Integrative Essay

I find it very hard to sum up all I learned in this class into one essay. We looked at passages from C.S. Lewis that dealt with lots of areas of life, such as happiness, love, truth, pain, morality, temptation, and much more. We also read a book by Cornelius Plantinga that dealt primarily with the creation, fall, and redemption of man, as well as what Christians are called to do. I have decided to divide what I learned in this class into three categories: what we believe, how we find truth, and what we are called to do.

Both Lewis and Plantinga wrote a lot about what we as Christians believe. Plantinga includes three chapters on what Christians believe about creation, the fall, and redemption. He writes mainly about what Christians believe rather than why. His main points, which I agree with, were that God created us as beautiful creatures, that we fell beginning with the sins of Adam and Eve, and that we are redeemed through the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Because I have already been exposed to most of what Plantinga wrote in these chapters, I did not learn much from reading it. However, these chapters could be very useful to someone who is not as familiar with what Christians believe.

Lewis, in talking about our beliefs, takes it to a very basic level. Unlike Plantinga, who simply wrote what Christians believe, Lewis gives us logical reasons for why we should believe in God. In Mere Christianity, Lewis essentially argues with atheists, proving that there is a God. He proves the existence of God saying that “The only packet I am allowed to open is Man. Where I do, especially when I open that particular man called Myself, I find that I do not exist on my own, that I am under a law; that somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain way.”₁ He says that from his experience as a man, he sees that he didn’t make himself, and that a higher force made him to behave in a certain way. He then assumes that the rest of the world was made in a similar way by a higher power. I find this to be a very interesting way to prove the existence of a god to an Atheist.

The second major category that I learned a lot about was how we find truth. This was an area that was covered much more by Lewis than Plantinga. Lewis wrote a lot about the truth as well as common ways we obstruct the truth. One of the things that Lewis sees us doing that corrupts the truth is a thing that he calls Bulverism. In his essay on Bulverism, Lewis explains that “…you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly.”₂ In what Lewis refers to as the “modern method”, we try to attack the flaws of a person rather than weigh up what he is saying and decide whether or not he is right. In doing this we never actually think about the issue itself, but only about the people who argue for or against it.

Lewis also introduces us to subjectivism, which is another fallacy that people commit a lot. Lewis, referring to subjectivism, says that “[The modern view] does not believe that value judgements are really judgements at all. They are sentiments, or complexes, or attitudes, produced in a community by the pressure of its environment and its traditions, and differing from one community to another.”₃ Our society is beginning to think that values are something that people can decide for themselves. Lewis logically explains that in all humanity, there is a moral right and wrong that can’t be changed by anyone’s preferences. What is wrong will always be wrong no matter how many people want to think that it is right. I found this to be an issue that is very relevant in today’s culture.

One of the most important things that we learned about was our calling as Christians. Plantinga wrote a lot about this in the fifth chapter in his book. According to Plantinga, we need to be a “prime” citizen of the kingdom of heaven, one who “passionately yearns for the kingdom.”₄ God calls us to be active Christians who are committed to the faith. We can choose to follow that calling or choose to be passive Christians. By being passive, we are still part of the kingdom, but we miss a big part of the meaning of Christianity. We don’t experience much of the satisfaction we get from working for the advancement of Christianity. We also don’t do a very good job of spreading Christianity when we aren’t committed to it. I think that this is one of the biggest problems with Christianity in America. People don’t see the vibrance of an active faith because many of us don’t have that. Outsiders commonly view Christians as hypocrites which is sadly true. This is an issue that I struggle with a lot. I find it to be very easy to just push Christianity to the side and concern myselve more with the “pressing” issues of Earthly things. As Christians, our primary concern needs to be for the kingdom of God. When all on Earth passes away, only the kingdom of heaven will remain. I think that many Christians, myself included, need to set our priorities straight.

