Dear Uncle --- ,
I have decided to read “The Screwtape Letters” as you recommended and I also have resolved to write an appreciation with my view of it. I am also returning the book to you.
I am sorry that I didn’t read it when you first sent it.
I did read some of it at that time but as often happens with me didn’t complete the book at that time. I particularly remembered the account of the man sitting reading a book who is distracted by the Screwtape, just as he starts to have religious thoughts. Screwtape reminds him of lunch or something mundane and he dismisses the thoughts. Quite delightful and it rings true.
I didn’t realise that you wanted it to be returned. Sorry.
It is indeed an excellent book, the product of a fine mind.
I have decided to read “The Screwtape Letters” as you recommended and I also have resolved to write an appreciation with my view of it. I am also returning the book to you.
I am sorry that I didn’t read it when you first sent it.
I did read some of it at that time but as often happens with me didn’t complete the book at that time. I particularly remembered the account of the man sitting reading a book who is distracted by the Screwtape, just as he starts to have religious thoughts. Screwtape reminds him of lunch or something mundane and he dismisses the thoughts. Quite delightful and it rings true.
I didn’t realise that you wanted it to be returned. Sorry.
It is indeed an excellent book, the product of a fine mind.
I must say that I find it impossible that there can literally be such things as Satan, the Devil or devils or hell. I think that these ideas are quite pernicious ones. Metaphorically these concepts might make some sense. But I cannot find it possible to believe in an independent supernatural force of evil.
Among other things, I believe such concepts to have been an invention of religions to inspire fear into their followers, and also a part of some religions that ascribed any bad things that happened to some force of evil that had to be fought.
God was good and loving so bad things must be the work of something else.
As a kind of Catholic Deist myself (if I am religious at all) I would say that it is illogical to believe in such things. It is surely an evil to tell someone that if they do not believe a certain thing or behave in a certain way they will suffer forever in hell. How can an omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving, all-good deity allow the existence of an independent force of evil to exist? It is simply an impossibility.
The idea that people should behave well simply because if they don’t they will suffer is wrong. People should behave well because they want to. I agree with Albert Einstein: “A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
The idea of hell is, I believe, a terrible and a wrong idea, a real scar on the history of religion. Maybe literal belief in it withered away after the Middle Ages, but no apology for it has been made. As far as I am aware it still forms an official part of some Christian doctrine.
I don’t even think that Hitler should suffer eternal torture as this would achieve nothing except causing a human being endless pain. What is achieved by that? Such a “revenge psychology” is I believe un-Christian, and appeals to man’s baser instincts.
To me it is a pitiful irony that a religion like Christianity that purports to want good can have included in it at some point the threat of endless suffering; can have countenanced the idea of causing someone endless suffering. This is surely an evil doctrine. The church should renounce it finally and apologise for the suffering it has caused by the propagation of this belief. It is thelogically incompatible with a God of infinite goodness.
As a kind of Catholic Deist myself (if I am religious at all) I would say that it is illogical to believe in such things. It is surely an evil to tell someone that if they do not believe a certain thing or behave in a certain way they will suffer forever in hell. How can an omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving, all-good deity allow the existence of an independent force of evil to exist? It is simply an impossibility.
The idea that people should behave well simply because if they don’t they will suffer is wrong. People should behave well because they want to. I agree with Albert Einstein: “A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
The idea of hell is, I believe, a terrible and a wrong idea, a real scar on the history of religion. Maybe literal belief in it withered away after the Middle Ages, but no apology for it has been made. As far as I am aware it still forms an official part of some Christian doctrine.
I don’t even think that Hitler should suffer eternal torture as this would achieve nothing except causing a human being endless pain. What is achieved by that? Such a “revenge psychology” is I believe un-Christian, and appeals to man’s baser instincts.
To me it is a pitiful irony that a religion like Christianity that purports to want good can have included in it at some point the threat of endless suffering; can have countenanced the idea of causing someone endless suffering. This is surely an evil doctrine. The church should renounce it finally and apologise for the suffering it has caused by the propagation of this belief. It is thelogically incompatible with a God of infinite goodness.
Such beliefs are those of quite a primitive world view. They are things that surely should be left behind.
I am sure that C.S. Lewis is using it as a powerful rhetorical device but I must part company with him if he believes that such beings and places actually exist. I don’t think any grey area can be allowed in this matter. Either he believes in that kind of thing or he doesn’t. The epigraph says that the best way to fight the devil is to mock him. So Lewis does seem to imply that he belives that there is such a thing as a devil. I must part company with him here.
Of course the purpose of the book is didactic; to show how and where a Christian can go wrong in his life. It also does so in a funny light-hearted way.
It is quite a clear delineation of Christian truth but sometimes I hoped for something clearer as I always had to work things out the wrong way round because Screwtape is talking from an anti-Christian viewpoint.
It should be said in Lewis’s defence that he at no point tries to scare the reader, or imply that the reader deserves punishment. He is merely saying how we can go wrong; the Screwtape figure being a metaphor for the spotting of human foibles.
Lewis is saying we have a choice. And showing the sometimes subtle ways that we can be led to make the wrong choice, or make a mistake.
It shows profound psychological insight about human life and human relations and how people are led astray into problems and unwholesome living.
I didn’t agree with some of his political points about democracy and equality in the final section “Screwtape Proposes a Toast.” Or at least I feel that his criticism, whilst valid in a sense, misses the point. He attacks the idea of making everyone equal and how the desire to be equal is really the desire not to be inferior even though one really may be inferior.
This may be true in itself, but this is no argument against creating equality of opportunity. He seems to fear the abolition of the Middle Classes and of private education. I don’t think that this would have the negative effects he says it would and I am certainly personally sympathetic to the abolition of private schools. I don’t believe in cultural classes. Economic classes may exist but the ideal is to give all a basic minimum, in my view.
Your loving and affectionate nephew
-----
I am sure that C.S. Lewis is using it as a powerful rhetorical device but I must part company with him if he believes that such beings and places actually exist. I don’t think any grey area can be allowed in this matter. Either he believes in that kind of thing or he doesn’t. The epigraph says that the best way to fight the devil is to mock him. So Lewis does seem to imply that he belives that there is such a thing as a devil. I must part company with him here.
Of course the purpose of the book is didactic; to show how and where a Christian can go wrong in his life. It also does so in a funny light-hearted way.
It is quite a clear delineation of Christian truth but sometimes I hoped for something clearer as I always had to work things out the wrong way round because Screwtape is talking from an anti-Christian viewpoint.
It should be said in Lewis’s defence that he at no point tries to scare the reader, or imply that the reader deserves punishment. He is merely saying how we can go wrong; the Screwtape figure being a metaphor for the spotting of human foibles.
Lewis is saying we have a choice. And showing the sometimes subtle ways that we can be led to make the wrong choice, or make a mistake.
It shows profound psychological insight about human life and human relations and how people are led astray into problems and unwholesome living.
I didn’t agree with some of his political points about democracy and equality in the final section “Screwtape Proposes a Toast.” Or at least I feel that his criticism, whilst valid in a sense, misses the point. He attacks the idea of making everyone equal and how the desire to be equal is really the desire not to be inferior even though one really may be inferior.
This may be true in itself, but this is no argument against creating equality of opportunity. He seems to fear the abolition of the Middle Classes and of private education. I don’t think that this would have the negative effects he says it would and I am certainly personally sympathetic to the abolition of private schools. I don’t believe in cultural classes. Economic classes may exist but the ideal is to give all a basic minimum, in my view.
Your loving and affectionate nephew
-----