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

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Og3 » Mon May 13, 2019 7:51 pm

SEG wrote:
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.
You realize that I re-affirm that decision on a regular basis, right? You realize that I am always considering atheist arguments, because if what I am saying is true, then no atheist argument can be true; therefore if I find an atheist argument that is true, then I will have to reconsider -- right?

And you should be doing that, also.
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.
See, there's the problem. You simply stopped believing. Because Nicholas of Myra was a real person, so clearly you didn't do enough research to find the historical person.
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.
In other words, you never actually considered it, but merely stopped believing. Like the brother on the hunting trip in Tolstoy's confession.
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.
While that is an example of making a fact based decision -- well, let's compare that to your decision about Santa Claus. With Santa Claus, you made a decision based upon a lack of trust in the story related to you. Did you apply a similar skepticism with your MD?

did you ask, for example, how he could be sure you have VT and not, say, Atrial Fibrillation? Did you ask him what Differential diagnosis he used to rule out, say, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (and if you're athletic, as you say, then COPD is unlikely; nonetheless, the logical point remains)? Did you at least look at the EKG printouts?

If you were following the pattern dictated by your Santa decision, you'd have simply said, "Nah, that's rubbish." But instead you listened to the evidence, didn't you? And you accepted the expert testimony of the MD, didn't you? I'm assuming you didn't ask for his Medical School transcripts...
So yeah, I can change my mind on important matters. With religion I don't count it as important.
And yet you spend hours each day on a forum discussion religion. Hmmmm.
Don't sweat me having a deathbed conversion!
I'd rather see you reason logically to a conclusion, even if it is the one you already hold.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Mon May 13, 2019 9:09 pm

SEG wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 11:38 pm
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.
I don't think that is what he is doing. The conflicts between denominations are not hidden, but what Lewis is saying is that he does not think discussing those conflicts is the best way to promote Christianity. However we have most likely spent enough time on this.
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?

No. Sound arguments are a valid ground for belief. That does not mean any conclusion will be 'okay'. A conclusion reached by sound argument may conflict with another conclusion reached in the same way. It may conflict with something we know by intuition. So below you are raising the question of what would happen if we felt we had sound argumets with somethingbut but it conflicted with our moral intuition. on the whole I would go with the intuition. However, I do understand that the examples you give are intended to parody Christianity. I don't feel the paralels are particularly accurate but a couple of things I want to note. The first is that in using these examples you are at least conceding that we do have moral intuitions. Secondly you are using the technique of making strange the familiar so you do recognise this as a valid technique. If this study continues we should get to the doctrine of the atonement which is one of the things you are parodying.
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?
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?
He disccuses his reasons for taking the view he does in the book.
Again, why invoke the supernatural when there are secular explanations?
He disccuses his reasons for taking the view he does in the book.
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?
He explains at length why he does not think the evolutionary account works. Lewis is doing what is called natural theology. He begins by making a case for God, he goes on to discuss why he favours the Christian concept of God. But one reason for not favouring the pagan concept is that then you would run up against the euryphro dimlemma.
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?
From what he has said so far, yes.

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

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Tue May 14, 2019 5:05 am

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 9:09 pm
So if you believe anything is true, as long as it has sound arguments it is ok?

No. Sound arguments are a valid ground for belief. That does not mean any conclusion will be 'okay'. A conclusion reached by sound argument may conflict with another conclusion reached in the same way. It may conflict with something we know by intuition. So below you are raising the question of what would happen if we felt we had sound argumets with somethingbut but it conflicted with our moral intuition. on the whole I would go with the intuition. However, I do understand that the examples you give are intended to parody Christianity. I don't feel the paralels are particularly accurate but a couple of things I want to note. The first is that in using these examples you are at least conceding that we do have moral intuitions. Secondly you are using the technique of making strange the familiar so you do recognise this as a valid technique. If this study continues we should get to the doctrine of the atonement which is one of the things you are parodying.
Sure. I have no problem with moral intuition, but we can determine through rational reflection that we have had passed onto us from our human teachers what is right and wrong. Lewis and yourself have not explained why there is a need for a supernatural being.
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?[/quote]
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?
He disccuses his reasons for taking the view he does in the book.
I can't see anywhere in the book where he has any solid explanation for a god or any arguments against this moral intuition being an earthly basis.
Again, why invoke the supernatural when there are secular explanations?
He disccuses his reasons for taking the view he does in the book.
I don't think he gives secular explanation much consideration at all, he jumps straight to Goddidit.
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?
He explains at length why he does not think the evolutionary account works.
Yes, He says in 4. What Lies Behind The Law:
But to be complete I ought to mention the In between view called Life-Force philosophy, or Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution. The wittiest expositions of it come in the works of Bernard Shaw, but the most profound ones in those of Bergson. People who hold this view say that the small variations by which life on this planet "evolved" from the lowest forms to Man were not due to chance but to the "striving" or "purposiveness" of a Life-Force.
When people say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they mean something with a mind or not. If they do, then "a mind bringing life into existence and leading it to perfection" is really a God, and their view is thus identical with the Religious. If they do not, then what is the sense in saying that something without a mind "strives" or has "purposes"? This seems to me fatal to their view. One reason why many people find Creative Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences.
So he believes that a mind can exist without a physical brain without demonstrating how this is possible.
Lewis is doing what is called natural theology. He begins by making a case for God, he goes on to discuss why he favours the Christian concept of God. But one reason for not favouring the pagan concept is that then you would run up against the euryphro dimlemma.
The euryphro dimlemma is not just a problem for pagan gods, it is a real problem for your god. Lewis doesn't attempt to solve this problem. I wonder why?
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?
From what he has said so far, yes.
Or no gods are required at all?
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: 379
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Tue May 14, 2019 9:02 am