When we talk about being active members of the kingdom, we usually think about missionaries dedicating their lives to spreading the gospel. Lewis, in his essay, Learning in Wartime, explains that “We are members of one body, but differentiated members, each with his own vocation. A man's upbringing, his talents, his circumstances, are usually a tolerable index of his vocation.”₅ The truth is that anything that we do, if done for the glory of God, glorifies God. Whatever career we choose can be done for the kingdom. We need to keep the kingdom of heaven in the front of our minds, but it does not matter what we decide to do. I find this to be especially comforting because my major is not one that is directly related to Christianity. I can still use my career, as well as the other parts of my life, to glorify God.

In conclusion, I thought that this was a very valuable class which I don’t regret taking at all. We were able to discuss lots of real issues from a Christian perspective. C.S. Lewis in particular wrote about a lot of different issues and offered an interesting perspective on them. Plantinga also had some very good points, especially about our vocation as Christians. What I especially enjoyed was a class full of people who were each willing to contribute their own ideas to the discussion, offering lots of different views. Through these discussions, I was able to form my own views about these issues, often changing them from what they were before. I will remember all that I learned in this class for a very long time.

Works Cited

1. Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, 1952.

2. Lewis, C.S., “Bulverism.” From God in the Dock, 1994.

3. Lewis, C.S., “The Poison of Subjectivism.” From Christian Reflections, 1967

4. Plantinga, Cornelius Jr., Engaging God’s World: A Reformed Vision of Faith, Learning, and Living, 2002.

5. Lewis, C.S., Learning in Wartime. Originally preached in 1939.

Pray the Devil Back to Hell

The first thing that hit me in this movie was the extent of corruption in the leadership of Liberia as well as that in the people who were trying to overthrow the leadership. These people constantly fought each other, killing numerous citizens in the hopes of taking power. They were so absorbed in their hunger for power that they didn't care about how many innocent people died or how much damage they caused to the country they wanted to rule. I think that this shows us just how fallen and corrupt humanity is. The desire for power can lead some people to do awful things. It is depressing to see how these evil desires can claim so many innocent lives.

This movie also makes me grateful for the relatively just government that we have in the United States. While we might sometimes have our issues with the actions of our president and Congress, none of our problems can compare to those that have happened in Liberia. We have a stable government led by people who, for the most part, work for the well-being of their country and not for personal gain. I think that we often take this for granted. We need to continuously thank God for the ways he has blessed us while praying for those who don't have the same privileges that we do.

I also want to commend the women of Liberia who protested against the constant fighting that was constantly taking place. Something needed to be done to stop the fighting, pillaging, and raping that was happening in Liberia. These women used a non-violent protest to force the two sides to make an agreement and stop fighting. I think that we often need to speak up more about the injustices of this world. By peacefully protesting, we can bring attention to and fix many problems in our society.

The Problem of Pain

This passage from Lewis was probably one of the most confusing to read. I was not familiar with many of the philosophers and other things Lewis referred to. I was also especially confused before I found that a few of the pages were out of order. However, after reading it a few times, I think I understand the main ideas Lewis was trying to explain to us.

One point that I think that Lewis makes especially clear is the difference between physical pain and emotional pain. Physical pain, or pain in sense A, as Lewis refers to it, is the pain we feel in bodies. If I were to cut myself, I would feel pain A. Emotional pain, or pain B, refers to any kind of pain that is strong enough to hurt us emotionally. Pain A can also lead to pain B if it causes a certain amount of displeasure. I think that this is a very important distinction that we need to make in order to understand pain.

One point that I disagree with Lewis on is that God uses pain to warn us of our sin. While physical pain often works as a warning that we are damaging our bodies, I do not see this happening with emotional pain and sin. God does not maintain a very strong correlation between evil and pain. Evil things very often involve appear to be less painful, or even pleasurable. Also, good things can involve lots of pain, often even more pain than evil things. Many times, we have to sacrifice ourselves to pain in order to do the will of God. Pain does not appear to effectively discriminate between good and evil. I see pain more as a direct result of the fall of humanity. God never intended us to feel the great pains that we feel in our broken world. Pain is, in itself, evil. This is one topic that I don't very much agree with Lewis on.

