7 Comments:

• I could be wrong, but I don't think Lewis actually claims that Jesus says he is divine, as in "hello, I"m God." The notion that Jesus himself thought he was divine I think derives more from the way he refers to himself as the source of doctrinal authority, rather than referring to a rabbi or a scripture in contexts when we would expect him, according to Hebrew traditions, to do so. I would argue that where Lewis goes wrong (and he is certainly not alone in this assumption) in this argument is in the supposition that in speaking this way (if we assume the Gospels are correct in what they report) that Jesus wasn't simply an iconoclast rather the three categories Lewis sets up. The controversy over Jesus's divinity can still occur (and still does occur) within the parameters of the canonical Gospels.
  
  Moreover, disproving or proving the divinity of Jesus, assuming anybody could, is not the same as proving the existence of God, generally.
  
  I haven't read Dawkins's book, but I have read Sam Harris's The End of Faith, which I found to be superbly written, and I would recommend it highly. I was just watching him on CSPAN, and he was also just amazingly articulate.
  
  Frankly, I think you're a little enamored of what aren't great (but obviously intelligent) arguments. It's sloppy, but convenient, for the examples she gives (and for Dawkins) to believe that religion stands against knowledge and science. Anybody who reads my blog, knows me, or takes my classes knows that I, if I may be conceited for a minute, am one of the most well-read, well-educated, and relentlessly inquisitive scholars they know. I resent the assumption that Christians are all slack-jawed yokels or people like Cal Thomas, instead of people like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who were educated and articulate men. If we are going to use this as a method of proof, I can prove that all atheists are murderous meglomaniacs. See, Joseph Stalin and Napoleon Bonaparte(deliberately ignoring that such great minds as Marx, Mill,Madison, and Feuerbach (ultimately) were atheists).
  
  If all the answers we need "can be answered by science"...why do we need any more scientists? What else does cosmology have to prove? Why do we continue to spend millions looking for those superstrings and black holes? Because we don't have all the answers, and that makes me extremely happy. And I would be sad if science had all the answers. Science is going to tell me what justice is?
  
  Moreover, I also don't think there is much to the argument that theists need to prove something to atheists. Why? Only evangelicals of various fundamentalist groups really care what other people believe. The rest of us, me included, are happy enough assuming other people have agency, and can sort things through for themselves. I'm busy enough sorting through what I think.
  
  Finally, anybody who assumes that religion or Christianity necessarily "feels good" doesn't practice it particularly hard. I can see where she'd pick that up; American religion, like just about everything else in the US, is notably happy-clappy, feel-good, and consumerist. But if you really look at the central message of the Gospels or Acts, it's about sacrifice, facing down oppression even when you are likely to get creamed, and bunch of other things that are so not about feeling good.
  
  I went way longer than your post and hers, combined--I'm sorry.

  By  Chaser, at 3:57 AM  

• Thanks for the well thought out comments!
  
  I could certainly be mis-interpreting Lewis' position. I only stumbled across it recently. Frankly I haven't read Lewis' original text, which I suppose I should probably do before I start ridiculing him :)
  
  As for the post I linked to debunking theism, I am not saying that all of her arguments are great ones. I just thought that they were a heck of a lot better than the tortured nonsense that I usually hear. I am well aware that there are good, interesting arguments for theism, and that there are better arguments than she laid out against theism. I thought it was neat that she was so precocious, not that she had iron-clad positions.
  
  The fact is that I happen to be a theist myself, and have in this blog (http://third-estate.blogspot.com/2005/12/in-defence-of-faith.html) criticized those who thought anyone who was religious was a moron. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

  By  Arbitrista, at 6:52 AM  

• No,I think she gives that impression--and I agree she's precocious. Of course, when I was a teenager, I was an atheist, too, and a big fan of Ayn Rand, because I was convinced, utterly convinced, I was one of her supermen. Well, superwomen. I was also a budding young conservative, back then.
  
  It's actually kind of weird that I would speak up for Lewis, because I am not a fan per se of his writings on theology (his allegorical fiction and autobiographical writings I do like).
  
  From what I can tell, Dawkins's argument relies on the idea that religion encourages ignorance--that's what I was arguing against, but I do admit it gets my back up when people use Cal Thomas or Jerry Falwell to represent Christianity, rather than a certain variety of American fundamentalist evangelicalism. As an avid reader of broadsheet newspapers, I am subjected to Thomas's column every single week because I live in the Bible Belt, and I can't help reading it; it's like looking at a car wreck. And I always come away annoyed.
  
  I actually think this is one of the reasons why people are so fond of C.S. Lewis: he was public intellectual that didn't make Christians look like inbred snake handlers.

  By  Chaser, at 10:13 AM  

• BTW, I am associated with on the thinktanks you have on your sidebar!!

  By  Chaser, at 10:15 AM  

• Like I said, I haven't read Dawkins' book. I did see his TV special though. I didn't agree with all of his conclusions, but he certainly hit most of the atheist strong points.
  
  One of the problems I have is that most of theist arguments I encounter are precisely from the likes of Thomas. When you come back at them with real questions, they just puff up about it.
  
  P.S. Which thinktank? I must know!

  By  Arbitrista, at 12:52 PM  

• I'm not telling. But I teach in college of architecture and urban studies--that should be enough of a hint.

  By  Chaser, at 1:35 PM  

• Aha!

  By  Arbitrista, at 1:38 PM  

Post a Comment
<< Home