Biff the unclean

Christian ethics are based on a contempt for humanity (sin nature, fallen, needs salvation, etc) and the perpetuation of the Institution of Christianity. That is the rationale behind Christians lying to us about them ending it. And why slavery was thriving well into the nineteenth century of Christianity until a secular concern for "human rights" superseded Christisn ethics

Charles Darwin

I'm not sure what your point is in all this. You seem to be wanting to pigeon-hole me into the position that the sky growing dark after the crucifixion was a miracle, and that if I believe I believe in one miracle then I must believe in all miracle stories. To answer your question, no I don't believe in Father Zeus -- what's the point?

Family Man

Charles, you're ignoring the context of the passages. We're talking about the death of a god incarnate. Coincidentally, at that very moment, skies darken, earthquakes shake the ground, and zombies start walking around. Pretty miraculous stuff. And no one writes about these things until decades after the event.

Yes, CD, it is clear it didn't happen. The gospel writers were punching up the story a bit is all.

Doctor X

Interesting . . . this reminds me of the Simpson's (PBUT) episode where Lucy Lawless guests at a convention. The nerdy scientist asks her some obscure question about why she was riding different horses in a scene in episode blah blah and she responds: "We have been told that whenever a contradiction appears, it was caused by a Wizard."

finally nerdy scientist sits down utterly refuted.

Thus, with this "Deity of the Gaps" [Franchises available.--Ed.]

Well OF COURSE no one else SAW the earthquakes, zombies, black sky . . . because "Deity of the Gaps" just like made it work that way.

One has to imagine a deity with nothing better to do than stitch together internal inconsistencies.

So . . . YES . . . Junior WAS born twice . . . ten years appart . . . and NO ONE noticed the problem . . . though you would think Joseph would get suspicious . . . how many times can a girl "immaculately conceive?"

Maybe the conversation went like this:

--J.D.

Rhea

Luv luv, I was reading back archives on this topic, and I see your arguments from 18 months ago.

It appears that you still don't understand what subjective morality is.

I think you're utterly wrong in your post on many counts. Christianity does not answer the question well and is therefore certainly not the only answer.

What on earth do you mean by subjectivists not progressing? Of course they do. And it's easy to see how.

Observers note that doing things a new way results in more people living better lives, culminating in a better chance for the individual to successfully live a better life herself. So she supports and adopts a new "morality" because observation shows that it results in a more desirable society as evidenced by a safer situation for her.

Quite logical, quite practical, quite useful quite progressive and completely unreligious.

Side note, if you are claiming that Christianity has been responsible for all of the moral "improvements" in history, would you care to go argue with the christians who are lamenting the loss of the perfect and golden UberMoral 1950s?

Biff the unclean

I dunno X, I was at the Gap last weekend looking at shirts. There weren't any gods there. There weren't any decent shirts either. Maybe you are thinking of the "Deity of the Old Navy"?

Charles Darwin

Forgive my slowness, I'm still not sure I understand. Are you saying that the reason that the earthquake and sky darkening did not happen is because, in your estimation, there were too many years between the event and the first recording of the event?

In fact, we do not know when folks starting recording those events. There were no copyrights back then, and there is substantial uncertainty in the dating of the gospels. Secondly, even if we grant a number of intervening years, I fail to see why you think this would mean the events were contrived.

If you don't want to believe that's fine, but you seem to be grasping for arguments here.

Biff the unclean

So you think that there could be an earthquake, an unnatural darkness and the dead would leave their graves and walk around the market place and no one would notice? No one would mention them until 40-100 years later? You think that's what happened?

Family Man

In part, yes. Of course, there was far more to my post than what you've selectively decided to respond to. The authors of the gospels were not writing a biography; they were writing a faith document. In order to make their hero's death more impressive they:[list=1][*]had the skies grow dark (in semi-arid part of the world).[*]had an earthquake occur.[*]had zombies walking around.[*]all at the same time.[*]just as their hero died.[*]even though no one else seemed to notice anything.[/list=1]

Where I come from, that's called telling a whopper. Historians would call it fantastic, and say it's ahistorical, probably a literary embellishment provided by the human author. Anyway you look at it, it's a bit much to swallow <flame deleted>.

And next time, you might want to be a little more comprehensive in your response. It's hard to tell someone he's "grasping for arguments" when you ignore the argument being made.

