tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post116172889868783357..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: C. S. Lewis on Subjectivism and the argument from evilVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69717067568930033362011-12-28T01:38:59.790-07:002011-12-28T01:38:59.790-07:00In arguing about the problem of evil and suffering...In arguing about the problem of evil and suffering I use to try to place God in a human category and say He must behave a certain way. What I failed to take into consideration is the holiness of God. Holiness when applied to God not only refers to moral purity and perfection but to everything that sets God apart from His creation and His creatures. Holiness is God's essence. It's who He is. God is set apart from His creation and transcendent. He's distinct. We are to imitate God in His holiness in certain ways but there are also ways we are not to imitate God. We cannot be like God in every way. He alone is God and He therefore has rights and prerogatives that we don't have. Just to name a few ways I'm not like God: God is infinite in wisdom, God is all-powerful, God is sovereign, God is self-sufficient, God is all-knowing. When I try to be like God in every way it leads to pride and arrogance. He is the Creator and I am the creature.<br /><br />The Bible tells us that God is love. It doesn't say He is ONLY love. And while God is love it's a holy love. For the Bible says that God is holy, holy, holy. Not only this but the Bible also speaks of a holy hatred that God has. So, it's my contention that the problem of evil and suffering doesn't even get started. For God's love isn't merely a human love but a holy love. This isn't the same omnibenevolence that we try to ascribe to God. For God has a holy hatred as well. Nonetheless, He is completely holy and deserves our worship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68729538903427126092011-12-24T05:32:54.345-07:002011-12-24T05:32:54.345-07:00@CQC
If moral realism is false, all forms of Thei...@CQC<br /><br />If moral realism is false, all forms of Theism collapse. Stuff like divine conceptualism is a form of theism, which (I presume) would say justice is not some private idea, but is identified to a particular though of God's, etc.<br /><br />Lewis's original contention was the empirical fact of people saying or believing these things is weird, regardless of whether these beliefs are justified or not. Of course if believing stuff in general is weird on naturalism (thanks to AfR or whatever) then beliefs about the meaninglessness of the universe are included. But given Lewis is targetting just these sorts of beliefs (and analogizes similarly) he seems to think, even if AfR or whatever is granted, we shouldn't get people thinking the universe is meaningless. And this is laughably easy to show implausible.<br /><br />And you (and Reppert, I think) are missing the dialectic wrt. subjectivism/non-realism move. I don't need to argue for moral subjectivism private idea stuff because if moral realism is true, then I can run the argument from evil as usual. Lewis's reply in the passage replies on all non-thestic accounts of moral objectivity/moral realism are implausible (which is something *he* needs to argue). <br /><br />And, again, if you think moral realism is false, that entails theism is false. So the meta-ethical views that don't let you run (moral) problems of evil are inhospitable to theism anyway. So atheist has a win-win.<br /><br />Moral concerns could rebut the problem of evil: something like "if atheism is true, then justice can only be a private idea, but we know that justice isn't this, so not Atheism". But Lewis is presenting it like some judo-throw undercutter. Also this sort of 'moral argument trumping' makes lots of appearances in apologetics, I've never seen it used in the philosophical literature. I think that is because it is meritless.Thrasymachushttp://www.thepolemicalmedic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87270778721260709272011-12-23T12:30:00.337-07:002011-12-23T12:30:00.337-07:00The reductio requires that you establish that a pa...The reductio requires that you establish that a particular conception of goodness is essential to Christianity. I think it's a mistake to just say "no problem, it's just a reductio." Even if you argue that a theist must accept an objective standard of right and wrong, you then show that the standard that God supposedly violates by allowing the type of evil you are highlighting is a standard that theists, in virtue of being Christians, are committed to. That's a bit of a demanding chore, in my book. <br /><br />If you're a subjectivist, you can't say "This is the true standard of right and wrong, God violates that in virtue of