C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:03 am

Og3 wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:10 am
so, in other words, you have no intention of addressing his actual statements, and instead merely intend to make fun of random phrases out of context?

So, what exactly is the point of us having this discussion, if your only goal is to mince words?
What do you mean, I addressed his actual statement here?:
“Ever since I served as an infantryman in the first world war I have had a great dislike of people who, themselves in ease and safety, issue exhortations to men in the front line. As a result I have a reluctance to say much about temptations to which I myself am not exposed. No man, I suppose, is tempted to every sin. It so happens that the impulse which makes men gamble has been left out of my make-up; and, no doubt, I pay for this by lacking some good impulse of which it is the excess or perversion. I therefore did not feel myself qualified to give advice about permissible and impermissible gambling: if there is any permissible, for I do not claim to know even that. I have also said nothing about birth-control. I am not a woman nor even a married man, nor am I a priest. I did not think it my place to take a firm line about pains, dangers and expenses from which I am protected; having no pastoral office which obliged me to do so·”
He contradicts his own concept of the "Law of Nature". If it truly was universal, then why would he or anyone else have "reluctance to say much about temptations to which I myself am not exposed"? This "Law of Nature" would make it crystal clear to him and others, even if they were not taught about those things through experience. Otherwise it is nowhere near being universal. Can't you see that he is being hypercritical about his own concept?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Og3 » Sun Apr 28, 2019 7:09 am

:facepalm: <== If that's not an emoji on this board, it should be.

No, SEG. You've completely missed it. In his law of nature as he summarizes at the end of chapter 1:
Lewis, @end of Ch.1, wrote: These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. The first is that human beings all over the earth have the idea that they ought to behave a certain way*, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it.
*My note: Lewis does not say that this is a single shared "certain way." Through the chapter he acknowledges the differences in cultural standards, and only maintains a common core or root.

When he says that he is reluctant to talk about temptations to which he is not exposed, he is speaking of his own personal experience: He knows (being part of the group of all humans) that he feels he should behave a certain way, and that he does not do so. That some of these are not his particular temptation is completely irrelevant to the fact that all humans are tempted, and give in to temptations in one way or another.

And just as going on about one obscure Christian doctrine or its rival would be a distraction from "Mere Christianity," so would going on and on about the evils of some certain temptation that he personally had never felt. So you are conflating together two completely different ideas, and then calling them a contradiction. Read the passages again, and with an non-jaded eye, and then it will make sense to you.

Remember, SEG, earlier, in the "Approach a New Proposition" thread, you AGREED with me that we ought always to cite others HONESTLY, reporting what the WRITER INTENDED TO SAY. You cannot then build an attack based on a sophistry from a dishonest citation. If you expect others to play by the rules, then so must you.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Og3 » Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:30 am

SEG wrote: ...
<== bellringer

So, in the OHJ / Carrier thread, I challenged SEG with the questions:

1. IF Carrier is completely wrong -- talking utter rubbish -- do you want to know that?
2. Are you willing to objectively consider the proposition that Carrier is talking utter rubbish?


And so I fully expect him to reciprocate by asking me:

1. IF Lewis is completely wrong -- talking utter rubbish -- do you want to know that?
2. Are you willing to objectively consider the proposition that Lewis is talking utter rubbish?


So I will save time by answering both questions in the affirmative. If Lewis, in Mere Christianity, is talking utter rubbish, and that can be shown logically, I certainly want to know. And thus I am of course willing to consider the proposition that Lewis is talking utter rubbish.

Any position we take needs to have its foundations examined to the best of our abilities from time to time. We need to be able to have confidence in our reasoning because we have confidence it its foundations. This might mean giving them an acid test from time to time, and that's one reason that I am able to be patient with SEG: I have examined these foundations before. They have the weaknesses of all foundations, such as the induction/deduction problem, or even the objectivity problem, but in that they are merely equal with all competing foundation sets, and not inferior in any way.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:18 am

Og3 wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:30 am
1. IF Lewis is completely wrong -- talking utter rubbish -- do you want to know that?
2. Are you willing to objectively consider the proposition that Lewis is talking utter rubbish?
I don't think that either Lewis or Carrier are talking utter rubbish. As a matter of fact I prefer Lewis's writing style to Stroebel's by far. I think that both you and Lewis think of things in a black and white manner. Morals are set by humans and are all about humans. How could a deity in the clouds on a lofty pedestal have any thoughts about the trials of a gay marriage for example? To expect that morals are universal and are the same for all cultures throughout time is just not reasonable thinking.

