Miracles

Beautiful copy, and I just love C.S. Lewis. I have really used his academic writing more in the past couple of years while finishing a degree in English. I focus on Medieval literature, and his wisdom and knowledge in that area have been priceless to me.

This book is Miss that last part of the final chapter and the two appendices at the end. The weird thing is that it doesn't look like they were ripped out, just that they weren't included. If you want to read this book, find a different edition.

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 read a brief description of the book and thought I would like it, however, that is not the case. I must admit I read very little of it. I can not seem to stay interested in it. I find it rambling and not very interesting. I truthfully am sorry I bought it. Obviouly I didn't give enough thought to this purchase before I made it.

I read a brief description of the book and thought I would like it, however, that is not the case. I must admit I read very little of it. I can not seem to stay interested in it. I find it rambling and not very interesting. I truthfully am sorry I bought it. Obviouly I didn't give enough thought to this purchase before I made it.

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.

Perhaps the best way to approach a review of a C. S. Lewis book is just to tell what he’s trying to do and let him speak for himself. So, as the title suggests, this is a work on miracles. Are there such things as miracles? Why should I believe they are possible? What about the objections to miracles? And there are other questions he addresses. Up front, Lewis defines miracle as an “interference with nature by supernatural power.”

First, Lewis sets out to show that whether miracles can happen cannot be determined by experience alone (1). History cannot prove or disprove miracles, but interpretations of history depend on whether or not we think miracles are possible (2). Thus the first question to address is whether supernaturalism or naturalism is true (15).

So, to decide between supernaturalism/naturalism, one must use reasoning. Thus, by the very process itself, the worldview must be true which allows for the process of reasoning itself. Materialism is thus self-refuting. Acts of thinking are events, but they are a special type - they are ‘about’ something other than themselves and they are propositional (25). Events, in themselves, are not ‘about’ things. So, things like ‘knowing’ cannot be explained by preceding material causes, and this is what naturalism does. Further, reasoning on the naturalist’s position does not provide truth, but survival value. And, proving the future will be like the present is not something we learn by inductive experience. It is a presupposition we bring to all of our reasoning.

Thus, reason or reasoning is not interlocked with material events in nature. Our mind is beyond nature. Lewis next tries to determine the relation between mind/body. This is like a quai-Cartesian type of reasoning, combined with an argument based on contingency - that if my reasoning exists, and I cannot account for my self, then a self-existent reason must exist (42). Since I cannot account for my own rationality, each mind is, therefore, a miracle in itself (an interference in nature by God which otherwise wouldn’t naturally occur).

Lewis also deals with objections to miracles and argues that the case against miracles rests on two grounds - God wouldn’t do miracles or nature can’t do them. Concerning the second first, some will argue that miracles are contrary to the laws of nature or that experience teaches us miracles don’t occur. Or we don’t believe them anymore because we have a correct perception of the nature/function of the universe. Then he addresses whether or not we know enough about nature to rule out miracles. He advances different definitions of ‘laws’ of nature and examines whether or not these rules can prevent miracles by definition.

Lewis also spends a chapter comparing and contrasting theism and pantheism, arguing, of course, for the former.

The latter part of the book moves into a discussion of the nature of miracles themselves and the nature of the probability of a miracle. Dealing with the latter first, Lewis evaluates the probability of miracles or a criterion by which to judge whether one has occurred (159). He names the Humean opinion, but notes how this position is really not a good argument because we don’t know the natural probability of a miracle in itself in any instance. We do know that miracles are rarer than natural events (otherwise natural events would themselves be miracles), and thus are in one sense improbable, but it does not follow that no miracles occur, for the uniqueness of all events in themselves are improbable - or rather, other events, such as winning the lottery, are extremely improbable. Lewis appropriately shows how the Humean argument moves in a circle. After several more pages he concludes that the principle of judging the probably of an alleged miracle is the “innate sense of the fitness of things,’ which means that there is no intrinsic reason to reject the possibility of miracles (cf. the first part of the book & objections to miracles).

Finally, Lewis discusses miracles themselves - rules behind the purpose of miracles (153). He says we learn the incarnation by examining kinds of life on earth. We have been prepped for the incarnation. It’s a specific way that God speaks to us. He terms miracles by what he calls the ‘Old’ and ‘New’ Creation. These miracles are designed to show God’s character - they’re a preamble or introduction to something God will do in the future or speak to his nature or character. In the same way we often can pick out the painting of an artist just by knowing his style, we can pick out God by the nature of the supposed miracle (For example, the incarnation is what people will be like after death, water into wine shows a God whose love gives us a glimpse of happiness; stopping storms is a glimpse into the ultimate calming of the soul who trusts God etc.). Miracles of the New Creation show what God will do or what people will be like (resurrection, ascension, walking on water - people will have a control over nature in a new way, etc.)

The book itself, though deep waters at times, is intended as a preliminary to historical inquiry (3). It is designed to give Christians the ability to evaluate the evidence for the historical miracles of Christianity. But the book itself is not the evidence itself. So, I would recommend this for Christians to read, of course, but I would say that one should be prepared to read this and not shelf it forever, but rather, reread it at least one more time. Lewis is such a great writer that one can miss things that Lewis says on first reading, or going back a second or third time, one can often see things he or she did not see before. This work is also not that outdated. Many of the arguments Lewis defeats in this work are still propounded by those who think miracles are intrinsically impossible or by your average, loud, street atheist. So, this book isn’t just for historical value, but is still a good primer on understanding miracles.

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.

I must admit before any review that I am in way over my head with this book. There were several reasons that I chose to order it for reading and review. One, I'm a fan of C. S. Lewis, enjoying his works of fiction and his non-fiction works in Christian spirituality. Second, I would like to hone my craft as a writer or wannabe writer and I thought I might be able to learn from this work. Another important reason was the subject matter of love, I thought it might engage me in a less technical way and it might be easier for me to learn with an interesting subject.

While all my reasons are still true, after spending time with The Allegory of Love, I have determined that it is a bit to scholarly for me at this stage of my literary and writing journey. I simply do not have the background knowledge that I feel is necessary to glean all that this study has to offer. C. S. Lewis is brilliant, this is without question. This study on the subject of love: written, describe, acted, and received... is monumental. Lewis draws on countless rich examples making comparisons and exegeting meaning and intent from both, the examples he lists and the comparisons he makes. This was part of my struggle with the book; I do not have the background in so many of the examples and illustrations he makes. I felt lost and was unable to connect the dots of meaning. Perhaps, at the most basic level, background into the references of Lewis are not needed; however, it did create a stumbling block for me and subsequently added to my frustration.

I ranked the book four-stars for the reason that I can clearly see the brilliance with which it was written and I know that with time I will be able to gain a richer appreciation for it. Any weakness I have perceived with the book is strictly my own. My intent is to grow in understanding of some of the classic works of literature mentioned in the study and return again to The Allegory of Love for another lesson and hopefully deeper understanding.

The Allegory of Love is a scholarly book, but I think it can be read with enjoyment by anyone interested in medieval poetry. The first two sections discuss of courtly love and allegory. These sections are primarily theory. If your main interest is the poetry, I believe they can be skipped with no diminution of understanding. Lewis, in fact, doesn't make use of them in much of his analysis of the poetry. The major area where he sticks close to them is in his analysis of the Romance of the Rose by Guillaume de Lorris. Here understanding allegory is quite important although Lewis gives the relevant overview in his analysis of the poem.

The next sections discuss the poems from the Romance of the Rose, through Chaucer, Gower, some of the lesser poets, and Spencer. I found his analysis enlightening and easy to understand. My favorite chapter was the chapter on Chaucer. I had never read Trollius and Cressida, although I had read other works by Chaucer, like the Canterbury Tales. I found Lewis' analysis of Cressida very compelling and psychological. For me it was worth the whole book.

Some attributes of the book that will be hard for the general reader. Lewis uses Greek and Latin words in chapters one and two. He doesn't translate the words or all the passages he cites in Latin. He also uses the old English versions of the poems, which can take some thought to decipher. Still, I found the effort well worth it in understanding medieval poetry.

Although much of the writing is scholarly, Lewis' humor peeks through. I encourage you, if you're interested in medieval poetry, to not be put off by the scholarly. The analysis of the poems is extremely well done and well worth reading.

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.

How I've missed C. S. Lewis! I picked this book up to read for a book club, and settled into it like conversing with an old friend.

The topic is miracles. Do they exist or not? Do they contradict with Nature or not? This is not a nuts and bolts proof book; it is a call to see miracles in a different light. There is, for instance, nothing miraculous about turning water into wine ... nature itself can do this. God has created a vegetable organism that can turn water, soil and sunlight into a juice which will, under proper conditions, become wine. Wine is merely water modified. Should it surprise you that one day, God short circuited the process, using earthenware jars instead of vegetable fibers to hold the water?

As in this example, Lewis's arguments sometimes amount only to warm fuzzies. Pantheism, he explains, is nothing special, for people are merely predisposed to believe this way ... pantheism has hung around like an unwanted parasite from the beginning. In contrast, a the story of a dying and rising God is surely true because nature itself teaches this concept, as any farmer knows. Now, beneath the surface, these two arguments are similar, but Lewis manages to draw the desired results from each with a bit of conversation made elegant in one circumstance and ugly in another.

Lewis errs also in his science, imagining that "every event in Nature must be connected with previous events in the Cause and Effect relation." We know better today (Lewis was writing in 1947), and thus the foundation crumbles for many of his arguments against Naturalism. (Lewis attempts to argue that there must be a God who is not a part of Nature, and reasons that this God must surely be our creator.)

But it's the way Lewis writes that so grabs the imagination! I absolutely love reading his books. There is a spellbinding discussion of Morality and Human Reason herein (their divinity earns their capitalization). Yet I cannot honestly award the book five stars, because Lewis never accomplishes what he sets out to do. Lewis's God is elegant and beautiful, but no less unlikely for Lewis's efforts, and must remain a matter of faith. Yet for those who already believe in this particular God, this book cannot fail to lift their spirits.

Very much recommended.

In some works, C. S. Lewis comes across as a popularizer, while in others, one could swear he was a professional philosopher. "Miracles" is Lewis at his most deeply-philosophical, and perhaps his most theologically-correct book as well, although that's a tough judgment to make.

The main point of this book is to explain how and why miracles are possible, and why, in fact, they're not just possible, but -must have- occurred in the past, and will occur again in the future. There's nothing encyclopedic about this approach. Miracles aren't classified or divided into categories. Rather, the point is to explain why a resistence to faith in miracles is unjustified.

In this spirit, the first several chapters directly address one of the biggest obstacles to belief in miracles; naturalism; the belief that the universe is all there is. Lewis does a good job addressing the subject, making several proofs which indicate clearly that naturalism cannot be correct. He then moves on to misunderstandings of what the term "miracle" means, refutes the arguments of some anti-religious philosophers, then gets rather deeply into the subject of miracles as seen in history, in the context of the Christian faith, and finally ends by addressing the anticipated miracle of the universal resurrection of the dead, and the importance of continuing to believe in this miracle.

I liked it. Lewis' arguments stand the test of time, and his refutations are as valid today as they were when he was writing them. Naturalism still hasn't found any way to get around these key points. In fact, if anything, the case against naturalism has grown even stronger since Lewis wrote this.

For example, one of the philosophers who Lewis addresses most centrally was David Hume, who said that because nature is absolutely uniform, nothing is more unlikely than a miracle, and that therefore, if a reasonable man is asked to guage whether a miracle is a probable explanation for something, he'll always need to answer "no." Therefore, even if a miracle -did occur,- no reasonable man could justify admitting or recognizing it.

Lewis responded by pointing out that Hume has actually made two claims.
1. That nature is absolutely uniform.
2. That miracles don't occur.
He then used the first to try to justify the second. The problem with doing this, Lewis said, is that both of these claims mean exactly the same thing, and this is therefore essentially question-begging in favor of miracles not occurring.

Furthermore, Hume doesn't prove that miracles don't occur, even using this trick.

Now, I use this as an example because since Hume's day, probability theory has progressed quite a bit, and there are even stronger arguments against his position now, based on that. To illustrate this, Hume's judgment was based on the following understanding of probability...

-Each event has an intrinsic probability, which must be taken into account when guaging whether or not we should believe it occurred or might occur.-

While still true, this understanding of probability is not -sufficient- by itself. There are many other rules to follow in modern probability theory, including...

-In addition to the intrinsic probability of events, one also needs to take into consideration how probable it is that the proposed event might -not- have occurred.-
-Furthermore, one needs to consider how probable it is that, if the proposed event -had not- occurred, we would have the same evidence that we do have.-

The question of what provides the best explanation in terms of its total scope, whether it's a sufficient explanation in degree, whether the explanation covers all the facts... All of these things need to be considered when guaging the probability of an event, and yet Hume considers none of them; trying to reduce the measuring stick of miracles to only their -intrinsic- probability, and worse yet, and intrinsic probability based on nothing more than his own assertions.

Hume's work seems, therefore, to be utterly obsolete.

Fortunately, though, Lewis' work continues to stand the test of time, though as I said, the arguments in favor of Christianity have progressed since then, and even in the last twenty years. It's precisely this kind of book, which shows where we came from and where we've headed, which I most enjoy; sound arguments phrased in an accessible language, while still being complex and logical enough to hold the attention of the most distractable of faithful Christians.

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.

Out of all of C. S. Lewis's books in the The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics, I would recommend reading this last. Due to the conceptual density, this does not make for as light as reading as his other more accessible books. In fact, this books requires several prerequisites. Begin with "The Abolition of Man," the three chapter dynamo that is the keystone to Jack's philosophy. Second, round out the arch with "Mere Christianity" and "The Problem of Pain," paying particular attention to Chapter 2 of the latter book. Furthermore, read "Weight of Glory," "Transposition" and "Is Theology Poetry?" in The Weight of Glory. You may also want to read Christian Reflections and God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, just to get a feel of his lines of reasoning.

This is a lot of preliminary reading, but trust me it is worth it. These books and essays contain core concepts that he describes in full, which he only alludes to in "Miracles." The ides are so subtle an novel that I recommend getting a full chapter explanation as opposed to the two paragraph version we get in this book.

This is needful. Due to the delicate, complex, and absolutely fundamental nature of the ideas, this book seems wordy. But as I review and re-review the text, I keep saying, "Let it stand, and let the chips fall where they may." I wish someone like Peter Kreeft or Ravi Zacharias could write an annotated version of this book. Until that time. . .

Lewis begins his argument (not a revelation, but argument) by discussing the fundamental nature of Nature. Is nature all there is, or is there a Supernature? His main reason for believing in the Supernature comes from man's ability to think. He is, in essence, asking (my words, not his), "How do we go from rocks to DaVinci's brain, unless there is some ever-present intrusion."

Personally, I find this argument compelling. Carl Sagan finds no compelling evidence for a soul (The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence). The staunch atheist Ayn Rand also argues for the supremacy of man's mind, but she never accounts for it's origin. She denies evolution, but remains suspiciously quiet on this core aspect of her philosophy. (For the New Intellectual: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, 166; Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition).

Lewis's explanation has more explanatory power, greater explanatory scope, plausibility, no ad hoc-ness, and is superior to Rand's rival hypotheses.

I give Lewis credit for summing up Christianity in two propositions: 1) Men tell coarse jokes, and 2) they feel the dead to be uncanny (Ch. 13), which means, we have a fallen, animalistic nurture, and second, we are uncomfortable with our mortality. In fact, this is why Lewis is such a genius. He moves from the commonplace observations, to the deep treats of Christian theology.

He concludes by discussion the central miracles of Christianity: the Incarnation, the Redemption, and the Resurrection. If miracles are inadmissible, the Christianity is pointless. The central feature of the gospel is not so much biography (as found in the Gospels), but the historicity of these miracles. The point of the Atonement is to transform men, and to save souls. Everything else is secondary.

*

Of all of Lewis's books, this has to be the hardest to read. Part of it has to do with all the preliminary reading that must be done. You need to be familiar with so much of his other writing to understand his points. Even within the book, chapters 1-11 are prep work to actually discussing miracles in Chapters 12-17. The chapters are longer, and in several instances could have been sub-divided. And he tends to wander a bit within the chapters. In Chapter 13, Lewis jumps tracks by discussing the fall and redemption on other planets. This is interesting, and is the basis for his Space Trilogy, but not quite germane.