allowing the evil he does allow, therefore, an omnipotent being, if he exists, can't be good." What you have to say is that Christians are committed to the standard that God is violating. Showing that commitment on the part of Christians is bound to be difficult. <br /><br />A two or three years back on DI I got into some dialogue with Calvinists, in which I argued that a God who predestined some to heaven and some to hell would not be a good being in any recognizable sense. I still think that's right, but they argued that what it is for God to be good is that God's actions promote his own glory, and by glory they mean that God acted in such a way as to be able to exercise as many of his attributes as possible. God's goodness, as they understood it, required him to required him to exercise both his merciful forgiveness of sinners, which he does by giving them saving grace and welcoming them into heaven, but also by leaving people in sin and exercising his attribute of hostility to and punishment toward sin, which he exercises by punishing people eternally in hell. <br /><br />I still think that this leaves us with too big of a disconnect between goodness as we understand in human relationships and goodness as practiced by God. But making that case as someone who believes in an objective moral standard is difficult enough. Making such a case if you are an ethical subjectivist strikes me as being just plain impossible.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46984749244130050182011-12-23T09:59:14.677-07:002011-12-23T09:59:14.677-07:00Victor they can say they are doing a reductio. Not...Victor they can say they are doing a reductio. Not a big deal.<br /><br />OTOH, this constant conflation of atheism and crude materialism is inexcusable, especially with Lewis, who knew Russell and others (Russell was no crude materialist). I am an atheist, but fine with meaningfulness, morality, and such. <br /><br />I see why Lewis is not taken seriously outside apologetics.parboujhttp://parb.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10962226493700077312011-12-22T20:19:06.715-07:002011-12-22T20:19:06.715-07:00If my argument against the existence of God is tha...If my argument against the existence of God is that if the universe is unjust, then God does not exist, then if it is not objectively true that the universe is unjust, the argument fails. <br /><br />One possible rebuttal to any argument from evil is to reject that moral standard that is used to generate the argument. Calvinists do that to me all the time.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89204393021250039172011-12-22T13:21:14.959-07:002011-12-22T13:21:14.959-07:00BDK:Note putting evidence at the top is quite purp...BDK:<i>Note putting evidence at the top is quite purposeful.</i><br /><br />BDK, what is evidence as a concept according to you? And why is philosophy ranked below evidence and math/logic on your list? Questions like <i>"What is evidence? What does it consist of? What ought not be counted as evidence? etc."</i> are philosophical questions through and through.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91403334928972618092011-12-22T11:52:08.302-07:002011-12-22T11:52:08.302-07:00"Kindly explain why you regard Lewis's ph..."Kindly explain why you regard Lewis's philosophy as "lousy"."<br /><br />Saying that the idea of justice is meaningless because the universe is unjust is as absurd as saying that the idea of triangles is meaningless because the universe is not a triangle. <br /><br />Lewis was a lousy philosopher when he was an atheist. He was just as lousy a philosopher when he became a Christian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9363465591083280342011-12-22T08:31:03.384-07:002011-12-22T08:31:03.384-07:00Matteo wrote:
"If you've got the facts an...Matteo wrote:<br />"If you've got the facts and logic on your side, pound on the facts and logic. If you don't have the facts and logic on your side, pound on the table."<br /><br />A great quote.<br /><br />Of course, if you just focus on evidence and reason, people will fall asleep.<br /><br />We could come up with nearly infinite variants of the quote, a hierarchy of side doors people will slip through if they don't have evidence...<br /><br />evidence--><br />logic/mathematics--><br />philosophy--><br />appeal to authority--><br />table pounding--><br />person pounding (ad hominem)<br /><br />Note putting evidence at the top is quite purposeful.<br /><br />Have a great holiday everyone. I've missed posting here, but it has helped my productivity.