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?”

Like others above me have already pointed out, it can be easy to be swept up in our ordinary everyday lives, that we tend to forget what an extraordinary life God has given us.
I think we can get so used to our everyday, same old routine, that we forget to stop and pause.
We sometimes take for granted the things we see or do everyday because they have become ordinary for us.
Like the Sunrise, everyday it is different, it will never be the same tomorrow (small example).
It brings to mind what Lewis said about "the veil of familiarity."
I also believe that Screwtape may have been referring to the pressure we sometimes feel to be ordinary or like everyone else in fear of being called different or thought strange by others.
I think it's important to remember that God my each of us unique, and to stay focused on what he is telling us, not the world.

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?

I'm firm in what I believe in, but I will always try to see where the other person is coming from or what they believe to try and better understand them or explain my own Beliefs better to them.

1. Yeah, I'd say that we hoomans as a race are pretty much stuck in our ways. We like to dig a rut and we like to get stuck in it. It's comfortable and easy. We like being comfortable, we don't like being pushed out of our bubble and when do step outside, it feels cold and weird.

2. True Or False. It's a scary proposition. We don't like to be scared and so we waltz our way around the subject by judging each other on how strong the opponents augment is. If it is really strong, we accuse them of shoving their beliefs on us and if it is weak we brush them off and ignore them.

3. I tend to fall back on my convictions in a debate because that is my nature, I'm a bullheaded kid who is strong in his beliefs and doesn't like being wrong. However (As Rose_Tree_Dryad knows) if I come up against an equally bullheaded person the person with the strongest skull wins, and I usually will see the light of their opinions.

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.

When I first read this letter this was what stuck out to me. All of it is, of course, good for discussion- but this had something more for me. It actually reminded me of myself, countless of times I want to do something and say "I'll come back to it" and never do. I could be on the computer, watching tv, at work even- by all means distracted, and get the urge to read a passage in the Bible, or pray, and I say I'll do it soon. Just a little while longer... A bit more... Before I know it, a week has passed and I never read nor prayed. Seeing that nothing "bad" has happened I might continue in the same way. Finally I reached one day too far and I stumble in my walk. How could I not? I've pushed what was truly important for a more "convenient" time, and in so doing made myself easy prey. That's why one should never leave for later what they know they should do "now". Screwtape, though a liar, is not stupid. He knows humans have that weakness, and so he uses it against them. And of course, it is true not only in the book but in real life. This is one lesson that should never be forgotten.

Now is the time....

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 so. I think we fear what we don't understand and as a result we are willing to avoid it or shoo it away... and it's this tendency of avoidance that is our enslavement. It keeps us from learning new things or from seeking out the truth and what's right.

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?

Well, we have a definition of what makes an argument strong and what makes one weak, and we are more likely to be convinced by the strong ones, regardless of whether or not they are actually true. Because of this we could believe something that's totally false as long as the argument its based off of is sound.

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?

I would hope I'd look at things from a different angle, I'm sure I've done both though... It's easier for me if we are debating something on the forum... as when it's written out I have more time to think and more time to consider all angles.

4. What did you find interesting (discussion worthy) in this letter?

I noticed he talked a great deal about materialism. Does he mean when people value material objects or the philosophy that all the world is made of matter and that there's no spirit or consciousness? I'm assuming he's referring to the latter. If this is the case do you think everything is just matter? Or is there spirit too?

Also Screwtape says

Above all, so not attempt to use science (I mean, the real sciences) as a defense against Christianity.

Why do you think Screwtape warned Wormwood against using science as a defense when often non-Christian scientists and non-scientist Christians go head to head? What is it about science that's dangerous to the devil?

As a zoo major and science lover I think it is because it helps us see how the world works and how vastly complicated it is. Science is all about studying what we don't understand so it encourages us to look at things more deeply and when we do we see the finger prints God left in the world. We see how he makes things work and why he warns us against certain things. And we see that the world is so complicated just about anything is possible, even that God may have made it. We see how mechanical our bodies our but we also feel how important life and spirit is. For myself science and religion go hand in hand the more I learn about one the more I understand the other. I'd say my love of nature has definitely brought me closer to God.

1. Are humans “enslaved to the pressure of the ordinary?” What does it mean to be “enslaved to the pressure of the ordinary?”

