1. Screwtape is right about us humans having the 'pressure of the ordinary' hanging over us. We get so used to our routines and everyday activities that it's difficult to see beyond them into supernatural realities. When you're caught in routine, sometimes it's difficult to believe in God. Not because the world is so cruel or so unfeeling, but because it's so ordinary. It can even be difficult to believe in natural realities such as the vastness of the Universe and your own mortality.

2. I think Screwtape means that we're becoming less concerned with truth rather than what suits us. The world's religions and world-views seem offered to us on silver platters and we are free to choose whichever one makes us happy or pleases us the most. Never mind which one is actually true.

3. I like to be open for anything in discussions, because I think discussions should be primarily about finding the truth. I'd rather lose every debate I ever have and learn some new truth each time than to always win on false arguments. Unfortunately, in practice, this isn't always the case. Some people you want to be proven wrong more than others, thus we can be blinded by our motives to win at any cost. Once a discussion turns into a shouting match, I think it's safe to say that neither party is concerned with finding the truth, but simply with proving the other wrong.

4. I found the idea of devil's keeping us from God by jargon the most interesting. Of course a devil can't ultimately win a fair debate; they're side is full of nonsense and lies. A successful demon should keep his patient away from the truth and what better way than through jargon? I also found it interesting that Screwtape suggested to Wormwood to keep his patient away from science, because science is often, perhaps unfairly, associated with atheism.

1. Screwtape tells Wormwood, “you don’t realize how enslaved they are to the pressure of the ordinary.” Is Screwtape correct? Are humans “enslaved to the pressure of the ordinary?” What does it mean to be “enslaved to the pressure of the ordinary?”

I believe it means that the ordinariness of the world -- the solidness, the plain, the unspectacular -- is so present, ans weighs so heavy on us, that when we're surrounded by it, we have trouble believing in anything else. For example, when we're little, and we're up in our rooms reading fairytales -- like Narnia, for example -- we get into the story so much that we might believe it could be true. We might believe for a little while that things are much different and bigger than most people think, and that there might be other worlds and we could get to them through wardrobes or magical paintings. We might begin to think there could be magic around every corner. But then we hear our father making business calls on the phone, or see our mother working some dull chore, or step outside and see how... unmagical it is. And that feeling fades.

I think this is both a good and a bad thing. For one, it can keep you sensible, so that you're not living in a fantasy world, or confusing reality with fiction. But it is also bad in the way that it could keep you from believing things that are true -- the way it did for the man in the book. It's important to keep focused on reality. But there are also things we can't see or can't know -- not yet. And we mustn't forget or disbelieve those things just because it doesn't seem to fit into the commonness of every day life.

2. (p8, paragraph 1) Screwtape suggests that we are conditioned to think of arguments and positions by their adjectives: something is strong, or stark, or courageous. What do you think he means by that?

I think it means that, when we choose our beliefs, we're supposed to discern based on whether something is true or false; but we don't. Instead, we often believe things based on whether or not that particular belief can do something for us. Often, the philosophers of Lewis's time, from what I've seen, didn't believe things because they thought they were true, but because it would make them look wise or brave or important by believing them. It helped their reputation, or made them feel good somehow.

The same is true today: all that's changed is the philosophies. When you look at most of today's leaders, or motivation speakers, or talk show hosts, they're all pushing ideas like Eastern religion or even the "power of positive thinking". But it's not because they genuinely think Eastern religion is true. Their goal is not to "be positive about this situation, because this situation is genuinely positive". Instead it's "be positive about this situation (whether it is or not) because it will make you feel good inside". Or "because it will allow you to get more work done", or because "it will make you more popular with your friends". Philosophy and belief is more often a quest for personal satisfaction than it is a search for real truth.

3. (p8, paragraph 2) Speaking of discussions, when you have an honest discussion with someone who disagrees with you, do you retreat firmly to your own position or does the discussion inspire you to take another look at your convictions?