<br /><br />I have noticed that each character here still is playing their proper role in my absence. :)Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24762372160148557412011-12-22T02:01:49.360-07:002011-12-22T02:01:49.360-07:00"So if you believe that things like justice a..."So if you believe that things like justice are only private ideas, it is Theism that collapses, and an argument from evil is rendered unnecessary."<br /><br />But that's false. One form of theism collapses, sure, but others thrive. There are nominalist theists, theists who identify goodness with the ideas of God, and so on. "What is goodness?" is a debate even among theists. But what's important here is that Lewis is asserting that his argument against theism collapses, and it seems to do that: if his argument against God is that the universe isn't just, but what is or isn't just is just a private idea, then it could be that this universe is some other being's (namely God's) idea of justice after all.<br /><br />Also: the statement "justice is just a private idea" is something needed to be argued for. And if the existence of justice beyond private idea is for Lewis more obvious than its non-existence, and of this doesn't square with atheism, then he actually has a reason to reject atheism on the spot.<br /><br />"But it is laughably easy to give an account of how (presuming a meaningless atheistic universe) you would get people believing and saying things like "the universe is meaningless"."<br /><br />Not really. Belief and the mental is pretty damn bothersome (intractable, arguably) on a meaningless, atheistic (and presumably materialistic) universe. Maybe you meant that, if we accept these things as a given, we can come up with evo-psych stories of why people say or believe this and that. But, ignoring that lingering problem, you're setting the bar too low. You can come up with plenty of things people say or do on evo-psych. Having a rational reason for their doing or saying it is a lot trickier. I don't think even Lewis would have denied that you can have some people saying or even believing "the universe is meaningless", since after all he did exactly that for a while. It's how you justify saying or believing it that's the problem.<br /><br />"Lewis suggests that you need to say there 'really is' justice to run an argument from evil. If you don't, the argument collapsed."<br /><br />What seems to be going on is that Lewis is pointing out that 'the universe is objectively unjust' and 'justice is all in the head' are incompatible claims. You simply can't maintain both. Now, you give two ways this can be gotten around, and I don't think either work.<br /><br />"1) it is very easy to reformulate a similar argument in non-moral terms. The widespread pain of sentient beings, even if not "evil", may appear jolly surprising on Theism."<br /><br />First, I don't think it's fair to knock Lewis and imply that he's wrong about an argument being a failure, then offer up what really is a very different argument in its place as proof he was wrong. "Injustice" and "pain" have a few things in common, but they're still very far apart. Likewise, replacing what was a moral argument with a non-moral argument is quite a change.<br /><br />Maybe what you mean is "Okay, Lewis is right about the argument for atheism that he gave failing. But I have another argument for atheism that's broadly similar!" But so what? I doubt Lewis even suspected he shot down all possible arguments for atheism by shooting down one, or even similar ones. But one he found personally persuasive, and which seems pretty popular in some quarters, fails.<br /><br />"So if you believe that things like justice are only private ideas, it is Theism that collapses, and an argument from evil is rendered unnecessary."<br /><br />As I said before: first, "justice is only a private idea" becomes something you need to argue for, and you end up with a vastly different argument than Lewis was originally working with. Second, even on the personal level, if you do believe that justice is not a private idea... well, now you have a problem. And if justice must be a private idea on atheism, you're pushed to sacrifice atheism.CQCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61367204538135452732011-12-22T00:55:37.851-07:002011-12-22T00:55:37.851-07:00Sorry, Thrasymachus wins the blog this week.
Shut...Sorry, Thrasymachus wins the blog this week.<br /><br />Shut 'er down and start up again in ought twelve.Staircaseghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02647353730607650698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-113240522131943762011-12-22T00:37:20.441-07:002011-12-22T00:37:20.441-07:00Ben
May you and your family have a great time over...Ben<br />May you and your family have a great time over the festive season.<br /><br />CheersPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37983142234135636892011-12-21T23:32:08.323-07:002011-12-21T23:32:08.323-07:00God be with you Bob!