-DM-

Notes on C. S. Lewis' The Case for Christianity


p.4-7 CSL refers to the "Law of Human Nature" or the idea of "Decent Behavior" (as he now calls it) saying that it is obvious to everyone. According to CSL, different civilizations and different ages have not really had quite different moralities; they have been only slightly different. Therefore, we "are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong." Yet people don�t follow this ideal of right and wrong. "These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
DM We are not forced to believe in anything. We establish our beliefs based on what we accept as evidence. It is not surprising that people everywhere tend to arrive at similar moralities. In interacting with other individuals and other societies, it soon becomes apparent that certain concepts of right and wrong promote the welfare of the individual, of societies in particular, and of humankind in general. The fact that these moralities are different in some rather major ways even though only "slightly different" is quite obvious when one reads the Old Testament, which, as we later discover, CSL holds as a revelation of God. In comparing what we know of the morality codes of early man with the Old Testament, then with the New Testament, then with those of modern times--and comparing these with what we have learned from anthropologists about other cultures--it is quite obvious that whether one considers these differences small or great is a matter only of opinion or semantics. To promote the idea that the presence of this Moral Law and the fact that we don�t live by it--to promote the idea that these two "facts" are the basis of all clear thinking--is not fact at all, but opinion; there is no way of testing or falsifying this belief, therefore it is not fact, but a only a belief.


p.8-12 CSL asserts that the "Moral Law" is not a matter of "instinct."
DM I agree that our concepts of ethics and morality are not instincts, though they can seem to become somewhat "instinctual" over time having been "incorporated" (as the psychologist might say) into the psyche of the individual through learning and relearning. It is apparent, however, that CSL either does not understand the concept of "instinct" or does not use the term correctly. He confuses "instinct" and "impulse."


p.18-19 CSL arbitrarily states that there are only two views of the origin of the universe, the "chance" or "Materialist" view (which he probably means to equate with a scientific view) and the "religious view" (which we will eventually find out he equates with the Christian view).
DM He is mistaken. There are many different "religious" creation myths and at least a few different "scientific" creation theories. The scientific theories are subject to correction and revision; the "religious" theories remain forever unchanged. This is true even though it gets more and more difficult, as time goes on and additional knowledge is gained, for the supporters of religious theories to continue supporting those theories.

p.18-19 CSL proposes that whether there is "something behind" what scientists observe about the universe is not a proper scientific question.
DM He may be correct that the question is not a proper scientific question. But unfortunately for his case, it is probably not a proper question at all. The question cannot be correctly answered by man, at least at present, since it is not yet testable, verifiable, or falsifiable. It seems that the only way that this question could be properly answered would be for this "something" to reveal "itself" to every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth, and then to prove that "it" was the "something" behind the universe. Were this to happen, the question of "what" was behind the universe would still not be fully answered--it would only be moved back one step; the next logical question would be, is there "something" behind this "first something," and if so, "what" is behind this "first something?" As is readily apparent, this kind of questioning gets us involved in an infinite regress. Religion does not answer the question after all; it only speculates as to the answer to the first question by speculating about the existence of a "first something." At some future point, scientists may possibly devise some way of testing whether there is, in fact, "something" behind the universe. If this ever occurs, then the question will become a proper scientific question; when it does, it will cease to be something that religion can speculate about. As Oscar Wilde put it, "science is the record of dead religions."


p. 20 CSL states that man has an inside track on knowledge about the workings of man because he is man.
DM CSL makes this assertion without offering supporting evidence. Psychologists spend a good deal of time attempting to learn something about man by using the methods of science and external observation. If CSL were entirely correct, this sort of observation would be something of a waste of time, since it would be superfluous. The fact is, however, that intuitive (or "internal") knowledge of man has proven to be quite unreliable when compared with knowledge gained through empirical observation. Yes, our knowledge of ourselves is useful, but it is not the whole story, and is often unreliable.


p.20 CSL "We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is some power behind it that makes it what it is."
DM Perhaps that is what at least some of us want to know. But in the end, it might make no difference at all if we were to discover the answer. CSL equated this "power" with a supernatural being who turns out to be none other than the Christian God, as we shall later see. First of all, the universe could "be" without a "power" behind it other than what we can see (i.e., mass and energy). Further, were there a supernatural power, this power could (and most likely would) turn out to be quite different than the Christian God. He/she/it might not give a damn about how we conducted our lives. In any case, this dichotomy between a supernatural power and happenstance for no reason is an arbitrary dichotomy given that the universe might be what it is for a reason other than a supernatural being.

