Available categories: [General] [Further Reading]
|
Review of What Christians Believe [Permalink] Sun Mar 04 21:30:50 EST 2007 What Christians Believe by C.S. Lewis is derived from a series of radio talks Lewis gave entitled Mere Christianity. The Christian beliefs expressed by Lewis can be summarized as follows:
There is also mention of Satan and a convoluted explanation of how God could allow evil to take place. The explanation involves the requirement of free will (because God’s creation would be meaningless without free will) as applied to Satan. Satan had free will to turn from God and cause evil in the world. Differences in beliefs between various Christian denominations seem to be written off by Lewis as unimportant details. It’s probably unfair to make that generalization, given that this text is based on a series of radio talks that probably had severe time constraints. However, Lewis himself seems to infer that the disagreements between the various Christian faiths are unimportant. Lewis certainly does not come across as being passionate about a single denomination to the exclusion of all others. He seems to treat choosing a denomination like choosing one’s clothes for the day: a matter of personal taste. One should not read this book expecting to find a proof of what Lewis or Christians believe. Proof or disproof of God is impossible and Lewis is smart enough not to fall into that trap. However, it would seem that he is not smart enough to avoid falling prey to circular logic and logical inconsistencies. At the end of the first chapter, Lewis says, “If the whole universe has no meaning we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know that it was dark.” I will not go to the trouble here to prove why that statement is complete nonsense. Even if I were to prove it to be nonsense, I doubt that I would be successful in convincing someone who doesn’t already know it to be nonsense. In the second chapter, Lewis talks of goodness and badness as if they are absolutes. However, good and bad are relative terms. I assume that the popes during the time of the inquisitions thought the torture and killing of thousands of people was a good thing. At the very least, they must have thought it less evil than allowing all those sinners to continue to live in sin. Of course the church defined what sin was. I suppose the church in those times thought freedom of worship was a bad thing. You had to agree with the church or be killed. The Islamic extremists today believe that killing 3000 people on September 11, 2001 was a good thing (the will of God, no less). Any feeble mind can come up with additional examples where your perspective defines what is good and bad. So I think it’s rather incorrect to talk about good and bad as absolutes. Good and bad are relative and subjective. I could give many more examples, but I do not think more examples will convince someone that has already made up their mind that good and bad are universally absolute terms. Lewis also sates “existence, intelligence, and will are in themselves good”. This is an opinion. It is an opinion presented as fact and used to support the idea that evil which is a result of free will is an unavoidable side effect of good creation of God. (Excuse me if I am misrepresenting the argument. It is quite illogical and hard to follow.) I on the other hand believe that existence, intelligence, and will are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. They are simply the results of the evolution of life on Earth. In chapter three, Lewis states, “A world of automata – of creatures that work like machines – would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and each other … ”. However later he says, we cannot expect to understand “the inconceivable, the uncreated, the thing from beyond nature”, referring to God. So which is it? Ether humans can intuit the mind of God or they can’t. Lewis seems to be contradicting himself. He is making assumptions about what motivates God. Lewis tries to suggest that God has sent humans clues to his existence via the beliefs of pagans when he states, “…He [God] sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a God who dies and comes to life again and, by his death, has somehow given men new life.” I find the wording of the sentence very interesting. Isn’t it more probable that new religions reuse familiar motifs of earlier religions? Why resort to divine influence, when simpler explanations are sufficient? Is this statement by Lewis a thinly veiled attempt to diminish Christianity by pointing out similarities between Christianity and pagan religions? Is it a hidden message meant to be heard with those to have ears to hear it? One of Lewis’s main tenets is that there are only three options regarding Jesus: (1) Jesus is God, (2) Jesus was a mad man, or (3) Jesus was the devil (or some other evil spirit). He strongly claims that there are no other choices. I can think of several other choices: (4) Jesus’s disciples and/or early Christians intentionally exaggerated the story of Jesus’s life (5) Jesus’s disciples and/or early Christians unintentionally exaggerated the story of Jesus’s life because of being in