Man or Rabbit

Like a lot of Lewis' work, I found this essay hard to understand the first time I read through it. As I read through it some more times, I began to find some points that I disagreed with. The first point I don't agree with was that people who ask whether or not non-Christians can live a good life either don't care about the truth or are ignorant. He implies that when people ask this question, they are actually wondering if they can live a good life without Christianity. I don't think that this is true most of the times that the question is asked. If I were to ask this question, it would be specifically about those who don't believe in Christianity, whether it is because they decided against it or because they never heard about it before. I think that this is a valid question when it is asked in this way.

One point from this chapter that I do agree with Lewis on is that we need to look for what is true, not what helps us most in life. I think that some people have a tendency to believe what is most convenient to them. This kind of goes to Lewis' essay on subjectivism, in which he says that there is an absolute right and wrong and that we can't decide what it is. Christianity is either right or wrong, and we need to make a completely objective decision of whether or not is right. We can't just pick whatever side is most convenient to us. While I do agree on this point, I don't see what it has to do with those who have decided that Christianity is wrong or those that haven't heard of it.

Another point that I really don't agree with is that people like Confucius and Socrates who hadn't heard of Christianity will be forgiven because they were ignorant. This is something that I would hope to be true, but I don't think that the Bible says anything about those ignorant of Christianity getting saved. I hope that I am missing something and that all those people that don't know Christianity could be saved, but I see no Biblical evidence to support it. If anyone thinks that they do, please put it as a comment to this post.

The question of whether or not non-Christians can live a good life still remains. Lewis does say that Christianity helps you live a better life, but he doesn't say how much worse that life is for non-Christians. My opinion is that non-Christians can live a good life on Earth in a sense of material possessions and even well-being, but they will eventually find that they are missing something. They will eventually find that their lives and all that they accomplished during them are meaningless if there is nothing else beyond the end of their lives. Also, there will obviously be a big difference between Christians and non-Christians after they die. This, at least, is my opinion.

The Inner Ring

I think that Lewis does a very good job in explaining a phenomenon that I haven't thought much about. People tend to form small groups of friends that are not official, but clearly have insiders and outsiders. People get satisfaction from being part of an exclusive inner ring while others stand outside. Outsiders long to be part of an inner ring. Inner rings may include groups of friends who share a common interest, play a certain sport, go to a certain school, work at a certain company, or share any other part of life together. They tend to hold a limited amount of members and often take pleasure in making fun of people on the outside. These inner rings occur all over the place, often without people even knowing they exist.

One problem with inner rings is that people often try too hard to get into them. People often are willing to make sacrifices, compromise their personality, and do foolish things to be accepted into an inner ring. Some people try to be accepted by buying clothes, cars, or other things that they think will make people like them. Many times people will try to alter their behavior to be more socially acceptable to the group. This can involve the way people talk to each other, the activities they do, or the attitudes they show when doing certain things. Sometimes people will smoke or drink alcohol because the group they want to get into does these things. Lewis says that most people will at some point "be a scoundrel" to be accepted into a certain group.

Another problem with inner rings is that those on the inside tend to get pleasure from keeping other people on the outside. If everyone were allowed into an inner ring, the inner ring would have lost its purpose. This can cause insiders to do some very cruel things to outsiders. They can get lots of personal satisfaction by taking advantage of the outsiders' desire to get in. This is not the way that Christians should treat each other. As Christians, we should not exclude other people from joining our groups, but instead accept people even if we don't particularly like them.

