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
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Sun May 12, 2019 7:15 pm

SEG wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 1:50 am
But he never explains why the atheist world view on why there doesn't need to be a supernatural lawgiver is wrong.
There is not one single atheist world view on ethics. In 1924 A N Wilson tells us Lewis was thinking of applying for a philosophy chair at Oxford and was going to offer a dissertation on Bertrand Russell's A Free Man;s Worship. Lewsis who at this stage was (I think) an idealist rather than an atheist recognised some of Russell's views as similar to his own of a few years before but did not feel that he offered an adequate base for them. In fact Russell in that work is rejecting some atheist views, those such as Nietzsche's which idealise Power. Russell is very noble but when he says:
Let us admit that, in the world we know, there are many things that would be better otherwise, and that the ideals to which we do and must adhere are not realised in the realm of matter. Let us preserve our respect for truth, for beauty, for the ideal of perfection which life does not permit us to attain, though none of these things meet with the approval of the unconscious universe. If Power is bad, as it seems to be, let us reject it from our hearts. In this lies Man's true freedom: in determination to worship only the God created by our own love of the good, to respect only the heaven which inspires the insight of our best moments.
does he really provide an adequate base for these moral positions? Does he show why we must reject Nietzsche? Elsewhere (I think in Mysticism and Logic) Russell describes his view of morality as being a matter of taste like whether one prefers ones tea with or without sugar. Now suppose that Lewis had decided to criticise Russell's atheist views or for that matter Nietzsche's. What would happen is that people would say, 'those are not my views'. So he is basing a lot of what he writes on his experience of lecturing to people outside intelectual athesist circles. In fact even many committed athesits would want to distance themselves from views like those of Nietzsche and Russell. There is an old interview with Richard Dawkins where the Christian interviewer rasises the issue of Nietzsche and Dawkins hastens to differ on the suggestian that Nietzschean views are the logical outcome of atheism. When on the old version of this site I brought up Russell's views on religion Keep the Reason assured me that atheism was in its infancy in thiose days. A few weeks later I noticed someone turned on the site expressing the views KTR had assured me no atheists now held (that is my memory of things, impossible to prove now). So it is really no good objecting that Lewis does not address this or that atheist view. The view you want addressed may not have existed at the time he was writing or it may have been a minority view.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Sun May 12, 2019 11:38 pm

