A good question at this stage in our overview of C.S. Lewis' objections to faith and how he overcame them is, "Is what was true for C.S. Lewis necessarily true for me?"
Post-modernism denies meta-narratives: any narrnaitve, story or account of the world that claims to be absolute or all encompassing. It sees no facts, only interretations. There is no such thing as an objective view of reality. Ethical claims are sentiment and de-construction is justice. Lewis lived before the full flowing of post-modern thought but some of its roots were already present in his day.
When it comes to post-modernism, Lewis would have agreed that:
1. There are limits to knowledge.
2. Our perpsective does affect what we see.
3. Our perspective affects the way we view history.
4. Our ideas of reality (and therefore of God) are too small. What we need most of all is not our pet theories about God, but God himself. Lewis said, "My idea of God is not a divine idea. It has to be shattered time after time. He shatters himself. He is the great iconoclast."
5. Culture can blind us to some aspects of who we are.
However, Lewis would have disagreed with the claim that we can have no objective knowledge of truth or morality. The most basic postmodern contentions are self-refuting. Lewis would ask: "Is it objectively true to say that there are no objective truths? Can you deny the validity of reason without using reason?" If all perspectives of reality are culturally determined, then that statement itself is culturally determined. If all meta-narratives are suspect because they are oppressive, then is no post-moderism also a meta-narrative and equally suspect. Suspician can work both ways. If Christianity can be a crutch, so can atheism.
[Summarised from Chapter 11 of Art Lindsley's C.S. Lewis' Case for Christ]
Next: Lewis and Rationalism.
I agree with C.S. Lewis…as a friend would say “Yeah, what he said.”