SEG. I think weare going round in circles here as we so often do. I find it very time consuming to explain things at length and even when I do this does not go anywhere. We have spent a lot of time arguing you and I and I often feel you are not listening or hare off at tangents. Maybe that is a misperception on my part but I feel I letmyself get sucked into these arguments that really need much fuller answers than I can give. So for now I am happy once again to draw to a close.

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

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Tue May 14, 2019 9:18 am

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 9:09 pm
No. Sound arguments are a valid ground for belief. That does not mean any conclusion will be 'okay'. A conclusion reached by sound argument may conflict with another conclusion reached in the same way. It may conflict with something we know by intuition. So below you are raising the question of what would happen if we felt we had sound argumets with somethingbut but it conflicted with our moral intuition. on the whole I would go with the intuition. However, I do understand that the examples you give are intended to parody Christianity. I don't feel the paralels are particularly accurate but a couple of things I want to note. The first is that in using these examples you are at least conceding that we do have moral intuitions. Secondly you are using the technique of making strange the familiar so you do recognise this as a valid technique. If this study continues we should get to the doctrine of the atonement which is one of the things you are parodying.
No, the parodies aren't exactly accurate, but close enough to illustrate my point. You avoided answering my questions regarding the parodying, and there is a valid reason for your avoidance. All of those circumstances reflect the unsoundness of the arguments of some of the strongest Christian beliefs.

1. It is not sound to order someone to threaten to kill his son as a test of faith.
2. It is not sound to allow someone to actually kill his daughter as a result of a stupid vow.
3. It is certainly not sound to arrange to torture and kill your own son (which is really you) to take the blame for the world's sinning.

Deuteronomy 24:16 says this about taking the rap for others:
Deuteronomy 24:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
and is repeated in :
Ezekiel 18:20
New International Version
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
If sound arguments are a valid ground for belief, then unsound arguments like the above are invalid grounds for belief.
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 » Tue May 14, 2019 9:21 am

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:02 am
SEG. I think weare going round in circles here as we so often do. I find it very time consuming to explain things at length and even when I do this does not go anywhere. We have spent a lot of time arguing you and I and I often feel you are not listening or hare off at tangents. Maybe that is a misperception on my part but I feel I letmyself get sucked into these arguments that really need much fuller answers than I can give. So for now I am happy once again to draw to a close.
Sure, thanks for the exchange. Don't bother answering the questions on what I was parodying, I think the answers are obvious.
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 » Tue May 14, 2019 10:06 am

Og3 wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 7:51 pm
You realize that I re-affirm that decision on a regular basis, right? You realize that I am always considering atheist arguments, because if what I am saying is true, then no atheist argument can be true; therefore if I find an atheist argument that is true, then I will have to reconsider -- right?

