cannot explain the origin of Reason as we know it. Physicalism also cannot explain the reality of ethics satisfactorily either, if one subscribes to moral realism. Our understanding of the world therefore is incomplete, leaving the door open to the possibility of miracles.

Likewise, the penultimate chapter on resurrection is a real gem. Lewis states clearly that the orthodox view on resurrection is a bodily, although transformed, one. A purely "spiritual" or "metaphorical" understanding is not the orthodox view.

The middle chapters are slightly wanting. It appears that Lewis has not grasped the essence of physics (viz. in terms of Noether's Theorem), and does not quite understand the real significance of the "regularity" of the universe. His attacks on Pantheism and Hume are fine but, I find, are a bit out of place. He also tries to explain the purpose of miracles from a Christian perspective but naturally there is an element of preaching to the converted here. Individual readers can decide themselves how convincing his arguments are.

In any case, this is overall a good book if you are interested in Christianity or C.S. Lewis. Four stars.

One of the most mocked aspects of the Christian faith is the existence of miracles. In fact, the very heart of the Christian faith is based on a miracle. How can one believe in Christianity unless one believes in miracles, or at least is willing to allow for their existence? The simple answer, according to C. S. Lewis, is that they can't. In his book, Miracles, Lewis defended the logic of believing in such supernatural events.

In a fashion that those who have read his other Apologetics works will recognize, Lewis uses a type of "stepping-stone" or building argument. He starts with the notion of defining the difference between the belief in the "supernatural" and the merely "natural", and then goes on to systematically define what counts for supernatural, and, of the concepts under the umbrella of that term, what would count as a miracle.

What makes this book effective is that Lewis actually shows a sense of history and skepticism. What I mean by this is that he points out the historical "lineage" of both the beliefs of Christianity in terms of the miraculous, and of the general anti-Christian naturalist philosophy. Granted, it is a very quick sketch, but that is what makes it so useful. It is quite brief, yet has the pertinent information. On the issue of skepticism, Lewis argues that most of the extra-Biblical accounts of "miracles" are probably not actually miracles, though they certainly could be.

At the end of the book, Lewis makes a distinction between a "miracle" and something that would be said to be predestined, or a work of "Providence". He points out that such acts of Providence are not miracles, but this doesn't mean that they are any less of an example of God's supernatural power. The idea that, from the beginning of Creation, God designed that some "saving grace" should appear at such and such a time, is truly as awe-inspiring as any miraculous account.

In a section of the book near the end, Lewis differentiates between the miracles of the "old Creation" (upon which we currently live), and those of the "New Creation" which we have had a foretaste of with Christ's resurrection and life before the Ascension, and which we can look forward to in the New Heaven/New Earth. Lewis admits that most of what he says on the subject of possible New Creation miracles is sheer conjecture, but it is one we ought to cling to and discuss for the sake of our Christian walk and growth. Randy Alcorn's premise in his very important book, Heaven, (which has changed my life and perspective, and I encourage all to read) was not the first modern call to return to the hope and study of Heaven. C. S. Lewis preceded him by nearly sixty years.

This account and defense of miracles is one that I would Highly Recommend to others.

Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) was a novelist, academic, medievalist, lay theologian, and Christian apologist who held academic positions at both Oxford University and Cambridge University. He wrote many other books, such as Mere Christianity,Problem of Pain,The Screwtape Letters,A Grief Observed,The World's Last Night,The Abolition of Man,The Great Divorce,God in the Dock,Christian Reflections, etc.

He wrote in the first chapter of this 1947 book, "This book is intended as a preliminary to historical inquiry. I am not a trained historian and I shall not examine the historical evidence for the Christian miracles. My effort is to put my readers in a position to do so. It is no use going to the [biblical] texts until we have some idea about the possibility or probability of the miraculous. Those who assume that miracles cannot happen are merely wasting their time by looking into the texts; we know in advance what results they will find for they have begun by begging the question." (Pg. 8-9)

He argues, "If we are to continue to make moral judgments... then we must believe that the conscience of man is not a product of Nature. It can be valid only if it is an offshoot of some absolute moral wisdom, a moral wisdom which exists absolutely 'on its own' and is not a product of non-moral, non-rational Nature... this leads us to acknowledge a supernatural source for our ideas of good and evil." (Pg. 38-39)

He suggests, in [Christianity] the Miracles, or at least some Miracles, are more closely bound up with the fabric of the whole belief than in any other. All the essentials of Hinduism would, I think, remain unimpaired if you subtracted the miraculous, and the same is almost true of Mohammedanism. But you cannot do that with Christianity. It is precisely the story of a great Miracle. A naturalistic Christianity leaves out all that is specifically Christian." (Pg. 69)

He gives his famous counter-argument to Hume's argument against miracles [found in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section 10]: "There is, in fact, 'uniform experience' against Miracle; otherwise, says Hume, it would not be Miracle... It is always more probable that the witnesses were lying or mistaken than that a Miracle occurred. Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely 'uniform experience' against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know the experience them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle." (Pg. 105)