p.21 CSL states "...that power, if it exists, would be not one of the facts but a reality which makes the facts, no mere observation of the facts can find it....The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside us as an influence...trying to get us to behave in a certain way."
DM Again CSL states something that seems obviously questionable and he does this without offering supporting evidence. Science has, many times, discovered the "something" behind an observed fact by initially observing only the seemingly "exterior" facts (e.g., atomic structure). In fact, I would venture to say that this has usually been the case. In any case, whether my assertion is correct or not, CSL�s God has, according to the Bible, revealed himself in person, face to face, with man. This certainly would make it possible to find him, whether by a mere observation of the facts or not, and not only "inside us as an influence" but externally as a reality or fact.


p.21 CSL states: "...I don�t exist on my own, ...I�m under a law."
DM What does being under a law have to do with existing on one�s own? And what does it mean to exist or not exist on ones own? And what is the law under which we allegedly exist? (Keep in mind that the three major so-called revealed religions which are allegedly based on revelations from the same God do not always agree about the details of any law which we might be under.)


p.22 CSL claims to have gotten to "...a Something which is directing the universe and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right...."
DM CSL is a long way from having supported either assertion let alone having proved it.


p.23 CSL "Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen?"
DM Not likely. The greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has known is more likely that of immortality in a perfect heaven administered by a benevolent and perfect God who cares about us.


p.25 CSL "...He was a great artist (for the universe is a very beautiful place)." "[And because of the Moral Law which he has put into us]...we conclude that the Being behind the universe is intensely interested in right conduct--in fair play, unselfishness, and decency."
DM The universe contains both beauty and ugliness. What is and is not beautiful or ugly is "in the eye of the beholder." These are relative terms in any case; what is "beautiful" is only so by comparison to what is "ugly." Unless one believes in absolute values, the same is true of "right conduct"; there can only be "right conduct" by comparison to "wrong conduct." If we had been created by a "something" which had given us such great moral strengths that we were far "better" persons than what we are, there would still be "wrong conduct" in comparison to "right conduct." In fact, many kinds of conduct which are now considered right would probably then be considered wrong conduct.


p.25 CSL "Only a person [as opposed to God] can forgive."
DM This is yet another example of a statement which cannot be tested. It is untrue, however, according to the teachings of some religions, including Christianity.


p.26 CSL According to CSL we have gotten to a power behind the Moral Law and this power is "...more like a mind then [sic] it is anything else."
DM While CSL has attempted to build a case for the "power," he has not done so, as far as I can see, for the "mind." Here he makes a jump from "the power" to the "power more like a mind then [sic] anything else" without looking at any, let alone all, of the various possibilities that would come under the heading "anything else"; this would be essential in order to demonstrate why this power is "more like a mind then [sic] it is anything else."


p.26 CSL. "...if there does exist an absolute goodness it must hate most of what we do."
DM CSL has not made a case for the necessity of this "absolute goodness" hating most of what we do. An "absolute goodness" might hate nothing; "hate" might not be a permissible characteristic of this "absolute goodness." If hate were a permissible characteristic, this "goodness" might hate everything we do, since everything we do might fall at least somewhat short of the standard of "absolute good" held by this "absolute goodness." Perhaps it might hate half of what we do based on the idea that goodness is relative. In other words, we have no idea what portion of our collective behavior this absolute goodness must necessarily hate.


p.26 CSL "That�s the terrible fix we�re in. If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are...hopeless. But if it is, then...our case is hopeless again."
DM This strikes me as being semantic double-talk. CSL has failed to define in what way our efforts are hopeless in the case of a universe not governed by an absolute goodness.


p.27 CSL "...Christianity just doesn�t make any sense until you�ve faced the sort of facts I�ve been describing."
DM Christianity does or doesn�t make sense. This can be determined on its own merits. The basis for making this determination cannot be delineated only by the "facts" that CSL wishes to put forth. The fact is that there are probably some things about Christianity which make sense to some people and there are other facts about Christianity which don�t make sense to these same people. Though what is and is not understood may change in the light of certain facts, there will still be things about Christianity which do and which do not make sense after having faced any set of facts. It cannot possibly be true that Christianity makes no sense at all to every person who has not "faced the sort of facts" which CSL has been describing.


