Many of you may know that I have read mostly C.S. Lewis's non-fiction works. I just saw a fascinating literary review that 'unlocked' the mystery in Lewis's fictional works. As it turns out Lewis was intrigued with the Medieval view of the cosmos and had studied it in great detail. He was a noted scholar on the Medieval. He recognized that it was mechanically incorrect. Yet he saw something deeper. He saw a beauty in a creation in which a God was interwoven tightly.
He took the Medieval cosmological view and layered that under parallel Biblical thread lines then layer that under parallel fantasy thread lines. Each fantasy story as it turns out is fundamentally built upon Medieval symbology for each of the 7 planets. In Lewis's mind this was representative of peeling the onion back in our own universe in which complexity layered with complexity then layer with even more complexity has a God that is interwoven amidst it all. The reason he wrote Narnia was to communicate the idea of a "meaning drenched Universe". The example was given that science may report that heat applied to water causes it to boil at 212 degrees but the purpose or meaning of that is to prepare a spot of tea. This is antithetical to authors like Richard Dawkins of "The God Delusion" who conclude there is no purpose or meaning. Yet, I am confident that Dawkin's has purposefully boiled water for a spot of tea. Was that purpose to enjoy the taste of tea, hydrate, or just to quench a thirst?
In a sidebar, I have been developing the concept of three distinct sciences in the Bible. I was amazed to learn that this had been known and even discussed among Lewis and Tolkien, author of "Lord of the Rings."
Anyhow, I read "The God Delusion". The book has an appeal to the mind numbed. The depth is measured in terms of 'picometers'. Dawkins is often factually incorrect in histories and distorts or ignores well established scientific truths. At the other extreme end of the spectrum is the current day Creation Museum with poor logic for a God of Order and distorted context. We seem to have many people today with odd ideas and poor reasoning holding entire communities of practice hostage. Whereas Lewis's works were so deep that even Christian philosophers such as Tolkien failed to grasp the literary genius in the works. Interestingly, Lewis's works are revealed whereas others such as Dawkins are insisted upon.
The more I learn of Lewis, the more I am fascinated by the complexity of his mind. He certainly ranks near Leonardo Da Vinci (not related to DiCaprio) who had extreme breadth as opposed to Lewis's focused genius. Lewis's fantasy stories are artfully crafted in a beauty no longer considered by the world. What a shame.
