Regardless, one reason I think Mere Christianity is such a compelling book is that Lewis took a fairly scientific approach to a spiritual subject.  The reader can test his claims because the reader is an intrinsic expert on the subject being examined; he is the subject:

There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men. In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are in the know.  - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

From this intrinsic point of departure, Brother Clive sets out to step the reader through a series of logical paces.  Granted, there are critics of these paces who argue that they aren’t logical and would likely say that they’re far from scientific.  In the academic sense, they may be right.  Who knows; I’m no academic.  I suppose some would argue that “academic sense” is an oxymoron.  Anyway, back to what’s important: logic, science, and how to impress the ladies…

This brings me to the next logical subject: Goodwill.  Not good will. Goodwill.  Where I source all of my yellow-armpitted Reebok t-shirts with stretched-out necks and that patina of use that the ladies cannot resist, and unfortunately takes at least a decade to achieve.  Goodwill is where I invested in a priceless piece of literature for $1.99 plus taxation.  It’s a crusty physics book from the late ’80s.  As I was thumbing through it, I came across the curious paragraph pictured here, which I’m using as a springboard for my next painting.

I say it’s curious because this approach is equally scientific as what Brother Clive asks of his readers in Mere Christianity.

As it turns out, the definition (and the resulting boundary) of Science is regularly up for debate (as is the definition of art).  This editorial and proposed definition from J.P. Siepmann, whose brain wad is probably bigger and more agile than yours and mine combined, lays out a simple solution.  Here’s his schtick:

I would like to propose that we define Science as the “the field of study which attempts to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part.”

Sounds good to me.  Anyway, here’s my point:  Even the most skeptical among us have faith.  I believe what we choose to place that faith in has more to do with how honest we choose to be with ourselves than it does our intellect.  At the end of the day, it is our nature as wayward humans to want to do what we want to do, regardless of Right and Wrong.  Some of us find ways to rationalize it and stay in our nature.  Some of grow weary of the effort required to swim against the current of Truth, and allow it to overpower us.

My hope is that, through exposure to Lewis’ writing, and the Good Book it leads to, more folks will find that there is great rest available in what seem to be turbulent waters.

inanimate it is not very surprising that they take no notice of us. That, of course, is true. It is not the physical objects that I am speaking of, but that indescribable Something of which they become for a moment the messengers. And part of the bitterness which mixes with the sweetness of that message is due to the fact that it so seldom seems to be a message intended for us, but rather something we have overheard. By bitterness I mean pain, not resentment. We should hardly dare to ask that any notice be taken of ourselves. But we pine. The sense that in the universe we are treated as strangers, the longing to be acknowledged, to meet with some response, the bridge some chasm that yawns between us and reality, is part of our inconsolable secret.”

- C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory