Three Letters by C. S. Lewis
The following letters by C. S. Lewis were written to Sheldon Vanauken, who
ultimately wrote the best-selling book A Severe Mercy. Mr. Vanauken
asked Lewis for the right to use the letters in his booklet "Encounter with
Light," and Lewis gave permission. Mr. Vanauken subsequently put the letters
in the public domain.
[NB - Abbreviated: "Xanity" stands for "Christianity", "wd" -
"would", "v" - "very" , "cd" - "could", "yr" - "your", "wh" -
"which", "tho'" - "though", etc. The following letters are between
Lewis and a struggling correspondent - Ed]
14/12/50
Dear Mr. Vanauken,
My own position at the threshold of Xianity was exactly the opposite of yours.
You wish it were true; I strongly hoped it was not. At least, that
was my conscious wish: you may suspect that I had unconscious wishes of
quite a different sort and that it was these which finally shoved me in.
True: but then I may equally suspect that under your conscious wish that
it were true, there lurks a strong unconscious wish that it were not. What
this works out to is that all the modern thinking, however useful it may
be for explaining the origin of an error which you already know to be an
error, is perfectly useless in deciding which of two beliefs is the error
and which is the truth. For (a.) One never knows all one's wishes, and (b.)
In very big questions, such as this, even one's conscious wishes are nearly
always engaged on both sides. What I think one can say with certainty is
this: the notion that everyone would like Xianity to be true, and that
therefore all atheists are brave men who have accepted the defeat of all
their deepest desires, is simply impudent nonsense. Do you think people like
Stalin, Hitler, Haldane, Stapledon (a corking good writer, by the way) wd.
be pleased on waking up one morning to find that they were not their own
masters, that they had a Master and a Judge, that there was nothing even
in the deepest recesses of their thoughts about which they cd. say to Him
`Keep out! Private. This is my business'? Do you? Rats! Their first
reaction wd. be (as mine was) rage and terror. And I v. much doubt whether
even you wd. find it simply pleasant. Isn't the truth this: that
it wd. gratify some of our desires (ones we feel in fact pretty seldom) and
outrage a good many others? So let's wash out all the wish business.
It never helped anyone to solve any problem yet.
I don't agree with your picture of the history of religion. Christ, Buddha,
Mohammed and others elaborating on an original simplicity. I believe Buddhism
to be a simplification of Hinduism and Islam to be a simplification of Xianity.
Clear, lucid, transparent, simple religion (Tao plus a shadowy, ethical
god in the background) is a late development, usually arising among highly
educated people in great cities. What you really start with is ritual, myth,
and mystery, the death & return of Balder or Osiris, the dances, the
initiations, the sacrificies, the divine kings. Over against that are the
Philosophers, Aristotle or Confucius, hardly religion at all. The only two
systems in which the mysteries and the philosophies come together are Hinduism
and Xianity: there you get both the Metaphysics and Cult (continuous with
primeval cults). That is why my first step was to be sure that one or the
other of these had the answer. For the reality can't be one that appeals
either only to savages or only to high brows. Real things aren't like
that (e.g. matter is the first most obvious thing you meet, like
chocolates, apples, and also the object of quantum physics). There is no
question of just a crowd of disconnected religions. The choice is between
(a.) The materialist world picture: wh. I can't believe. (b.) The real archaic
primitive religions; wh. are not moral enough. (c.) The (claimed) fulfillment
of these in Hinduism. (d.) The claimed fulfillment of these in Xianity. But
the weakness of Hinduism is that it doesn't really merge the two strands.
Unredeemable savage religion goes on in the village; the Hermit philosophizes
in the forest: and neither really interfaces with the other. It is only Xianity
which compels a high brow like me to partake of a ritual blood feast, and
also compels a central African convert to attempt an enlightened code of
ethics.
Have you ever tried Chesterton's The Everlasting Man? The best popular
apologetic I know.
Meanwhile, the attempt to practice Tao is certainly the right line.
Have you read the Analects of Confucius? He ends up by saying, `This
is the Tao. I do not know if anyone has ever kept it.' That's significant:
one can really go direct from there to the Epistle of the Romans.
I don't know if any of this is the least use. Be sure to write again, or
call, if you think I can be of any help.
