book discussion

Many people in their reviews of this text extol its logic. Can someone please present me with some of its logic to strengthen a belief in a Creator-God and Jesus Christ in particular?

Okay...do you really think the entire universe, with all its complexity, could form from a 'big bang' or that all the miracles that happen to people are fake? Could human beings honestly (really think about this one) have evolved from apes? Dolphins are just as smart, has anyone suggested we evolved from dolphins?? Maybe they should have. I would rather have someone say we evolved from a dolphin than from a monkey.
I'll have examples and explanations to strengthen your belief in Jesus as soon as I go read my Bible and consult my youth pastor. (seriously)(by the way...I never have read Mere Christianity)

I don't know how the universe came to be. Do you? If so, prove it.

Miracles can never be recorded or duplicated. Isn't that strange?

Dolphins being "smart" has nothing to do with their biological and evolutionary relationship to other animals. Many different animals are smart, but less evolutionarily related to us than others.

I don't know if you know about what I am about to say, but...some guy recently proved the existence of God by proving that soundwaves or something are able to create things. I don't know...it made perfect sense when I heard it on a radio station news report, but I can't recall the guy's name and it was very 'scientific'. I'll look it up on the internet and tell you when I find out.

Have you read this book? I searched your book list but it did not turn up. C.S. Lewis does attempt to answer your question above through his book. The book itself is his personal reasoning that lead him from atheism to Christianity. After you answer my question, I'll write more.

ciao

I didn't finish reading it. In fact, I didn't get past the first 20 pages or so. His opening argument is that because I can "feel" things as morally right or wrong, that must mean God put that in me.

I think there's a good chance it might have been Mom, Dad, friends, implicit and explicit education from society and teachers, etc.

Of course right or wrong are disseminated through those sources (parents, society, etc), but I think Lewis explores the thought of where did they get the message of right or wrong further in the first few chapters. His logic is if I "feel" things are morally right or wrong, and my parents "feel" things are morally right or wrong, and their parents "feel" things are morally right or wrong (and so on), then there must be a source determining what is morally right or wrong. His question being, "who determines right and wrong?" What our parents/society teach us is that of "cultural rights or wrongs." Lewis explores the concept of "objective moral values" (such as murder) and its existance.

However, if I do not "feel" a sense of objective moral right or wrong, then why is it wrong to murder? Because society says so? Well who are they? What right does anyone have to tell me murder is wrong? Consider San Fransisco (or any other city really). It has a severe homelessness with chemical dependence issue. These people don't contribute to society. Most of them made the choice to use a substance rather than seek help from the ample services available to them. Many of them will beg or steal to get their substance of choice. What's wrong with killing them so that the rest of us who do what society tells us don't have to put up with the crime and insult they bring? What "feels" wrong about murdering the excess of society? Animals do it, don't they? If there is not enough room in a caged area, hamsters will chew off the heads of their newly born young. So the concept of killing your own for survival is not new or offensive in the "natural" world. Why is it offensive in society? Because my mom taught me not to do it?

Well, I'm an adult now. Am I still obligated to her idea of right or wrong? If San Fransisco can't solve their homelessness issue, perhaps societies idea about murder is wrong. What if the death penalty was in effect for all offensive crimes? Now, it's not murder but a social issuance of penalty by death. Wouldn't we have less issues with drugs, gangs, thefts, rapes, abductions, murder, etc. if we just applied penalty by death? Wouldn't society be just a little better because "those" people who offend are not interfering with those of us who do what society tells us? Sure we might get the wrong person from time to time, but not all the time and if we can accept that it is not murder but penalty by death for the greater good of society then it's not wrong. I don't know, but something just "feels" really wrong about that idea and it's not because my mom taught me so.

Now this response only addresses your most recent post (not getting to your original question "Can someone please present me with some of its logic to strengthen a belief in a Creator-God and Jesus Christ in particular?"), but due to the length of this reply, I want to wait for your response to this before moving into further discussion.

You're arguing that it's hard to make decisions in this world, not that God implanted morality in us. By your nuanced look at complicated social issues, you're proving to me that we could talk about this ALL DAY and never need to involve a supernatural being. You could believe that a divine creator prods your conscience into action, and I could believe that as a thinking, feeling human being who was raised with kind people I seek even BETTER action and speech than my parents, whose ideas may be outdated or flawed.

The problem with a god who implanted morality IN us or shared moral ideas in the past with us is, it's so very FLAWED. If there's a little lighthouse in our soul, why didn't God just make it bigger so we can shine the little light of ours unto the world? Why was slavery OK for God-believing Christians for so long? Why didn't God come down--BAM--and tell us, like the 10 Commandments, "Hey, guys, by the way--knock this crap off." WE stopped slavery. WE decided to stop enslaving people. Society said it was OK, but over time thinking, feeling human beings decided it was a bad economic move or it was cruel or they were tired of seeing people in chains. And over time most countries banned it. That's individuals and society changing morality over time.

Your arguments for mass murder of the homeless--which I can tell you don't espouse, but are using as an extreme example--are precisely the arguments of Christians, Muslims, etc., through the centuries. "We need to get to Heaven. There we'll be happy. If we let you nonbelievers live, you'll be an example to others to stray from our holy path. Thus, we must convert you to our way of thinking or kill you."

