Paul’s review of The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life > Likes and Comments
5 likes · Like
I'm sorry Paul, but your assessment of Lewis, his argument, Christian Apologetics, and Dawkins skill at philosophy and/or apologetics is woefully misinformed, and belies your ignorance and lack of understanding of any of these topics. You spend the majority of your review bashing on Lewis, and don't really even address anything meaningful about the book other than a few minor details that indicate you did actially read it.. Your book review is not credible, accurate or fair in it's assessment of this book.
No need to apologize; I've read more of C.S. Lewis than Freud, and it's quotes like the following from Mere Christianity that failed to convince me when I WAS a believer: "If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about." In that case, faith has no meaning and Christianity is science.
As you can see, I posted that review a few years ago. Since then, I've learned to leave others in peace, which is more than I dare ask any Christian who knows I'm not a believer. I would also at this point say that Dawkins should have stuck to science and writing and not wasted his time promoting/defending atheism.
Finally, I stick to my point that the book's main problem is not Lewis or Freud but the useless comparison between the two. Comparing Lewis and Nietzsche would have made sense; comparing Freud and Kieerkegaard would also have been interesting. Lewis is not in the same intellectual league as Freud. If I were to seek reasons to return to Christianity, I would read Kierkegaard, not Lewis. And if I were looking to retain my lack of belief, Freud doesn't even register as someone I'd consult.
So interesting how relevant your comment was 15 years ago (and sad that the church failed to act in the moment), yet so flawed it clearly is now - as people are so desperate to fill Pascal's God-Shaped hole with something - anything - a political cult, a virus mitigation cult, a gender cult - anything but God.. proving Lewis' point.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
I'm sorry Paul, but your assessment of Lewis, his argument, Christian Apologetics, and Dawkins skill at philosophy and/or apologetics is woefully misinformed, and belies your ignorance and lack of understanding of any of these topics. You spend the majority of your review bashing on Lewis, and don't really even address anything meaningful about the book other than a few minor details that indicate you did actially read it.. Your book review is not credible, accurate or fair in it's assessment of this book.
No need to apologize; I've read more of C.S. Lewis than Freud, and it's quotes like the following from Mere Christianity that failed to convince me when I WAS a believer: "If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about." In that case, faith has no meaning and Christianity is science. As you can see, I posted that review a few years ago. Since then, I've learned to leave others in peace, which is more than I dare ask any Christian who knows I'm not a believer. I would also at this point say that Dawkins should have stuck to science and writing and not wasted his time promoting/defending atheism.
Finally, I stick to my point that the book's main problem is not Lewis or Freud but the useless comparison between the two. Comparing Lewis and Nietzsche would have made sense; comparing Freud and Kieerkegaard would also have been interesting. Lewis is not in the same intellectual league as Freud. If I were to seek reasons to return to Christianity, I would read Kierkegaard, not Lewis. And if I were looking to retain my lack of belief, Freud doesn't even register as someone I'd consult.
So interesting how relevant your comment was 15 years ago (and sad that the church failed to act in the moment), yet so flawed it clearly is now - as people are so desperate to fill Pascal's God-Shaped hole with something - anything - a political cult, a virus mitigation cult, a gender cult - anything but God.. proving Lewis' point.
There was a story in the Orange County Register today about Henry Allingham, age 112. He had a book signing at the Royal Air Force Club in London, this week for his book Kitchener's Last Volunteer, which traces his enlistment in 1915 (at age 19) in what would later become the RAF. He describes the airplanes of that era as "little more than motorized kites."