It depends a great deal on what the topic is, what my opinions is, and on the opinion of the other person. For example, if someone tried to convince me I was from another planet, there is no way they could "inspire me to take another look at my convictions". There are some things I know are true, and honestly can not disbelieve. My faith in God is another of these -- things that have happened to me have convinced me too deeply to allow for serious doubt about it any longer.

But there are other things we're almost certain we know, things we kind of believe, and things which we hold as merely a weak guess. With these sorts of things, I try to keep in mind that I may be wrong, and listen to people who disagree to find out why they hold their opinions.

But I think it's very important to keep in mind the topic of discussion when it comes to how much we doubt ourselves and are open to the opinions of others. Just like it's hot-headed and foolish to be absolutely certain of everything and not listen to anyone but yourself, it's also quite unwise and dangerous to be absolutely open to anything. Otherwise, you can become either the gullible sort of person who is taken in by everything, or the wishy-washy sort of person who holds no opinions on anything whatsoever.

In any case, no matter how strong the belief, I don't like to just blow people off. I find other opinions interesting, mainly because I find people interesting. I often wonder what it would be like to be someone else and believe different things and think a different way. So I'll often listen to people just for the sake of finding out more about them, whether I'm interested in agreeing with them or not. It's also very important to try to be respectful to their views. Whether they're right or wrong, it does neither me nor them any favor by hurting them without cause, just because they might be incorrect about a particular subject.

I also found it interesting that Screwtape suggested to Wormwood to keep his patient away from science, because science is often, perhaps unfairly, associated with atheism.

I, too, love that point. It's always confused me why science and Atheism are so often grouped together. In all honesty, the more I learn of science, the more God's presence seems to be proven in His design.

~Riella

The Screwtape Letters may be a little advanced for me still, but here's some of what I think.

1. I believe what is trying to be said is that we as humans are distracted by every day things so much, that we leave the more important things, like God for these less important things.
Example: On page 9 in my edition, one of Screwtape's patients was reading something important, it seems, in the Museum, and his mind began to go "wrong". He was tempted to go off to lunch, and certainly he did.

3. Usually when I argue, I prefer to try to listen to my opponent, if I am able to. I sometimes get into debates with a fellow classmate of mine, and he often brings up good points I should take into consideration. I still do, however, try to defend my argument in some ways. I try to say things that contradict their views and thoughts of the matter. My opinions about certain things have actually changed because of this, as so have the classmate's.

4. Something I found interesting(yet confusing) in the letter is towards the end, Screwtape writes, "Above all, do not attempt to use science (I mean, the real sciences) as a defense against Christianity. I got confused by this. What does this mean?

4. Something I found interesting(yet confusing) in the letter is towards the end, Screwtape writes, "Above all, do not attempt to use science (I mean, the real sciences) as a defense against Christianity. I got confused by this. What does this mean?

I think it means that the evidence of God's design is clearly seen by studying His creation. And so, if the patient looked into science too much, he might begin to believe in God and intelligent design.

~Riella

Science could cause the Patient to ask big questions like "How did all this get here?", "What is the point of it all?" etc. It's true that science can distract you from the bigger picture, but it's far too unpredictable for Screwtape's taste. Better to keep him on economics.

1. Screwtape tells Wormwood, “you don’t realize how enslaved they are to the pressure of the ordinary.” Is Screwtape correct? Are humans “enslaved to the pressure of the ordinary?” What does it mean to be “enslaved to the pressure of the ordinary?” I think to some degree humans are slaves to the pressures of the ordinary. They don't want to think of things bigger than themselves; they might have to do something about it then. Obviously, not everyone is like that but I think a good number of people are. I think he means that they focus on the here and now, the plain every day things, instead of the big questions about life.