However, all of these meandering tangents do have appoint. They reveal connections between ideas that most people do not see. Thus they are a more comprehensive vista from the airy altitudes. You have a better view, but the thin air dulls the impact. Nonetheless, people still climb mountains.

So you may want to read other books first. But when you read, pay especial attention to Chapter Two in "The Problem of Pain." I think he does a better job of explaining nature in this one chapter than in chapters 1-11 in this book. But once you finish the book, you know that you have touched the mind of a genius. Remember the AHEM and chocolate analogy in Chapter 16, and laugh with his brilliance!

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.

It might first be said that this work is quite unlike many of Mr. Lewis' other popular texts. While his clarity of thought and his uncanny ability to transfer thought to page in such a manner that the reader can clearly understand the author's logic remain present in this text; this work is, by no means, light or easy reading. That is, this particular work faces the tremendous challenge of formulating a logical and reasonable argument from the position maintaining that supernatural events are not entirely illogical or unreasonable. Mr. Lewis has successfully presented his argument in terms of both sound logic and persuasive argumentation; however, the presentation delves into the philosophical depths to achieve these ends. As such, the reader should be prepared for an experience which will require thoughtful contemplation if the subject matter is to be appreciated to its fullest, or any subsequent degree of entirety.

While this work is, as the title suggests, about miracles, one might want to avoid prematurely associating this work with other experiences had with similar subject material. The concept of miracles can be a stumbling block for many and, as a result, the subject might be overlooked or avoided as to not feel uncomfortable in one's own beliefs. However, this text presents the subject in an extremely approachable manner which will be appreciated by anyone who both wishes to tap into this particular issue and seeks logic in any explanation, argument, and position. If the curious reader is concerned about the depth of the subject matter, they may wish to first preview this text through any number of means before purchasing it as it might become quickly apparent whether or not that which the reader seeks to gain can be drawn from this work. Whatever the case may be, with time and a willingness to entertain the concepts contained within the pages of the text, much insight can be gained in this, yet another, masterpiece composed by C.S. Lewis.

This is the CS Lewis book that I have had the most mixed reaction to. I loved all of his other books that I have read thus far. They include Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, Surprised by Joy, and the entire Chronicles of Narnia series. To me, Miracles is a mixed bag of some extremely good chapters and others that I did not totally agree with.

This book is more philosophical than his other works that I have read. It is basically an argument for the existence of miracles, which he defines as an interference with Nature by supernatural power. The argument seems to be mainly directed against Naturalists. His arguments are very similar to those being used in the ongoing debate with atheists that is going on today. I'm sure this book has influenced this debate.

One thing I confirmed in reading this book is that I do have theological differences with Lewis. Most of the other books I read of his tended to highlight the similarities of our beliefs, but this one did bring up some differences that I had expected. Chapter 10 is a good example to highlight those differences. In it he argues that things aren't always as they seem and people sometimes take scripture too literally and Lewis uses the example of people imagining that Christ is the literal physical son of a Father God. He then goes on to describe the traditional view of the Trinity. It turns out that I believe in the more simplistic literal view (I'm LDS). This chapter was an aside and not a part of the main argument, but it was interesting for me to see his view in this area.

The other big doctrinal difference is his view of creation of the universe and man. He believes in the traditional view of creation out of nothing of both matter and man; whereas I believe God created things by organizing existing material, and that man pre-existed as a spirit prior to his birth. Lewis spends time discussing the problems of evil related to this belief, which don't apply in my belief system.

One chapter I really liked was Chapter 8 where he discusses miracles and the laws of nature. I agree with him that a miracle does not have to violate a law of nature; just that it is caused by a supernatural force.

I do agree with Lewis that the greatest miracle is the resurrection. I was fascinated to read his view on what the resurrection entails. Again, I have a much more simplistic view of the resurrection than he does. I do believe that resurrected beings have bodies of flesh and bone as do Christ and the Father. He believes more in a totally different state that is indescribable.

Overall, this book helped me to better understand the differences between my beliefs and that of mainstream Christianity. Lewis is a master of explaining difficult concepts, and though I didn't agree with everything he said; it was still well said.

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.

The greatness of Lewis' books on theology/God/religion/faith/etc. is that even the most hardcore atheist will come out of these books with something. *Miracles* is full of intelligent thought, brilliant philosophy, witty remarks, and everything that makes a classic Lewis book. This one is no exception.

*Miracles* is subtitled *A Preliminary Study* and indeed it does the groundwork one must do before tackling actual miracles; so do not expect this book to be an enquiry into specific miracles with historical details and such: this is more of a philosophical enquiry into the possibility and nature of miracles, what they are, what they imply if they exist, and how they could exist.

*Miracles*, as any other book by Lewis I read, is a delicious read. Not one page is dull, not one empty moment. This is one of the few philosophers that I really feel like are bringing something true and important to my life.

I recently read this for the first time in years. It's funny how easy it is to forget so much about a book read once. I was pleasantly surprised and refreshed at the bracing logic and intellectual honesty to be found in these pages. Reading C.S. Lewis is always such a clarifying experience, and _Miracles_ is as prime an example of this as any.
The title may be a bit misleading to the first-time reader, so be warned: Lewis is here primarily concerned with analyzing the shortcomings of philosophical naturalism rather than discussing the historicity of certain miracles. He acknowledges that he has a background in philosophical but not historical methods, so the thrust of this book is in laying a framework for epistemology, and exposing fallacies in common objections to the supernatural.
Good timing for me to want to write a review of _Miracles_, so I can have the opportunity to respond to the previous review, by Jonathan Widger, as well. The "three serious problems" Mr. Widger raises are a series of compounded misunderstandings/misrepresentations of the arguments propounded in _Miracles_. Mr. Widger astutely points out that "non-rational causation", that to be caused is not to be proved, does not necessarily make caused beliefs false. This is true, and is worth pointing out. While reading Lewis's explanation of this main argument of his, there was a nagging sense in the back of my mind that there was something missing from it, and I think Mr. Widger has hit upon it. But while it does not follow, ipso facto, that a caused belief is false, to say that we arrive at reasoned, universal truths by way of a determinist chain of causes and effects is so far afield from the way anyone believes in or practices epistemology and logic, that it does not bear up under any amount of scrutiny. Presumably, Lewis considers this too obvious to point out explicitly. As he illustrates, the whole way in which we argue demonstrates how epistemology works: one of the commonest methods of debunking an opponent's views is to say "you say that simply *because* you are (an academic, a liberal, etc.)." The only workable treatment of the very foundations of reason and thought are that they are "super-natural," although Lewis admits that this is a very different use of the word from what we are used to. "Self-caused" might be clearer, although that term doesn't hit on the point as directly, which is that will and rationality cannot be reduced to a mere dependent chain of events.
This brings us to Jonathan Widger's third point (I'll get to number two), which is that ultimately Lewis's premise rests on an "argumentum ad ignorantum." A more thorough misapprehension of Lewis' point could scarcely be conceived. It is not because we do not know *how* the mind works that we must invoke a supernatural explanation, but the mere fact that (as Lewis takes pains to explain) the process of reasoning, in order to be as meaningful and valid as we make it out to be, must be placed *outside* the cause-and-effect chain of natural events, means that its basis must be "super-natural" (self-caused). I would guess that eventually a reductionistic quantum-mechanical description (it will probably be called an "explanation") of the workings of the brain during the process of thought will be formulated, but this will not change the fact that "natural", causative explanations of rationality will be as self-defeating as they ever were, if not more so. Lewis' main argument, as always, remains intact.
Widger's second objection is perhaps the most confused and incoherent of all. Wholly dependent on the whole "argumentum ad ignorantum" idea, the converse of this second objection seems to be that naturalism can somehow offer a better justification for distinguishing between true and false beliefs than even Widger's badly misunderstood version of Lewis' argument can. Once again, it is not that we don't *understand* mental processes enough to offer a natural explanation, the point is that a "natural" explanation, by definition, would be out of court with all human experience, and would leave us with no workable system in which rationality itself could be trusted. Not only would it not make any conceivable difference what we believed, but any conviction that we *chose* so would have to be utterly illusory. Incredibly, Widger compounds his misunderstanding even further by treating a "supernatural cause" as though it is just another natural cause, so that "our supernatural cause is either unreliable or even malicious" if someone's thought process is irrational! However, it is clear from the definition of independent will that one may choose irrationally, and from human frailty that we may be in error unwittingly. Supernatural entities may be corrupted just as natural ones; indeed, any corruption in the dependent natural world implies some corruption in the supernatural realm. This is the rational basis for a belief in the existence of actual evil, which naturalism once again gives us no grounds for.