a delusional state brought on by religious fervor (they were crazy, not Jesus) (6) Jesus intentionally mislead people with staged (magic) tricks in order to profit and promote himself and his ideas. (In other words, he was a con man who simply lied when he said he was God.) (7) Early church leaders selected, edited, and amended the books of the bible in a prejudicial manor that skewed the true message of Jesus. (8) The bible could be being misinterpreted due to the fact that nearly 2000 years have elapsed since they were written. (In other words, idiomatic meaning may have been lost, such that we do not understand the text in the way it was intended.) There are more than three options, and none of the additional options require supernatural explanation. Furthermore, more than one of the additional options may be true. Jesus could have been a con man and his disciples may have been crazy. Any of these additional options are much more likely than Jesus actually being God. Some may say that Lewis’s three options are the only options that are available, assuming the events in the bible actually happened. This is not the case. Since Lewis included the option that Jesus might have been crazy, he is already considering the possibility that the bible (which says Jesus walked on water, cured the sick, and rose from the dead) might contain errors. If we assume the events in the New Testament actually took place, then the only options are: Jesus is God or Jesus is a devil. But since Lewis himself considered an option that requires the bible to contain falsehoods (Jesus was crazy), we are free to do the same. It’s worth noting that “Jesus being crazy” can’t be viable option by itself. That option is only viable when combined with one or more additional options that account for the supernatural events described in the bible. Jesus and his disciples could all have been crazy, but Jesus alone being crazy does not fully account for the supernatural events described in the bible. Therefore, one of the basic assumptions Lewis built his argument on is fatally flawed. You cannot explain away the entire New Testament by saying Jesus was crazy. Certainly, Lewis must have realized that, yet he clearly stated otherwise. It is hard to believe that an extremely educated and intelligent man like Lewis was prone to such limited thinking regarding possible explanations of the events described in the bible. Either Lewis’s faith blinded him to other options, or Lewis intentionally neglected other options. Perhaps Lewis was intentionally constructing the setup of a straw man argument. The fact that this work contains blatant inconsistencies and errors does not necessarily invalidate Lewis’ faith, because issues of faith (by definition) cannot be proved or disproved. However these logical inconsistencies may give insight into how Christians think. Mere Christianity seems to make the case for faith blinding an otherwise intelligent person from seeing what logic and reason would otherwise reveal. These logical inconsistencies in the text are so blatant that it nearly becomes comical. I do not know if Lewis intended to parody the religious beliefs he claims to have. As parody, this book is a brilliant masterpiece, which lampoons Christianity while at the same time being unrecognized as parody by Christians themselves. To paraphrases a quote attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas, Mere Christianity may be a joke for those who have ears to hear it. There is some evidence to support the position that Mere Christianity was intended as parody disguised as something else. Lewis was raised Catholic, but claims to have become atheist at the age of 13 and remained atheist until he was 31 years old. In 1916 at the age of 18 he wrote: You know, I think, that I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man's invention--Christ as much as Loki. Primitive man found himself surrounded by all sorts of terrible things he didn't understand--thunder, pestilence, snakes, etc: what more natural than to suppose that these were animated by evil spirits trying to torture him. These he kept off by cringing to them, singing songs and making sacrifices etc. Gradually from being mere nature-spirits these supposed beings were elevated into more elaborate ideas, such as the old Gods: and when man became more refined he pretended that these spirits were good as well as powerful. (Found in a letter he wrote to his friend Arthur Greeves on October 12, 1916 (as published in They Stand Together, p.135).) Could it be that Lewis’ conversion to Christianity, just before the start of his writing career, was to avoid turning away potential buyers of his books? If so, he may have felt compelled to write about his beliefs as a hidden message for people with ears to hear it, while at the same time pacifying those who would question the sincerity of his own religious conversion. Either C.S. Lewis was a literary genius, able to create a single literary work that makes the case for two diametrically opposed opinions simultaneously, or he was a simpleton prone to illogical thinking. Both cannot be true. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to.
