The Logic of Lewis

In a world where so many people claim that religion makes no sense whatsoever and most cannot supply a reasonable defense, it is wonderful to read from an author who can debate simply and articulately the logic of religion. I am not trying to suggest that you can definitively prove religion, one way or the other. What I am delighted about is that C.S. Lewis can explain why a logical man can and should believe in Christianity. C.S. Lewis uses explanation, logical analysis, down to earth examples, and lead in questions to effectively convince his audience. Admittedly, it is much easier to convert the converted, so it is difficult to be certain if his arguments are as persuasive as I believe. All the same, his logic just seems so, well, logical.
C.S. Lewis gets everyone on the same page by defining the religions/concepts that he will be discussing. Since the whole point of persuasion is to get everyone on the page, this is rather helpful. But he doesn't just give a general, rough idea of what he's talking about. C.S. Lewis actually breaks down the concepts that he will discuss piece by piece, explaining it so thoroughly and simply that a child could understand. For instance, when he brings up dualism for the first time, there was a good chance that the majority of his audience had either not heard of it, or believed that he was referring to the dualism of Descartes. In reality, he is referring to something completely different, but because C.S. Lewis explains his terms as he goes along, his audience needn't worry about getting lost (and consequently, his audience remains interested, engaged and amiable, as opposed to confused, bored, and irritable).
Now that he has simplified these complex issues down to relatively simple terms, C.S. Lewis does something extraordinary. He actually goes in and determines the logic of these ideas, in a way that is considerably more open-minded and balanced that has been previously done. He doesn't just say, “Oh that's impossible! The world created in seven days indeed! The whole idea must be complete rubbish.” Rather, C.S. Lewis says “Okay. We cannot prove or disprove this as yet on mere face value. But if the theory says this, then it must also imply this, which in turn will imply that. And if that is illogical to such a point where I can prove that it is illogical, than this first idea must be mistaken.” And while most people are still uncertain about whether or not one can apply logic to religion, C.S. Lewis has already proven both atheism and dualism wrong in such a way that his audience cannot fault him.
Another tactic that C.S. Lewis uses both to create his argument and to prove the logic of it is to illustrate a cosmic principle with a commonplace example. Again, there are some who would say that making such comparisons is absurd, since God works on a scale and with power and abilities far beyond human understanding. Well, if you're going to be completely logical about this, then there really isn't any reason not to compare the two.  The only difference is one of scale.  An example of this is when C.S. Lewis uses the example of a mother who wants her son to learn to clean up his room his own to the agency that God gives us. Yes, he wants us to choose the right and make the world a paradise, and yet the very fact that he gives us free-will ensures that many people won't. This is possibly the best explanation for why God can have infinite power, wisdom, etc., and the world still not be the way he wants it, and it is only possible because while the scale may change, the underlying principles remain the same.
Even though C.S. Lewis provides a good argument, there are sure to be people who still have questions. In a procataleptic move, he takes the time to first ask, and then respond to such questions as a reader is likely to have. In asking these questions, he gives himself an opportunity to develop his argument further, and take in directions that keep the reader’s interest.  Also, simply by virtue of the fact that he is acknowledging possible questions the reader might have, he connects with the reader, letting them know that C.S. Lewis is actually trying to talk to them; he is not just spouting nonsense to himself.
It is because C.S. Lewis maintains the interest of his audience and actually talks directly to them in a way that is neither condescending nor overly complex that his argument works so well. He gets on the page with the reader, and keeps them there so that by the time the essay is over, the argument has become so obvious and logical that one cannot help but admit that C.S. Lewis has a point.

"Veil of Fears" Unveiled (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Analytic Snapshot

Genre: This is obviously a persuasive essay.

Purpose: The author intends to change public opinion and in so doing influence the actions of the government.

Central Message: Unfounded feminist targeting of Muslim veils will only drive more Muslims to support radical fundamentalists.

World View and Assumptions: The author believes that the leftists are wrong (at least on this issue), and that conservatives will accept any effort to demonize extreme feminists. He both has respect for Muslims and believes that the majority of his audience does not know much about them. He agrees with the Muslims and perhaps the majority of the population in saying that American morality is declining. All the same, he believes that most of American values should be eventually shared by the world at large.

Use of Tools and Evidence: The rather crude name of one of the author's sources (I'm sure you know which one) casts doubt as to whether it is really a common example, and not just an extreme case. I think that the author understood the source to be extreme, but I'm still not sure that it helped his case, as it is possible to find a newspaper article that says almost anything as long as you search hard enough. He next makes a connection between the attempt by the leaders of Iran and Afghanistan to end Muslim practices concerning women and the fact that both countries ended up revolting and forming fundamentalist regimes. No evidence if provided to support this claim, yet because he states it as fact, the thought remains with the reader (whether or not the reader agrees with it). Throughout the paper, the author acknowledges what his opponents are talking about, and then goes on to say that those cases are rare, or that the media is not interpreting the situation correctly. This attempt at procatalepsis in addressing the opposing arguments helps to enforce his point that he is right and they are wrong. His main focuses are on ethos and logos, where he tries to establish the logic of his argument while also declaring himself to be the authority on the subject by acting as “teacher” to the reader. One of the ways that he accomplishes his goals of being logical, disproving his opponents, and teaching his reader is to explain the reasons for the Muslim marriage system and how it actually benefits women. The author also tries to take advantage of his audience by targeting two objects that are easy for conservatives to see demonized: extreme feminists and immoral media. This is easy for his audience to agree to, yet there does seem to be something a bit calculated about it.