When evaluating MaPS, it is most important to keep in mind that Lewis was designing a connected argument, not a salad-bar argument. Each chapter builds upon positions taken in previous chapters, even the ones in which he works to clear up some potential misunderstandings. It is a mistake to treat the book as a set of disconnected positions, as I have often seen critics do (pro and con).
So, for example, one prominent oppositional criticism I have seen, treats the chapters on morality and on probability (5 and 13) as being separate attacks by Lewis on philosophical naturalism. But they weren't designed by Lewis to be anything of the sort, and so (naturally |g|) they fail to withstand such misdirected criticism. By the time Lewis has finished chapter 3, he is no longer attempting to argue against naturalism (or atheism, to be more specific--see below), and so does not bother to continue any rigorous argument against it elsewhere.
He makes this especially clear in chp 5: the goal of the chapter is to infer a further characteristic of God (although admittedly he incautiously names the chapter "A Further Difficulty of Naturalism"); the naturalistic position he presents is one he admits can be logically self-consistent (even if no naturalist ever follows it consistently); and he ends the chapter by saying that his discussion of morality offers no weight as to the question of whether miracles ever occur. In short, this is not a separate theistic Argument from Morality.
Again, with the 13th chapter, the goal is _not_ to argue a weakness of naturalistic philosophy (nor to broadbase refute Hume, btw); but to consider the principles of probability estimation with an eye to discerning what _kind_ of probability estimate, based on what grounds, would be best for judging claims of the miraculous. Both chapters are attempting something very much more subtle and restricted than Lewis' key argument from chapter 3; and Lewis is doing this, because they are pieces of one developing position.
Lewis ought to have distinguished more carefully between naturalism / supernaturalism and atheism / theism. The distinctions, to his credit, _are_ there in the book; but they require some careful criticism to discern: and critics of MaPS (pro and con) aren't often very careful. |g| Be that as it may, chapter 3 is actually directed toward the refutation of atheism (the Final Fact of reality is non-sentient) rather than, strictly speaking, naturalism (there is one and only one 'level' to reality.) Most atheists happen to also be philosophical naturalists, and at the time(s) of Lewis' writing most were in the habit of calling themselves Naturalists; so he politely accepted the use of the title. With the multi-form division of atheistic theories since then, this leaves a door open to spurious oppositional criticisms of various sorts. ('Lewis is only arguing against "naturalism", not this or that other type of atheism'; 'Lewis is misrepresenting "naturalism" as being too broad for what it actually proposes', etc.)
Also, Lewis gets slightly ahead of himself near the end of chapter 3, when speaking about God in relation to human reason. He has already finished his line of argumentation, and has not yet argued that humans are not themselves the source of their own rationality (that's what he does in some future chapters); and this, combined with a clumsy unannounced shift back to the more qualified position of chapter 3, has provided ammunition for some terribly uncritical 'criticism' against him.
On the other hand, Lewis has treated the questions of 'hard' and 'soft' determinism (not called such in his book, though) with more deftness than critics have tended to allow. Much weight is often laid, for instance, by critics (pro and con) on his use of Haldane's refutation of hard determinism--without noticing that Lewis, in the very next sentence and paragraph, explicitly disavows any gain he might have made by using the reference! In fact, the bulk of chapter 3 is devoted to an analysis of the knottier problems surrounding 'indeterminate' types of 'naturalism'.
Often a critic (pro or con), to save time (or wordcount |g|), will skip straight from Lewis' (own disavowed!) use of Haldane, to the two examples of rebuttal which he anticipates near the end of the chapter. This is a critical mistake, although it isn't as much of one as I used to think. The final gist of Lewis' chapter 3 argument, is that it is equally nonsensical to justify the existence or the non-existence of human justification capability--to prove that proofs do exist, or to prove that proofs don't have to exist--and that atheism ultimately entails one of these two options. Lewis reaches this position through a careful (and difficult-to-follow) analysis of the relationship of cause/effect and ground/consequent categories in relation to human thought. This is not something a critic can afford to ignore, in order to see _why_ Lewis anticipates the two lines of rebuttal attempt. But the anticipated rebuttals do admirably summarize the principles of his argument, I think. At least, I have been amused by the fact that, to date, every oppositional attempt I have seen to refute MaPS chp 3, ends up applying either to one or the other of his anticipated rebuttals! (Without the opponent realizing that he is stepping right into the trap Lewis has set!)
There are some shortcomings to the book: his argument against pantheism could stand to be much clearer (it's there, but diffused throughout several chapters--his main chapter vs. pantheism is really targeted against a variant popular in his youth); and he is a little sneaky about the actual topic of his book (an apology for Christianity).
But overall, he presents the most comprehensive 20th century argument I have found for the metaphysical doctrines of Christianity. He isn't as technically rigorous as other authors have been; but MaPS easily serves as a springboard of principles upon which to base more complex arguments--once the reader has understood what Lewis is doing, and why.

If you are familiar with Lewis from his readable theological treatises and charming novels, as I was, this book will come as a surprise and perhaps a disappointment. I am honestly not prepared to give it a proper evaluation as it is technical in nature, delving deeply into some of the classics of English literature in a very specialized way. If you are a graduate student in English specializing in Lewis, this book will be deeply fascinating and helpful to you. Most other Lewis fans could almost certainly afford to skip it, however.

According to C. S. Lewis, this book is intended as a preliminary to historical inquiry. It does not, therefore, examine the historical evidence for Christian miracles, but is intended to put readers in a position to do so. Lewis states: "It is no use going to the 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." In his appeal to the "common reader" and not specifically to theologians, Lewis defines a miracle broadly as "an interference with Nature by supernatural power." This distinction between the natural and supernatural is presupposed and posited up front because Naturalists, according to Lewis, believe that nothing exists except Nature (Nature is considered "the whole show," the "Total System," etc.) which, if true, rules out the possibility of the supernatural. Nature is considered by Lewis, and Supernaturalists in general, as a partial system within reality, not Reality itself. It is a created thing (abstractly speaking), not the self-existent Creator. Lewis argues by analogy and uses human reason and morality as examples of the supernatural that are distinct from Nature. In fact, Lewis argues that humans, as compositions of the natural and supernatural, intervene in Nature by supernatural acts (which he considers self-determined acts not caused by another in some inevitable causal chain). But he admits (see Chapter 6) that such acts are not what many equate with "miracles" since they are both familiar and regular (not to mention humanly caused). Therefore, he ends Chapter 6 by saying in effect that the rest of the book will concern itself with miracles as special divine interventions.

For Lewis, the cardinal difficulty with Naturalism is the existence of human reason and its thoughts which can be either true or false, unlike events in general which are not "about" anything and therefore cannot be true or false. According to Lewis, the Naturalist believes that reason, sentience, and life itself are late comers in an historical, evolutionary process that was not DESIGNED to produce a mental behavior that can find truth (including moral truth). Therefore, Naturalism doesn't adequately explain the existence of reason (and morality). For theism, on the other hand, reason (divine reason) is before Nature and our own concept of Nature depends on reason. Later, in Chapter 13, Lewis argues that theism ratifies faith in the scientific principle of uniformity [which is used by some, like David Hume, to argue against miracles], but disallows making uniformity absolute. But if Naturalism is true, then we have no reason to trust our conviction that Nature is uniform in any sense (general or absolute). In Chapters 14 - 16, Lewis tries to present the central miracles of the Christian Faith in such a way as to exhibit their "fitness" into Nature w/o setting forth any abstract conditions which "fitness" must satisfy because "our sense of fitness is too delicate and elusive". By "fitness" Lewis means their historical probability [i.e., compatibility w/ Nature] which he distinguishes from the "antecedent probability of chances" [i.e., mathematical probability]. In Chapters 7 & 8, Lewis responds to objections that Nature doesn't allow miracles. In Chapter 8 he points out that the laws of Nature don't cause anything because "every law, in the last resort, says 'If you have A, then you will get B.' But first catch your A: the laws won't do it for you." This allows for "supernatural" causation, human or divine. In Chapter 10, Lewis addresses language as it relates to thought and points out that clear thinking is distinct from imagination in general and metaphor in particular which are used both in scripture and common discourse when discussing metaphysical things (like God and his activity). Chapter 11 addresses pantheism [a special type of idealistic naturalism distinct from the atheistic materialism which is Lewis's main focus] and points out some of its problems. Here Lewis states that God is concrete and individual; he is a particular Thing, not an abstract "universal being" [distinct from omnipresence] which would rule out the possibility of creation because "a generality can make nothing".