Engaging God's World, Chapter 5

I think that Plantinga did a better job with this chapter than he did with previous chapters. He still is not as interesting to read as CS Lewis, but he does make some good points. The first point that stuck out to me was that people who are doing well don't long for the kingdom as much as people who are poor, experiencing medical problems, or facing other hardships. I think that it is very true that prosperity can lead to a less vibrant faith. When we seem to have things under control ourselves, we don't see as much of a pressing need for salvation. Also, some of the strongest and most sincere Christians I have ever seen were those who I met on mission trips that lived in poverty.

One point that I disagree on is Plantinga's distinction between "good" and "prime" citizens. What this implies, although Plantinga does not actually say this, is that some citizens are better or more important to God than others. This is not true because all of us, even those of us who are most active Christians, have fallen into sin and need God's grace. I am not saying that we should not be active Christians. We still need to work hard for the kingdom of heaven, but we should do it out of gratitude for our salvation, not to be distinguished over other Christians. I think that "prime" is a bad term to describe active citizens of the kingdom.

Another point that I agree with is that many non-Christians still often seek out parts of the kingdom of heaven. They are looking for the same kind of shalom that we are, but they unfortunately can't find it outside of Christianity. That is why many non-Christians still are good people. Many of them go to great lengths to help their neighbor, beyond what many Christians do. I think that it is sad that these people are unable to find the peace that they long for.

Plantinga then goes on to explain how learning at a Christian college does more than just prepare us for a job, but also to help renew the world. While it is a good point and I do agree with it, it has been repeated so many times to me here at Calvin College that I really didn't get much new insight from reading it again. While I do think that a Christian liberal arts education is a good thing, I don't think that Calvin needs to explain it to us so many times.

The Four Loves: Eros

I think that Lewis makes some good points in this chapter, although his logic at times was very confusing. One good point he makes is that eros love that someone has is centered on the other person, not just the sex that can be attained from him or her. Loving someone solely for sex, in my opinion, does not deserve the title of love at all, but instead should simply be called a desire. Lewis bluntly says that a man who wants this wants "a pleasure for which a woman happens to be a necessary piece of apparatus." These kinds of relationships do not last, and most of the time occur as fantasies. True eros love, while it usually includes sexual desire, is an intimate love between two people that is centered on each other.

Another point I agreed with was that people can become too obsessed with eros. Eros love can drive people to push their own well-being, that of their friends, and their relationship with God off to the side. While it is good for two people to sincerely love each other, it is important that they don't lose hold of the rest of their lives in the process. I have seen people with relationships drift away from their friends, focusing entirely on their boyfriend or girlfriend. Failed relationships can drive some people to do foolish things, with a few committing suicide. We need to keep our relationships in perspective.

I also think that Lewis had a good point when he said that eros love is not naturally permanent and that it needs to be maintained. Married people tend to lose the intensity of their eros love after they have been married for a while. Many couples experience this and get divorced because of it. Married people need to understand that they won't always be feeling that intense eros love for each other. They should try to maintain it as well as they can, but they need to develop a longer lasting love that involves all four of the loves that Lewis talks about in this book. Most importantly, they need to keep God at the center of their relationship.

Learning in Wartime

I think that Lewis makes some very good points in this essay that can be applied to many parts of our lives. One thing that Lewis said that I agree with is that we can't put off important things like learning just because we are in state of emergency because in a sense, we are always in a state of emergency, to some extent. There are always wars, problems with the economy, and other issues that make us want to wait until things are "normal". This will never happen. I think that this idea applies to more areas than just learning. One example I see a lot is that people want to stop giving because of the financial crisis that we are in. While the crisis has been hard on America, we still have it much better than most places in the world, and I think that most of us can still afford to give.

Another good point that Lewis makes is that we shouldn't let one of our duties consume our whole life. I like his example of how saving a drowning man might be worth dying for, but it isn't worth living for. We shouldn't take one of our duties so seriously that all we ever do, say, or think revolves around it. I think that Lewis applies this idea to the war. Just because it is a country's duty to fight the war doesn't mean that that is all that they should do. There still needs to be people to do the non-war functions of a country. I think that this a very convincing argument for students who feel guilty that they are not helping with the war.