He proposes, "We have ... found... a criterion whereby to judge the intrinsic probability of an alleged miracle. We must judge it by our 'innate sense of the fitness of things,' that same sense of fitness which led us to anticipate that the universe would be orderly... Whatever men may SAY, no one really thinks that the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection is exactly on the same level with ... how Mother Egarée Louise miraculously found her second best thimble by the aid of St. Anthony... Even those who think all stories of miracles absurd think some very much more absurd than others... The criterion which both parties are actually using is that of fitness. More than half the disbelief in miracles that exists is based on a sense of their UNFITNESS..." (Pg. 110-111)

He admits, "I am in no way committed to the assertion that God has never worked miracles through and for Pagans or never permitted supernatural beings to do so... But I claim that the Christian miracles have a much greater intrinsic probability in virtue of their organic connection with one another and with the whole structure of the religion they exhibit... Thus miracles are (in late documents, I believe) recorded of the Buddha... [But] The more we respect his teaching the less we could accept his miracles. But in Christianity, the more we understand what God it is who is said to be present and the purpose for which He is said to have appeared, the more credible the miracles become." (Pg. 138)

This book is a true "classic" of modern apologetics, and more Christians should actually READ it, rather than just hear a few passages quoted or paraphrased.

The first few chapters are great in explaining why physical reductionism (Lewis calls it Naturalism) is false because it cannot explain the origin of Reason as we know it. Physicalism also cannot explain the reality of ethics satisfactorily either, if one subscribes to moral realism. Our understanding of the world therefore is incomplete, leaving the door open to the possibility of miracles.

Likewise, the penultimate chapter on resurrection is a real gem. Lewis states clearly that the orthodox view on resurrection is a bodily, although transformed, one. A purely "spiritual" or "metaphorical" understanding is not the orthodox view.

The middle chapters are slightly wanting. It appears that Lewis has not grasped the essence of physics (viz. in terms of Noether's Theorem), and does not quite understand the real significance of the "regularity" of the universe. His attacks on Pantheism and Hume are fine but, I find, are a bit out of place. He also tries to explain the purpose of miracles from a Christian perspective but naturally there is an element of preaching to the converted here. Individual readers can decide themselves how convincing his arguments are.

In any case, this is overall a good book if you are interested in Christianity or C.S. Lewis. Four stars.

One of the most mocked aspects of the Christian faith is the existence of miracles. In fact, the very heart of the Christian faith is based on a miracle. How can one believe in Christianity unless one believes in miracles, or at least is willing to allow for their existence? The simple answer, according to C. S. Lewis, is that they can't. In his book, Miracles, Lewis defended the logic of believing in such supernatural events.

In a fashion that those who have read his other Apologetics works will recognize, Lewis uses a type of "stepping-stone" or building argument. He starts with the notion of defining the difference between the belief in the "supernatural" and the merely "natural", and then goes on to systematically define what counts for supernatural, and, of the concepts under the umbrella of that term, what would count as a miracle.

What makes this book effective is that Lewis actually shows a sense of history and skepticism. What I mean by this is that he points out the historical "lineage" of both the beliefs of Christianity in terms of the miraculous, and of the general anti-Christian naturalist philosophy. Granted, it is a very quick sketch, but that is what makes it so useful. It is quite brief, yet has the pertinent information. On the issue of skepticism, Lewis argues that most of the extra-Biblical accounts of "miracles" are probably not actually miracles, though they certainly could be.

At the end of the book, Lewis makes a distinction between a "miracle" and something that would be said to be predestined, or a work of "Providence". He points out that such acts of Providence are not miracles, but this doesn't mean that they are any less of an example of God's supernatural power. The idea that, from the beginning of Creation, God designed that some "saving grace" should appear at such and such a time, is truly as awe-inspiring as any miraculous account.

In a section of the book near the end, Lewis differentiates between the miracles of the "old Creation" (upon which we currently live), and those of the "New Creation" which we have had a foretaste of with Christ's resurrection and life before the Ascension, and which we can look forward to in the New Heaven/New Earth. Lewis admits that most of what he says on the subject of possible New Creation miracles is sheer conjecture, but it is one we ought to cling to and discuss for the sake of our Christian walk and growth. Randy Alcorn's premise in his very important book, Heaven, (which has changed my life and perspective, and I encourage all to read) was not the first modern call to return to the hope and study of Heaven. C. S. Lewis preceded him by nearly sixty years.

This account and defense of miracles is one that I would Highly Recommend to others.

Miracles is one of my favourite CS Lewis' books. Started reading it in my early twenties but found a few chapters difficult. Nonetheless, it has given me a basic framework for what it means to believe in miracles and how that is integral to the Christian story, that would not have been without the Incarnation (dubbed the 'Grand Miracle'). The next decade, I found it easier and even more illuminating, as it had many electrifying passages that cured the 'dabbler of religious ideas' in me, that came subconsciously under the spell of the New Age pantheistic mood that was floating around. In this decade, where some fiery brand of atheists (naturalists in Lewis' term) made a comeback argument against belief in the supernatural, this book is ready at hand to buttress one against its angry rhetoric. Leave aside the big guns - William Lane Craig or David Bentley Hart - for the moment, this brief volume alone is sufficient to blow the rehashed Humean circular logic out of the water together with many other such sophistries. All this is to say that Lewis' works never seem to go outdated.