SEG wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 10:11 pm
The point has already been made that Lewis was deceptive in deliberately withholding crucial contradictory information to neophytes in order not to muddy them with dirt. That's clear deception on the part of the author and is separate from anything that I may or may not have disclosed.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 10:59 am
And it leaves the issue that you were that fervent in your opposition to deception that you tried to deceive us. Now you can say, as many people would, that you have very high standards but fall short of them yourself, or you can say that showing Lewis to be deceptive was so important it became okay to deceive us in order to do so but it puts you on very shaky ground morally.
Point taken. But if you set my indiscretion aside, you are still left with Lewis hiding other Christian points of conflict away to advance his cause.
You declaring that he doesn't clear his fawning obsession with an invisible entity. If it is not clear to you that he wasn't convinced from the start, then you are being deceptive yourself.
You are confusing two different things. If one argues from a presupposition then the presupposition becomes a foundation for the argument. That is quite different from arguing for something which you pressupose in the sense of already believing to be the case. One can present a case using sound arguments whether or not one believes it be the case.
So if you believe anything is true, as long as it has sound arguments it is ok? Say someone asked you to attend a meeting where a cult is planning to pretend to sacrifice a man's son to appease the god Nfluti. The leader wants to know if the father's faith is strong enough to obey. So it goes ahead and right at the last moment the terrified son is spared by the leader pulling back the father just before the father kills his son. Or you are invited to watch a dictator actually torture and kill his only son in a public square because the dictator believes that will cure the Earth's problems with sin before his own god. Or he swore an oath to his god that he would kill the first person he saw walk through the door (which turns out to be his innocent daughter) like Jephthah did in Judges? Would these arguments hold and be solid? Would you accept the invitation or reject the offers and consider the cult is crazy and dangerous?
Argument 2. He never gives a definition of a god
Nothing in his argument needs one.
Then what is this "Something" that he is banging on about, and why does it have to point to his own god?
He is a romantic. He is trying to make strange the familiar so as to make familiar the strange. It's an exercise in the discipined use of imagination; a perfectly legitemate technique
.
Why can't this "Something" align with an atheist worldview then? IOW, why can't this "Something" just be a social construct? Why leap to the supernatural when there is no viable evidence for it?
Argument 3. He doesn't give a reason how his Moral Law escapes the Euthyphro dilemma
This is not relevant to his argument.
SEG wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 10:11 pm
It is because it eliminates God as the source of morality. Humans could be the source by their societal interactions.
Lewis is a Christian neoplatonist. Plato and his followers locate morality in the realm of the forms, specificaly in aspirations towards the form of the good. in the Timeaus he describes how the demiurge uses the forms which are static and eternal as a model for the material cosmos. Christian neoplatonists see the forms, which are eternal and self existent, as being located in the mind of God. The Euthyphro dilemma really concerns the role of the gods of paganism, they exist within the cosmos and although they may make moral commands and be seen as the source of social morality they cannot be the origin of those commands in the same way the God of neoplatonism can. I think Lewis tackles the question you are raising in the section beginning:
I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behaviour from parents and teachers, and friends and books, as we learn everything else. But some of the things we learn are mere conventions which might have been different—we learn to keep to the left of the road, but it might just as well have been the rule to keep to the right—and others of them, like mathematics, are real truths. The question is to which class the Law of Human Nature belongs.
Again, why invoke the supernatural when there are secular explanations?
Argument 4. His Moral Law describes what human beings ought to do, which invokes the is/ought problem.
So what?
How does he know the mind of God in what we ought to do?
The is/ought problem strikes me as a pseudo problem. Hume is right in saying we cannot deduce an ought from an is but we can use induction or the hypothetico-decuctive method and we do so all the time. For example we know what temperature human blood ought to be and we know that from observation of what is. People can and do dervive ought from is and what people are saying when they say people cannot derive ought from is is that people ought not to do so, but in doing that they are breaking the very rule they are proposing. Lewis thinks, and I agree, that we have moral intuitions and he is arguing that the best is explanation for these is the existence of a divine lawgiver.
These moral intuitions may be seen from an evolutionary view. Why can't that be the best explanation? Or even if you move away from that and accept the supernatural, why does it have to be the Christian god? Why not some other god or even gods?
An argument to best explanation works in so far as people come to see that this really is the best explanation from the ones on the table, it is never a matter of strict proof. Hence he is arguing that we encounter God in out moral intuitions. If the argument works then that is the reason why he believes this is the case. In itself that falls somewhere short of knowledge and you are quite right to point that out.
Cool, so it really may be the god Nfluti working in the background?
Last edited by SEG on Mon May 13, 2019 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Mon May 13, 2019 12:00 am

Chapabel wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 6:21 pm
Instead, these texts are two examples of the kinds of theological themes that pervaded numerous cultures over many centuries. The stories are not directly connected, but they share common ways of thinking about beginnings. They “breathe the same air.”
Chapabel wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 6:21 pm
You done been got again 😂😂😂😂
Why? It has the same invalid scientific claims and breathes the same air.
In both stories, light exists before the creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
In both stories, there is a division of the waters above and below, with a barrier holding back the upper waters.
The sequence of creation is similar, including the division of waters, dry land, luminaries, and humanity, all followed by rest.
Just like the dying and rising gods Romulus, Zalmoxis and Hercules, they aren't exactly the same, but wear the same cloaks as Jesus.
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
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Mon May 13, 2019 12:24 am

Og3 wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 7:26 am
Had you said that you were here to learn the truth, to find the truth, to seek the truth... then you might have answered well. But you have already judged that my thoughts are "misconceptions" and that you must point them out to me. In order for that to be true, you must be assuming that you have no misconceptions (a wrong assumption). So you're not here to seek truth, not to learn truth, but to peddle the supposed "truth" that you think you know by suppressing my "misconceptions."

In other words, it's all about winning for you; it's all about preaching your version of reality. Just like your buddy.
No, I'm clearly not "winning" with you, you made up your unchangeable mind many years ago. I'm here to expose your misconceptions to others, just like you are to me. I enjoy the arguments and exposing why faith is just another excuse Christians leap to when they have a lack of verifiable evidence.
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 May 13, 2019 5:34 am

SEG wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 12:24 am
Og3 wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 7:26 am
Had you said that you were here to learn the truth, to find the truth, to seek the truth... then you might have answered well. But you have already judged that my thoughts are "misconceptions" and that you must point them out to me. In order for that to be true, you must be assuming that you have no misconceptions (a wrong assumption). So you're not here to seek truth, not to learn truth, but to peddle the supposed "truth" that you think you know by suppressing my "misconceptions."

In other words, it's all about winning for you; it's all about preaching your version of reality. Just like your buddy.
No, I'm clearly not "winning" with you, you made up your unchangeable mind many years ago. I'm here to expose your misconceptions to others, just like you are to me. I enjoy the arguments and exposing why faith is just another excuse Christians leap to when they have a lack of verifiable evidence.
If you believe that my mind is unchangeable then you have not read a thing that I've told you about myself. I have described at least two times when I weighed all that I believe on a matter, and resolved to accept the truth regardless what that truth might turn out to be. In fact, I can think of four times, on various matters, when I have done that. On two of those occasions, I came to the realization that my prior positions were wrong, and changed them. One such event involved a radical change in my political position. Another involved a change as a matter of conscience on an issue I had previously tried to ignore.

I am not unchangeable. But you, Sir, seem to be.

Can you name a time in your life when you have chosen to examine your belief on ANY topic with a resolution to adopt whatever position was true and/or right, regardless of your prior feelings on the matter?

And can you tell us of a time when such an examination led to a radical departure from your prior position?
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 May 13, 2019 5:45 am

SEG wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 3:06 pm
Og3 wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 7:16 am
The fact that you THINK that Judges 14 shows that it's OK to be selfish
SEG wrote:Judges 14 is evidence that men HAVE NOT always agreed. If they DID always agree that it is not a good idea to suit yourself, why do men go ahead and do it?
Because they are sinful and depraved, SEG. That's the whole point
but according to the self loathing that is present in Christians like yourself, we are all sinful and depraved.
Self-loathing? No, SEG. It is the end of guilt and fear and self-loathing when you realize that we are all sinful and depraved, but that God loves us anyway.
Tell you what: Since you came up with your Samson argument that selfishness is okay according to the Bible, from your own personal readings in Judges, please answer a few questions just to show that you've honestly read the passage in context:

5.) What action, in Samson's entire life, is described by the Bible as an act to be emulated?
I only want to answer your last question. He was a nazirite, like Samuel and perhaps Jesus.
In other words, a Google search for "Out of the strong came forth sweet" left you with nothing you could use to explain it without an obvious plagiarism.

The only thing in Samson's life that we *should* emulate is his repentance. The only thing that the Bible describes as an act to be emulated... is nothing. The Bible does not tell us to do what Samson did, nor to refrain. The Bible-writers assumed that we know that Samson should not have done most of the things that he did.

Thus, for you to suggest that the Bible tells us to be selfish because Samson was selfish is a silly argument that can only be made by someone who doesn't understand what he is reading.

Sure you don't want to take a crack at the other questions, just to see if you can redeem yourself (but of course you can't, for what would a man give in exchange ... )?
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Mon May 13, 2019 7:32 am

Og3 wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:34 am
If you believe that my mind is unchangeable then you have not read a thing that I've told you about myself. I have described at least two times when I weighed all that I believe on a matter, and resolved to accept the truth regardless what that truth might turn out to be. In fact, I can think of four times, on various matters, when I have done that. On two of those occasions, I came to the realization that my prior positions were wrong, and changed them. One such event involved a radical change in my political position. Another involved a change as a matter of conscience on an issue I had previously tried to ignore.

I am not unchangeable. But you, Sir, seem to be.
I was talking about when you last decided to be a Christian.
Og3 wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:34 am
Can you name a time in your life when you have chosen to examine your belief on ANY topic with a resolution to adopt whatever position was true and/or right, regardless of your prior feelings on the matter?