Although Lewis discusses some relevant issues regarding miracles in general (and New Testament ones in particular) and their compatibility with Nature, he does strangely relegate at least some Old Testament miracles to the realm of myth which is partly due to his unique view that in Christ myth became history. For a critical analysis of Lewis' view, see Norman Geisler's chapter on Lewis titled "Christian Humanism" in his book "Is Man the Measure?" For a more recent systematic analysis of miracles that relies heavily on Lewis, see Geisler's "Miracles and the Modern Mind" (OP) and "In Defense of Miracles," edited by Geivett and Habermas. Also, see Collins's "The God of Miracles" which notably points out that some Christians have negatively reviewed Lewis's book because they think Lewis was operating with a defective understanding of "nature" and divine action [note: pantheists and panentheists would also affirm this]. Collins addresses these other positions within Christianity which differ from the "supernaturalism" of Lewis, Geisler and Collins himself. Also, Lewis doesn't address whether miracles are applicable today and, if so, to what extent. Other books such as "Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?," edited by Wayne Grudem address this issue.

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.

In this book, C.S. Lewis looks at the essence of what miracles are and how they relate to Christianity. He begins with a few chapters trying to prove that miracles have occurred and are occurring. In these chapters and at other points in the book, he examines what miracles are to us psychologically and why individuals have a hard time believing in them. Lewis talks intelligently about a subject that many would consider only a matter of faith and not reason. While I am not wholeheartedly ready to jump in the boat on every single one of his ideas, I found his thinking to be enlightened and very interesting. One of Lewis's main points is the difference between the belief that the universe is the whole of existence with nothing possible outside of it and the belief that God is the surveyor of all there is with our universe being only one of other realms. He makes this and his other points clearly and intelligently. Reading through this book is invaluable in deepening one's faith and understanding of Christianity.

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?"

Sometimes it is amazing to think that the same C.S. Lewis who wrote the beloved "Chronicles of Narnia" series with their Christian messages for a young adult audience is the same C.S. Lewis of such a heavily philopshical work like "Miracles". Subtitled "How God Intervenes in Nature and Human Affairs" this work is a carefully crafted argument to demonstrate not only the existence of God but how miracles are truly part of nature and therefore rather easy to believe. It is not a work for the faint-hearted or a work that can be read lightly, for it is dense, thought-provoking material that will leave readers pondering and seeing faith through C.S. Lewis's eyes.

Lewis begins by drawing clear distinctions between what naturalists and supernaturalists believe as a way to define exactly how miracles are naturally part of God's plan. Lewis argues that we cannot look for historical evidence to prove miracles are real if we don't first establish a philosophical basis for believing in the miraculous. Lewis examines miracles big and small - the changing of water into wine, the immaculate conception, the existence of the holy Trinity - providing evidence and explanations for each. His argument is all the more powerful knowing that it is coming from a former agnostic who did everything in his power to argue against the existence of God (which led to his conversion). Because he has been on the doubting side of the issue, Lewis can offer solid counterarguments to those who wuold question his beliefs.

According to Lewis, miracles are consistent with nature and the nature of God - they are not inconsistencies which should be doubted but rather recognized as part of God's plan for creation. After all, God is the one writing the story, one with a very complicated plot that we might not always understand or even pay great attention to. "Miracles" is not an easy read. It is highly philosophical and readers must be patient, attentive, and perceptive to appreciate the argument the author puts forth. It is a work that will make one think and make one see anew the signs and wonders that seemed so familiar and explained.

"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.

I first read the book in my late teens or so. Impressed as always by Lewis' brilliant writing, the book furnished my mind with arguments and ways of looking at life that have benefited me ever since. But Lewis didn't really answer my main question. My question (overlooking the subtitle, maybe) was not, "Might miracles happen in theory?" It was "Do they happen in reality?" Reading Miracles, I felt a bit let down, as the atheist Alan Orr felt when reading Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion:

"Since when is a scientific hypothesis confirmed by philosophical gymnastics, not data!"

Afterwards I went to Hong Kong as a missionary with lots of questions, and found empirically that sometimes, God does answer prayer in remarkable ways. I wrote a book (Jesus and the Religions of Man) with chapters on "Miracles" and "Impractical Magic" arguing that allegedly supernatural events fall into distinct patterns, and that one set -- exemplified by the works of Jesus -- do seem to happen. (Not recognizing, perhaps, how many of my insights might be traced originally back here!)

This summer I was back in Hong Kong. A church that I spoke at gave me a gift certificate to their book store, and I renewed my old acquaintance with this book again.

How much rich and profound thinking is in it! This is a gold-mine of lucid, important thinking, maybe the best of Lewis' directly apologetic books. The book is not just about miracles; it is an introduction to life, from a Christian point of view.

Talking with skeptics recently, I wanted to quote long passages from this book at them. Lewis answers, in a balanced and simple way, so many of the challenges skeptics continue to offer about miracles, showing that far from "violating" the laws of nature, they show that the Lord of Nature continues to work in the world, in ways that lend new meaning to Nature's otherwise sterile patterns. Miracles are, Lewis teaches us, the least arbitrary events in the universe. They make Nature itself arbitrary by comparison.

If you're a skeptic, you'll need an open mind to benefit from Lewis' argument. He doesn't overawe you with scientific data; he coaxes reader to conclusions as the sun coaxes flowers to open in the spring. But if you take in his arguments, and consider human experience from this perspective -- talk to a few missionaries! -- I think you'll find, as I have over the past 30 years, that Lewis' comments here are deeply illuminating.

The bad reviews of this book just don't seem to understand it. One reviewer says Lewis 'shoots himself in the foot' on page 8. The reviewer says that on the one hand, Lewis says the Naturalist doesn't believe in free will; but on the other hand, the reviewer notes that Lewis says we can 'circumvent the natural order'. The reviewer, I guess, sees an inconsistency. Really? Is he serious? Lewis says a Naturalist doesn't believe in free will for a reason. Namely, if Naturalism is true (as Lewis defines it), Nature is all there is; if Nature is all there is, then there is nothing but this grand, 'interlocked', series of events, all of which are causally related to each other. Free will implies 'independence' from such an 'interlocked' nexus. And that is why Lewis said the Naturalist doesn't believe in free will. Now, is there inconsistency between this and Lewis' earlier comment that everyone believes we can circumvent the natural order? Well, let's look at the context.

And I have no idea where on page 7 Lewis says that everyone believes they can circumvent the natural order. That's because it's not there. The only context clues that are given are examples Lewis gave to illustrate different meanings people attatch to the word 'Nature': the unwashed dog in its 'natural' state: and the 'natural' way it felt to kiss a girl, even if you felt it to be wrong. Okay . . . But how in the world does this mean that people believe they can circumvent the 'Natural Order', as Lewis defines it? In this sense, 'Nature' means 'the grand interlocked set of events stretching back to the beginning of time and forward to the end of time, all of which are connected by the relation of cause and effect'. In sum, where is the inconsistency? There is none. The reviewer is just a bad reader. He can't follow a line of argument, and, because of that, he gives it one star. What else does he say?