I'm only at the first few chapters of MC so I will reserve my thoughts for a while as I digest it. Regarding Carrier, I get how you don't like your beliefs being challenged by prior probabilities, but I think that is the best way to examine them logically. It's gotta be better than the "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so" mentality.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Og3 » Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:44 pm

SEG wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:18 am
Og3 wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:30 am
1. IF Lewis is completely wrong -- talking utter rubbish -- do you want to know that?
2. Are you willing to objectively consider the proposition that Lewis is talking utter rubbish?
I don't think that either Lewis or Carrier are talking utter rubbish. As a matter of fact I prefer Lewis's writing style to Stroebel's by far. I think that both you and Lewis think of things in a black and white manner. Morals are set by humans and are all about humans. How could a deity in the clouds on a lofty pedestal have any thoughts about the trials of a gay marriage for example? To expect that morals are universal and are the same for all cultures throughout time is just not reasonable thinking.
But that's not what he says.
I'm only at the first few chapters of MC so I will reserve my thoughts for a while as I digest it. Regarding Carrier, I get how you don't like your beliefs being challenged by prior probabilities,
:facepalm: That. Is. Not. The. Problem.
but I think that is the best way to examine them logically. It's gotta be better than the "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so" mentality.
As opposed to, "We can analyze history by assigning it prior probabilities, this I know, for Carrier told me so?"

Let's face it, SEG, you'd never heard of Bayes until you read Carrier, had you?

And the question was not, "Do you THINK Carrier (or Lewis) is speaking utter rubbish?" but "IF in FACT Carrier (or Lewis) is speaking utter rubbish, DO YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT?"

No dodging.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Tue Apr 30, 2019 1:19 pm

Og3 wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:30 am
1. IF Lewis is completely wrong -- talking utter rubbish -- do you want to know that?
2. Are you willing to objectively consider the proposition that Lewis is talking utter rubbish?
SEG wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:18 am
I don't think that either Lewis or Carrier are talking utter rubbish. As a matter of fact I prefer Lewis's writing style to Stroebel's by far. I think that both you and Lewis think of things in a black and white manner. Morals are set by humans and are all about humans. How could a deity in the clouds on a lofty pedestal have any thoughts about the trials of a gay marriage for example? To expect that morals are universal and are the same for all cultures throughout time is just not reasonable thinking.
Og3 wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:44 pm
But that's not what he says.
That's what universal morality is and you have agreed that it is exactly that! Lewis thinks that right and wrong are things , he actually capitalises right and wrong as if to make them objects. What he completely misses is that there are grades of what is right and wrong and being right or wrong depends on lots of things according to context.
I'm only at the first few chapters of MC so I will reserve my thoughts for a while as I digest it. Regarding Carrier, I get how you don't like your beliefs being challenged by prior probabilities,
:facepalm: That. Is. Not. The. Problem.
That. is. exactly. the. problem. It won't hurt - really.
but I think that is the best way to examine them logically. It's gotta be better than the "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so" mentality.
As opposed to, "We can analyze history by assigning it prior probabilities, this I know, for Carrier told me so?"

Let's face it, SEG, you'd never heard of Bayes until you read Carrier, had you?
No, but that doesn't mean that using Bayes for examining the legitimacy of historical and religious claims isn't a right cracking idea! By Jove, it may damn well work!
Og3 wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:30 am
And the question was not, "Do you THINK Carrier (or Lewis) is speaking utter rubbish?" but "IF in FACT Carrier (or Lewis) is speaking utter rubbish, DO YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT?"