The last point from Lewis that I thought was very helpful was that anything that is done in the glory of God will be accepted by him. I think that this applies both in war and in Christianity. Not every citizen of a country is a soldier just like not every Christian is a missionary. Just like you can be a good, productive citizen without fighting in the war, you can be a good Christian without being a missionary. There are still lots of things you can do to witness to people and give to those in the mission field. Also, what you do in your job can be glorifying to God even if it isn't directly related to Christianity. I find this comforting as I don't plan on having a career strictly involving religion.

Engaging God's World, Chapter 4

In this chapter, I agreed with most of what Plantinga said, but I didn't learn much. I think that Plantinga overanalyzes the redemption story in this chapter. Our redemption involves us falling into sin, Jesus bearing the punishment for us, and then us trying to serve God in gratitude to our salvation. Plantinga writes this chapter with a lot of small theological details and distinctions that in my opinion aren't very important to my life. Rather than learn about the details from the Reformed perspective on exactly how we believe the redemption happened, I want to learn more about how wee should live as a result of it. I realize that some people enjoy learning more about theology, but I really don't find this to be all that fascinating.

One part of the chapter that I didn't agree with was towards the end of the chapter where Plantinga talks specifically about the Reformed perspective. He says that when there is something wrong with the world, we need to reform it. First of all, I think that most denominations would agree that when something is going wrong that we should fix it. I don't think that this is an idea unique to Reformers. Another problem that I had with this was that it is much easier said than done. In our world, we have several problems that don't have easy solutions. Plantinga's example of health care, for instance, is a very tough problem to fix, as we are seeing with Congress right now. Also, our reforms will be tainted with sin just like the things that we are trying to reform. Many times, our attempts to reform things can end up only aggravating the problems or causing new problems. Again sticking with Plantinga's example of health care, improving health care can bring the undesired consequence of sending our country further into debt. While it may seem noble to try to fix the problems of the world, it is actually much harder than what Plantinga makes it appear.

Engaging God's World, Chapter 3

One of the reasons that I like CS Lewis' work so much is that he is able to capture lots of very important ideas in a relatively small amount of words. Plantinga does not share this gift. In all honesty, I think he could have fit the contents of this chapter into five pages. He has a tendency to ramble on about things, which made this chapter somewhat boring for me.

That said, i do agree with his main point that we are fallen creatures. Just by looking at some of things that we do to each other, we can find this to be obvious. I don't particularly agree with Plantinga's distinction between sin and evil. Plantinga claims that evil is anything that disturbs shalom while sin is evil that is intentional. I think that, at least in the way that most people use these words, both evil and sin imply some kind of intent behind it. I have never heard anyone say that something is evil but not a sin. In reality, I think that this distinction is simply a dispute over definition and doesn't have much of an impact on what I think about sin.

Another issue that I found in this chapter was that of total depravity. In class, we had a big debate over whether humans are completely incapable of doing any good. Plantinga kind of takes both sides in this debate. My opinion is that we can't be completely depraved because of our moral code that Lewis talks about in Mere Christianity. I think that our ability to tell right from wrong is evidence of the good that we were original created with. Our actions are still tainted with sin in all areas of our life, but I don't think that total depravity means that we are 100% evil.

The Poison of Subjectivism

I think that subjectivism as Lewis defined it is very common in our society. Our country highly values its personal freedoms, and I think that lots of people think that they have the freedom to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is a growing trend in which people do things that are traditionally viewed as immoral and then defend themselves by saying that they don't think that what they are doing is wrong. I think that this is the subjectivism that Lewis is referring to.