We don't kill the homeless because poverty is not a capital crime. In the United States, we don't even have debtors' prisons for those who go bankrupt.

Many of us have moral values that differ from people hundreds of years ago or those in different countries. In many countries, the poor really ARE killed or starved to death or allowed to die in illness. No emergency rooms, no Social Security, no shelters. We care a little more, we have a little more affluence, whatever.

Why in the world does everything have to be so cut and dry? The book was about what he as a Christian beleived. He stated many times that he didn't expect anyone to believe what he said. He was merely offereing his beleif of what Christianity was to him. And it is different to each person. If you want to disbelieve something, you will always find a way to do so. You first post tells me that you just wanted to start an argument with someone about how you think christianity is rediculous. I loved this book. And I don't even beleive in god. If you don't think beyond the limits of your own beliefs how will you ever learn anything?

I am open to changing my beliefs all the time. For instance, I might think it's bad to eat chocolate. Then a scientific study comes out that says it's good to a eat a little chocolate sometimes. If I looked at the study or listened to the study's authors and their arguments made sense, I wouldn't think it's bad to eat chocolate anymore.

A far more important belief for its potential impact on my life and others' is the belief that Jesus Christ came to earth as part of a godhead and mortal to cleanse sins I was born with but can't do anything about and prevent me from burning in eternal hellfire. So if there are logical reasons for believing that, I'd want to know. It'd be important for my life and how I conduct it.

If this is a book about C.S. Lewis' belief in something that he can't fully explain or justify and that he doesn't expect to change anyone's beliefs or opinions, that'd be something good for me to know. Then I'd know there's no reason to read this book to seek to change my own beliefs.

I had written a response to your message (#8). Did you receive it or did it not post?

As you can see, I think somehow it danced off into the ether. I think you posted it, it never showed up, and then it disappeared.

kooky. Well it was quite long I will have to think and get back to it later this week. In brief, however, I purposely did not address God in the earlier post because I was discussing a sense of objective morality (which happens to be universal) not expressing "it is hard to make a decision." Everyone senses murder is wrong whether they commit it or witness it. Even Hitler hid what he did because he knew it was wrong. He just had an agenda as most murderers do. Regardless of the reason, circumstance, survival, or agenda everyone senses murder is wrong. I will add more later. Don't feel obligated to reply until I finish.

Hitler didn't hide it because he knew it was wrong. Hitler hid it because other people might think it went too far even though he knew it was the right thing to do. Not that _I_ think it was the right thing to do, but he thought he was doing right by his Aryan German brothers and sisters.

The savagery of the Nazis in a supposedly "civilized" country is always being brought up, I'm afraid. It's a perennial!

Two shortish points:

1. I don't think the existence of God can be proved right or wrong. That's why a big component of religion is faith. Is that convenient? Sure. It is also humble. There are plenty of things in life we may never understand or be able to explain.

2. Those who are involved in science and the scientific method often forget that, with the best of scientific evidence, one starts with a "given"--something that is accepted by convention, or faith, if you will. Just think back to high school chemistry, where we would spend a chapter learning a theory and doing calculations based on that theory, only to spend the next chapter learning why that theory was shown to be wrong, then the following chapter to learn another theory...and so on. As somebody who uses science and relies on evidence-based practices on a daily basis, I think it's important to recognize that we accept many things on faith, and that today's "givens" are subject to change.

I think one thing that might help you understand Lewis' view a little better would be his book "Miracles".

"Mere Christianity" is an overview of Christian beliefs. It is not expected to be the summation of all Christian belief (if you want that, read "Summa Theologica" by Thomas Aquinas). I think there is even a section of "Mere Christianity" in which Lewis says that he has no answer for people who expect a simple explanation from Christianity, because (like real life) Christianity is not simple. Any attempt to simplify necessarily leaves something out, which is usually exploited as a weakness of Christianity (and not a weakness in the explanation or summary of Christianity).

"Miracles" goes much more in depth - I think you'll like that better. Just be sure to actually read the whole thing, not just the first 20 pages. Just as you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, you (usually) can't distill a full understanding of a book by the first 20 pages.

I put it on my list and I'll explore it soon! Thanks for the recommendation!

I was once a Christian and enjoyed this book at the time.

Exposure to philosophy destroyed what was left of my belief in "God".

"God" is a word. If "he" is more than that, then he can stop by my place anytime and set me straight.

Christianity was institutionalized by the Emperor Constantine.

Socrates was dead and buried before Christ was born, if Christ ever existed.

Deism is perhaps defensible. Christianity is absurd. Read history if you care about sounding rational.

Since you'd already read this book (which is, admittedly, a primer on the Christian philosophy), maybe it's time that you take your love of philosophy to the next level. Allow me to explain.

I'm not sure what Socrates being dead before Jesus was born has to do with anything, but there was a progression of philosophy after Socrates. Aristotle explained metaphysics in a much more complete way than Socrates (he had the benefit of learning from and building upon the Socratic method).