Having read quite a fair bit of the bible scholar NT Wright on the themes of Resurrection and the New Creation, the chapter 'miracles of the new creation' brought up several 'aha' moments and close connections between these two intellectual giants. This makes 'Miracles' such a pleasure to read ... it offers moments after moments of delightful serendipity. It is like old wine. It gets better with age and yields a special flavor as one reads and grows with it.

Miracles, originally published in 1947 and revised in 1960, is a book on Christian apologetics by C. S. Lewis. Using philosophical and logical arguments, Lewis asserts that man's ability to reason proves that something (God) exists beyond Nature. From here he goes on to argue that this God (he assumes it's the Christian God) can and has in fact done miracles.

This is a short book, but it can be tough. Readers without logical or philosophical training, no matter how intelligent, may quickly become lost, especially early. The reader may at this point decide to either give up or just take Lewis's word for it.

Lewis's arguments aren't always airtight - he's always been prone to let his arguments come down to "A versus B" without allowing for the possibility of "C" - but he always talks a good game and is usually able to get through the weak spots on wit and readability. And so, for the most part, it is here, the more inscrutable parts of the work notwithstanding.

Miracles is hardly Lewis's most accessible work, and it seems unlikely to persuade too many atheists, but it's worth a read for anyone interested in a logical or philosophical approach to Christian apologetics.

Miracles is an example of the precise way that Lewis used his logical skills to explain complex Biblical teachings that are under a great deal of skeptical pressure in the modern age. Using deductive reasoning, Lewis takes the reader of this work from a theistic understanding of what miracles are as opposed to the prevalent naturalism, to the core of Christian teaching in the miracle of the resurrection.

For Lewis, miracles are simply a part of the natural order of creation and they are described either as shortened times of creation or things reflecting a new, incorruptible creation. Lewis is more concerned with the nature of God and how he communicates and manipulates creation. He defines miracles as any interruption of the natural world by a supernatural power. Within the theology of Christianity, Lewis argues that all miracles point to the central miracle of the incarnation of Jesus and that even minor supernatural beings, like all angels, act according to how they are allowed to act by God.

Lewis develops his arguments and thoughts in this book in much the same way that he developed his reasoning in Mere Christianity. He begins by defining his argument. He then defines what miracles are. He then addresses contemporary challenges to miracles in naturalism. Miracles are defined as being part of a supernatural system that acts outside of normal natural occurrences. Lewis then argues for what the concept of miracles means in the context of Christianity. His teaching ends in the discussion of the greatest miracle in the Christian faith, his "grand miracle" of the incarnation and redemptive work of Christ on earth.

In arguing for miracles, Lewis uses an ad hominem approach. He intentionally uses logic and reason to examine naturalistic and rationalistic objections to miracles. First, his arguments for anything beyond the naturalistic world challenge to the inconsistencies of those who hold to reason alone. No one, he argues, can be a consistent naturalist. No one can claim that this world is all there is or ever will be. All men everywhere appeal to outside forces of morality and fairness that are not immediately apparent in nature. Before Lewis can argue for any particular miracle, he has to argue for the possibility that they exist by way of establishing the supernatural nature of the world.

For modern society, the arguments of Miracles are developed to show the futility and the often ordinary objections to the possibilities of divine miracles. For the modern religionist who objects to the direct Biblical miracles as being represented by a more primitive age, Lewis argues that the belief in miracles did not come from a specific primitive line of thought, but from very sophisticated thinking. His turn of arguing for the possibility of miracles to forcing modern men to argue how their thinking is possible in the light of the grand miracle forces men to consider the call of Christ on every area of life, not just the sacred.

Lewis demonstrates that any thinking about dividing reality into a scientific world and a sacred world is nonsense. God created the universe and its usual natural laws. He intervenes constantly, and from the incarnation all natural events have their meaning. This book encourages believers to not be afraid to believe the miracles of the Biblical narrative or to not be afraid to rely on them and realize their importance to everyday life. Miracles are not things that have happened historically, but represent the ongoing action of a God who constantly upholds and intervenes in his creation.

