Logic?

[David]

Dan wrote: "...its gene survival and the passing on of those genes to the next generation, not afterlife, not a reward for being a good person. its a selfish reward, but our genes are selfish, their goal is survival, if anything in the world is immortal, its genes, from generation to generation."

When your son asks why he should act a certain way, will this be the reason you give to him (gene survival)?

There is no morality in genes. It is higher than genes.

[Dan]

David wrote: "Dan wrote: "...its gene survival and the passing on of those genes to the next generation, not afterlife, not a reward for being a good person. its a selfish reward, but our genes are selfish, thei..."

why should he be good? because he will understand that he doesnt want to suffer, and that same thing should be passed on.

there is no reason to think morality comes from something higher. there is no higher. no one whispered into your ear that you should be moral, your parents taught you, or a mentor taught you, but to give credit to some invisible deity is an insult to the people who actually deserve the credit.

i never said their was morality in genes, obviously you dont understand the selfish gene theory of evolution by natural selection, I can go into detail if you please.

do you think people didnt have morals before the concept of god? are people who have never heard of a god immoral? or how about tribes who no nothing of any gods, why do they act morally?

The Koji in south america know nothing of a god, they worship spirits of the earth, but they have no heaven or hell, no bible, yet they have no crime, no murder, why is this? if god hasnt come to them shouldnt they be terrible people?

The answer is so simple, morality does not come from god, or religion, or spirits, it comes from human dignity, and those who cannot see the human race as a good creature w/ out god are selling themselves and everyone else short. I will easily argue that if the world had no idea of a god, gods, or religion would be a much safer and even more moral place.

[J.S.]

If man is innately good, then why are the prisons always overcrowded? Why are there serial killers? Why do we need a criminal justice system at all?

[Robert]

deleted user wrote: "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? "

One step of logic then the stupendous leap of faith, nearly a standing jump. He begins, ever so briefly, in a faux-Euclidean fashion citing a common perception, even if differently realized, of good across the whole of humanity asserting that this is the voice of God. (Hitchens (cited by Dan below) “Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.” nailed that one.) Ok, postulate one. Then with little further ado, it's the same old show of virgin mothers, miracles, inerrant scripture to be taken literally or nearly so, the trinity (his description of the holy spirit as some sort of magical magnetism generated by the father and son is as priceless as it is useless), all the rest of the Christian machinery, all crowned by his famous "tri-lemma" that one must accept all of it as given then pick between Jesus as (chose only one) God, criminal, or lunatic. This last proposition seems somewhat compelling on first hearing but soon one realizes that what little logic it has rests on astounding and unjustified assumptions about that work of historical fiction "based on a true story" known at the Holy Bible. The chain of logical connections ends at one.

One other thing I found surprising is that given his George MacDonald inspired near-fundamentalism is that he can sit agreeably in an Anglican assembly as he states. The Anglican church by that time appears to me to have already become far to liberal for the type of belief expounded in this book.

The logic is not there. It really can't be. Religious matters in the large are not about logic. The questions religion purports to answer either remain open most with no closure in sight, or the answers are simply unacceptable to the mass of homo sapiens so a magic story is substituted. A bare verisimilitude of logic, or none, is sufficient for those who are committed to belief before the argument.

[Dan]

Jarold wrote: "If man is innately good, then why are the prisons always overcrowded? Why are there serial killers? Why do we need a criminal justice system at all?"

thats a great question for the 99% of the prison population that claims to be of the christian or other religious faith.

i never said all humans are good, we can easily choose to do bad things, and some will.

i will sum that up with a quote

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."
~Steven Weinberg

[David]

Dan wrote: "why should he be good? because he will understand that he doesnt want to suffer, and that same thing should be passed on."

So to be clear, Lewis wrote that it is logical to assume that there is a creator because we all have a desire to attain a certain standard of behavior which is better than our behavior. There is an objective Law.

The evolutionary theory is that certain behaviors were selected as better than others and passed on to the following generations over many years. Laws are subjective.

In my opinion, it takes a much bigger leap of faith to believe that the behaviors we see as moral just came about over time. There would be no reason to think that "love your neighbor as yourself" would be selected over "naner-naner-boo-boo" (take advantage of your neighbor for your benefit). One of the highest virtues we see in people is selflessness, which goes against the selfishness needed in evolution.

I'm not intending to convince anyone. I just want to show that Lewis was at least logical, and at best, brilliant. He writes more in defense of the natural law and objective virtue in his book "Abolition of Man".

[Dan]

David wrote: "Dan wrote: "why should he be good? because he will understand that he doesnt want to suffer, and that same thing should be passed on."