Posted by: logicism On Pascal's Wager [Permalink] Sat Mar 03 14:17:25 EST 2007 The basic idea of Pascal’s Wager is that since belief in God offers infinite reward and disbelief in God offers a finite reward if you are correct, but infinite cost (hell) if you are incorrect, then you might as well believe in God. I will now show how nonsensical Pascal’s Wager is. Imagine you are faced with the following two possibilities:
As you can plainly see, any belief can be justified in this manor. The possibilities are infinite. Belief in God is no more or less silly than the belief that killing kittens will buy your way into heaven. Both are fantasies. Pascal’s Wager depends upon the bias of the person making the wager in order to make any sense at all. If the person making the wager is biased toward thinking that belief in God or Jesus as their savor is a reasonable thought that has a good chance of being true, then Pascal’s Wager seems reasonable. Once you substitute a proposition that seems completely insane (like killing kittens) then Pascal’s Wager stops sounding reasonable. Belief in God (and heaven) is just as ridiculous as the thought that killing a kitten on your birthday will bring eternal happiness. It is only the last 1700 years of Christian dominance in the Western world that has made the idea of God seem reasonable.
Posted by: logicism Atheism and Faith [Permalink] Sun Feb 18 09:26:42 EST 2007 If we define faith as: acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not demonstrable through experimentation or reason, then atheism requires as much faith as being a theist. Of course, I am assuming that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of god. If one could prove or disprove the existence of god then faith would not be required. Agnostics do not require faith. Agnostics believe only what physical evidence supports. Since there is no physical evidence that either supports or denies the existence of god, agnostics do not have an opinion as to the existence of god. If they had an opinion, they wouldn’t be agnostic. I, as an atheist, choose to have an opinion. I choose to call myself atheist because I believe that the universe was created without the conscious intervention of an all powerful, all knowing entity. I call myself atheist because I believe that death is the end of existence. I cannot prove I am right, but I choose to have an opinion. One could argue that evidence supports my opinion and that faith is not required to support what is the logical conclusion: that all gods are inventions of man. However, an all-powerful god could have created the universe in such a way as to intentionally hide his own existence and provide (plant) evidence that implies that he does not exist. So I cannot prove that an all-powerful god does not exist. I can only say that if he does exist, he has gone to great lengths (which for him is no effort) to hide his existence for some reason that is beyond the understanding of mere man. So yes, I have faith that an all-powerful god does not exist. If I did not have faith, all I could say is that evidence does not support the existence of gods. The question of whether or not god exists is beyond reason and cannot be proved or disproved, unless god provides unmistakable and unquestionable evidence of his existence. Some would say that he has already done so. I disagree with that interpretation of the “facts”.
Posted by: logicism Dr. D. M. Brooks [Permalink] Sun Feb 11 12:26:11 EST 2007 The Necessity of Atheism by Dr. D. M. Brooks.
Posted by: logicism John Stuart Mill [Permalink] Sat Dec 09 08:58:33 EST 2006 John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher who advocated utilitarianism. His works are in the public domain and are freely available at various sites on the internet, including Project Gutenberg.
Posted by: logicism On the Awe of Mystery [Permalink] Sun Oct 08 12:53:04 EDT 2006 By definition, individuals of any given species share many characteristics. Man is no exception. We share physiological and psychological characteristics. One psychological characteristic that we share is awe of mystery. Our awe of mystery combined with our intellect, has propelled mankind on its furious journey over the past several thousand years. Although all humans share an awe of mystery, it manifests itself in different ways depending on other personality traits. Scientists and philosophers are driven to find answers to mysteries. Others blissfully accept the unknown as part of the mystery and awe of life. Some rely on faith and religion to provide pat answers to the great mysteries of life. In primative societies, people worshiped unexplainable events and objects directly. Many social organizations use our natural awe of mystery as a tool to inspire, motivate, control and intimidate people. Many religions utilize secret knowledge and mystery. Some religions are, at their deepest core, based on mystery. (The word “Gnosticism” is derived from a Greek word that means, “one who has secret knowledge”.) Some groups use secret knowledge as an incentive to motivate its follows to progress through its ranks. It is mystery itself that attracts our interest, not the resolution of the mystery. Knowing the meaning of life is boring. Not knowing the meaning of life is exciting. In writing this entry, I hypothesized that in ancient times, cults or entire societies would have worshiped and/or deified any sufficiently mysteries phenomenon or object. I immediately started iterating through a list of ancient mysteries: The Sun, The Moon, Fire, meteorites, volcanoes, stars. A quick search on the web verified that all these mysteries were worshiped at various times by various cultures. In searching for fire worship, I found something that amazed me: The Hebrew language is sometimes referred to as “the flame alphabet” because many devout Jews believe that the Torah is the literal word of God written in fire. I think I’ve always recognized that the Hebrew alphabet was flame-like in appearance. However, it never occurred to me before now that the similarity could have been inspired by an ancient and forgotten reverence for fire. Perhaps the burning bush in the Old Testament and the tongues of fire in the New Testament are there to demonstrate that the God of Moses and Jesus is master of, and associated with, the ancient mystery of fire.