Yes, indeed we are. We're a creature of the Here and Now. It's easy to think, 'God? Yes, yes, I'm sure he's very interesting, and more important people with more time on their hands might have something to do with him, but I've got to do the laundry.' We get caught up in the day-to-day life, and forget about the Days to Come. Also besides that, there's the pressure to be ordinary. We don't want to be seen as different. If everyone is wearing casual clothes to an outing, you don't want to show up wearing formal dress and tie! In a similar vein, we don't like the idea of having to change to meet Christ's standards instead of the World's .

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?

As he said in the page before, a lot of people today don't think in a Yes/No mindset. "There are no absolutes" is a phrase tossed around in religious debates--a phrase that doesn't make sense, mind, as it is itself an absolute. It's only what's popular now that matters, they believe. If something is right, it's only because the majority says it's right. If you've ever watched a debate on TV, you'll remember that whenever Opponent A uses emotionally charged words rather than plain facts, it'll draw a much larger applause--thus, even if the argument was weaker than the Opponent B's in terms of content, it will seem like A's was better because of the reaction. The same goes for 'arguments' of a smaller scale.

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?

Yes and no. I'm human, of course, and humans are fallen beings. I should like to say that I am always an impartial debater, but it is easy to fall prey to emotional attachments (it's better because I've always done it, or because This Guy did it). In general, though, especially if the setting is a formal one, I'm pretty relaxed. In terms of Mind, I use the Guard theory: An Open Mind is prey to any idea that comes across its path, whether for good or evil; a Closed Mind shuts itself off from ideas that would help it to grow. Instead, I try to use a Guarded Mind: one that is more than willing to let an idea pass through, but only after it has been sent through Biblical security.

4. What did you find interesting (discussion worthy) in this letter?

The line about "going off to lunch" stops me dead every time. I have a horrible tendency to put things off until it's either too late, or until I only have seconds to spare, and that line is... well, very convicting. Also, it is refreshing to read a book encouraging the use of Reason and Science--so many people insist that those topics and Religion are wholly incompatible, but we forget that for years scientists and religious scholars were one in the same; indeed, "We expect the universe to be organized in a logical, orderly fashion, because the universe was created by a logical, orderly God."

1. Yes. Absolutely 100% yes. We are physical creatures, creatures of habit, creatures with 5 senses, none of which senses can in and of themselves feel God. Yes, when we touch the face of a newborn child, that shiver that runs down our spine as we marvel at the Grace and Goodness of Our Lord lets us know we have briefly touched God. Yes, when we observe the intricacy of the heavens above and our spirit soars, we know we've had a glimpse of the Glory of God. But these reactions are spiritual, unlocked only by the hand of God Himself. Without that touch of His hand, they would all just be experiences of the senses. That baby could simply stir the consideration of how soft it's cheek is. The stars could simply be glanced at and not given a second thought.

By nature, we do not look past our comfort zone, or that which we cannot experience with the 5 senses. Those 5 senses can and do often dominate and drown out any spiritual sensation.
We are enslaved to the pressure of the ordinary. It is our nature, it is our curse, it is our humanness.

2. Badger actually said my thoughts on this, word for word exactly.

The only way there is "truth" and "lies", is if there is some absolute truth. But with all the variables in this world, there are no worldly and human absolute truths. One human cannot claim to know truth better than another, because we are all equal, in essence. So there is only one absolute truth. God's Word. He who transcends all earthly eras and wisdom, He who created us in His image, He who gave us the mental capacity to even consider what is right and what is wrong.
Therefore, to dabble in finding the truth at all requires thought on the Author of truth.

It's much easier to sway a human's thoughts by emotional arguments than by logical ones. We're emotional creatures, by nature. When something amuses us, we laugh without thinking. When something upsets us, we cry or become angry. A skilled speaker can stir powerful emotions in a listener while the listener is completely passive, no brainpower needed. To get logic started is to encourage that person to start finding out things on their own. But to manipulate the emotions is to get one step closer to controlling a person, without that person ever knowing it.

3. It completely depends. I used to think of myself as a flexible person, but after clashing fiercely head on with several people who I firmly believed to be incorrect, I realized I'm not actually that flexible at all.

It all goes back to Absolute Truths. God's Word touches on so many areas of human life, illuminating the issue with the Light of His Absolute Truth. In almost every issue we have, day to day, year to year, culture to culture, there is an answer in God's Word. On these issues, to argue human wisdom against the Holy Word of God is absolutely absurd. How can someone who cannot be absolute truth argue against the Truth Himself? God is not flexible- His Way is the only way, take it or leave it. And the consequences of leaving it are dire. So no, on these issues and with that kind of argument, I am not flexible. I am willing to listen, discuss and debate, but no human wisdom will make me think God's wisdom is inferior.