This book by CS Lewis was probably his most philosophical work. As such, it is not a light read at all and would probably prove difficult for beginners who have not been exposed to heavily philosophical material. But for those who want a highly intellectual philosophical discussion of the possibility of miracles, this book is certainly worthy of one's attention.
There are a number of strengths to this book which continue to make the book solidly relevant better than forty years after the revised edition came out. Lewis cuts to the heart of the matter very quickly in asserting that rejection of miracles apriori is a common attitude that at its core, is anti-intellectual. Attempts to base rejection of miracles on probabilities, as Hume tried to do, are philosophically untenable and require a betrayal of basic realities that are universally accepted.
Lewis then systematically dismantles the worldview that tends to most cradle apriori miracle rejection, naturalism. He compellingly shows that naturalism is a worldview that cannot stand up to philosophical scrutiny. Key to Lewis's presentation is his argument that naturalism can be demonstrated to be false in its complete rejection of supernaturalism merely by the reality of reason. Logic and reason of the mind, by themselves, are supernatural acts that cannot be explained or accounted for in nature, as naturalism demands. Supernaturalism, according to Lewis is not only possible, but pervasive since the act of logical thinking itself is supernatural in origin.
Lewis then eloquently argues that the relationship between nature and the supernatural are not hostile, but complementary. In Lewis's view, nature is quite pliable to accommodate and assimilate supernatural acts in ways that do not bring the kind of chaos and randomness that many naturalists believe to be reprehensible relative to the 'invasion' of nature by alleged supernatural acts. Lewis persuasively demonstrates that this concern is bogus.
Once the reality, possibility, and plausibility of miracles has been established philosophically, Lewis moves to classifying the Biblical miracles as either old creation or new creation miracles. Here, readers might be a bit disappointed by the presentation. Those looking for an evidential defense of miracles in general or any specific miracle in particular will not find it here. This is a philosophical presentation that is chiefly concerned with whether miracles are possible and/or probable. It is not an evidential defense of the possibility of any specific miracle. Lewis's central point is that human beings are disinclined towards believing in the inherent possibility of miracles for reasons that are not intellectually honest and calls for a fresh reappraisal of the possibility of miracles with a fresh attitude of open mindedness and a sincere commitment to soberly seek the truth absent bias. On this point, he does very well.
I noted that I thought the book deserved 4.5 stars rather than a full blown 5 stars. There are two main reasons why this is. First, his discussion of the Incarnation, while fascinating, was mostly off topic. The focus of Lewis's discussion was not on the miraculous nature of the Incarnation, but on its meaning to the believer and its relationship to nature. The discussion is good, but in a book on miracles, I found it to be misplaced. Second, and perhaps more crucial, is that Lewis succumbs to the very ad hoc skepticism that he argues so passionately against. Without elaboration, Lewis introduces the idea of 'Hebrew mythology' as being behind at least some of the miracles described in the Old Testament (Jonah and the whale being one). Why Lewis believes that some Biblical miracles are genuine while others are mythological is something he doesn't discuss. But the reader gets the sense that by taking this position, Lewis is caving in to the very kind of apriori rejection he repeatedly and rightly condemns throughout the book. Lewis's central argument is therefore undermined by his own unwarranted and unexplained backtracking from his own position.
But because this slip of reason is confined to only one or two paragraphs of the book, it is a weakness that while noteworthy and unfortunate, is not fatal to his argument. One who remains skeptical about the viability of miracles should consider that Lewis revised this book back in 1960 (in response to the arguments of Anscombe) and to date, there has been no compelling rebuttal to its tenets. Attempts to erect a solid rebuttal have been presented and then systematically refuted as erroneous and mostly illogical. As a result, this book has stood the test of time and remains a compelling argument that should provide great comfort and assurance to those who believe the Biblical miracles on faith, but wonder whether this belief can also be grounded in reason and philosophical argument. It can, and we should expect nothing less from the Creator who not only created nature and supernaturally intervenes in nature, but who also created perfect logic and reason.

Without doubt, one of the most powerful books I've ever read. C. S. Lewis considers the possiblity of miracles, raising all (and I mean, all) the doubts that vaguely rumble around in my head. Lewis articulates those doubts with masterful grace and clarity.

In the first half/two-thirds of the book, he argues for the possiblity of miracles as such. He then turns to the specific miracles of Christianity, particularly the Incarnation, and makes his case for believing them.

His thinking is profound, but his expression is clear and fully readable for the average person. Much of his thought centers on the question of Nature--is the natural world everything that exists, or is there more? Lewis lived in a highly materialist culture where people were conditioned to think that science is "real" and religion is superstition. Since we're in the same situation, Lewis' patient yet mercilessly logical arguments still hit us in all the right spots.

Two quotes to give you a flavor of his writing...

"If we are content to go back and become humble plain men obeying a tradition, well. If we are ready to climb and struggle on till we become sages ourselves, better still. But the man who will neigher obey wisdom in others nor adventure for her/himself is fatal."

[Writing about the Incarnation.] "The credibility will depend on the extent to which the doctrine, if accepted, can illuminate and integrate that whole mass. It is much less important that the doctrine itself should be fully comprehensible."

Lewis has made me think about Nature in a totally new way. He makes God more than a mere idea. He makes God real, alive, concrete, tangible. For a Christian reader, I think "Miracles" will strengthen belief because it relies on and appeals to common sense and serious reflection. The non-Christian reader should also enjoy the book; Lewis is unwaverlingly polite and respectful of all points of view. This is not surprising, since Lewis himself had been a serious skeptic before his conversion.

