Hi Rex,
Here is the problem I see that we’re dealing with when it comes to statements like this from Lewis...
Skeptics are taking increasingly less for granted. Logical discussions begin with some kind of "given"--something all the parties agree upon as a starting point. The starting point for apologetics seems to be getting pushed further and further back. When the Apostle Paul made his statements on Mars Hill, or to any Gentiles, he was living in a time when the existence of gods or a single god was acknowledged by most people. Religion was a part of everyday life. It was even easier when he spoke to the Jews because they worshipped the God of Moses, so he didn’t have to lay any groundwork there--he could just proceed directly into his teaching about Jesus as Messiah. Even today, when discussing the Bible with devout JWs or Mormons, the given is that the Bible is reliable revelation from God. But with the modern "enlightened" atheist, there is no way we can start there.
C. S. Lewis was presuming that his audience was at least willing to accept that that the Bible contains accurate, historical quotations of Jesus, even if the miracle accounts were fabricated. Today, we have skeptics who are not even willing to concede that there was ever a Jewish man named Jesus--even secular historical accounts are considered suspect. For them, the Gospels contain no reliable historical information about Jesus--it’s all myth and legend. So, for them, this kind of statement is meaningless. Apologetics is being pushed back to where we have to begin at the most fundamental level, perhaps with the subject of how reliable the Bible texts are. The starting point may need to be establishing the Bible as a credible record in the mind of the listener or reader, since subjective experiences are understood based on Scripture and not the other way around.
Persuasive evidence is different for everybody, which should be clear to anyone who has had anything to do with jury trials, or has followed the high profile cases of the past decade plus (at least beginning with the OJ trial). When juries are selected, while each side in the case wants jurors who will be sympathetic to their presentations, there is also an intention to select people who will use what is considered normal, reasonable standards of judgment in weighing the evidence. Most of the population is in a region near the middle of this skepticism distribution curve. Outside this region on one side would be those I would call hyperskeptics--people whose standards for proof would be so high that it would be hard, or even impossible, to persuade them of anything. On the other end, there would be the hyposkeptics--people who could never maintain a position. Their position would vacillate to whichever side had presented the latest argument.
Someone on this board once wrote (probably not original with him) that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (What this has done is skew the curve to the side of the hyperskeptic.) How, exactly, should the claims and evidence correlate? What happens when the quality or quantity of evidence required exceeds that which can be provided? At what point is the skeptic’s requirement so severe that he or she excludes any possibility of satisfaction? Taking a Biblical account at face value for the moment, what if Thomas, when meeting the risen Jesus, had said, "Sure I can see you and touch you, but this is all some kind of trick or illusion. I need more proof"? I’m sure that even if Jesus satisfied all reasonable expectations for evidence of his existence to the general public, many would still not accept it. I’m sure because some people doubt there even is such a thing as reality as most of us accept it.
Jesus and the Bible writers warned about being hyposkeptical--accepting claims too easily. At the other end is the error of being hyperskeptical--setting up conditions for proof way beyond what can be met. What determines how a person consciously or unconsciously sets their standards of evidence? Anyone who is at either end should maybe consider "Why?"--what are the real underlying reasons?