Fast forward a few thousand years.

Albert the Great had a gifted student named Thomas Aquinas, who was once regarded by his classmates as "the Dumb Ox". This was not because he was stupid - it was because he was quiet. Albert defended his student, who would then go on to explain the lost philosophy of Aristotle to the Christian world. (The dominant form of philosophy in Christendom to that time had been an Augustinian form of Socrates. Aristotle had been "kept" by the Muslims until the Crusades.)

If you truly understand philosophy, then I would suggest the following books to you:
- "The Dumb Ox" by G. K. Chesterton (an excellent introduction to Aquinas)
- "A Summa of the Summa" by Peter Kreeft (a bit more in-depth than Chesterton - can be used as a "Cliff's Notes" of the next book)
- "Summa Theologica" by Thomas Aquinas (his masterpiece)

I know that you will likely not want to "waste your time" reading these, but I posted these suggestions anyway, just in case you truly have an open mind and want to read the history of Christian philosophy. Even if it doesn't convince you of a personal God that gets involved in our lives, it will at least give you better arguments against Christianity than "it was institutionalized by the Emperor Constantine".

A few things:

Lewis wasn't just expressing what Christianity meant to him—he was building a case for what Christianity is at its very core to all believers. What he meant by "Mere Christianity" was the things that we all accept as a fundamental basis for our faith, underneath all of the denominational differences and our varied illustrations and practices. He was actually very clear about "mere" Christianity not being able to be compromised or tailored to fit an individual's private motivations while remaining Christianity. However, he also warned us not to mistake his illustrations for the real thing, but to use them if they brought a better understanding. It's important here, to be able to distinguish between a basic principle of a faith and a picture of how that principle might be carried out. He always marked it clearly when he was using an illustration, and when he was making sure no one had a watered-down idea of the main point.

Lewis did also cover the differences between societal differences and what makes an issue a moral dilemma or simply a case of bad manners when the setting changes. He also covered the difference between basic instinct and prompting by something else God put into us, and he also made a case for the part of us which distinguishes between our primal wants and the thing we think we should do to be at peace with our conscience, and explains that the thing choosing for us cannot itself be either of the choices, but a third thing which is the standard by which we choose.

Lastly, and this is just a personal note, many people in the scientific community, including notable Nobel Prize-winning physicists, no longer accept evolution as valid. In fact, it looks highly improbable even to those who have been studying it for their entire careers. Rather than change the textbooks, they're still basing new theories on evolution in hopes that these new theories will prove evolution for them. It hasn't yet happened, and I wouldn't hold my breath. They're looking for an answer that can let them rest easy, and they're not willing to accept a Power higher than human science. As a result, teachers and laymen are running around saying evolution is fact and proven, and much more nonsense, when in actuality most of the scientific minds who work in the labs and perform the experiments, and who've proposed these ideas no longer believe them. They're just not willing to come out and say that they've misled the public for all these years, and that much of the science that is based on it is now outdated. It's like when the church in Italy persecuted Galileo. Never knew it could work both ways, huh? Yes, I do study this subject and make it a point to educate myself in the defense of Creationism.

Mere Christianity is easy to obtain and an easy read, if one's willing to be involved with it and not just skim the pages looking for things to which they can object. Most of the questions and objections in this thread were covered in the book. I highly suggest you read it. I have an extra copy I'd be willing to send out to anyone who really wants it, but be forewarned it's full of highlighter marks.

Yes, Lewis did lots of things like decided arbitrarily when some internal motivation to do something moral was "good taste" or the magical hand of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, yes. That doesn't make it PROVABLE or BELIEVABLE.

In addition, I call your anti-evolution ramble poppycock and challenge you to produce reputable sources for your criticism. Your understanding of the term "theory" and scientists' understanding are very different. A "theory" is a very useful idea with which to test and examine things, but the jury's out on whether it's FACT. The inclusion of a Higher Power doesn't necessarily affect the theory of evolution. Lots of religious people think evolution would be a perfectly nifty way for God to develop living things.

If, however, certain believers think God made all the animals at once and that everything here now has always been here, well, umm, yeah. About that ...

Incidentally, I think it's wonderful that some scientists are searching for answers other than evolution for things--even trying to prove that dinosaurs and man existed together! That's what science is all about! Alternative views fighting for respectability. But not based on the Bible. And not to be taken seriously by the rest of us as evidence of anything other than people's wishful, fantastic thinking.

I think most of the "believers" have presented their arguments very well. I was going to chime in, but I don't know if I have anything to add at this point. I'll keep an eye on this thread, though...it's very interesting.

Faith isn't about proof. You waste your time in such arguments. If there was irrefutable proof, there would be no need for faith. So, some have faith, and some prefer not to. Why can't people just respect other people's beliefs? Why do people always have to be "right" and know "everything"? Why must they always attempt to convert everyone else to be like them? Can't you just appreciate people for their differences?

And, why do science and the bible have to be mutually exclusive? For those creationists out there who rankle at the thought of "The Big Bang", who are you to say that God didn't start the universe with a bang? Science supports it, and you really have no way of knowing do you?

I have faith. I just don't have faith in your gods.