Posted by: logicism On Religion (Part 1) [Permalink] Wed Nov 02 00:03:11 EST 2005 Organized religions have been an extremely important factor in the establishment and maintenance of societies throughout the world. Religions provide tidily packaged solutions to many problems faced by societies. Religions are tools used by societies to promote conformity, encourage adherence to societies’ rules, organize effort, provide social welfare, and validate authority. Recent prosperity and education of the masses has led to societies which place greater emphasis on personal freedom than to strict conformance to a religious code of conduct. This has led to a conflict between relatively liberal civil rules of the day and traditional religious values which tend to suppress personal freedom in order to strengthen the society. Modern societies are struggling to strike the right balance between personal freedoms (individual-centric values) and society-centric values. Historically, religion has helped societies to strike this balance or in some cases, totally suppress individual-centric values. The diversity of the human population is one of its greatest assets and one of its greatest liabilities. Large societies need a diverse mix of specialized skills. Yet, they also need a certain level of conformity too. Organized religion has helped societies balance these competing needs. Religion offers personal victory and success (higher education, eternal happiness) while strongly endorsing society-centric values. This is quite an accomplishment. It is a system that has worked well for human societies for a long time.
Posted by: logicism On Giving Advice [Permalink] Mon Oct 31 18:14:50 EST 2005 A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to give some advice to a young man who had gotten himself into a bit of trouble. He had been dealt a bad hand in life yet I could see that he was a diamond in the rough. He was a smart kid. It disturbed me to see him making bad decisions that could limit his future. Giving advice to young people is a dangerous endeavor. They tend to want to do the exact opposite of what you tell them. This is what I wrote to him:
Life is what you make of it. No one can force you do anything. You have to choose your own direction. Life is hard, cruel, and unfair. This world owes you nothing. You have to work for everything in this world. Don’t expect anyone else to give you the life that you want. You have to go out there and create it for yourself. You have to ask yourself: What do I want out of life? Then you have to create and execute a plan that will take you there. There is no such thing as success or failure in life. There is only what you want and what you have. You get to decide what you want. And you get to decide what you have by your actions or by your lack of action. Human nature will work against you at times. We are still part animal. To get the most out of life, you must understand and learn to control the animal within. Animals do not think about the future. They live entirely in the moment. There is something to be said for that. But we as humans can do better. We can live in the moment; yet let our actions be guided by our long term hopes and desires. Do not give up what you want most for what you want at the moment. Sometimes we can be our own worst enemy. We can destroy ourselves from within much more effectively than anyone else can do from the outside. Sometimes we hold ourselves back, not giving 100%. Don’t hold yourself back. You deserve to give yourself 100%. You are capable of great things. You are capable of much more than you realize. You are the result of 4 billions years of life on Earth struggling to survive. You are the product of the winners. Winning the game of life is in your genes. No one can take that away from you. You are a winner. Work every day to make your dreams come true. Do not let opportunity pass you by.
Posted by: logicism Welcome [Permalink] Sun Oct 30 22:08:26 EST 2005 Welcome to Logicism. I am a conservative atheist who believes that life is a byproduct of the laws of Physics. I believe that we are all here by accident and that ultimately, there is no meaning to life. However, we can ascribe meaning to it, if we wish. I find meaning in the fact that I am part of the chain of life on this planet and that I am a living personification of the universe itself. I celebrate life as a wonderful anomaly. I believe that all life is very special, and worthy of respect. Yet I also believe that there is nothing wrong with killing an animal to eat. My philosophy of life is guided by the dual nature of humanity: we are a product of the natural world, yet we are also a product of an artificial world of complex social rules of our own making that promote our peaceful coexistence and prosperity. I welcome your comments, even if you want to insult me. I celebrate our differences. May you find what you are looking for.
Posted by: logicism |
Available categories: [General] [Further Reading]
html hits: 489