One common trend that I see in moral subjectivism is that people generally use it in order to benefit themselves. People change their morals in order to allow things like extramarital sex, abortion, stem cell research, and other things that are convenient to them. Now, I am not saying that every one of these things is wrong, but that we need to look to the Bible and make an objective decision on whether each of them is right or wrong. Morals are not always convenient to us, and when we make moral decisions, we should not be considering which side is better for us, but which side is right.

Often, when someone is criticized for doing something immoral, he or she says that the person who is criticizing is judgmental. This is one of the most common criticisms that people put on Christians. In one sense, I can see this accusation of judgmentalism as a poor excuse for someone who is doing something wrong. On the other hand, the Bible tells us not to be quick to judge, because however we judge others, we will be judged. I think that while we should not be particularly fierce in judging people, we need to at some point make people accountable for their decisions.

Mere Christianity

I really like Lewis' logical approach in proving the existence of a higher power. The part that we read does not prove Christianity to be real, but it does bring a very strong logical case against Atheism. First, Lewis introduces the very important idea of a universal standard. He uses several logical examples to prove that when we argue, we appeal to what is essentially the same set of morals. He does make it clear that while everyone has this moral code, people do not always choose to obey it. After he proves the universal moral code, Lewis moves on to the issue of how our universe was made, specifically whether or not there was an outside force that directed its creation. He explained that if there was an outside force involved, we would not be able to discover it scientifically, because it would be from outside of the universe. What we would see is evidence through the creation that it designed by someone and not just randomly tossed together. Lewis uses the universal law of human nature that he proved earlier as evidence.

I think that Lewis did a very good job in logically showing that our world was actually designed by someone or something. I would like to read the rest of the book to see how he goes about proving Christianity. I think that this book is especially significant because Lewis himself was once an Atheist. Because of his Atheist background, he was able to argue in a way that Atheists could understand. I do understand that many Atheists will not be as receptive to these arguments as I am, but I have heard that many outsiders to Christianity were converted through this book. I hope to read the rest of this book sometime in the near future.

Screwtape Letters, 12th Letter

I think that Lewis gives us some great insights on the workings of the devil in his book, The Screwtape Letters. This letter is about how the devil slowly pushes us away from God. He does this by introducing us to bad habits which, by themselves, don't seem like that much of a problem. However, he uses these habits to make us feel guilty and want to avoid God. He does not want to push us too hard, or we will realize that there is a real problem, and we will turn to God for help. By keeping the temptations gradual, we feel a tinge of guilt whenever we start to think about our spiritual condition, which causes to want to avoid thinking about it. Through this kind of temptation, the devil can begin to separate us from God without us even realizing it.

I think that Lewis raises some good points about a kind of temptation that I have seen many times. Lots of people, while they call themselves Christians, fall into bad habits and begin to lose sight of their spiritual state. Christianity becomes more of a ritual as they go to church and pray without putting in much thought at all about what they are doing. They think they are still doing fine because they are doing these things, but they are actually drifting. I have felt this kind of temptation as well. It is all too easy to act Christian in front of Christians, but to let it slide in order to fit in with the people around you.

The best way to fight this kind of temptation is to be honest with yourself and with God. If you are experiencing some problems in your faith, you need to bring them to God and to ask Him for help and forgiveness rather than avoiding Him. It is when you ignore God that you become separated from him. That is why we need to focus on God and our spiritual life even when we do something that we feel guilty about.

Engaging God's World, Chapter 2

This chapter, true to its title, contained lots of theological discussion on the topic of creation. I agreed with most of what Plantinga had to say about creation, although a lot of it was ideas that I had been exposed to before. I didn't find this reading to as fascinating as the essays by C. S. Lewis, although I do think that Plantinga makes a few good points.

One point that I agree with Plantinga on is the reason that God created the world. It makes sense that God was not lonely or bored, and that he didn't need us. He is our God, and doesn't depend on us for anything. I agree that God made the world out of love, and that he intentionally designed the Earth, as well as the other planets and stars, because is a fitting thing for a loving God to do. This part of the chapter made sense to me.