Oh & Happy New Year to y...God be with you Bob!<br /><br />Oh & Happy New Year to you Paps.<br /><br />Peace & Grace to all of you here.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68558628355602513422011-12-21T22:54:52.069-07:002011-12-21T22:54:52.069-07:00@Matteo
I said it was "laughably easy" ...@Matteo<br /><br />I said it was "laughably easy" to demonstrate Lewis is wrong. But I didn't just say it and leave it there. I then provided a back-of-the-envelope demonstrating this fact. You complained, went on a bit of inaccurate and sub-par psychologizing, and neglected to rebut either the example I offered nor offer any support for Lewis's contention.<br /><br />I also said this passage was philosophically dire. But I didn't just say it and leave it there. I offered a variety of criticisms both of the arguments offered, and of how the passage was structured, suggested it was equivocating over 'meaning' etc.<br /><br />You haven't responded to any of this. Instead (and with no discernible hint of irony) you decided to on a splentic outpouring of vitriol about how gnu-atheits (I'm not one, by the way) say all arguments are wrong, some off-target psychologizing about how I think all theistic arguments are obviously false, how folks like me spend all their time rhetorically 'pounding this fists on the table' instead of engaging with the issues (Matt 7:3, bro).<br /><br />Not only did you fail to support any of these claims (which are also, as it happens, "laughably easy" to refute) you've also not offered anything substantive wrt either what Lewis wrote or my criticisms.<br /><br />Please raise your game, and put up or shut up.Thrasymachushttp://www.thepolemicalmedic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68077628124882020682011-12-21T22:42:15.089-07:002011-12-21T22:42:15.089-07:00@unkleE:
Unlike Thrasymachus, I still think the ...@unkleE:<br /><br /><i><br />Unlike Thrasymachus, I still think the argument is reasonable. Yes, we can find many ways that all sorts of beliefs arose in a naturalistic universe, but I still haven't seen any that shows how ethical statements like This world is evil" are objectively true.<br /><br />And equally, no way that the argument from evil works unless "This world is evil" is objectively true.<br /><br />I can only conclude that evil can never be an argument against the existence of God, but is nevertheless an enormous problem to anyone who believes in a good God.</i><br /><br />If we accept there are ways we can get to beliefs like "the universe is cruel and meaningless", then that means one half of Lewis's argument in this passage is wrong. He's asserting if atheism were true, we should never even come to think about the universe being meaningless, regardless of whether it is true.<br /><br />On the more 'standard' moral argument reply, I repeat my claim that this misunderstands the dialectic. There either are moral facts/objective moral values, or there aren't.<br /><br />a) If there aren't objective moral values, you can't run a problem of evil (although you can run an argument from pain). But you don't need any such arguments, for if we grant there aren't objective moral values, then God (an objectively morally perfect being) cannot possibly exist. <br /><br />b) If there are objective moral values, you can run an argument from evil as usual.<br /><br />So either Atheist has an argument from evil, or a concession that God cannot possibly exist.Thrasymachushttp://www.thepolemicalmedic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64390623879372293502011-12-21T22:38:11.332-07:002011-12-21T22:38:11.332-07:00Bob
The Anthropic Principle or known more widely ...Bob<br /><br />The Anthropic Principle or known more widely by its idiom, 'fine-tuning of the universe', are loved by theists, as they assert a place for a god in amongst the crevices of knowledge.<br />As Wiki notes: "The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of discouraging the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The anthropic principle is often criticized for lacking falsifiability and therefore critics of the anthropic principle may point out that the anthropic principle is a non-scientific concept, even though the weak anthropic principle, "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist",[5] is "easy" to support in mathematics and philosophy, i.e. it is a tautology or truism. However, building a substantive argument based on a tautological foundation is problematic. Stronger variants of the anthropic principle are not tautologies and thus make claims considered controversial by some and that are contingent upon empirical verification.<br /><br />Steven J Gould compared the claim that the universe is fine-tuned [use of the anthropic principle] for the benefit of our kind of life to saying that sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into modern hotdog buns, or saying that ships had been invented to house barnacles. These critics cite the vast physical, fossil, genetic, and other biological evidence consistent with life having been fine-tuned through natural selection to adapt to the physical and geophysical environment in which life exists. Life appears to have adapted to physics, and not vice versa.<br /><br />And the very best of the festive season for you and your family, too, Bob. See you in 2012.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49811186488969752152011-12-21T22:37:54.180-07:002011-12-21T22:37:54.180-07:00Bob
