lpetrich

I've also noticed the abundance of analogies in theological "reasoning". I think that the reason that they are popular is that they can easily hide flaws in arguments. Something that need not be deliberate, but that may be a result of natural selection of seemingly-convincing arguments.

ashibaka

Speaking of flaws in reasoning, I have an argument to prove C.S. Lewis is dishonest. In nine points:

1.1) C.S. Lewis was an atheist at one point.
1.2) Most atheists know enough logic to recognize an obvious fallacy.
1.3) [Assumed] C.S. Lewis knew enough logic to recognize an obvious fallacy.
2.1) C.S. Lewis wrote Mere Christianity.
2.2) Mere Christianity contains an obvious Either-Or Fallacy ("Lord, liar, or lunatic").
2.3) C.S. Lewis included an obvious fallacy in his line of reasoning.
3.1) Those who include obvious fallacies in their lines of reasoning are either ignorant enough to not recognize it or dishonest enough to include it anyway.
3.2) Concluded from 2.3: C.S. Lewis is either ignorant or dishonest.
3.3) Concluded from 1.3: C.S. Lewis is dishonest.

Ta-da! I call it the "Lord, Liar or Dumbarse" argument. Of course, maybe C.S. Lewis never knew how to reason logically, or forgot how when he became a Christian... but I've been kind to him on those points.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: ashibaka ]</p>

luvluv

I'd dispute 1.2), but it isn't necessary to your argument.

1.3) brings you to a dead halt. No way of knowing whether C.S. Lewis knew that to be a logical fallacy at the time he wrote Mere Christianity.

3.1) is not necessarily true. A person could be truly divided about whether or not there is a fallacy in his argument and present it to the public intending to hear a counter-argument. This is probably done in philosophical journals. A person may suspect that his arguments are fallacious, and present them in a forum where they can be challenged, and still be honest.

For example, you presented this argument in this forum, it contains at least one premise which you know to be faulty (1.3) and yet you are probably not being dishonest in it's presentation.

Family Man

No it doesn't. If he didn't know it (and being educated, he should have) it would simply mean he was ignorant. The argument would have taken the other fork.

Again, all that would mean is that he wasn't aware of an obvious fallacy, arguing ignorance. Not something that should be expected of someone with a Ph.D., even if it wasn't in logic.

I don't think the premise is flawed, though by your argument the conclusion is wrong.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Hobbs

"The Abolition of a Straw Man"? Is that the one where he takes an obscure (and unnamed) school textbook version of his opponents' alleged position (ethical subjectivism), and misrepresents even that (at least based on the quotes he includes, he is misrepresenting the book's position; it's hard to know for sure, though, because, unless I'm misremembering, he never names his source), rather than using named sources of known philosophers (David Hume would be a nice start) and critique the actual arguments found therein?

It is very easy, and very unimpressive, to set up a straw man that comes nowhere close to portraying your opponents' real positions and then knock it down.

Vorkosigan

I think the popularity of Lewis is spawned from the intelligence in his writings (above average level for laymen Christian literature), his humour, and the obvious love and devotion he has for God. The latter may escape some of you purely emotional Vulcans on this board and may cause you to be perplexed at his popularity.

I don't think any of us are perplexed by his popularity. He writes sympathetically, as though he were sitting in front of you in your living room, telling you this stuff.

To me, Lewis never sounds like someone who is devoted. Rather, he sounds like someone trying to sound like someone devoted, someone working hard to convince himself. He must have realized he was creating strawmen and speaking nonsense....

read, and the World's Last Night also has some good stuff about the difference between how Christians believe and how non-Christians believe.

C'mon. If there is anything Lewis didn't understand, it was non-Christians. He was very much a product of his racist, colonialist age in that sense.

I don't think the argument he produced in Mere Christianity is at all sound, but it is convincing. I find it more convincing than the evolutionary hypothesis for the origin of morality, which I consider to be somewhat absurd.

Your opinion notwithstanding, it's a lot better supported than Lewis in both fieldwork, research and mathematical modeling.

I've also always wondered what atheists get out of Screwtape, which they must consider to be a pack of lies. I've always found it insightful as to the nature of God, the nature of demonic forces, and the nature of humanity. But I don't see what an atheist would get out of it, it's main appeal to me is that much of it seems to be so true.

What? It is full of humor, so much of it unintentional. The pompous, condecending tone, the tiresome moralizing, the shallow silliness of the demons, Lewis' rendering of Christianity's alien, inhuman view of world, his hilariously bad views of human sociality, and human psychology....strong characters and common situations, and of course, an attractive reversal of the usual from-the-Christian point of view. Always the ingredients of a popular story. I love Screwtape, and so do many other atheists.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

This site contains a large number of excerpts, including whole chapters...

<a href="http://www.merelewis.com/" target="_blank">http://www.merelewis.com/</a>

babelfish

This is probably very true. When I read "Mere Christianity" I was struck by the patronizing tone Lewis took throughout the first section, especially. I felt like I was reading a book written for children.

It reminded me of how, when various books are offered on my favorite Christian radio station, often the potential buyers are reassured that the book will be "an easy read" and "very short." Which speaks volumes, to me, about the attention span and intelligence level of the targeted audience.

luvluv

Vorkosagian:

To me, your statement doesn't sound like you believe that Lewis isn't really devoted. Rather, it sounds to me like you are just trying to sound like you believe that he wasn't really devoted, and working hard to believe this is the case. You must realize that Lewis is speaking the truth.

Ain't this fun?

Why don't you read the book and find out, Ms Cleo.

I guess you realize the pompous, condescending tone was intentional, Lewis mentioned this in the introduction and in later discussions about the book. It was his purpose to create an "buerocratic" hell full of self-important demons.

Could you expound upon how Lewis's rendering of of the Christian view of the world was "inhuman"?

This seems contradictory to me.

For what it's worth, I find this website ocasionally amusing because of it's hilariously bad view of human sociality and human psychology. So who am I to judge?

lpetrich

C.S. Lewis had never told us much about his "atheist" phase, except to claim that he had once "hated God".

When the usual position of a convinced atheist is that the Xian God is pure fiction, just like the deities of Mt. Olympus, the deities of Valhalla, etc.

Seems like he had earlier been indifferent to religion or something like that.