2. (p8, paragraph 1) Screwtape suggests that we are conditioned to think of arguments and positions by their adjectives: something is strong, or stark, or courageous. What do you think he means by that? I think part of what he is getting at the mentality that if it works for a person as a philosophy of life it is okay. If we think of arguments and positions by adjectives other than "true" or "false," we are less likely to act (either to change our own opinion or try to change someone else's. True and false are more controversial and more likely to spark discussion that those other words.

3. (p8, paragraph 2) Speaking of discussions, when you have an honest discussion with someone who disagrees with you, do you retreat firmly to your own position or does the discussion inspire you to take another look at your convictions? Unless I have very strong feelings about something, I'm willing to consider what the other person says and adjust my convictions if necessary.

4. What did you find interesting (discussion worthy) in this letter? I found it interesting that Screwtape said that the part of the man he had best under his control was his stomach. It reminds me of the saying "A way to a man's heart is through his stomach."

4. Something I found interesting (yet confusing) in the letter is towards the end, Screwtape writes, "Above all, do not attempt to use science (I mean, the real sciences) as a defense against Christianity. I got confused by this. What does this mean?

When I was in college, I read a letter to the editor from a scientist. I think he studied cosmology. He said it was his study that led him to a belief in God and intelligent design. By real science, I think he means science that is concerned with finding the facts and/or one that studies physical things (as opposed to science that studies behaviors.) If he (the patient) thinks about realities he can't see, it might lead him to continue along that path and think about God, whom he also can't see. Science is (or should be) about discovery and thinking. If people think too much or discover too much, it could lead them to God. Re: science and atheism: They are often associated, but I wonder how much of that has to do with people wanting to prove there isn't a God. Are atheist attracted to science? Or does studying science frequently lead to atheism? I wonder if science takes the place of God for atheist.

1. I think the "ordinariness" that Screwtape is talking about is, quite simply, our everyday lives. It is all too easy for us as humans to get caught up in the normal, day-to-day activities instead of focusing on that which is eternal. So, yes, I think in this Screwtape is correct. Of course we should turn some of our attention to ordinary things (how else would we live?), but at the same time we should realize that this world, this life, is not all there is.

2. Truth is relative--at least that's what most modern communication theorists believe. Who am I to say that I am right and you are wrong? We could both be right or neither one of us could be right or we could sometimes be right in certain contexts, etc. With this mindset it is next to impossible to look at an argument objectively; everything becomes subjective. Thus, arguments get adjectives attached to them that have nothing to do with the actual argument and the concept of a single, absolute truth is lost.

3. It depends on who I am having the discussion with and what we are discussing. I always try to keep an open mind and consider the issue from his/her point of view, but it's hard sometimes.

4. While reading through the latter part of the letter I was reminded about how drawn I was to fantasy stories as a child (and still am ). I loved reading about things that would never occur in every day life (an entire country in a wardrobe!). Screwtape said that "they find it all but impossible to believe in the unfamiliar while the familiar is before their eyes." How does his statement fit with my own experiences? Or is it not supposed to because God has already worked within me so that I am open to the unfamiliar? I suppose Screwtape is talking about those who are not Christians and thus think they have no reason to look beyond this world.

1. Really this subject has to do with focus. When people are busy with the never-ending supply of day-to-day tasks, the big questions and goals tend to be drowned out. It is important to pause and reflect; to meditate on these sorts of questions and come to a conclusion, kind of like what we're doing in this reading group.

Rhetorical Question: Have you ever put aside an important subject for meditation only to forget about it later?

2. & 4. I think it was fairly common in the 20th century for people to believe that Science and Faith were incompatible, and yet both were thought to be essential and true, so they were both taught. Rather than think about the apparent contradiction and how they had come to that conclusion, people were just encouraged to believe in both. That is where the phrase "Leap of Faith" came from. People were encouraged to believe in God even though it didn't seem logical.

I suppose in one sense it was good advice, because otherwise people might have abandoned their belief in God, but it would have been better advice to rexamine the reasons that made us think that Faith and Science were incompatible in the first place.