The reviewer then says Lewis just assumes what 'Naturalism' means, and then argues against that assumption. As far as I can tell, Lewis defines 'Naturalism' in a very fair way. The spirit of the definition is in line with how many philosophers of religion define it. Almost no Naturalist disbelieves in what's called the 'casual closure thesis', which is basically Lewis' definition stripped of the jargon. The reviewer also says that Lewis doesn't provide examples for his assumptions. Excuse me? This is one of the main reasons why I love the book. It is chock-full of examples, analogies, metaphors, and similies. Lewis was a literature professor, and could bring to philosophy a wealth of imagery, which assists our imaginations in better understanding abtruse concepts. Lewis excels at this brilliantly. In terms of philosophical sophistication, Lewis isn't an authority, for that wasn't his specialty. But he did get a '1st' in philosophy from Oxford and taught and mentored students for a while, before moving on to English. His philosophical intuitions are better than average, and his style of argumentation is some of the best I've read. He combines Chesterton's wit with Aquinas' rigor for 'form', all salted with a poetic imagination. It's just such a great mix to feed off of. It just makes me sad that the reviewer is too obtuse to notice this. It's not given a second chance, and he clumsily gives it one measley star.

Lewis is then accused of hypocrisy, since he said that historians sometimes bring their naturalistic assumptions to their work. I've read about this tendency from alot of places. Historians are also regular men and women. They have beliefs about the world, what it is, what it is made of. Lewis is making a very good point. Historians aren't philosophers. When they do their history, they don't notice, and they sometimes don't feel the need to notice, that they judge some things to not have happened because their philosophy of the world excludes it. But somehow the reviewer thinks that Lewis can't say this because he's not a historian. What? Why do you need to be a historian to say this? Lewis isn't saying it as a historian; he's saying it as a philosopher - he's commenting on how historians also have a philosophy, and that philosophy can shape how a historian studies historical events. And it's true. It's a good point. But the reviewer is blind to it.

The reviewer then quits here with a quote from Joseph Cambell. It's utterly irrelevant. Lewis doesn't try to prove God's existence in the book, which the reviewer would know if he read the book. It looks like he got to page 9 and put the book down. Nothing else is said anywhere about any other point Lewis made in the book as a whole. Nothing about Lewis' brilliant arguments in chapter 3, being resurrected in various ways by Reppert and Plantinga. Nothing is said about Lewis' thoughts on the relation between language, thought, and imagination in 'Horrid Red Things'. No thoughts on 'watered down religion' in 'Christianity and Relgion. No thoughts on Lewis' critique of David Hume in 'On probability'. No thoughts on Lewis' eye-opening exploration of the Incarnation in 'The Grand Miracle', or his musings on the miracles of the old and new creations.

The book is given 1 star. I pick on this one review because it is a microcosm of how Lewis is treated by people who probably just don't like him. They heard from others how blindingly awesome he is, and they go to the books to prove that wrong somehow, no matter how dumb they sound. Sorry folks! Lewis was a 1st-rate scholar, and he's deserved that honor. These petty, amateurish reviews are laughed at by people who actually took the time to read his book.

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.

I got to know Change with the release of this album. I was in those years I myself call my prime - getting actually extremely interested in ladies.
We had parties on the hills outside of Basel, the place in Switzerland I grow up. Everything was lovely, warm, cozy and strangely exciting.
The only thing that's left with me - apart from endearing memories - nowadays is the music: Change's Miracles is the best of what had been going on 20 years hence.
If you have any affinity to disco/funk/soul of the smooth and rich kind, I strongly recommend this record to you. It will give you hours and hours of melodic excitement, while the bass will keep you moving, hopefully together with your baby.
Enjoy - they don't make records such as this anymore!

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.

I know I've waited too, for this album to be issued on CD. I lost my vinyl LP to an over-zealous mother who sold mine when I got married and moved out of the house. This was one of my best-loved records while in high school. Every song is 'tough'. The last track "Miracles" is even special now that I have a daughter. The vocal and rhythm arrangements are 'timeless' and 'tight'. "Stop For Love" is an awesome love song, which has a realistic appeal in it's message. "On Top" is an excellent motivational song. To even call this music "disco", I think, detracts from it's exceptional quality. If you're a 'newcomer' and were not even alive when this album was released, buy it! You won't be disappointed. It's worth the price!

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.

As someone who believes in God and miracles I can't get over how poorly this book attempts to affirm my own beliefs.

It doesn't take Lewis long to shoot himself in the foot. On page 8 he claims that naturalists (atheists) don't believe in free will but on page seven he said that everyone can agree that humans can circumvent the natural order. His own examples are a man washing his dog so it doesn't get fleas and restraining oneself from kissing an attractive woman.

If I wrote a book claiming that Christians didn't believe in free will because they believe everything is part of Gods plan, I would be wrong, but it would be more accurate than his assumption because I could draw a parallel between what many describe as "God's plan" and the definition of predetermination.

Unfortunately this wasn't an isolated incident. His entire defense of miracles consists of stating assumptions about "naturalists" as if they were facts, making no attempt to provide examples for his assumptions, then finishing off his straw-man with a great leap of logic.

The book's premise is flawed considering he starts by saying the problem with many historians is that they set out to study religion with the presupposition that miracles aren't possible thus influencing their conclusions. Said by the man who admits that he's not an historian and then wrote a book criticizing them by starting with the presupposition that miracles are possible.

Doing the opposite of a mistake doesn't mean you're doing the right thing. You're probably just making the same mistake from the opposite direction.

Just stick to your religious texts of choice. It's rare for an apologist to outsmart anyone but himself.

"If the existence of God could be proven, what would be the value of faith?" - Joseph Cambell

The late professor of Medieval and Renaissance literature at Cambridge University, C. S. Lewis wrote his Christian apologetics in a popular style. In his book on miracles, he states that "logical thinking--Reason--had to be the pivot of the argument." Indeed, in chapter three, "The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism," he depends so completely on the contention that human reason can only be explained by invoking the supernatural that he bets the farm upon it. I will also briefly repond to Micah Newman's review in which he attempts to rebut my observations of difficulties in Lewis's argument.
What Lewis points out is that a belief caused by a "logical consequent from a ground" is an entirely different cause than the "non-rational causation" to which Naturalism is supposedly limited for giving explanations of events in the world and in people's heads. Moreover, he explains that a physical cause is not a valid ground for an inference. For example, we do not consider as valid the conclusion that unicorns are real if the evidence for them is the experience of someone whose brain is chemically dosposed to having hallucinations of unicorns. As Lewis succinctly puts it, "To be caused is not to be proved." Therefore, according to Lewis, the difficulty of explaining rational thought from "non-rational causation" justifies us in concluding that its cause is actually supernatural, thus opening the door to the miraculous. However, his argument suffers from at least three serious problems.
First, although he is right that a logical ground for a belief is not the same kind of cause as "non-rational causation" and although he is also right that a belief being physically caused would not mean that it was proved, it does not follow that having a physical cause would ipso facto prove falsehood.
Secondly, the same argument for the supernatural cause of rational thought may be applied with equal utility to irrational thought. For in both cases, we are equally ignorant of how to give a full account, in terms of "non-rational causation," of the natural brain functions involved. Shall we conclude that our cognitive errors are also caused by the supernatural? If so, then our supernatural source is either unreliable or even malicious--necessary conclusions that will obviously be unwanted by proponents of miracles.
Thirdly, Lewis appeals to our partial ignorance of the mystery of human consciousness and rational thought, and he uses this ignorance to support supernaturalism and the miraculous. Micah Newman contends in his review that I have misunderstood and misrepresented Lewis's argument here. However, for Lewis's case for miracles to not be an appeal to ignorance, there must be examples of faculties of the mind that are not brain-dependent. Neither reason nor moral judgement nor any other function of the mind can be shown not be brain-dependent. As is obvious from books like that of neurologist Richard M. Restak's "The Modular Brain," change the brain and you change the person--even "spiritually."
Moreover, appeals to ignorance cannot prove the existence of the supernatural. For example, it would obviously be erroneous to conclude that the acceleration of a car by merely pressing a small peddle was miraculous just because we were too ignorant of electrical and mechanical functions to explain it from natural causation. By the same token, without knowing everything about the natural functions of the human brain in the process of creating rational thought, we have no rational validity in jumping to a supernatural explanation.
What his book proves, therefore, is not that we now have rational grounds for belief in miracles. What it proves is that miracles have always been believed not on rational grounds but by the faith that "is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). For although his argument fails to prove supernaturalism, belief in it nevertheless continues.