No dodging.
Um, yeah, why not? I would also want to know if silly claims really are that silly. If the logic works, would that diminish your faith?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Og3 » Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:51 pm

No, it would not, because my faith is built in part on my logic. One of the fundamental rules of logic -- so fundamental that we seldom even bother to mention it -- is the law of non-contradiction.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Wed May 01, 2019 2:55 pm

Og3 wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:51 pm
No, it would not, because my faith is built in part on my logic. One of the fundamental rules of logic -- so fundamental that we seldom even bother to mention it -- is the law of non-contradiction.
So even if I can logically prove that your faith is rubbish, it will not break your faith because it is built on logic? That seems very circular OG!

The thing that I'm getting about Lewis (probably you as well) is that he starts with the assumption that the Bible is reliable and factual. He never questions the existence of God. How can this be logical if he is not exploring the options that all of this may be made up?

He has only 3 options for Jesus, Liar, Lunatic or Lord. He doesn't consider him as a myth. He can't be to Lewis, he is too entrenched in his belief.

His moral law seems to be built on the foundation that Right and Wrong exists separately from humanity and drives it. But how could it exist before humans existed? Morals are built around the human conditions, without humans, what would be the point? He argued that "conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural Lawgiver." If so, why not multiple supernatural lawgivers, other gods in other religions?

I have seen him in this quote: "The only way in which we could expect the Creator to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command"

Why not outside of ourselves in an apparition? Why doesn't he pick up the phone and call the good Captain?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Wed May 01, 2019 4:09 pm

SEG wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 1:19 pm
Og3 wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:30 am

Let's face it, SEG, you'd never heard of Bayes until you read Carrier, had you?
No, but that doesn't mean that using Bayes for examining the legitimacy of historical and religious claims isn't a right cracking idea! By Jove, it may damn well work!
But it surely does imply that you are not the person best placed to judge if Carrier is using Bayes correctly. Are you aware of anyone with the appropriate training in Maths and statistics who has defended Carrier? I can only find negative reviews on this but am quite happy to be pointed to a mathematician supporting Carrier.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Og3 » Wed May 01, 2019 8:31 pm

SEG wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 2:55 pm
Og3 wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:51 pm
No, it would not, because my faith is built in part on my logic. One of the fundamental rules of logic -- so fundamental that we seldom even bother to mention it -- is the law of non-contradiction.
So even if I can logically prove that your faith is rubbish, it will not break your faith because it is built on logic? That seems very circular OG!
Oh, you meant "My faith" when you said "Silly Claims."

Honestly, man, I am not responsible for how you use language. I suggest having harsh words with your English teachers.

The thing that I'm getting about Lewis (probably you as well) is that he starts with the assumption that the Bible is reliable and factual.
Really? Where did he say that? what page?
He never questions the existence of God. How can this be logical if he is not exploring the options that all of this may be made up?
:lol: You are talking about C.S. Lewis, right? The man who asked "Why should a mouse WISH for a Cat?" :lol: You haven't confused him with Lewis Carroll or someone, right?
He has only 3 options for Jesus, Liar, Lunatic or Lord. He doesn't consider him as a myth. He can't be to Lewis, he is too entrenched in his belief.
First, on what page does he use the phrase, "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?" that phrase comes from McDowell. McDowell was relying on the Poached Egg argument, but Lewis never uses that phrase. Lewis was simply proving that Jesus cannot be imagined as a great moral teacher.

Chapter and verse, please.
His moral law seems to be built on the foundation that Right and Wrong exists separately from humanity and drives it. But how could it exist before humans existed? Morals are built around the human conditions, without humans, what would be the point? He argued that "conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural Lawgiver." If so, why not multiple supernatural lawgivers, other gods in other religions?
Tell you what: why don't you sketch out the argument he presents in premises -- for example, that when someone is drowning, we have a natural desire to save them, and a natural desire to remain safe, and a third thing that tells of which desire we should follow. Go ahead, sketch that out. You understand syllogisms now, so let's see it.
I have seen him in this quote: "The only way in which we could expect the Creator to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command"
Chapter and verse, please. On what page does he say that? In what context?
Why not outside of ourselves in an apparition? Why doesn't he pick up the phone and call the good Captain?
Why not by incarnating as His Own Son... Oh, right, been there, did that, got the nail-scars.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Post Reply