And can you tell us of a time when such an examination led to a radical departure from your prior position?
Sure. Up to 4-5 years of age I was convinced that Santa Claus was a magical person that had flying reindeers etc. My parents had me convinced that this was true and so did my friends and other adults in authority. I decided to question my parents directly with a resolution to adopt whatever position was true and/or right, regardless of my prior feelings on the matter. I changed my mind when I saw that they were awkwardly making stuff up and when the evidence started to mount up against the idea. Same deal with the Jesus stories and the ridiculous story of Noah's ark. They seemed magical at the start and nice thoughts if it was true, but they were even easier to shed than Santa.

As an adult, my heart is not working as it should and I have VT (Ventricular tachycardia) which has nearly killed me on several occasions if I didn't have my implanted defib. I have decided to give up my favourite sport because it could kill me despite having the back up of the defib - it may not shock me back to life. I am having ablation surgery on 5/6/19 in a few weeks to try and get it corrected. I will make further updated decision whether to return to my sport if it is successful with a resolution to adopt whatever position was true and/or right, regardless of my prior feelings on the matter.

So yeah, I can change my mind on important matters. With religion I don't count it as important. Don't sweat me having a deathbed conversion!
Last edited by SEG on Mon May 13, 2019 2:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Mon May 13, 2019 7:46 am

SEG wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 1:50 am
But he never explains why the atheist world view on why there doesn't need to be a supernatural lawgiver is wrong.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 7:15 pm
There is not one single atheist world view on ethics.
I know there isn't, no quibbling from me on that. I was talking about him never considering or explaining the worldview that all atheists have about there being no necessity or need to have a supernatural lawgiver.
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
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Mon May 13, 2019 11:04 am

Og3 wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:45 am
Because they are sinful and depraved, SEG. That's the whole point
but according to the self loathing that is present in Christians like yourself, we are all sinful and depraved. [/quote]
Og3 wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:45 am
Self-loathing? No, SEG. It is the end of guilt and fear and self-loathing when you realize that we are all sinful and depraved, but that God loves us anyway.
Nope, its just the beginning of the indoctrination process and what Christianity THRIVES upon Og. It's a despicable thing to do to another human and Christianity sells this to vulnerable people all the time. Repeatably, because all good salespersons know that once you have a loyal customer, it's much easier to sell to them, than go searching for fresh prospects. Without self loathing there is nothing to be saved from and hence no need for a tortured Jesus on the cross to fix your imagined broken self. The self loathing is important to nurture as it is crucial to the control programme. Ask any Christian how to be a perfect person and they will immediately tell you that no-one is perfect (which is true) but we are all broken and we all are sinners, needing guess what? Jesus, Jesus, JESUS! This video explains it beautifully:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... agYQhQ8pGk

What makes us broken, according to Christians? Just about anything that makes you feel good! Take masturbation for example. No honest doctor will tell you that there is anything wrong for you, it actually has quite a few healthy benefits and is part of being human. But ask any religious authority if there is wrong with it and most will condemn it and you for even thinking about it.
Tell you what: Since you came up with your Samson argument that selfishness is okay according to the Bible, from your own personal readings in Judges, please answer a few questions just to show that you've honestly read the passage in context:

5.) What action, in Samson's entire life, is described by the Bible as an act to be emulated?
I only want to answer your last question. He was a nazirite, like Samuel and perhaps Jesus.
In other words, a Google search for "Out of the strong came forth sweet" left you with nothing you could use to explain it without an obvious plagiarism.
Has it anything to do with semen? This was a ridiculous story of Samson supposedly tearing a lion apart and then bees nesting in its corpse - which has no bearing on what bees actually nest in. This happens to be one of my favourite Darkmatter cartoons, that I have had on here on the old forum site. Have a look at this, it is surprisingly accurate from what you read in the Bible.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRh7W-B ... cEQeR3kPPZ
The only thing in Samson's life that we *should* emulate is his repentance.
Wrong! He was a nazirite, maybe just like the Jesus mythical character. The nazirite is described as being "holy unto YHWH" (Numbers 6:8) according to Wiki. This scenario of a religious title, not a demonym, constitutes the only logical way in which the messiah as ‘Nazarene’ could represent “fulfilment of prophecy” in scripture. Did you know that the demonym Nazorenos apparently did not exist until it was devised in the New Testament, for the specific purpose of identifying Jesus as having come from a place called Nazareth? Not that there is any verifiable evidence of Nazareth – conflating the concept instead with the religious order of the Nararites/Nazirites.
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 May 13, 2019 7:36 pm