One thing that I disagreed with was Plantinga's point that we can be saved because we were made good, and that despite falling into sin, there is still good in us. My belief is that we are, as sinners, totally depraved. We have messed up so badly that, in my opinion, there is no real good left in us. I do agree that, while we have fallen into sin, we can be saved through God's grace. This salvation has absolutely nothing to do with us or any good left in us. God saves us because he loves us, even though we don't deserve it.

The Weight of Glory

I think that this essay contains some very interesting points. One point that Lewis made that I like is his distinction between mercenary and proper rewards. I think that most of the work that Americans do is mercenary, in which they receive money as a reward for a variety of different tasks. Mercenary rewards are not as fulfilling as proper rewards, which is why I think that many people are dissatisfied with their jobs.

I also think that Lewis brings up a good point in how we have this great desire, but that we don't know what it is. As creatures of the world, we like to think that these desires are of worldly things, because that is really all we are familiar with. Lewis' analogy of a child who prefers playing with mud over going to the beach, simply because he had never experienced the beach before, fits very well here. We place our desire on worldly things, which can't satisfy us forever. We do not know what heaven will be like, therefore we don't feel the intense desire to go there. In fact, we are often afraid to go to heaven, because we are familiar with the world than we are with heaven. Later in the essay, Lewis tries to identify what our desire truly is. He says that it is the desire to be known by God, like a child desires praise from his parents. I think that there is more to it than that, but as we have never experienced anything like it before, we can't understand what it is while we are still here.

I also like how Lewis comes to the conclusion that we want not only to see God's great glory, but to become united with it. His explanation of this being the reason that humans have made gods made a lot of sense to me. I also have seen passages in the Bible that support this idea of us being one with him. Overall, I think that Lewis makes a lot of insightful comments about glory from a human perspective.

The Logical Song

I think that this song shows us that no matter how educated we are, there will always be hard questions that we can't answer. When the song says that the questions are too deep for a "simple man", I think it is saying that as humans we can only have a limited understanding of the world. It is impossible for us understand completely where our universe came from and exactly what we are. These questions are even harder if you don't have a religion with a higher power that created the world. I also think that this song shows us that we shouldn't get too caught up in the academic world, but that we need to take some time to enjoy the beauty of the world that we are trying to understand.

Our English Syllabus

In this essay, Lewis presents many interesting ideas about education. I agree with some of these ideas, but others I find to be a little bit extreme. I agree with Lewis in how he tells us that education is not something that should be spoon-fed from teacher to student, but that students need to experience the material themselves, not being told exactly how to think. In my education experience, I have taken some classes in which I was required to memorize certain facts and remember them until I took the test. Within a couple of weeks, I would forget most of the material because I had never applied it or thought about it any more than memorizing it. This kind of education is useless.

One part of this essay that I disagree with is the part where Lewis tells us that we need good education to become "human". I realize that he might not have meant this literally, but he still puts educated people higher than uneducated people. He calls those who only receive vocational training "slaves" and claims that education is necessary for us to be civilized. I strongly disagree with Lewis on this point. While higher education can be very good thing, it is not necessary for everyone. Some people don't have the ability or desire to go on to a higher education. This does not make them any less human, civilized, or important to our society. There are still opportunities for them to get trained for a meaningful job. I think that Lewis took his idea of education a little bit too far.

Engaging God's World, Chapter 1

I think that Plantinga does a good job explaining how humans long for things on Earth. There are several things that people long for, whether they be material things, fame, physical pleasures, or the desire to revisit particularly fond memories of the past. While people may have intense desires for these things, they often find that these things are not as good as what they thought they would be. The truth is that nothing we can hope for on Earth can possibly satisfy us. The only source of true satisfaction is beyond this world, in heaven.