Heroine: voluptuous

Nurse midwife Kate Morgan doesn't know how to take a break. Not from keeping an eye on her siblings, or from monitoring the health of the residents of her tiny hometown Bourner's Crossing. So when her ankle has a break of its own during a torrential downpour in the middle of the woods, she has no choice but to slow down. Lucky for her a handsome stranger materializes from the mists to aid her.
Seeking refuge from the storm in her gallant rescuer's cabin, Kate is shocked to see him slanting an appraising glance her way every now and then. It's been quite some time since a man has looked at her that way, and having one do so now gives her butterflies in her stomach despite the pain in her leg. But she's far more shocked when he strips off his sopping wet shirt and reveals a gruesome, scar-covered torso.
Attraction mingled with a need to nurture prompts Kate to make friendly overtures toward the standoffish man as he drives her home to safety, and a tenuous relationship is formed between the two. But as the days pass Kate notices during their brief courtship that something doesn't add up about Sam, a recluse who wants to reach out to people and help them despite his desire for extreme privacy. And most intriguingly, odd things seem to be happening in town lately since Sam's arrival. Things that by the laws of nature should never happen.
Is Kate suffering from paranoia or is there some connection between her new swain and the mysterious goings on?

What worked for me:
I always like a tough guy who's a sucker for kids, and Sam is certainly that. And his having been a Navy jet jockey doesn't hurt either. I also really liked Katie, who was down to earth, sweet, loving, and capable. Also, I loved seeing her work at her job as a nurse midwife. (What can I say, I'm nuts about babies.)
I'm not a fan of books where the hero and heroine jump into bed within minutes of meeting each other, so "Miracles" scored points with me on that count by letting Sam and Katie get to know each other first.
Size-wise Katie was curvy but figured most guys saw her as the big sister type. Sam, however, thought she was soft and sexy and delicious and made sure she knew it!

What didn't work for me:
I loved the ending, but I could have used a one-year-later prologue just to see how things were going for everyone.

Overall:
"Miracles" is well-written, charming and sexy all at once. Fans of paranormal and contemporary romances should really enjoy this one, but if you don't go for supernatural experiences, this book may not be to your tastes.
Warning: Though "Miracles" is considered inspirational it isn't a Christian romance. It contains some sensual passages and a smattering of curse words.
If you liked "Miracles" you might also enjoy "The Bridesmaid's Reward", "Say You're Mine", "His Seductive Revenge", "Runaway Bay", "Too Much Temptation", "Truth and Lies", "More to Love", "His E-mail Order Wife", "Dangerous Curves", "Dear Cupid", "Midsummer Lightning", "The Independent Bride", "Carried Away", or "Looking for Laura".

Miracles is one of Lewis' longer apologetic works, and I think, perhaps the most complicated. This is not because Lewis has lost the wonderful, taut, reasoned writing that people have grown to expect of him, but rather because people's views on miracles can be terribly hard to unknot. This, I think, is also the most purely philosophical work he wrote, though that should not scare anyone away, as he lays out everything in a very clear, readable way.
Lewis starts with a bang, in that he shows that miracles and the uniformity of natural laws are in fact bound together. He turns the materialists' (or Naturalists', as he calls them) own guns on them by showing that Reason cannot be accounted for in science--I should also point out that these objections have also been raised by professional philosophers in epistemology and ethics, but Lewis is the only person to raise them for a wider audience. I wish I had read this book earlier, when I was first encountering David Hume, as C.S. Lewis in this part of the book exposes the philosophical sleight-of-hand Hume used to "disprove" miracles.
With this, C.S. Lewis then addresses religions which state that God does not work miracles because He does not see fit to interfere with creation and a variety of other bad metaphors and misconceptions that have cropped up. I continue to wonder at Lewis' clarity, and his understanding of the modern mind which allows him to diagnose its fallacies so well.
Academics and many other modern citizens do not question the possibility of miracles, or at any rate adhere to some faulty reason for denying their existence. I hope this book can help shake that up and get people talking about this issue with greater clarity.

During a nasty storm off Lake Superior, nurse midwife Kate Morgan breaks her ankle. Barely able to walk while trees come crashing down near her, she gingerly limps into a stranger. He surprises her by easily lifting her and her heavy bag and carries her to safety in his cabin. Kate's ankle is broken.
As she rests in his cabin, she notices how Sam Reese her savior keeps giving her odd glances as if he finds her attractive. Kate has never had a male in Bourner's Crossing, Michigan look at her like Sam does when he thinks she is not observing him. In fact the townsfolk especially her five younger siblings think of Kate as everyone's dependable big sister healer. Over the next few days Kate offers friendship, but Sam the recluse seems to want to say no. However, he cannot control his growing attraction to her that she reciprocates. Sam came to hide and heal, but to Kate his behavior is not that of a hermit as he appears to always provide a helping hand to everyone even as weird happenings are occurring in this Upper Peninsular town as if love is causing MIRACLES.
This is a reprint of a great inspirational romance released in 1990 and still as powerful, beautiful and as original as ever. The story line is character driven as Sam and Kate find needed healing nurturing one another. The support cast brings out the isolation and beauty of the area and insight into Kate's character and indirectly Sam's as well. Readers will appreciate this warm tale that answers the question Do You Believe in Miracles? Readers will answer with an astounding yes.
Harriet Klausner

I've long been curious about C. S. Lewis' scholarly books; I have read several of his books that explore Christianity (and of course his Chronicles of Narnia series!) and I've wanted to see what happens when he turns his critical eye on medieval stories.