SEG wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 11:04 am
SEG wrote:
Og3 wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:45 am
Because they are sinful and depraved, SEG. That's the whole point
but according to the self loathing that is present in Christians like yourself, we are all sinful and depraved.
Og3 wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:45 am
Self-loathing? No, SEG. It is the end of guilt and fear and self-loathing when you realize that we are all sinful and depraved, but that God loves us anyway.
Nope, its just the beginning of the indoctrination process and what Christianity THRIVES upon Og. It's a despicable thing to do to another human and Christianity sells this to vulnerable people all the time. Repeatably, because all good salespersons know that once you have a loyal customer, it's much easier to sell to them, than go searching for fresh prospects. Without self loathing there is nothing to be saved from and hence no need for a tortured Jesus on the cross to fix your imagined broken self. The self loathing is important to nurture as it is crucial to the control programme. Ask any Christian how to be a perfect person and they will immediately tell you that no-one is perfect (which is true) but we are all broken and we all are sinners, needing guess what? Jesus, Jesus, JESUS! This video explains it beautifully:
https://www.yotube.com/watch?time_conti ... agYQhQ8pGk

What makes us broken, according to Christians? Just about anything that makes you feel good! Take masturbation for example. No honest doctor will tell you that there is anything wrong for you, it actually has quite a few healthy benefits and is part of being human. But ask any religious authority if there is wrong with it and most will condemn it and you for even thinking about it.
So, what Bible verse condemns your "favorite sport" there, Sport?
Tell you what: Since you came up with your Samson argument that selfishness is okay according to the Bible, from your own personal readings in Judges, please answer a few questions just to show that you've honestly read the passage in context:

5.) What action, in Samson's entire life, is described by the Bible as an act to be emulated?
I only want to answer your last question. He was a nazirite, like Samuel and perhaps Jesus.
In other words, a Google search for "Out of the strong came forth sweet" left you with nothing you could use to explain it without an obvious plagiarism.
Has it anything to do with semen? This was a ridiculous story of Samson supposedly tearing a lion apart and then bees nesting in its corpse - which has no bearing on what bees actually nest in. This happens to be one of my favourite Darkmatter cartoons, that I have had on here on the old forum site. Have a look at this, it is surprisingly accurate from what you read in the Bible.https://www.youtue.com/watch?v=NRh7W-Bs ... cEQeR3kPPZ
The only thing in Samson's life that we *should* emulate is his repentance.
Wrong! He was a nazirite, maybe just like the Jesus mythical character. The nazirite is described as being "holy unto YHWH" (Numbers 6:8) according to Wiki. This scenario of a religious title, not a demonym, constitutes the only logical way in which the messiah as ‘Nazarene’ could represent “fulfilment of prophecy” in scripture. Did you know that the demonym Nazorenos apparently did not exist until it was devised in the New Testament, for the specific purpose of identifying Jesus as having come from a place called Nazareth? Not that there is any verifiable evidence of Nazareth – conflating the concept instead with the religious order of the Nararites/Nazirites.
Okay, then, Sport, where does the Bible tell you to emulate anything that Samson did? Where does it say, "Samson did X, and you should also?"

Here's the thing, SEG, and you atheists ALWAYS get this wrong: If I tell you that Jesse James robbed a train (or that Ned Kelly robbed a bank) I am describing an event. I expect you to ALREADY KNOW that you're not supposed to emulate Jesse or Ned. But if you tell someone that Og says you should rob trains and banks, following the examples of Jesse and Ned, then you would be making, HELLO! a dishonest citation.

Which we've talked about.

Extensively.

So you really need to ask yourself, SEG: if you use a dishonest argument, and no one answers it because it's dishonest, did you really win the argument? Or are you only pleasing yourself, like old Onan?
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Post Reply