Yours sincerely
C.S. Lewis
23 Dec. 1950
Dear Mr. Vanauken,
The contradiction `we must have faith to believe and must believe to have
faith' belongs to the same class as those by which the Eleatic philosophers
proved that all motion is impossible. And there are many others. You can't
swim unless you can support yourself in water & you can't support yourself
in water unless you can swim. Or again, in an act of volition (e.g. getting
up in the morning) is the very beginning of the act itself voluntary or
involuntary? If voluntary then you must have willed it, ..you were willing
it already,..it was not really the beginning. If involuntary, then the
continuation of the act (being determined by the first movement) is involuntary
too. But in spite of this we do swim, & we do get out of
bed.
I do not think there is a demonstrative proof (like Euclid) of
Christianity, nor of the existence of matter, nor of the good will &
honesty of my best & oldest friends. I think all three (except perhaps
the second) far more probable than the alternatives. The case for Xianity
in general is well given by Chesterton; and I tried to do something in my
Broadcast Talks. As to why God doesn't make it demonstrably clear;
are we sure that He is even interested in the kind of Theism which wd. be
a compelled logical assent to a conclusive argument? Are we interested
in it in personal matters? I demand from my friend a trust in my good faith
which is certain without demonstrative proof. It wouldn't be confidence
at all if he waited for rigorous proof. Hang it all, the very fairy tales
embody the truth. Othello believed in Desdemona's innocence when it was proved:
but that was too late. `His praise is lost who stays till all commend.' The
magnanimity, the generosity which will trust on a reasonable probability,
is required of us. But supposing one believed and was wrong after all? Why,
then you wd. have paid the universe a compliment it doesn't deserve. Your
error wd. even so be more interesting & important than the reality. And
yet how cd. that be? How cd. an idiotic universe have produced creatures
whose mere dreams are so much stronger, better, subtler than itself?
Note that life after death which still seems to you the essential thing,
was itself a late revelation. God trained the Hebrews for centuries
to believe in Him without promising them an afterlife, and, blessings
on Him, he trained me in the same way for about a year. It is like the disguised
prince in a fairy tale who wins the heroine's love before she knows
he is anything more than a woodcutter. What wd. be a bribe if it came first
had better come last.
It is quite clear from what you say that you have conscious wishes
on both sides. And now,. another point about wishes. A wish may lead
to false beliefs, granted. But what does the existence of the wish suggest?
At one time I was much impressed by Arnold's line `Nor does the being hungry
prove that we have bread.' But surely tho' it doesn't prove that one particular
man will get food, it does prove that there is such a thing
as food! i.e. if we were a species that didn't normally eat, weren't designed
to eat, wd. we feel hungry? You say the materialist universe is `ugly.' I
wonder how you discovered that! If you are really a product of a materialistic
universe, how is it you don't feel at home there? Do fish complain of the
sea for being wet? Or if they did, would that fact itself not strongly suggest
that they had not always, or wd. not always be, purely aquatic creatures?
Notice how we are perpetually surprised at Time. (`How time flies!
Fancy John being grown-up and married! I can hardly believe it!') In heaven's
name, why? Unless, indeed, there is something about us that is not
temporal.
Total humility is not in the Tao because the Tao (as such) says nothing about
the Object to which it wd. be the right response: just as there is no law
about railways in the acts of Q. Elizabeth. But from the degree of respect
wh. the Tao demands for ancestors, parents, elders, & teachers, it is
quite clear what the Tao wd. prescribe towards an object such as
God.
But I think you are already in the meshes of the net! The Holy Spirit is
after you. I doubt if you'll get away!
Yours,
C.S. Lewis
17/4/51
Dear Vanauken,
My prayers are answered. No: a glimpse is not a vision. But to a man on
a mountain road by night, a glimpse of the next three feet of road may matter
more than a vision of the horizon. And there must perhaps be always just
enough lack of demonstrative certainty to make free choice possible: for
what could we do but accept if the faith were like the multiplication
table?
There will be a counter attack on you, you know, so don't be too alarmed
when it comes.
The enemy will not see you vanish into God's company without an effort to
reclaim you.
Be busy learning to pray and (if you have made up yr. mind on the denominational
question) get confirmed.
Blessings on you and a hundred thousand welcomes. Make use of me in any way
you please: and let us pray for each other always.
Yours,
C.S. Lewis