p.27 CSL states a number of "explanations" that Christianity offers for "terrifying facts."
DM None of these are explanations unless by "explanation" CSL means merely that they clarify the meaning of Christian claims. They are certainly not explanations in any real sense as to how we got into our present state of anything let alone our "present state of both hating goodness and loving it." In fact, the Christian view of origins and history have, with regard to many specific "facts," been proven false. Any viewpoint which has been found to be unreliable where it can be tested, is suspect in those areas where it cannot be tested. Furthermore, there is nothing so special about the claims and "explanations" offered by Christianity that makes Christianity more likely to contain more truth than, for example, Islam. In addition, what is "terrifying" is, again, a personal matter. I don�t find these ideas terrifying and I don�t think that I am, by any means, alone in this.


p.27 CSL "...the Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort."
DM This is a poor choice of words; strictly speaking, if something is unspeakable, then we cannot talk about it at all. If CSL means merely that Christianity is a great comfort, or perhaps the greatest comfort of all, he needs to remember that many religions make this same claim.


p.31 CSL "If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all of these religions, even the queerest ones, contain some hint of truth."
DM Notice the not-so-subtle shift here between the "main point" in the first sentence to "some hint of truth" in the second sentence. An atheist is free, in fact more free, to think that there is a "hint of truth" in a religion other than Christianity than is a Christian. An atheist has no belief in a supernatural being--no belief in a religion. This absence of a religious prejudice makes him more free than one who has a preconceived idea of what "truth" is. If you are either a Christian or an atheist, you will believe that the "main point" of all religions other than Christianity is a mistake; the atheist simply carries it one step farther than the Christian and includes Christianity in the list of mistakes.


p.32 CSL "[If no creative power or being designed the human brain for the express purpose of thinking]...how can I trust my thinking to be true? ...Unless I believe in God, I can�t believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."
DM There are several errors here. We can trust our thinking because it has proven to be trustworthy--it is as simple as that. We think. Our thinking tends to work quite well in everyday life. Over time, we analyze and study the thinking process and are able to formulate rules of logic. We improve our thinking processes. A designer is irrelevant to trustworthiness; a designer would not guarantee trustworthiness. The designer could have been mistaken, or imperfect--even purposefully imperfect! That there are persons whose thought processes are untrustworthy, such as those who appear to be hopelessly insane or mentally deficient, is evidence against design by an "absolute goodness."


p.33 CSL "...a God...who hates hatred...."
DM A God who hates hating would be an oxymoronic God.

p.33 DM The universe may seem to be "so cruel and unjust," but just and unjust are relative terms and, as far as social scientists are concerned, the idea of justice emanates in man. A man calls a line crooked because he has an idea of a straight line, and that idea comes not from God, but from seeing a straight line. That the idea of justice could arise in a like manner is as adequate an explanation as that the idea came from a god.


p.34-5 DM It is not the same thing to talk about an argument for or against God as it is to talk about an argument for or against belief in God. What we are talking about here are arguments for and against belief in God or a belief in the existence of God. If CSL�s only argument "against God," as he puts it, collapses if he cannot say that the world is unjust, then his argument wasn�t a good one in the first place.


p.35 CSL "...atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...."
DM By "the whole universe has no meaning" I assume that CSL means the universe as a whole, not the whole universe. If man cannot discover the meaning of the universe as a whole, then for all practical purposes, it has no meaning. On the other hand, there are aspects of life in the universe which can be given meaning by man himself. We can know that the universe as a whole has no meaning (or that we haven�t discovered any meaning in it) by the fact that we do find (or assign) "meaning" in certain aspects of life. Again, this is a relative matter. Through experience, we differentiate meaning and the lack of meaning.

p.35 CSL "Very well then, atheism is too simple.... It is no good asking for a simple religion. After all, real things aren�t simple."
DM I see. Atheism must be false, because it is too simple, and simple religions are also false, and only a complicated religion (Christianity?) could be true because real things aren�t simple. This argument is simply too simple. Again, simple and not-simple are relative matters. Something only seems simple or complicated by comparison to something else.

p.35 CSL "Both these are boy�s philosophies."
DM This is an ad hominem argument which has no place in the body of an allegedly serious discussion of Christian evidences.