However! With the same understanding that humans are flawed, that also throws a great deal of doubt on my own understanding of scripture. Therefore, if someone comes at me with a different understanding of certain parts of God's Absolute Truth, I'm very likely to stop, listen and be ready to change my understanding. In fact, it happens all the time.

4. The warning to keep the patient from science. I wonder if C.S. Lewis would write that differently if he wrote it today?

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.

But it would seem that since the time of Lewis' writing, the demons have been at work in the science world.

Today, "science" is considered to be FACT and TRUTH, something that can be proven. And yet evolution is considered to be scientific fact. It is not fact. It is theory. It is what is generally considered to be the way in which the earth began and how it got from there to here. It cannot be proven, and in fact can be disproven easily (we have never EVER seen an organism gain genetic code, which is essential to the core of evolution. Mutations remove or corrupt code, but cannot and have not ever in any of our observation created new codes).

But by blurring these lines, "science" has gained not only the emotional trust of those who believe only in what can be "proven", but has used that trust to claim that God-disproving theories are actually "fact". Therefore. Today's "science" can argue "factually" against God, and make the false claim that Science and God are two separate things. Mention God, and today's science immediately "disproves" Him. In fact, they have effectually done what Screwtape tells Wormwood to do with doctrines.

They have confused truth and replaced it with emotions and jargon.

Today, "science" is considered to be FACT and TRUTH, something that can be proven.

But it is only considered that by people who aren't real scientists Many of my professors make a very clear distinction about this at college. We get points taken off if we use the term "prove" when we are responding to a scientific paper. The true scientists will be the first ones to tell you that science doesn't "prove" anything it only supports it, but it can still be wrong... we know now that many theories and laws about the universe were incorrect. If someone thinks that science is about proving things true then they are horribly mistaken. Popular culture, unfortunately, doesn't make that distinction as most people think its a simple choice of words (though it is far less simple) ... and it's led to a lot of problems in this world, but when Lewis refers to "real science" I think he means the science that doesn't prove something, but seeks evidence and clues, not facts and truths.

But it is only considered that by people who aren't real scientists Many of my professors make a very clear distinction about this at college. We get points taken off if we use the term "prove" when we are responding to a scientific paper. The true scientists will be the first ones to tell you that science doesn't "prove" anything it only supports it, but it can still be wrong... we know now that many theories and laws about the universe were incorrect. If someone thinks that science is about proving things true then they are horribly mistaken.

Yes, absolutely. I totally agree. However the world at large does not teach that, many many scientists don't teach or believe that way and scientific peer reveiwed papers publish highly prejudiced, false and "it's PROVEN!" studies. I've read some of them, and spoken to scientists who read them and also disagree.
In fact, I can also think of several professors right off the top of my head who have lost their jobs in universities for daring to claim certain "facts" were actually theories- or worse!! Teaching other theories that might also be true.

You are absolutely and totally right- that is NOT science. But the word is so twisted, most people do not know what science even is anymore.

Popular culture, unfortunately, doesn't make that distinction as most people think its a simple choice of words (though it is far less simple) ... and it's led to a lot of problems in this world, but when Lewis refers to "real science" I think he means the science that doesn't prove something, but seeks evidence and clues, not facts and truths.

I agree, he probably was. But I also think it's been fairly recently that the word science has been so very polluted. Which just makes me wonder if he would have written it a little differently if he wrote it today. Today, you can dabble in almost every part of "science" and easily avoid truth. Real science seeks truth, but real science is hard to find today. Everyone seems to have an agenda, has been bought out, or is a fanatic to the point of making science a religion.

Wolfy, thank God you have REAL scientists as your professors. I envy your chance to study under them.

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?” It's rather queer how ironically true this statement, "enslaved to the ordinary (or, as Lewis put it, "real life")" is. I've experienced that myself sometimes - I would read something in the Scriptures that would really speak out to me somehow, or really make an impression in my mind, and then I would go somewhere, for example, to a shop, or sit down and watch a movie, and everything I had just read just sort of slipped away and I would think, "Wow, that was interesting, but it's not real life. It is very easy to get distracted on all these "ordinary" things in life and not look at things that really matter in our lives, like Bible-reading or praying. Of course, ordinary things are important - it is important to buy the things we need, to eat, etc. but not to the extent that it cancels out those other, more important parts of our lives.