So to be clear, Lewis wrote that it is logical to assume that..."

i argue it takes a true leap of faith to assume our moral judgement came from a bearded man in the sky of which there is no empirical evidence to support (and i dont say that to start an argument for his existence, i mean simply, i can offer a natural occurrence, and you are only listing supernatural one, now honestly, what takes a larger leap of faith? natural or supernatural?).

Selflessness doesnt have to go against evolutionary theory though. I think I made the point earlier than altruism has huge evolutionary benefits, i scratch your back, you scratch mine. In the wild we see this all the time, monkeys and apes clean each other, birds clean each other, etc. They help each other out, and they do so because there is a selfish benefit in it for them. A purely selfish individual can come into this scenario and prosper for some time, getting his back scratched and never returning the favor, he gets all the benefits and has to exert no energy in return, and this same person could prosper and spread its genes, but if that selfishness took over, the species could or would end up dying off. Altruism in this case has much larger benefit for the individual.

I think though human selflessness is on a whole new level, but I see no issue in liking that to evolution as well. We are lucky, we have adapted large brains, and we are able to be aware of this fact, we are remarkable creatures, and because of that, we understand human well being like no other. This allows some individuals to do for others something that is totally un-beneficial to them, but again, look at what really does prosper for some time. Someone before mentioned business men, ruthless unkind and selfish, and they have all the money and power, but look globally and they dont outnumber everyone else, those who help each other are better off in the long run.

Lewis logic relies on saying humans would not be good without god, and I think there is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim. I hate to sound like a broken record, but many civilizations dont have a god and are good and or arguably better that ours.

Many people that would be thought of us good have done terrible things in the name of religion. Abortion doctor killings, countless wars, the inquisition, the crusades, all because of religion. They used the bible as their moral compass to vindicate their abusive behavior, and why not? The bible condones such acts in the name of god.

And I think we may have run to and end in our argument because I feel like im officially just repeating myself, but I am happy to keep this discussion going, though I do think at this time I could give some highlights of what I did like in Lewis' book. There was one section on marriage I enjoyed greatly and do wish all christians would be forced to read.

[David]

Dan wrote: "Lewis logic relies on saying humans would not be good without god, and I think there is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim."

Just re-read the first part of the book and you'll find this to be false.

He says that the fact that people assume standards or laws of morality points to there being an objective, yes, supernatural Law. You are saying the same thing that he is: people assume a standard, but attribute it to social evolution.

(side note: you forgot the sitting on a cloud and something about lighting bolts in your caricature of God. You have a pretty low view of what Christians believe for having a mother who is a believer.

Also, there are bad people who call themselves christians and there are good people who call themselves atheists. Millions have been killed in the name of secularism.)

[Dan]

David wrote: "Dan wrote: "Lewis logic relies on saying humans would not be good without god, and I think there is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim."

Just re-read the first part of the book and you..."

killed in the name of secularism? i would love some examples. I know atheist have killed, but not in the name of atheism, or in the name of secularism, and in no way how people have killed in the name of their god.

[Dan]

David wrote: "(side note: you forgot the sitting on a cloud and something about lighting bolts in your caricature of God. You have a pretty low view of what Christians believe for having a mother who is a believer."

the clouds and lightning belong to Zeus. Dont get your mythical characters confused now. ;)

[David]

Rabbit trail:

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong all had their own view of what a religion-free, secular utopia would look like, and pursued it. These secular, utopian dreams are the reason millions have died- both those who got in the way, and those who didn't believe the right thing.

[Dan]

David wrote: "Rabbit trail:

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong all had their own view of what a religion-free, secular utopia would look like, and pursued it. These secular, utopian dreams are the rea..."

Hitler was catholic, Stalin was a non-believer but nothing he did was in the name of secularism or atheism, it was for personal selfish gain. Fascism and Communism are not "atheist" secular views. America was founded on secular views through democracy.

I love how theologians always pull out the same few dicators and claim this validates their religion. A quick history lesson and you will see how wrong that argument is.

[Dan]

Hitler references his belief in God in Mein Kampf, Nazi soldiers wore belt buckles that said "Gott mit uns" (God is with us).

Hitler very much believed in the same very God you do.

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
— Adolf Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 46

"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."
— Adolf Hitler, ibid. p. 65

[Dan]

Sam Harris summed this one up pretty well too

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
-Sam Harris

[David]

Dan wrote: "Abortion doctor killings, countless wars, the inquisition, the crusades, all because of religion"

They were working for a secular society, free of religion. Athiests use the same tired arguments too (see above). Let's just agree that there are bad people who are atheists and bad people who are christians. The problem with atheism is that there is nothing to check their badness. Everything is subjective when there is no god.