And you should be doing that, also.
You should call up Matt Dillahunty sometime and see how you go. I doubt that you would last very long. I don't think that he has ever been beaten on a moderated debate, and certainly not on his own show. I have been told that this book of Lewis's is the most convincing apologist book on Christian beliefs but I didn't find anything in it convincing nor compelling. If this is the best, what's next?
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.
See, there's the problem. You simply stopped believing. Because Nicholas of Myra was a real person, so clearly you didn't do enough research to find the historical person.
St. Nicholas was a real person, Santa Claus was invented from different European cultures and is a myth.
Mythical and legendary people are easy for most people to spot, even kids.
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.
In other words, you never actually considered it, but merely stopped believing. Like the brother on the hunting trip in Tolstoy's confession.
No, the stories simply weren't convincing and I wasn't constantly told by my mentors and friends that untrue things were true.
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.
While that is an example of making a fact based decision -- well, let's compare that to your decision about Santa Claus. With Santa Claus, you made a decision based upon a lack of trust in the story related to you. Did you apply a similar skepticism with your MD?

did you ask, for example, how he could be sure you have VT and not, say, Atrial Fibrillation? Did you ask him what Differential diagnosis he used to rule out, say, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (and if you're athletic, as you say, then COPD is unlikely; nonetheless, the logical point remains)? Did you at least look at the EKG printouts?
No, I trust what my doctor tells me. Have you ever wondered why doctors generally don't advise you to pray away disease and why hospitals don't have priests wandering around the intensive care unit?
So yeah, I can change my mind on important matters. With religion I don't count it as important.
And yet you spend hours each day on a forum discussion religion. Hmmmm.
No, not hours. I have a business to run and a family to care for.
Don't sweat me having a deathbed conversion!
I'd rather see you reason logically to a conclusion, even if it is the one you already hold.
Yeah, I'd like you to do that too.
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 » Tue May 14, 2019 9:47 pm

Og3 wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 7:36 pm
So, what Bible verse condemns our "favorite sport" there, Sport?
There, I made an honest person out of you by removing one letter. None. There is nothing in the Bible about Bashing the Bishop or even Buffin' the Muffin. Yet just about all Christians do it at some point in their lives, then hypocritically condemn others for doing it. I have seen a Christian forum where a young girl admitted that she was addicted to pleasuring herself daily and was so guilty about it that she was contemplating suicide. All but one of the many replies to that post condemned her for doing it and suggested that she stop immediately and confess it to her priest. The one that didn't condemn her correctly advised her to promptly get professional help ASAP and she wasn't doing anything wrong.

The thing that is so wrong about that story is that it is so pervasive in Christian and other religious cultures. Condemnation for being human.
Or are you only pleasing yourself, like old Onan?
What a shit story that was! I rest my case.

As a matter of fact, after a bit more research it seems this is not only the funniest stories in the Bible, it is also one of the most censored as revealed in this video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGecYM8S1r0 See if you can argue against any of the logic it brings up Og. Psst! This is not one to play before setting up a Sunday School lesson. It involves splooging on the floor and one of Jesus's great granddaddies buying a prostitute with a goat. No wonder it gets censored!
Last edited by SEG on Wed May 15, 2019 12:32 am, 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.

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

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Og3 » Wed May 15, 2019 12:27 am

SEG wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:47 pm
Og3 wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 7:36 pm
So, what Bible verse condemns our "favorite sport" there, Sport?
There, I made an honest person out of you by removing one letter. None. There is nothing in the Bible about Bashing the Bishop or even Buffin' the Muffin. Yet just about all Christians do it at some point in their lives, then hypocritically condemn others for doing it. I have seen a Christian forum where a young girl admitted that she was addicted to pleasuring herself daily and was so guilty about it that she was contemplating suicide. All but one of the many replies to that post condemned her for doing it and suggested that she stop immediately and confess it to her priest. The one that didn't condemn her correctly advised her to promptly get professional help ASAP and she wasn't doing anything wrong.

The thing that is so wrong about that story is that it is so pervasive in Christian and other religious cultures. Condemnation for being human.
Or are you only pleasing yourself, like old Onan?
What a shit story that was!
You don't like people being struck dead for condemning their sisters-in-law to starvation?
I rest my case.
So, in other words, some vague unnamed people you read about once condemned another vague unnamed person, so you feel that Christians are bad. Because all the vague unnamed people were Christians. Even though you could find no verse to support such a view.

And even after I gave you a clue:
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?
So in other words, SEG, you are only on this forum to please yourself.
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 » Wed May 15, 2019 1:13 am

Og3 wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 12:27 am
You don't like people being struck dead for condemning their sisters-in-law to starvation?
Where in the Bible does it say that? While you are looking that up, how did Judah or anyone else know that the prostitute that he screwed using a goat for collateral was his daughter-in-law - whom he wanted burned? This was the son of a patriarch right, the founder of the Israelite Tribe of Judah?
Last edited by SEG on Wed May 15, 2019 1:50 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.

Post Reply