In our society, there are countless examples of people that pursue things that they strongly desire, only to find that when they have it, they are not satisfied. Some people spend their lives in pursuit of money. They work very hard to build up a fortune, but find that once they do have a lot of money, they aren't satisfied just to sit around and use it. Some people long for sex, but find that the more of it that they get, the less satisfied they are from it. People spend their lives looking for something that gives them lasting satisfaction, but can't find it anywhere. This is why we need to avoid attaching ourselves to worldly things and instead focus on God. The only true satisfaction we will ever get is through Him. Life without God is empty and meaningless. We need to go to Him real satisfaction of our longings.

We Have No Right to Happiness

I agree with Lewis' conclusion that we do not have a right to happiness in a sexual sense. Sexual dissatisfaction is not a good reason to mistreat a spouse and commit adultery. I believe that sexual happiness, like any other pleasure, can be pursued as long as those who pursue it don't break moral laws to get it. The Bible says that anyone who divorces his or her spouse to marry someone else commits adultery. Also, the way that the man went about divorcing his first wife was very cruel, leading her to eventually commit suicide. Therefore, I find it to be immoral to for someone to break the bonds of their marriage, even if they are not feeling satisfied sexually.

Today's society tends to believe that people do have a right to sexual happiness. Situations similar to the one described by Lewis happen all the time. Most Americans think that sexual happiness is essential in a marriage. The reality is that true lasting sexual happiness is impossible. Couples that don't understand this are likely to divorce when the physical attraction fades away. In order to have a long-lasting marriage, the husband and wife need to be committed to each other, no matter what happens to them in terms of physical attraction.

I also agree with Lewis' second to last paragraph, which says that a society that promotes promiscuity puts women at a disadvantage. Men tend to have a much larger desire for physical attraction than women do, and this has already been exploited in our society. Advertisers find that promiscuity in their ads especially attracts male consumers, so they include promiscuous images of females. I think that this is a serious problem in our society, and that it will continue to get worse.

Bulverism

I think that Lewis' concept of Bulverism happens a lot nowadays. In politics, this is especially noticeable as politicians always seem to be attacking their opponents rather than debating the issues. Political ads are notorious for being used to discredit opponents and often do so dishonestly. In any current political issue, there are arguments based not on the issue itself but on attacking the opposition. It is ridiculous how far off from the topic these debates can get. It amazes me how much I see this happening throughout our government.

After thinking about this essay for a while, I realized that Bulverism is also something I am guilty of on a regular basis. It seems that whenever I am arguing with someone, I try harder to "win" the argument than I try to come to the right conclusion. Rather than admit that I am wrong, I often try to show how that person also is wrong or blame my mistake on something. The reality is that these kind of arguments rarely accomplish anything other than getting people angry at each other. We need to open our minds and understand the possibility that we are wrong. We also need to keep our arguments on topic, debating the idea itself and not other people that voice an opinion about the idea. Only through fair, non-Bulverized debate can we accomplish anything.

Reflections in a Toolshed

I think that CS Lewis makes a very good distinction between two different ways we look at things. After reading this article, I can find lots of different areas that apply to Lewis' comparison between looking at something and looking along something. Almost anything that we do or feel can be looked at from these two viewpoints. I think that we need to look both at things and along things in order to understand them best. If we only look at things from the outside, we miss the significance that they have on those experiencing it. If we only look along things, we can fail to understand the real effects that they have on us. We need both perspectives in order to understand things and make good decisions based on what we understand.

There many areas in today's society where people don't consider both of these ways of looking at things. Some people fail to objectively look at their actions and do things that they later regret. When someone buys a car or house that they can't afford, loses their virginity, or gets addicted to drugs, they do something that feels good, but has consequences that could have easily been seen if they had looked at their actions objectively. Other times people do things that might look good from the outside, but cost so much in experience that it isn't worth it. Many Americans get so obsessed with work, that they don't have time for family, hobbies, or any real experiences. We need to look both at and along things to make choices that satisfy both our physical and emotional needs.