[Dan]

David wrote: "Dan wrote: "Abortion doctor killings, countless wars, the inquisition, the crusades, all because of religion"

They were working for a secular society, free of religion. Athiests use the same tired..."

i have said already and i believe i quoted steven weinberg that of course their are good and bad people.

as societies we have our own checks and balances. The god you believe in doesnt even punish people till after death.

The simple question is, are you only good because of fear of hell? Is your view of mankind, what you think god created so low that it needs big brother to watch it every step of the way?

and if you believe that, i must ask, with all the war, suffering, starving, etc happening in this world, where is your god? I know this is a tired argument but its one worth having. The almighty god you defend is letting people suffer and die? good job!

[Dan]

David wrote: "Dan wrote: "Abortion doctor killings, countless wars, the inquisition, the crusades, all because of religion"

They were working for a secular society, free of religion. Athiests use the same tired..."

I also need to point out, Hitler was not trying to work towards a secular society. Stalin and the others only wanted religion out of their way so the people would worship them (just as a god does). They were not logical thinking free thinkers, they were power hungry monsters. Hitler feared hell but he believed he was doing gods work (he was crazy!).

You keep talking about this "secular society" thing, I dont know if you live in the US or not, but what do you think our founding fathers were after? They wanted freedom of religion, yes, a right of everyone to worship who they want, but a secular nation was their main goal, not run by any religion or any deity.

[David]

I believe God has given us the truth about who I am and how I should live. I am a person who can't attain to the standard of behavior that he has set. Even those who don't believe in God see the standard. This is what Lewis was illustrating. God shows more clearly what the standard is in the Bible. The law is summed up in loving God and loving your neighbor. This is how we are to live.

There is so much injustice in this world, I am glad that God has revealed there will be judgment at some point--whether in this life or the next. God also says to help those who are in need, and alleviate injustice where possible.

Would it not be better that people did good things because of fear (or didn't do bad at least)? But Christians do good out of love for what God has done through Jesus and believe that loving our neighbor really is the best way to live this life. The Bible really is a brilliant book.

[David]

Rabbit Trail:

The founding fathers were all Christians. They all had Judeo-Christian values that helped form our way of thinking about government. "In God We Trust" wasn't just a cute saying that we decided to put on the currency. It is a value of the nation since its founding.

[Dan]

David wrote: "Rabbit Trail:

The founding fathers were all Christians. They all had Judeo-Christian values that helped form our way of thinking about government. "In God We Trust" wasn't just a cute saying that ..."

ACTUALLY! In God We Trust has nothing to do with our founding fathers and wasnt added to our motto or currency until the late 1950s. Our founding fathers were believers, but they were deists, not christians. In fact, Jefferson (the founder of separation of church and state) rewrote the bible to remove all of the crazy jesus miracles because he didnt believe them at all.

[Dan]

“I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature. It is founded on fables and mythology.” — Thomas Jefferson

[David]

Dan wrote: "Our founding fathers were believers"

You're right! and that belief in God was reaffirmed in the motto "In God We Trust". They all believed in the Judeo-Christian God.

Unfortunately, this rabbit trail has come to it's conclusion. I have things to do. Good luck, Dan.

[J.S.]

The notion that all of the founders were deists is a myth. The most superficial study of history disproves it.

[Dan]

Jarold wrote: "The notion that all of the founders were deists is a myth. The most superficial study of history disproves it."

i never did specify ALL, but the majority was, and they openly spoke out against a christian run nation, and they NEVER would have approved "in god we trust".

WE ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION. Not even a little. We are a nation free to be whatever religion or lack of religion you want.

Christianity has no special place in our country.

[Stephen]

The idea that the Universe came from a Big Bang is very weak. How did the raw materials come into being? What provided the spark? The problem is: something cannot come from nothing. Look at the complexity of life and its systems. It is mathematically impossible for the world to be a result of random chance.

[DocHolidavid]

"Morals existed long before the invention of the christian god...
'Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.'”
― Christopher Hitchen

Your treatise hereinabove is in accordance with Christianity. Hitchen is not stating his personal wisdom. He is paraphrasing the Apostle Paul from Romans 2:14-15. Christians believe Natural Law precedes time itself. No argument here.

[Albert]

The thing is - no one comes to know the living God by human logic. Only by the hearing of the gospel and the power (Spirit) of God does he reveal himself to man.

Rom 1:16    For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

So while logic is used in the book, something more powerful is needed to come to know the living God. The Apostle Paul did not rely upon human logic or wisdom.

1Co 2:4    and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,1Co 2:5    so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.