Views: 4215

Comment by Dustin on August 22, 2012 at 11:08pm

He is supposed to be one of the most 'sophisticated' of the theologians and apologists?  

Comment by Dustin on August 22, 2012 at 11:18pm

To put it in the way I see this, it is like he is basically saying that he cannot personally understand a way in which the human brain could have evolved into an organ of which has a by product of reasoning and thinking rationally.  So therefore, it is impossible to use such a brain to come to the conclusion that God does not exist because by it's very nature, the brain is not rational and cannot reason.  BUT, if 'goddidit', then it all makes sense because it was designed to reason and think rationally as that was it's purpose.  

In other words, AT BEST he is proving some loose form of agnosticism.  Because he could still have such a useless brain that can't reason or be trusted and still believe in a God.  But if he can't trust the conclusion of atheism due to such a brain, he surely can't trust the conclusion that a god exists...but he conveniently leaves that part out.  

Comment by Dale Headley on August 23, 2012 at 4:18am

Let me get this straight: Lewis can't trust his brain to believe in atheism; but he can trust it to believe in God.  I trust my brain, though, and it's telling me that C.S. was full of BS. 

Comment by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on August 23, 2012 at 5:54am

The use of the word "disbelieve" at the end of this weak argument is misleading. It is used because he assumes that god exists and that people choose to then "disbelieve".
This is what he and many theists think Atheism means. Atheism is not holding a belief in any god existing. According to his logic he must also believe in the existence of all the known gods becasue he says he can never use thought to "disbelieve" in god. If he cannot trust the arguments leading to being an Atheist in the case of Allah or Zues he must believe in them too.
It is just another case of a christian apologist misunderstanding argument (and a poor one at that) as evidence that is deduced by the use of what they understand Reason to be when in fact it is not Reason but Faith. Maybe he spent too much time down that rabbit hole ! It is a piss weak argument.

Comment by onyango makagutu on August 23, 2012 at 5:57am

If he can trust his brain to believe in God, he surely should be able to trust his brain not to believe in the same.

Comment by kOrsan on August 23, 2012 at 7:09am

From wikipedia:

[CS Lewis] was a novelist, poet, academic, medievalist, literary critic, essayist, lay theologian and Christian apologist

Translation: He had a degree in jackshit.

Comment by Rob Lippmann on August 23, 2012 at 8:33am

Hmmm.  Comrade Lewis seems to think thoughts happen due to random combinations of chemicals reacting in the brain.  He seems to have forgotten that thinking is triggered by external stimuli, either through sensory input or by other thoughts also generated by outside sources.  The action of both internal and external stimuli determine the path thoughts take, not random chance.  And when the stimuli for thoughts about religion are good honest evidence and unbiased critical thinking untouched by personal concerns, atheism is usually the default outcome. 

It's a sad commentary on the state of Christian apologetics when this is the best spokesperson Christianity can come up with.  No challenge at all.  Where's a modern Origen when you need him?

Comment by James Cox on August 23, 2012 at 1:16pm

Lewis has been used as the poster child of christian apogetics for some time. They would have clamped onto any one who seems to argue for christian belief. Sadly, I have known many folks that believe, but then would feel more comfortable if they had a more 'intellectual' standing. A few times I have been with folks that believe deeply, but might not be able to speek to the details. Pointing to their 'guy', lets them off the hook for using their minds.

A few years ago, a fellow I was working for gave me a book 'The Case for God'. The book starts off with the author claiming to have been an atheist, but as you read, he states that he 'wanted to believe'. I was raised in a Catholic family, but it was 'expected' of me that I would be Catholic! I never 'wanted to believe', but I did want to understand. Sadly 'understanding' seemed unlikely, and the more I explored some of the ideas, the less impressed I became.  


Comment by Arcus on August 23, 2012 at 4:03pm

The quickness of which the statement is dismissed here is vexatious. While I certainly disagree with Lewis' arguments, they are not to be trifled with.

Comment by Richard E. Robertson on August 23, 2012 at 5:07pm

My own reply, Arcus, wasn'tintended to be dismissive. I have noticed more than one ad hominem responses to him though. It's better to rebut his specific claims - as they are stated - and not attack his credentials or attack new straw men by adding to his statements. His reasoning is flawed, but it's important to identify WHY it is flawed.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service