Huh? That is the thought that clouded my reading of Lewis's Miracles more often than not. I readily admit that I am not the most steady reader of philosophy, so most of this book left me in the dust, coughing and confused. Nonetheless, reading Lewis unravel and re-knot the arguments for and against the supernatural enhancement of Nature (or Creation, depending on your view of the issue) was a treat. Before reading it though, a word advice, keep in mind Lewis's opening statement that this book is not meant to change minds, just put forth concepts and arguments. Those on either side of the debate fence will no doubt remain on whatever side they were at the book's beginning.

You would be hard-pressed to find this book in a conventional "Christian Book Store" as they have gone to primarily stocking sensational and new age writings. There are just so many feel-good books available, based only on the sensational and imagined, that it is so refreshing to see a fellow christian author who remains true to scripture and God by taking the unpopular road of truth on topics such as this. C. S. Lewis's works remain faithful and trustworthy for anyone truly looking for truth. In fact, my own writings were in a way inspired by some of the things he wrote merely in passing. I recommend this book highly.

Not the best place to start if you don't consider yourself to be a first-rate thinker (Lewis' own _Mere Christianity_ offers some of the same arguments on an easier-to-digest level)... but if you're up to the challenge, I cannot recommend a stronger argument in favor of a fully supernatural Christian philosophy. NOT an attempt to explain the whole thing away as an allegory, as many so-called "apologists" do. NOT an attempt to use the Bible as a starting place, as many so-called "apologists" do. Lewis begins with only one assumption--one that every thinker uses for every theory ever attempted on any subject--and from that position carefully weaves the most detailed and skillful argument in my experience showing the existence and character of God. An extremely challenging book, especially for sceptics of Christianity, but one which they owe themselves to read (if nothing else, it will increase their faith in their own position and strengthen their mental habits!) This is the book which got me through college; and, next to the Bible itself, the most important book I've ever read. Note: if possible, order an edition printed after 1960, as the late 1940s edition contains a few logical errors which were later corrected. If you need help understanding the book or its arguments, feel free to e-mail me at the address above (flamemail, though, will be promptly deleted... honest criticisms will be attended to.) Good books to read after completing _M:aPS_... the New Testament itself (New American Standard or New International Version is probably best); Lewis' _Mere Christianity_; and then Lewis' _The Problem of Pain_.

I'd have given the book three or four stars because I get so bored with the type of dialectical apologetics against Modernism that the first two thirds are full of (Even though Lewis is never really boring). But when he begins to speak about the Resurrection and the New Creation, God's Great Reversal, the book becomes outstanding. The escatological significance of what he says cannot be overstated. And when Lewis says it, he says it with beautiful eloquence that will break your heart. He begins a conversation that we must return to and continue.
The Anglican Bishop Tom (N.T.) Wright said this is the best he has ever seen anyone deal with the Resurrection. He also says, "Space, Time, and Resurrection" by Thomas Torrance is a close second.

There are glowing pages in "Miracles," written with Dr. Lewis's almost uncanny skill for illuminating profound truth with vivid illustration. The book is, as its sub title states, a "preliminary study," that is , a study preliminary to any historical inquiry into the actual occurrence of miracle.

With most historians the decision against th probability of miracles is made almost unconsciously before the historical work begins. The purpose of this book is to shift the question of probability from the unconscious to the conscious plane, and it's main argument is directed to embattling the eighteenth and nineteenth century assumption against the miraculous.

But, in the course of this, many subordinate questions are raised - the definition of "Nature," the rival conceptions of her Laws, the different meanings of the word "Probability," the status of metaphor and symbol, th imaginative elements in Naturalism, the antagonism between Christianity and mere "religion," and others.

A Brilliant work. Deserves greater popularity and recognition, as many of Lewis's other books have. This one is definitely among his absolute best!

After finishing C.S. Lewis's MIRACLES, I was reminded of a comment by one of the participants leaving a seminar on some convoluted, abstract subject: "We still don't understand," he said," but now we feel we don't understand on a much higher level." Lewis's book might well have been the topic of that seminar, and for that reason I rated MIRACLES 3 stars worth of understanding.

Lewis begins his case for miracles by defining them as "...an interference with Nature by supernatural power" and devotes the better part of his book laying the groundwork to prove the existence of the faith-based phenomenon. The author's argument is a series of proofs progressing from the concept of Nature to that of Supernature--the Supernatural; Lewis establishes that a Supreme Being--God, the King--exists, a necessary proof if one is to believe in miracles.

Lewis applies logic to validate religious faith, the Christian faith, in particular; rather than simply saying, "I believe," he makes his thesis an exercise in logic (Lewis contends that Man's reasoning, logical thought, and moral choice are manifestations of the Supernatural at work):"If one accepts A, then B must follow." One has to attend closely to this proper Brit's thoughts; because of Lewis's formal style, I sometimes found myself simply decoding words instead of following the thread of his arguments.

It is when Lewis applies his logic to the miracles themselves: Old Creation miracles and New Testament miracles (The Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension) that MIRACLES comes to life. Of particular interest to me in this section is the author's attempts to shed light on the nature of Christian Heaven: where it is, what it is, who will gain its glory and in what form. [It is because of the Ascension miracle, I believe, that Heaven has always been thought of as UP THERE somewhere.] Those of faith might take heed when Lewis states, "The letter and spirit of scripture, and all of Christianity, forbid us to suppose that life in the New Creation will be a sexual life..." and address such worldly concerns while they are still "in the, and of the flesh."

You might look at Lewis' book as an attempt to reconcile the doubters and scoffers of the world with those who steadfastly believe in the Christian story by applying logic to the issue. And while Lewis makes you ponder--perhaps question--your own beliefs, the truth of the matter is, whether you believe in a Divine Power, that there is a God and a Heaven, whether miracles have happened, can happen, or whether the whole thing is merely fol-de-rol, just a fanciful story, where it concerns faith, you either have it or you don't. No Venn diagram will convince you otherwise.

This was an excellently written book. Lewis does a great job and it serves as a great piece on apologetics. I gave it 4 stars because it was somewhat hard to read for me. I don't often read books on theology or God and I found myself trying hard to focus on some concepts in the book.

Even though I typically like Lewis, I didn’t love this book. I feel like I'm not the right audience for this read because it is as if he is trying to give reasons why people should believe in miracles. I already believe. You don’t have to convince me, C.S.

The end of the book got better, but this is still on the bottom of my rankings for Lewis’ books.

Final rating = 2.5 stars

I have had to read Miracles for a book review. I'm training for ordained Christian ministry and never expected, during my three years of study, to read any book as interesting and darned right clever as this one. Most of them are very boring!
Like many people, I had only read 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' when I was younger but never knew how starved of Lewis' passion for Christ, which is reflected through his theological publications, I had been. He is clearly very much in love with God whom he sees as incomparable with Nature.
The genius of 'Miracles' to me, lies in the fact that it is a very readable evangelistic text disguised as 'a philosophical preparation for the possibility of the existence of Miracles'. Lewis' method is very good. He uses a mixture of friendly sarcasm, reverse psychology and intense detail to get right alongside the reader who he assumes is not a Christian. As a Christian myself, I felt that the book was wasted on me, it should be being read by a person who does not yet know Jesus Christ as their Lord.
Most of the book is dedicated to excrutiating explanations of the Incarnation, God's use of the Miraculous in His constant governance of the Earth and Prayer.
If I had any problem with the book it would be that at times it is quite un-focussed on Christ. Lewis cites the Incarnation (God made Man in Jesus Christ) as God's primary miracle but he does not really explain what this means for the ordinary person in terms of grace (undeserved love of God for us all)and cancellation of sin through the Cross. Maybe, as an evangelistic type of person, I will never be satisfied with any book like Miracles! At times the book feels like a labour of love, his writing on the Law of Nature is painstaking and at times, a little tedious but this, I believe, is only a reflection of his passionate desire for the reader to know Christ. He just has to take you everywhere before taking you home to God!
One last obvious and unintended problem is founded in the fact that this book was written for a different age when the post-modernist free for all denial of absolute truth was just a glint in the modernist's eye. Lewis would also clearly be shocked that unlike his own 'unvenerated' age, sexual intercourse has lost its mystery and need for self-control. I think he would be shocked by today's society - or lack of it.
But really, this is a terrific book. Reading Miracles as a committed Christian, I can see the method he uses and where he will take the reader. It's as if he is speaking in code to Christians! But this code is no secret, to decipher it is to know the greatest gift ever given to humankind, the person of God in Jesus Christ.
It is only when you are almost finished does Lewis just about admit that he had an alterior motive for writing Miracles. But by then, he hopes, the reader will be ready to begin looking into the riches of the Christian Gospel (good news), not just the possibility of the Miraculous!
Go and read it or I could send you my notes on the book. Feel free to get in touch.
Enjoy! Nicola.