This was a fascinating read. Lewis studies the evolution of "courtly love" as it manifested in medieval poetry and thought. I was worried that the language might be too difficult and technical, since it has been years since I stepped foot in a literature class, but I found the work quite accessible. He tackles many of the major writers of the age, including Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser, and Guillaume de Lorris.

Anyone who thinks that C.S. Lewis only wrote children's stories, fantasy and science fiction tales probably wouldn't be reading this book anyway. But if they did, they would find a book written by one of the 20th century's great thinkers. "Miracles" begins with an early quote that sets the tone for the rest of the book: "What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience." Two experiences or worldviews are contrasted - the Naturalists who believe that nothing exists except Nature, and the Supernaturalists who believe in something beyond Nature. Lewis spends quite a bit of time examining the two views. Readers may think that too much time is devoted to this subject before getting to a discussion of miracles themselves, but the time spent is a necessary foundation to everything that follows.
How exactly do you define a miracle? Lewis defines a miracle as "an interference with Nature by supernatural power." Lewis then presents many questions. Are miracles in contrast to the laws of Nature? What exactly ARE the laws of Nature? Are exceptions possible? How does probability fit into the discussion of miracles? Later in the book, Lewis focuses on three categories of miracles: The Grand Miracle (God becoming man in Jesus Christ), Miracles of the Old Creation (miracles of fertility, healing, destruction, etc.), and Miracles of the New Creation (miracles of reversal, glory, resurrection). This last portion of the book I found to be the most fascinating as Lewis examines several specific miracles from the Old and New Testaments.
"Miracles" is a relatively short book, but properly read will take a little time to read. Take time to absorb and contemplate each chapter. Lewis left us with a lot of things to think about here, regardless of your worldview. You may not agree with everything Lewis says, but it will cause you to think long after you've closed the book.

There are probably two types of C.S. Lewis fans: (1) people who love his fiction and apologetics and (2) people who love his scholarly literary work. I'm really more in the first camp, but I found this book fascinating because C.S. Lewis is such a brilliant writer. Even though the subject matter was heavy, his writing style and insights into medieval romance were just so darn interesting and well presented.

So, you are looking for Narnia, the Silent Planet, or the apologetics, this isn't it. But, if you are interesting in reading something that will really expand your thinking and inform you about new subject (to me at least), this is very cool. With this caveat, I recommend this to you and I hope you find this helpful.

In this work, the master of Christian apology tackles a difficult subject: miracles. The question is easy enough--do miracles really occur?--but the answer is far more complex and difficult. True to his style, Lewis picks apart the question and analyzes it with the scrutinizing eye of a skeptic who has seen the light and wants to help others see it too.

The scope, of course, goes far beyond miracles. In analyzing the probability of such events, Lewis examines Pantheism vs. Christianity, and the idea of a Nature that is completely independent of any outside interference (even God`s). His argument that the laws and `nature' of Nature are not violated by miracles is convincing, as is his argument that miracles are, in fact, necessary. For Lewis, a miracle wrought by the Creator of mankind is really nothing extraordinary. Some miracles, such as the water being turned into wine, simply skip a step or two. Instead of water nourishing a vine that eventually produces grapes for wine, Christ merely eliminates the intermediary steps. Other miracles, such as Christ's Resurrection, are simply a glance at what's to come, when everyone will be resurrected.

Whether or not you agree with Lewis, his argument is worth considering. Like most of his work, this book is written for believer and skeptic alike, and provides a stimulating analysis of the probability of miracles occurring. This one belongs on the shelf of any Christian thinker, and will prove a stimulating read for students of philosophy as well.

Well written though the man is admittedly taking on a huge task to provide a logical proof for the existence of the divine and its willingness to "invade" the natural world. He does spend a lot of effort logically rebuffing naturalism to make his point. I'm not sure if it's a good thing to attempt to make a point by rebuffing another view. Maybe so. Anyway, be prepared to re-read several topics just to make sure you understand the man before moving on - or maybe I'm just a little "thicker" than I thought. I had a similar experience reading Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". I had to re-read a lot of the material to really get it down in my mind.

So I'd had this laying around the house for a couple of years. I picked it up to read because though I was raised in an Evangelical church, I disown much of what my "old family" has gone on to achieve (such as Will Perkins authorship of Colorado's hate-filled Amendment 2 back in 1992... or was it 1988? Perkins was once my youth group leader - shudder). As a middle-aged man, I found I was having a great deal of trouble accepting much of what I see in the world today, like precious little children being victimized by sexual monsters, random killing on campuses, a President who claims to know God but has inflicted untold misery on hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. I was really struggling with these issues. I needed something to reconcile what I wanted to believe (like Fox Mulder and his poster on his X-Files office wall professing "I want to believe") about the existence of God and what might really be the awful truth. As it turns out, this book is a step back toward God and Christianity for me (but not the Christianity of the evangelical right-wing, neo-con movement - that is a is a wolf in sheep's clothing and may very well be evil).

Read, ponder, wonder, enjoy, ask, pray, and so on.