4b. Science teaches you to believe in invisable laws like Gravity and Thermodynamics. Once you believe in invisable laws, it is easier to believe in an invisable lawgiver.

4c. Here's a question. Why does Screwtape suggest sociology and economics? Is it because of the influence of Freud and Marx?

4c. Here's a question. Why does Screwtape suggest sociology and economics? Is it because of the influence of Freud and Marx?

I think he suggests it because they are less scientific (meaning it isn't as easy to test theories and it doesn't deal with physical science.) Also, it deals more with what Screwtape would call "real life." Studying Freud could easily have the kind of influence on a patient that Screwtape would want so that is possible. Marx's influence is often seen by people as not being the best so that is possible too.

1. To be enslaved to the ordinary might mean that you are too busy with all the things that you have to do and the things that are around you, you don't pay enough attention to the more important things.

2. Some people concentrate on how other people approach an issue, instead of the actual position/argument.

3. It depends a lot on the conversation and how well I understand my side of the discussion and theirs.

4. I found what Lewis wrote on page nine interesting, about considering important spiritual things, that Screwtape makes the argument that it is "Much better come back after lunch and go into it with a fresh mind."
We often put important things aside, thinking "I'll just go finish this-then I'll come back and do it." Sometimes we don't come back and if we do, it's often hurried.

1. To a certain extent, yes, humans are enslaved to the pressures of the ordinary. It's much easier to deal with and get caught up in the day-to-day actions than to think about weightier things.

2. We often try to avoid actually dealing with an argument, especially if we either know our position is weak or that we won't necessarily have all the answers needed to 'win'. Screwtape mentions that by addressing arguments only by adjectives, then we don't have to deal with whether or not they're true.

3. I try to see the discussion from the other person's point-of-view, but whether or not I'm swayed by it depends on the topic of discussion. I will often try to, if not during the discussion then later, have an answer/explanation for all their points for myself if it's an important subject (such as faith).

4. I appreciated the narrative at the end about the atheist who began to think on spiritual things and then Screwtape helps derail him by saying that the issue is so important that it should be addressed later. That sometimes happens to me, in regards to praying or thinking on some passage or point; I'll tell myself that I should deal with it later when I have more time, and then it doesn't happen.

Ithilwen and Reepicheep775, I agree with you on the subject of science. Physical science is something in which there are things that are absolutely true and all sorts of wonderful designs that point toward God. Screwtape mentions that it's better for the patient to consider "economics and sociology", the latter of which at least is considered a softer science, in which there aren't necessarily any hard or fast rules, just theories and observations. Economics I'm not quite as sure on, except that it can be rather dry and certainly doesn't inspire questions the same way other science does.

I agree with you as well on the science topic, PP. I'm not sure either about the connection of science and atheism, though. Except, perhaps, if people are seeking the truth in science and it points toward God, then if they are surpressing the truth, then atheism is really the only other alternative. Maybe?

1. Screwtape tells Wormwood, “you don’t realize how enslaved they are to the pressure of the ordinary.” Is Screwtape correct? Are humans “enslaved to the pressure of the ordinary?” What does it mean to be “enslaved to the pressure of the ordinary?”

I was reminded of a book popular some time back entitled The Tyranny of the Urgent, by Charles E. Hummel. The upshot is that we're so easily distracted by all the things that "must" be done now (check email, dust the furniture, feed the cat, whatever) that we neglect the things that really matter, the things that have more lasting significance (note that those things are not wrong or a waste of time in themselves! It's just the distraction they offer). This connection was made stronger for me by Screwtape's example of "it's lunch time" (already mentioned by Louloudi the Centaur and SummerSnow).

Re: science and atheism: They are often associated, but I wonder how much of that has to do with people wanting to prove there isn't a God. Are atheist attracted to science? Or does studying science frequently lead to atheism? I wonder if science takes the place of God for atheist.