The Anthropic Principle or known more widely ...Bob<br /><br />The Anthropic Principle or known more widely by its idiom, 'fine-tuning of the universe', are loved by theists, as they assert a place for a god in amongst the crevices of knowledge.<br />As Wiki notes: "The anthropic principle has given rise to some confusion and controversy, partly because the phrase has been applied to several distinct ideas. All versions of the principle have been accused of discouraging the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The anthropic principle is often criticized for lacking falsifiability and therefore critics of the anthropic principle may point out that the anthropic principle is a non-scientific concept, even though the weak anthropic principle, "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist",[5] is "easy" to support in mathematics and philosophy, i.e. it is a tautology or truism. However, building a substantive argument based on a tautological foundation is problematic. Stronger variants of the anthropic principle are not tautologies and thus make claims considered controversial by some and that are contingent upon empirical verification.<br /><br />Steven J Gould compared the claim that the universe is fine-tuned [use of the anthropic principle] for the benefit of our kind of life to saying that sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into modern hotdog buns, or saying that ships had been invented to house barnacles. These critics cite the vast physical, fossil, genetic, and other biological evidence consistent with life having been fine-tuned through natural selection to adapt to the physical and geophysical environment in which life exists. Life appears to have adapted to physics, and not vice versa.<br /><br />And the very best of the festive season for you and your family, too, Bob. See you in 2012.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49807362360693124392011-12-21T21:24:01.438-07:002011-12-21T21:24:01.438-07:00But it is laughably easy to give an account of how...<em>But it is laughably easy to give an account of how (presuming a meaningless atheistic universe) you would get people believing and saying things like "the universe is meaningless".</em><br /><br />What is it with these atheists? When they're presented with an argument you'll never catch them saying "Hmmm. Interesting. But there is a nuance that might defeat the argument. Consider..."<br /><br />No. Things are always "laughable". Or "It's hard not to giggle". Or "Lewis's argument is premised solely on the 'Argument from Personal Incredulity" [AfPI (TM)]. End of story."<br /><br />No indeed, it's always that theistic arguments are wrong, Wrong, WRONG! <em><strong>Can't you see immediately how blindingly, obviously, shockingly WRONG they are? No? Then You're an IDIOT!</strong></em><br /><br />It's tiresome. Folks that are secure in their views offer them as something to think about, trusting that the truth speaks for itself. Those who are not shout about how the other guy is laughably, certifiably WRONG!!!<br /><br />I suppose it's an example of: "If you've got the facts and logic on your side, pound on the facts and logic. If you don't have the facts and logic on your side, pound on the table."<br /><br />Given that Gnu Atheists, almost to a man, spend most of their time pounding on the table, an obvious conclusion suggests itself.Matteohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38472731015975563422011-12-21T15:57:31.573-07:002011-12-21T15:57:31.573-07:00Merry Christmas and have a wonderful 2012 start, B...Merry Christmas and have a wonderful 2012 start, Bob.finneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12716499100306513674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63726992656384748272011-12-21T15:45:23.311-07:002011-12-21T15:45:23.311-07:00Finney,
You may be on to something there. There a...Finney,<br /><br />You may be on to something there. There are a certain number of irreducible <i>ens</i> (as the Thomists would say) that generally reduce the atheist to a sputtering denial of what is staring him in the face. Prime examples include Existence Itself, Consciousness, Free Will, the existence of Evil, and the Validity of Reason. He has to either engage in pretzel-twisting "logic" to explain these things away, or throw them onto the theist and tell him to square these things with a just God, or just flat out deny they even exist. Some of the best atheists I know are quite good at out-Buddhisting the Buddhists when it comes to declaring that "all is illusion" (such as when it comes toFree Will or Consciousness).<br /><br />But since this may very well be my last posting for 2011 (I'm off tomorrow <i>sans computer</i> to relatives for the Holidays), I do not want to end on a pugilistic note. I wish Papalinton, Ilion, Crude, Bilbo, Ben Yachov, Mattghg, Parboui, Gregory, Walter, Steven Carr, and even anonymous (sorry if I missed anyone) the happiest of New Years, all the best, and... (wait for it) ... Merry Christmas!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41627170398257587472011-12-21T14:48:14.919-07:002011-12-21T14:48:14.919-07:00I liked C.S. Lewis' response to the problem.