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? This is actually one of my favorite points in this letter - how hard it is for us as humans to just look at some things as right or wrong, and try to excuse them with colorful adjectives. For example, if an extremely vulgar or outrageously dark music video comes out on MTV, oftentimes it is excused as being "new", "an interesting taste", "contemporary", "in style" etc. This really makes me angry sometimes, as it often excuses behavior that is really sometimes so plainly disgusting.

It's also very interesting how Screwtape points out how "the philosophy of the future" is the sort of thing a human cares about. I thought this point had a lot of insight in that it shows how we can be so tied down to a point being "modern" or "in sync" or "contemporary" or even "eye-opening" and "revealing" that it's easy to swallow any new idea that carries that ideology, even if it goes against morality, virtue, or 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 what the conversation is about (what principles/positions/convictions are being discussed), how they are being argued, and who is arguing them. For example, if I'm arguing with a person who has been to France about something concerning the French people, if he voices an opinion contrary to mine, I might take a look at my position, considering I know less than France than he does, and change it. If, however, it's a question of, say, smoking cigarettes (which I don't do out of principle), and the person I am discussing the issue with starts bringing up excuses for smoking, I will not back down on my position one inch because I know smoking is unhealthy, that it kills and causes life-long, dangerous diseases. So I guess it really depends.

4. What did you find interesting (discussion worthy) in this letter? Honestly I found a lot of interesting things in this letter - particularly the part in the last paragraph where Screwtape advises Wormwood to stay away from "real sciences" because it will

encourage him to think about realities he can't feel or see.

I thought that was really interesting, and very true.

wolfloversk wrote

The true scientists will be the first ones to tell you that science doesn't "prove" anything it only supports it, but it can still be wrong... we know now that many theories and laws about the universe were incorrect. If someone thinks that science is about proving things true then they are horribly mistaken.

Wow, that's really cool, and it's so amazing you have teachers like that in your school! I personally was homeschooled, but I have friends whose science teachers would never have told them anything like that. It's goot to know there still are real scientist teachers in this world!

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? This is actually one of my favorite points in this letter - how hard it is for us as humans to just look at some things as right or wrong, and try to excuse them with colorful adjectives. For example, if an extremely vulgar or outrageously dark music video comes out on MTV, oftentimes it is excused as being "new", "an interesting taste", "contemporary", "in style" etc. This really makes me angry sometimes, as it often excuses behavior that is really sometimes so plainly disgusting.

That's it - it's not only about thinking in adjectives, it's about what kind of adjectives to choose as well. Anything that sounds positive can be used - positive in the sense of what is currently viewed as positive, not in the sense of absolute values.

That's why you get "new", "interesting", "contemporary", "in style" as positive adjectives along with strong, stark, or courageous. Or even "practical". It's more about seeming useful than about whether it is right to use that argument.

That's why you get "new", "interesting", "contemporary", "in style" as positive adjectives along with strong, stark, or courageous. Or even "practical". It's more about seeming useful than about whether it is right to use that argument.

Quite so. The words "Right" and "Wrong" are hardly ever used now--especially in schools, camps, day cares, and the like, it seems. I take care of kids a lot, and I remember when I first started working for the YMCA. The instructor said to never call one of the kids a "Bully", but to say they weren't being a "Good friend". This completely flummoxed me. If a kid is doing something wrong, then of course I wouldn't call him a bully--I'd tell him he was doing some thing wrong. For some strange reason, this idea didn't even occur to the others in the room. People don't label much of anything as just right or wrong any more--the kid wasn't being "not good", he was being "not a good friend". The word good has been demoted from a noun to a modifier.

Quite so. The words "Right" and "Wrong" are hardly ever used now--especially in schools, camps, day cares, and the like, it seems. I take care of kids a lot, and I remember when I first started working for the YMCA. The instructor said to never call one of the kids a "Bully", but to say they weren't being a "Good friend". This completely flummoxed me. If a kid is doing something wrong, then of course I wouldn't call him a bully--I'd tell him he was doing some thing wrong. For some strange reason, this idea didn't even occur to the others in the room. People don't label much of anything as just right or wrong any more--the kid wasn't being "not good", he was being "not a good friend". The word good has been demoted from a noun to a modifier.

Yes, there is a big push in education to put a positive spin on things - right at a time when "bullies" are being talked about as a big problem. I heard one teacher saying that when a child is sent to "take a break" (It isn't a time out anymore) they aren't supposed to be told to think about what they did; that is too negative. It can be very hard keeping up with all of the correct terms. When students do things wrong, they are often asked if they are making a good choice.