p.36 CSL "Another thing I�ve noticed about reality is that, besides being difficult, it�s odd: it isn�t neat, it isn�t what you expect."
DM "Difficult," "odd," and "neat" are all relative terms. And if my reality, as it turned out, were often not what I expected, then I would think that my expectations were off. The example that CSL gives of what one would expect with regard to the universe depends, it seems to me, on your frame of reference to begin with. The reality is exactly what I would expect since I tend to believe in the permanence of energy/matter in the universe, and since I tend to believe in the "big-bang" theory for now. If that is not what CSL expected, then his frame of reference must not only be different, but also unreliable.


p.36 CSL "Reality, in fact, is always something you couldn�t have guessed. That�s one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It�s a religion you couldn�t have guessed."
DM I wish that CSL were still here so that he could explain this apparently absurd statement. It seems to me that if reality could never be guessed, then scientific theories could not be proven true. And while it might possibly be true that Christianity could not have been "guessed," it certainly could have been fabricated. In any event, CSL here violates one of the most basic rules of logic. Even if it were true that reality can never be guessed, it does not follow that everything, or any one thing, that cannot be guessed is therefore reality. That something could not be guessed is an unreliable criterion for belief.


p.36-7 CSL "There are two views that face all the facts. One is the Christian view.... The other view is called Dualism."
DM In the same paragraph, CSL proves his own statement false by saying: "I personally think that next to Christianity Dualism is the manliest and most sensible creed on the market. But it has a catch in it." If there are other creeds on the market, then unless CSL has looked into all of them (and he could never know if he had unless he were omniscient) then he would not know that Christianity and Dualism are the two manliest and most sensible. And if Dualism has a catch in it, then it doesn�t face all the facts as CSL said previously that it did. (Or course, one can see where all this is leading, only Christianity can be reality, but he�s wrong that it wasn�t expected.) And Christianity is a kind of Dualism anyway: there is God (the ultimate power) and Satan (the lesser power emanating from God).


p.38 CSL "...wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in a wrong way. You can be good for the mere sake of goodness: you can�t be bad for the mere sake of badness."
DM Again, these are assertions that seem not to be self-evident and that are not warranted on the basis of the evidence provided. One could also say, given the (alleged) evil nature of man, "good turns out to be evil gone at in the wrong way. You can do evil for the sake of evil but you cannot do good for the sake of goodness."


p.39 CSL "To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence, and will are in themselves good."
DM To be bad, or good, or anywhere along the scale of goodness-badness, one must only exist and do something which someone thinks is good or bad or whatever. Intelligence and will are not really requirements. And who says that intelligence, will and existence are "good." Certainly not the Christian God. The Christian Bible puts will, intelligence, philosophy, and the like, in a bad light, (i.e., not good). The Christian Bible seems to find nothing quite so "good" as faith (i.e., belief without evidence or argument) which puts CSL�s efforts to support Christianity with intelligence and argumentation in something of a bad light.


p.39 CSL "...the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. The powers which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by goodness. All the things which enable man to be effectively bad are in themselves good things--resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself."
DM Again, these are assertions and not facts. There is no reason that I can see for wanting to believe that some event that we would now define as evil did not occur in history prior to some event that we would now define as good, or vice versa. In fact, the very first story in the Christian Bible that concerns an action of man has to do with man doing exactly what God had prohibited (and God must therefore have defined evil). And again, CSL does not seem to see that good and bad, cleverness and lack of it, etc., only get their meaning in a relativistic setting--they are not absolutes.


p.40 DM A good God who creates a good power who ends up being a "Dark Power" might just as well have created a Dark Power to begin with. An "absolute goodness" could not, in the first place, create a good power that ends up being a dark power. In the second place, an absolute goodness who also possessed the quality of omniscience (all-knowing, past, present and future) as it is said that the Christian God does, would have known better ahead of time. In the third place, an absolute goodness who possessed the quality of omnipotence (all-powerful) as it is said the Christian God does, could do away with this Dark Power at any time, or better yet, make this Dark Power into a Good Power.

p.42 CSL "But there�s a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all of your reasoning power comes: you couldn�t be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source."
DM CSL has not brought up the omnipotence of God. Unless God is the ultimate reasoning power, which is apparently what CSL is assuming, because God is the alleged source of our reasoning power does not mean that he could never be wrong. Just because a Chess-master teaches me to play Chess, and although he may beat me 999 games out of a thousand, it doesn�t mean that I might not win an occasional game. The same is true of disagreeing with God--man might occasionally be right even if God were the source of man�s reasoning powers. And again, God as the source of man�s reasoning powers only moves the problem back one step. Still to be determined would be the source of God�s reasoning powers.