...I liked C.S. Lewis' response to the problem. <br /><br />Atheists don't understand the problem quite the way theists do. Theists *really* believe there is actual injustice in the world. Atheists only take it as a premise in an argument they wish theists to solve or alternatively to stop being theists. But if the choice is between trying to work out a solution to the evil in the world and denying that evil exists, I'll take the first option. A catch-22 is better than utter denial. <br /><br />This is much like David Chalmers' response to Dennett on consciousness. "[C]onscious experience is not "postulated" to explain other phenomena in turn; rather, it is a phenomenon to be explained in its own right." Like consciousness, atheists may rather "eliminate" the existence of evil rather than explain it.finneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12716499100306513674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23786991245098377852011-12-21T13:52:58.582-07:002011-12-21T13:52:58.582-07:00"But that is what natural explanation and sci..."But that is what natural explanation and science is telling us; the universe does not have anthropomorphic meaning."<br /><br />What?!?<br /><br />Have you never heard of the <i>Anthropic Principle</i>? (I'm not a particular fan of it myself, mainly because I believe that Christianity makes it redundant.) But the point here is that your statement is simply untrue. Science says no such thing as what you wrote - in fact, it is tending towards quite the opposite conclusion. And this is straight, unadulterated science! No "God Talk" needed!<br /><br />Papalinton, if you're going to use "science" as your antifaith prop, you'd better first be sure that real scientists are saying what you want them to say... and they ain't!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74710717293009369962011-12-21T13:38:48.930-07:002011-12-21T13:38:48.930-07:00>Saying that only by considering the universe a...>Saying that only by considering the universe as 'unjust and cruel', is not anthropomorphizing? Oops! There must be a natural definition and a supernatural definition of 'anthropomorphizing', and I was using the natural definition.<br /><br />So if I say it's raining cats and dogs I am saying literally cats and dogs are falling from the sky as precipitation?<br /><br />Paps you are so full of shit.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-926365180795656412011-12-21T13:24:01.261-07:002011-12-21T13:24:01.261-07:00Bob
"Papalinton and (to a lesser extent) Thr...Bob<br /><br />"Papalinton and (to a lesser extent) Thrasymachus have gotten it completely backwards, by accusing Lewis of anthropomorphizing." <br /><br />What? Saying that only by considering the universe as 'unjust and cruel', is not anthropomorphizing? Oops! There must be a natural definition and a supernatural definition of 'anthropomorphizing', and I was using the natural definition.<br /><br />Lewis says, "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning."<br /><br />But that is what natural explanation and science is telling us; the universe does not have anthropomorphic meaning. The attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object, even the universe, is simply projection. With uncommon regularity, the scientific community continues to discover, or uncover as the case may be, something that serves to seriously challenge if not debunk long-held religious beliefs. And no matter how the believer tries to rationalize the cognitive dissonance that seeps into their consciousness, there is no denying that science continues to encroach on their delusion. Whether jesus was or was not a <i>real</i>person, the claim is moot, as science gives us more and more reason not to look up in the sky and say, “God did it.”<br /><br />We know that the attribution of god-like qualities to a jesus person is but a time-dependent tradition of legendizing accretion. This no more evident than when one steps outside their theological bubble to read the many historical accounts of 'god' formation to appreciate the consistent and correlative theme in their development.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55661895829416541832011-12-21T08:35:06.635-07:002011-12-21T08:35:06.635-07:00"Anonymous",
Your comment does not adva..."Anonymous",<br /><br />Your comment does not advance the discussion one iota, other than we now know that an unidentified person doesn't like Lewis for unknown reasons of unknown validity.<br /><br />Kindly explain <i>why</i> you regard Lewis's philosophy as "lousy". Just calling it that is as meaningless as your chosen moniker.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14054604015690515252011-12-21T08:02:46.431-07:002011-12-21T08:02:46.431-07:00No, a careful reading of the passage shows that Le...No, a careful reading of the passage shows that Lewis was just as lousy at philosophy when he was an atheist as he was after he became a Christian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com