I have never read C S Lewis w/o being more totally in love with his wording, phrasing, and excellent presentation. I thought this title was actual stories of miracles. He set out to prove that there ARE miracles that I already know. I have had no few of my own in fact.

A difficult book to rank as it was not written for the general reader (like myself). Erudite? Absolutely. Witty? In parts. Sustainable interest? Here is where the student of allegory and medieval romantic tradition would probably rate the book a 10, while the laymen will rank it a 3. I compromised with a rating of 6. Definitely worth a look for literary scholars interested in this field of study or Lewis devotees interested in perusing his academic work.

A great philisophical work. The topic of miracles is portayed in an interesting way that miracles seem to be almost what we should expect in life.

As a Christian , I know people that have recieved miracles of healing.For any skeptic this is considered a flat out "lie" or some misunderstanding of what "actually" happened . But it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a doctor from Virginia to know whether a natural explanation exhists in an occurrence of a physical healing. The doctor doesn't give us medecine and then we say "God did it!" We (us Chistians that believe in this sort of thing) learn how to approach God and take advantage of the power he has made to us through Christ.

Change is one of my favorite groups of all time. I been searching for this on CD over ten years and finally it is out. Words can't describe this CD. This CD doesn't have a weak song on it lead by "Hold Tight, Paradise and On Top". If you we're into the sounds of Chic, Skyy, and SOS Band, this is a CD you want in your collection. The import price is very steep but I always said "If I ever found this CD, the price doesn't matter! 10 Stars!

A seminal R&B experiment that has been grossly overlooked, this album is a MUST have. Smooth disco /r&b soul. Track of note: "Heaven of My Life" a seemingly endless song glazed with flawless Luther Vandross vocals gliding over a frothy staccatto guitar riff. I defy anyone to remain motionless listening to this song!!

I have listen to the change cd twice and loved it I loved it so much I decided to buy it for myself. My friend who owes the cd would not let me take his change cd home, because he know he would not get it back.Every song on the cd is my favor it hard to pick, because you would love ever song.I promise you would.

C. S. Lewis is an easy read. This book is not about every day miracles, in fact Lewis would make a case against such things. This is a book about the miracle of the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. While I do not agree with what Lewis sets out in the book, I suggest that everyone read it because it helped formulate and put words to what I do believe.

A wonderful explanation of the supernatural... perhaps best read after Mere Christianity... also, the C.S. Lewis encyclopedia is good as well, especially for the explanation of myth vs. falsehood... Lewis' views on this are very different from the average persons'.

Lewis warns about arguments that presume their conclusion in the first few pages. Then -- at least to my reading -- he rejects Naturalism (as he defines it) because it is obvious to him that reason is not "natural".

I also think he was too slick about the "Naturalism" vs "Supernaturalism" split that he sets up. At first he admits that "Supernaturalism" could mean any number of things (say polytheism). Later he basically assumes it to mean/imply his concept of the Christian God. So almost through misdirection, he gets from showing (what he believes are) inconsistencies with one ontology to using that as support for a different ontology.

A classic interpretation of medieval literature, of course. But the casual, uneducated reader--one who is not a specialist in medieval and classical literature--should be aware that Lewis assumes that the readers of this book can read--without translation--Latin, Greek, medieval French, modern French, German, and several other languages. This book is not for the casual reader but for literature specialists. Common folk looking for something along the lines of Lewis's popular Christian books (which got him denied the Rawlinson and Bosworth Professorship of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford) should look elsewhere.

As an atheist myself, I had heard Lewis was the best Christian apologist there is. If these arguments are the best Christianity can come up with, atheism doesn't have much to worry about.

Lewis is correct that it is impossible to prove that God and the supernatural do not exist. The reason for this is that we certainly can never know everything about everything. There might be something happening somewhere for which God is really the best explanation there is. But I haven't found such a thing yet.

Lewis believes that human reasoning is of supernatural origin. Neurology has been making great strides lately in explaining how the brain produces the effects that we experience as mind. In my opinion, evolution is perfectly adequate to explain human thought. It's true that the human brain didn't evolve with the purpose of being able to do calculus. The brain evolved for other reasons, such as being able to navigate a complex social world and carry out cooperative hunting and food-gathering. That the brain, once evolved, also turned out to be good for calculus was simply the sort of accident that happens occasionally in evolution.

Lewis has a tendency to assume that atheism is equivalent to believing that nothing really matters. As an atheist, I do in fact believe that the universe doesn't care if I'm unhappy. However, that also means that the universe doesn't care if I'm happy. So I choose to live a life that is happy and meaningful to me, and to put a lot of effort into things that I believe make a difference to humanity. The universe has no objection to this.

Lewis also assumes that naturalism is the same as determinism; that every movement of an atom is fixed from the initial conditions, so there can be no free will. This is simply a misunderstanding of modern physics. Modern science has a very large role for chance and non-linear dynamics (chaos theory) in the unfolding of events at all scales. This leaves plenty of room for free will.

Lewis spends a lot of time discussing the Incarnation, the Redemption of Man, and how this all works. This simply makes me laugh. Part of the reason atheism makes sense to me is that atheism has intellectual coherence. Atheism doesn't have to twist itself into knots over the problem of how God became man while remaining God, or how God can be good when the world around us often seems filled with evil and injustice.

Lewis has a reputation for being a logician. In my opinion, much of his "logic" is absurd. Contrary to what Lewis claims, perfectly plausible natural explanations exist for the reported miracles of Jesus. Let's take the loaves and fishes for an example. The first possibility is that it's simply fiction, which certainly can't be ruled out. Another possibility is that Jesus had a wealthy follower in attendance at his preaching that day. Since we know Jesus had some wealthy followers, this is not a big problem. Suppose this wealthy follower saw that it was getting to be lunchtime, realized the people were getting hungry, and decided to be generous. He sent a couple of slaves with money to the local market to buy bread and fish. The slaves were instructed to say nothing about where the food came from, but simply returned and handed it around. In this situation it is all too easy to see how a rumor could get started that the food had appeared miraculously.

The problem with admitting miracles occur is that it is very difficult to sort out why they happen at some times and not others. If you believe that Christ raised a man from the dead, what is there to stop you from believing that Muhammad received the Koran from the Angel Gabriel? The level of evidence that we have for both of these events is about the same. There are plenty of Mormons who believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from a set of golden plates. Since we have first-hand, contemporary accounts from people who claimed they saw the plates, this is stronger than any evidence we have about Jesus' miracles. I don't believe in the plate story, and I don't see that the evidence is strong enough for me to believe Jesus or Muhammad did miracles, either.

If Christianity really worked to make bad people good and good people better, I would be the first to sign up. If Christianity was an effective way to relieve poverty and bring peace, I would definitely consider it. If Christianity were just a silly hobby that made people feel good and harmed no one, it wouldn't bother me. Unfortunately, that isn't what I see. Even when in power, Christianity has made little or no progress in solving the social problems that it deals with, such as poverty and violence. Christianity systematically ignores the most serious problems of our times: overpopulation, exhaustion of resources, and pollution, among others. Why does Christianity ignore these problems? Because they receive little or no attention in the Bible.

As far as the book itself, Lewis is a fine writer who is never boring. For that reason I give the book two stars. Before taking it too seriously, however, I would strongly recommend reading other points of view. As far as the major problems of our times, I would suggest Kunstler's "The Long Emergency." For a defense of atheism and the naturalistic worldview,I would suggest Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World" or Taner Edis' "The Ghost in the Universe."

I read "Miracles" because I feel as a scientist that it is important not to simply dismiss religion as silly, but to give Christians their chance to convince me. If you're a Christian, are you willing to do the same for the other side?

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.