p.43-44 CSL "God designed the human machine to run on himself. He himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There isn�t any other. That�s why it�s just no good asking God to make us happy in our own way without bothering about religion. ...That is the key to history. ...Some fatal flaw always brings the selfish and cruel to the top and it all slides back into misery and ruin. ...They�re trying to run it on the wrong juice. That�s what Satan has done to humans."
DM Proof? Evidence? Again, assertions which are not self-evident and are without supporting evidence. Considering the diversity of religious belief in the universe, considering the number of different gods that man has seemed to use to explain the universe, it looks rather that God (the Christian God) has failed to make himself known throughout his creation, and has failed to instill his values (as opposed to Allah�s values or Satan�s values for example) in all men he created. This is an indictment of God, not of man or Satan! And how did "Spirit" get into the picture? The existence of Spirit is not self-evident.

p.44 CSL "Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man [Jesus] who goes about talking as if He was [sic] God."
DM According to the Christian religion, this is a fact. One might ask, however, why it was that God waited so long to first create man, and then why he chose the Jewish people to be his chosen people (and receive special blessings that favored them over other people He had also created), and then why he waited so long to send Jesus (and what provision He made for the salvation of those who lived before Jesus came into the world), and then why the ministry of Jesus was such a local ministry (and what happened to those who died without hearing of Jesus), and why the authors of the life of Jesus couldn�t keep their historical facts straight, etc., etc. All in all, these are questions which bear on the integrity of the Christian God--and for which man deserves an answer.


p.45 CSL "This man [Jesus] ... either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He wasn�t either a lunatic or a fiend: [sic] and consequently...I have to accept the view that He was and is God."
DM This is not a simple either-or situation. The two alternatives offered are not mutually exclusive and they are not exhaustive. Here are some of the possibilities (there may or may not be other possibilities):
1) Jesus was Lord.
2) Jesus was a liar.
3) Jesus was a lunatic.
4) Jesus was both Lord and a liar.
5) Jesus was both Lord and a lunatic.
6) Jesus was both a liar and a lunatic.
7) Jesus was Lord as well as a liar and an lunatic.
8) Jesus was neither Lord, liar, nor lunatic, or any combination thereof. He was simply mistaken about himself.
9) His "biographers" lied.
10) His "biographers" were lunatics.
11) His "biographers" were lunatics who lied.
12) His "biographers" neither lied, nor were they lunatics. They were simply mistaken in what they wrote.
And no, it is not obvious that Jesus was not a lunatic. And no, CSL does not have to accept the view that Jesus is God--he could continue looking for another likely explanation.


p.48 CSL "That�s what has to be believed."
DM No, it does not have to be believed. It doesn�t have to be believed any more than any other religion has to be believed.

p.53 CSL "Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority."
DM Perhaps at first and in situations where authenticity cannot be easily checked, but where a belief is open to experience we do not normally continue to believe things which no longer jibe with experience and/or with reason.


p.54 CSL. "That is why the Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or--if they think there isn�t--at least they hope to deserve approval from good men."
DM CSL doesn�t make it very clear, here, whether he is talking about the Christian or the others. The word "they" is the clue that he means the non-Christians. Again, he has not exhausted the possibilities. I am an atheist. I do good not because I hope to please God or men, but because I believe in the principle of doing good. In addition, it often makes me feel good about myself to do good. And these considerations do not exhaust the possibilities.


p.55-56 DM CSL offers a rather weak explanation for why it is that God landed in an enemy-occupied world in disguise to start a secret society to undermine the devil rather than landing in force and getting the job done. He gives us the Christian viewpoint as to why it is that God is delaying his invasion, his coming without disguise. "God is holding back to give us a chance. It won�t last for ever. We must take it or leave it." Unfortunately for the sake of his argument, the Bible itself teaches that there will never be a time when all men will have "taken it." Therefore, no matter when God were to come again, some will be lost. As a matter of fact, the more God delays, the greater the number of those who will ultimately be lost. The sooner God comes and gets on with his job, the better for mankind as a whole.

* * *

And now for some ad hominem argumentation of my own. The front cover of The Case for Christianity asserts that C. S. Lewis is "the master apologist." He is an amateur; I have certainly read better. He seems unsure of the difference between belief and fact. He demonstrates that he does not understand the rules of logic (or chooses to ignore them). The philosophy of C. S. Lewis is truly "a boy�s philosophy."