This is the fourth Christian C.S. Lewis book that I have read (the others: Mere Christianity, The Abolition of Man and The Screwtape Letters). This is typical Lewis style; a common sense approach to the writing that makes me imagine Lewis in a conversation saying something like, "Come now, let's be reasonable."
In the introduction, Lewis says what his subject matter will be. He notes that before one can look at historical evidence, one must settle the question philosophically (i.e. whether miracles are possible). If someone is persuaded that miracles, per se, are impossible then no amount of evidence will convince. So, it you are looking for argumentation regarding specific miracles look else (I suggest William Lane Craig; his defence of the Resurrection is the best available).
I think there are better, shorter and more forceful defences of miracles but this book is not too bad. Other places to look for a defence of miracles: The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler and Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.
Lewis' first task is to define naturalism (I think he does a muddled job but the gist of it is: the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations or that only the physical world [i.e. Nature] exists). Lewis refutes this by showing that immaterial objects exist namely Reason (that is to say both the existence and validity of logic and the part of human beings that performs acts of reasoning) and the existence of morality or ethics (i.e. When somebody suggests that I ought not to sit in his seat in the theatre, he is not simply making an emotional statement, he is saying that I have violated a rule. The fact that the language of ethics, "ought" "should" etc are meaningful shows this).
He deals with the objection that miracles are against the laws of nature or that experience in general is against miracles happening. Lewis also deals with the objection that miracles were believed and wrote about millennia ago because the people were simple-minded, misunderstood the world and lacked modern science. Lewis also deals with the "problem" of language (i.e. the literal "v.s." metaphorical uses). The remaining portion of the book is on different topics...
For example the chapter: Christianity and "Religion", Lewis compares Christianity with pantheism. He says that modern people hold to pantheism because they think it is a sophisticated belief that doesn't have all the old-fashioned mythology et al that theism has. Lewis then goes on to show that merely because pantheism is easy or popular is no reason to accept it as true. In one of his insights, near the end of the chapter he says:
"Man are reluctant to pass over from the notion of an abstract and negative deity to the living God. I do not wonder. Here lies the deepest tap=root of Pantheism and of the objection to traditional imagery. It was hated not, at bottom, because it pictured Him as a man but because it pictured Him as king, or even as warrior. The Pantheist's God does nothing, demands nothing. He is there if you wish for him like a book on a shelf. He will not pursue you." (page 124)
Lewis then looks at the issue of how probable miracles are. He then has a chapter entitled, "The Grand Miracle," which is on the Incarnation, the Resurrection and the Ascension. However, it does not seem to be an argument as such to me, rather it is an explanation and discussion of what the Incarnation is. This is fine, but I don't think this sort of material is appropriate in work that is setting out to DEFEND Christianity rather than simply explain it. He also has a chapter on the general Resurrection.
The book ends with an admonition to keep Naturalism out of our minds. I agree with Lewis that it is defeated as a philosophy; the problem is that it can easily gain a foothold in our minds and before we know we are thinking with naturalistic assumptions.
This is a fairly good book but sometimes I wondered while reading it, "Where are you going with this, Lewis," or, "How is this relevant?"

"The Allegory of Love" is an academic work that, among other things, traces the concept of love in literature, particularly the concept of courtly love in medieval literature. In the "Encyclopædia Britannica," it is listed before all the other works of Lewis as "his finest scholarly work." This shows the book's importance in making Lewis a respected literary critic.

The main point of the first part of the book is that the concept of love changed in the literature of France in the eleventh century and has influenced the arts up to our day. Many years later, however, in "The Four Loves," Lewis admits that he had treated the concept of love too much like a literary phenomenon and failed to see that many characteristics of erotic love which he had attributed to eleventh-century France are in fact characteristics that lie in the very nature of erotic love (e.g., the tendency to make love into a god who sanctions any crime committed in its name).

Having said this, "The Allegory of Love" is still a great academic work that delights as much as it instructs - a milestone in the Lewis Canon.

"Miracles" is another book in which we are blessed with Lewis' flawless logic. I enjoyed this more than most of Lewis' other non-fiction work because, for some reason, it seemed a little less dry. Lewis necessarily spends a lot of time setting aright our incorrect preconceptions about the "natural order" of things. He carefully goes through the commonly accepted views of modern man (nearly the same now as fifty years ago) and states what is wrong with each idea in turn. After laying out what, logicially, is a more accurate view of the universe, he masterfully builds up his case for why miracles are possible. Lewis gives many convincing arguments and ends with a wonderful conclusion, answering the age-old question "How then shall we live?". Highly recommended, especially if you are looking for logical refutations of naturalism and pantheism.

This book requires you to leave children's Sunday School behind and have your mind stretched so you can start to experience an intelligent, mature, and insightful way of thinking about what Christianity is really about. As for agnostics and atheists they should spend their time critiquing this book instead of targeting Christian's who think like children. Lewis's use of language and metaphor, make his piercing logic very entertaining. The ocean of ideas surges forth. Another under appreciated book by Lewis, the Problem of Pain, is an excellent companion to this. How I wish Richard Dawkin's (of The Selfish Gene, The God Delusion etc) and his followers were arguing with CS Lewis and not the modern, superficial christian evangelicals. All concerned would be so much better off!

