TALKING NONSENSE ABOUT GOD: C. S. Lewis versus Michel de Montaigne

June 25, 2010 at 8:41 pm 1 comment

montaigne CS Lewis

20th-century writer C. S. Lewis thought that God ought to be described within the confines of generally accepted logic. Said he,

“His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say ‘God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it’, you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words ‘God can’. It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.”

Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. That’s C. S. Lewis’ position.

Michel de Montaigne, whom I’m currently reading and who was a French politician and famous essayist from the 16th century, had another take on this. He thought that talking about what God can or cannot do based on what we perceive to be nonsensical statements about God would mean to confine Him to the imperfections of our language.

“It has always seemed to me,” said Montaigne, “that certain expressions are too imprudent and irreverent for a Christian: ‘God cannot die’; ‘God cannot change his mind’; ‘God cannot do this or cannot do that’. I find it unacceptable that the power of God should be limited in this way by the rules of human language; these propositions offer an appearance of truth, but it ought to be expressed more reverently and more devoutly. Our speech, like everything else, has its defects and weaknesses. Most of the world’s squabbles are occasioned by grammar!”

About these ads

Entry filed under: C. S. Lewis, Faith and Reason. Tags: , , , , , , , .

Cultural Schizophrenia on Obesity and Thinness Plato: Is Life in Itself Good?

1 Comment Add your own

  • 1. R  |  August 10, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    Great comment by Montaigne. I have come to see that scripture does not actually say that ‘God cannot die’. Scripture says that God is ‘eternal’ and ‘immortal’ (and is even referring to Christ when saying this about God). Immortality means more that ‘death’, it actually means ‘corruption/decay’. God/Jesus did die but did not see corruption/decay…in other words, ‘the grave could not hold Him’. Jesus died, but did not corrupt or decay, He is immortal and lives forever. He was dead but now is alive forevermore. The term, “God cannot die”, is not found in scripture. We simply believe it because we have heard it and because we are often limited by our language. The word ‘mortal/immortality’ is a plausible example of this thought by Montaigne.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Feeds

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 231 other followers

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

June 2010
M T W T F S S
« May   Jul »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 231 other followers

%d bloggers like this: