intending to persuade Christians to become Atheists. I'm not arguing
against Christianity as a whole, I am simply arguing against a quote
that I find slightly disturbing from the great writer C.S. Lewis.
I found this quote on someone's myspace which made me think that
this person might be a person who would argue against an atheist any
day. I feel the need to make a stand against something I highly
disagree with. Especially something that is directed towards people
like me. At any rate, I could not help but disagree more with Lewis's
statements.
In C.S. Lewis's The Case for Christianity there is a passage where
Lewis makes the argument that one must believe in God to rely on
thought. His premise is that thought had to have derived from some
intelligence behind the universe because thought includes an activity
that occurs in the brain. Therefore Lewis concludes that in order for
the brain to do such a specific and certain activity, there must have
been some design for the precise process that thought creates in the
brain. Here is the direct quote from C.S. Lewis's book.
"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative
mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of
thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for
physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way,
this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if
so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a
milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map
of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't
trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to
be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot
believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."
I've come across a critic who I think makes a good point to why Lewis's
argument seems quite absurd. This is from an article titled The Atheist
That Never Really Was by the critic Patrick Inniss.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis's premise here - that if minds were not designed by God, they
must be unreliable for thinking - is almost laughable in view of the
sadly over-abundant evidence that, designed by God or not, brains are
obviously unreliable instruments. It is only with the utmost care that
humans can hope to arrive at the correct answer to even the most
rudimentary problems.
Furthermore, saying that it is necessary to believe in God to have
faith in the reliability of thought is hardly a proof for God. It is no
more than saying that you must have faith in Intel or Motorola in order
to accept the results produced by your computer. Believing in God does
nothing to resolve the essential question of the reliability of our
perception of reality, which is really the question here. This issue is
one of the classic questions of philosophy, to which Lewis's answer
might be characterized as "I think, therefore I believe."
I wonder how Lewis would respond if I were to tell him that this
premise is correct: since God did not design his mind, it is spewing
forth all sorts of nonsense, including his unwarranted belief in a
supreme being. Nature has for some reason programmed it that way.
Ultimately, Lewis's appeal to Christians lies in his defense of
Christianity through the use of rational arguments. By not appealing to
faith or the divine word of the Bible, Lewis strives to put
Christianity, and therefore Christians, on the same intellectual levels
with science and rationalists. This approach is soothing to believers
suffering from feelings of inferiority, who rarely note that Lewis's
logic immediately collapses under even the most cursory critique.
Consequently, Lewis has become one of the most widely read Christian
writers. He attempts to provide reason for faith. But in reality, his
reason will be accepted by few if any who do not already possess faith.
http://www.secularhumanism...org/library/aah/inniss_8_..2.htm
must be unreliable for thinking - is almost laughable in view of the
sadly over-abundant evidence that, designed by God or not, brains are
obviously unreliable instruments. It is only with the utmost care that
humans can hope to arrive at the correct answer to even the most
rudimentary problems.
Furthermore, saying that it is necessary to believe in God to have
faith in the reliability of thought is hardly a proof for God. It is no
more than saying that you must have faith in Intel or Motorola in order
to accept the results produced by your computer. Believing in God does
nothing to resolve the essential question of the reliability of our
perception of reality, which is really the question here. This issue is
one of the classic questions of philosophy, to which Lewis's answer
might be characterized as "I think, therefore I believe."
I wonder how Lewis would respond if I were to tell him that this
premise is correct: since God did not design his mind, it is spewing
forth all sorts of nonsense, including his unwarranted belief in a
supreme being. Nature has for some reason programmed it that way.
Ultimately, Lewis's appeal to Christians lies in his defense of
Christianity through the use of rational arguments. By not appealing to
faith or the divine word of the Bible, Lewis strives to put
Christianity, and therefore Christians, on the same intellectual levels
with science and rationalists. This approach is soothing to believers
suffering from feelings of inferiority, who rarely note that Lewis's
logic immediately collapses under even the most cursory critique.
Consequently, Lewis has become one of the most widely read Christian
writers. He attempts to provide reason for faith. But in reality, his
reason will be accepted by few if any who do not already possess faith.
http://www.secularhumanism...org/library/aah/inniss_8_..2.htm