First, just to make this clear to anyone not familiar with the two writing lives of C.S. Lewis: this is not going to be anything like Narnia. If you're looking for fun fiction from Lewis, that's not here.

Second, this is an excellent academic study in medieval literature. While it's a bit heavy for casual reading, if you're looking for the parts of Lewis' genius as a literary scholar, it's here.

Overall, I don't know that this is a book for just wandering in and reading, but it is a great read in literature study.

If I was reading a contemporary Christian author's reflections on the same topic, I would expect a straightforward, simplistic, hackneyed discourse. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised by C.S. Lewis's honest, thorough, and utterly unexpected approach to the topic. How refreshing! The central topic of the book definitely revolves around miracles; however, naturalism versus supernaturalism, philosophical assumptions, the incarnation, the resurrection, and prayer are delightfully discussed along the way. C.S. Lewis rightfully deserves his reputation as one of the most intellectual (so intelligent that he makes me feel idiotic), honest thinkers ever. I wish Friedrich Nieztche had been born half a century a later--would he have detected the "lying theologian's instinct" which he denounces in his book "Antichrist?" I doubt it. Delusion perhaps, but not dishonesty. If you're looking for high-quality Christian theology/philosophy, this is as good as it gets.

Let the buyer beware, this is not your typical CS Lewis work of either theology or fiction.

Instead, it is related to CS Lewis's primary work as a scholar of literature. If you have a major interest in Lewis as a literary scholar and critic, this will be an interesting book for you. However, if you were expecting more theology or fiction, then be careful.

Nonetheless, the astute reader of literature will find this book worthwhile.

We often forget in our appropriate and warranted focus on Lewis' fiction that he was also a brilliant scholar and this volume is evidence of that. It has the ease of reading typical to Lewis where he takes a difficult subject and discusses it in terms most people can easily understand, even when unfamiliar with his topic.

Recommended for the hardcore Lewis fan or the student of Medieval literature.

C.S. Lewis presents a great deal of solid philisophical material here. One suprise for me was that at a couple points, Lewis seems to come across as more presuppositional than evidential in his approach to apologetics. That is not to say that he is necessarily like that in all regards, but I did find some strong hints of it in this book.

I'm clearly not as big of a Lewis buff as some other people I've met. In fact, I have some serious reservations about some of what he believes. However, this particular book is the real deal and I highly recommend it to those who feel they are not getting sufficient answers elsewhere.

If both the natural and the supernatural are real, why should they be perceived as being at odds? There's a difference between superstituion and spiritual reality. To ignore that unexplainable "miracles" occur is to be so devoted to a lie that you refuse to see the truth. Lewis extends his exploration on this topic to speculations that other writers would not touch. For example, secularists insist that Christians are so "straight laced" that they percieve heaven as a place where we float on clouds and play harps. Yawn! They haven't read this book. C. S. Lewis speculates that if sex is about the ultimate enjoyment in this "natural" life, the joys of heaven will be so much more intense that sex will seem dull by comparison. I might add Billy Graham has made similar inferences in his writings.

Periodically Christians will talk about God not being limited to time or space. Lewis elabortes on that by talking about God even being able to answer prayers "out of sequence" so to speak. He talks about the possibility of a prayer uttered at noon being answered at 10 am. God operates in an eternal "now" as Oral Roberts has been known to put it.

In summary, this book sheds light on the awesome nature of God. We were created for His pleasure. He is not restrained by anything He made. Miracles go beyond the limits we normally experience. This is a faith building book that helps you to see beyond the familiar.

For those mainly drawn to Lewis from his fiction (particularly Narnia) or his Christian apologetics, it might surprise them to realize he began as a literary scholar. This is a collection of his ideas on the history of the medieval tradition of courtly love that he outlines from its roots in antiquity to its after-effects in modernity. A wonderful introduction to the scholarly side of Lewis.

While most associate Mr. Lewis with an assortment of tomes of otherworld fantasias (Narnia, Lion, Witch and Wardrobe, etc) or contemporary crisis, Allegory of Love is a very well written and scholarly study of medieval period (he once wrote that while the Renaissance was always a personlized venture for scholars, the dark ages belonged to boyhood), replete with references to not only incubala but extensive Greek, mystics, and Shakepeariana. It's nearly in the stylization and tradition of Fraser's "Golden Bough" with the precision of someone devoted to writing on, say, Milton or Donne. I hadn't really expected as fine and as much from this, but found without reservation it to be one of the hundred (perhaps fifty) best books I've ever read. Strongly recommend

Miracles is a very good examination of the subject of miracles from a philosophical perspective. It does not focus on the scientific or the historical evidences for Christian miracles.

The main focus of this book is to dissect the knee jerk rejection of miracles as a possibility. Lewis does a masterful job at this. As with all of his works, this is a must read for Christians.

Although this book may not convince a lot of skeptics, it will certainly make them reconsider their reasons for doubting.

Highly recommended.