These are good questions, and I don't have answers. Even in my own experience, science has sort of gone both ways. I've always had a scientific bent, even as a child. And when I was quite young, I remember coming to the realization that if evolution were true, there would be no need for a god.

Yet it was also my study of science, and observation of the world around me (especially the night sky) that later pointed me in the direction that such a marvelous work of creation necessarily meant a Creator.

Movie Aristotle had a helpful quote here:

Science teaches you to believe in invisable laws like Gravity and Thermodynamics. Once you believe in invisable laws, it is easier to believe in an invisable lawgiver.

I admit I usually don't consider my acceptance of natural laws as a 'belief' but more as an accurate description of the way things are. But that might be splitting hairs, semantically, and I can see how we have 'faith' in natural laws.

At any rate, his quote reminds me very much of what Paul wrote to the Romans:

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. (1:20 ESV)

1.Screwtape tells Wormwood, “you don’t realize how enslaved they are to the pressure of the ordinary.” Is Screwtape correct? Are humans “enslaved to the pressure of the ordinary?” What does it mean to be “enslaved to the pressure of the ordinary?”
Personally I do believe that humans are enslaved, to a certain extent at least, enslaved to the presure of the ordinary I think means that all to often we are caught up in our problems and everyday lives. After all, every day presents it's everyday, ordinary problems, mistakes, mishaps, failures that we have to deal with. And it seems we humans are quite good at getting completely caught up in them, we do literally become slaves

2. (p8, paragraph 1) Screwtape suggests that we are conditioned to think of arguments and positions by their adjectives: something is strong, or stark, or courageous. What do you think he means by that?
okay, I'm not really sure about this one so I'm not really sure how to answer it

3. (p8, paragraph 2) Speaking of discussions, when you have an honest discussion with someone who disagrees with you, do you retreat firmly to your own position or does the discussion inspire you to take another look at your convictions?
Well, that really depends on what we are having a discussion about generally I am pretty firm on my position, but I do like to listen to the person I am having the discussion with, hear his side out and think about it, try to look at it through his point of view. But again, like I said, it all really depends what the discussion is about

4. What did you find interesting (discussion worthy) in this letter?
What really struck me in this letter, was when Screwtape tells about how his athiest was reading something and the 'enemy' found something to catch on and nearly all his (Screwtape's) hard work went to waste, but how he managed to keep the person by instead of arguing with him, he just lead him away by saying that he could come to it later, it's really amazing how often we (or at least I) have the same thing happen to us, we read or hear or think of something, but then the cares of this life distract us that we forget what was it that caught our attention. I thought it was a very interesting fact and one that deserved some attention (at least from me)

1. Screwtape tells Wormwood, “you don’t realize how enslaved they are to the pressure of the ordinary.” Is Screwtape correct? Are humans “enslaved to the pressure of the ordinary?” What does it mean to be “enslaved to the pressure of the ordinary?”

I think I lot of people are. They don't want to feel out of the loop, and want a sense of reality like everyone else seems to have. They don't want to feel weird or unusual. This is what I believe Screwtape is referring to.

2. (p8, paragraph 1) Screwtape suggests that we are conditioned to think of arguments and positions by their adjectives: something is strong, or stark, or courageous. What do you think he means by that?

I think that he is referring to the fact that some people just believe they need to be one thing like strong, stark or courageous about every situation they take on in the universe. It is the way they live life courageously, or something else. It is not what you believe in this case but only the way you act.

3. (p8, paragraph 2) Speaking of discussions, when you have an honest discussion with someone who disagrees with you, do you retreat firmly to your own position or does the discussion inspire you to take another look at your convictions?

It depends on the subject. I can really defense or I can talk about something calmly, but to think about the other side is not usually the first response unless I ask about the other side.

4. What did you find interesting (discussion worthy) in this letter?
The demons are suppose to fuddle us not teach us.