Mere Christianity

[dgmort19]

I have been reading Mere Christianity, by one C.S. Lewis, and I find most of his writing to be logical and concise. However, a few errors pop up with his reasoning, and here is one of them:

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

By this I think he means to say that, because we have conceived of a universe without meaning, there must, therefore, be a universe with meaning, due to the fact that for us to recognize the concept of meaninglessness, we must first have something with which to compare it. That thing is meaning.

I do not see how it logically follows that, because a universe is meaningless, I should be unable to recognize the concept. Could I not, in a meaningless universe, design a tool to achieve an end I have set? This tool would have the meaning of being able to fulfill my set need. If I can understand this concept, and there's no reason that I shouldn't, then can I not apply the "meaning" paradigm to the universe and wonder whether the universe has an end to meet? If I conclude that the universe lacks a meaning, I do not see why this should automatically give it meaning.

This is to say nothing of his liberal use of the term "meaning." He seems to be confusing an ultimate, universal meaning with subjective goals and purposes that humans set, regardless of whether the universe was created purposefully or not.

Forgive me if I am unclear. I'm quite sleepy.    Thoughts?

[The Magic Pudding]

I go to the shop with a purpose, I write that purpose on piece of paper, it's as real as anything else in my life.  I go to the kitchen with a purpose, I may forget what it was because I don't make a list before I go to the kitchen.  So we can have purpose, and we can imagine a bigger purpose for life the universe and everything.  I think this Lewis thing is just another example of trying to defend the indefensible by means of the absurd.

Err I'm confused, what am I doing here?  That's all right son here is your purpose in this here book, but don't worry too much about the first half, that's just metaphorical, and don't ask questions because that displays your lack of faith, now off you go.

[elliebean]

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

He misunderstands evolution; just because the universe is dark doesn't mean creatures with eyes would necessarily not have evolved. They just wouldn't know what they were for, until some of the creatures with eyes figured out a use for them, or some way to create light. Read that into the analogy what you will.

[LegendarySandwich]

In this book, he also introduces the "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" argument, which is one of the stupidest ones I've ever heard for the divinity of Jesus.

[dgmort19]

In this book, he also introduces the "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" argument, which is one of the stupidest ones I've ever heard for the divinity of Jesus.

I have yet to reach that section, but I have read about it in one of Christopher Hitchens' books. Rather odd that a man who has proven himself capable of deductive feats should resort to the "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" bit.

[AnimatedDirt]

In this book, he also introduces the "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" argument, which is one of the stupidest ones I've ever heard for the divinity of Jesus.

So lets hear the argument against it.

[Whitney]

In this book, he also introduces the "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" argument, which is one of the stupidest ones I've ever heard for the divinity of Jesus.

So lets hear the argument against it.

It leaves off option 4 that Jesus was neither a lord, liar or lunatic but that the story in general is a tall tale.

But I wouldn't consider it the most stupid argument; it's just got a bit too much tunnel vision to it....the worst is "Tide goes in, tide goes out....you can't explain that"  

[AnimatedDirt]

It leaves off option 4 that Jesus was neither a lord, liar or lunatic but that the story in general is a tall tale.

Tall tale, yet then why does everyone seem to think this name as worthy of exclamation?
Why are we not using expressions such as;

• "I swear to the Great Spaghetti Monster"!
• "Oh Spaghetti Monster"
• "Spaghetti Monster damn it!"
• "Oh for Flying Pink Unicorn's sake!"
• "Oh for Cinderella's Sake!"
• "Snow White damn it!"
• "I swear to The Big Bad Wolf!"

Those are all tales, for sure.  What makes "Christ/God" a better swear word or exclamation?  Where's the logic in this?

[Whitney]

It leaves off option 4 that Jesus was neither a lord, liar or lunatic but that the story in general is a tall tale.

Tall tale, yet then why does everyone seem to think this name as worthy of exclamation?
Why are we not using expressions such as;

• "I swear to the Great Spaghetti Monster"!
• "Oh Spaghetti Monster"
• "Spaghetti Monster damn it!"
• "Oh for Flying Pink Unicorn's sake!"
• "Oh for Cinderella's Sake!"
• "Snow White damn it!"
• "I swear to The Big Bad Wolf!"

Those are all tales, for sure.  What makes "Christ/God" a better swear word or exclamation?  Where's the logic in this?

I would assume God/Christ originated as a swear word because using those names in vain is considered forbidden.  Or perhaps the origins were in someone starting to pray while angry or praying for god to take vengence on someone they dislike and the phrases evolved into what people use today.  

People still say bless you when others sneeze yet we now know that a sneeze doesn't mean your soul is at risk.

I don't see how something being an expression has much to do with the truth value of ideas attached to that expression.

[Asmodean]

"I swear to the Great Spaghetti Monster"!
"Oh Spaghetti Monster"
"Spaghetti Monster damn it!"
"Oh for Flying Pink Unicorn's sake!"
"Oh for Cinderella's Sake!"

Don't cling well.

"Snow White damn it!"

Snow white is not exactly known for damning things

"I swear to The Big Bad Wolf!"

Doesn't cling well.

Those are all tales, for sure.  What makes "Christ/God" a better swear word or exclamation?  Where's the logic in this?

Short, easy to pronounce and does not offend an actual person, living or who has provably lived, for those who care about such.

At least... That's my reasoning. I use different and somewhat more inventive curses myself.

[ForTheLoveOfAll]

It leaves off option 4 that Jesus was neither a lord, liar or lunatic but that the story in general is a tall tale.

Tall tale, yet then why does everyone seem to think this name as worthy of exclamation?
Why are we not using expressions such as;

• "I swear to the Great Spaghetti Monster"!
• "Oh Spaghetti Monster"
• "Spaghetti Monster damn it!"
• "Oh for Flying Pink Unicorn's sake!"
• "Oh for Cinderella's Sake!"
• "Snow White damn it!"
• "I swear to The Big Bad Wolf!"

Those are all tales, for sure.  What makes "Christ/God" a better swear word or exclamation?  Where's the logic in this?

I would assume God/Christ originated as a swear word because using those names in vain is considered forbidden.  Or perhaps the origins were in someone starting to pray while angry or praying for god to take vengence on someone they dislike and the phrases evolved into what people use today.  

People still say bless you when others sneeze yet we now know that a sneeze doesn't mean your soul is at risk.

I don't see how something being an expression has much to do with the truth value of ideas attached to that expression.

The thought that god is insecure about how people use his name always struck me as odd, as if his feelings would be hurt in some way.
Personally if someone would use my name in place of god when going Goddammit! or Oh my God! I'd be rather flattered.

[AnimatedDirt]

The thought that god is insecure about how people use his name always struck me as odd, as if his feelings would be hurt in some way.
Personally if someone would use my name in place of god when going Goddammit! or Oh my God! I'd be rather flattered.

And yet, we don't.  Moving on.

[ForTheLoveOfAll]

The thought that god is insecure about how people use his name always struck me as odd, as if his feelings would be hurt in some way.
Personally if someone would use my name in place of god when going Goddammit! or Oh my God! I'd be rather flattered.

And yet, we don't.  Moving on.

I can dream, can't I?  

[AnimatedDirt]

I can dream, can't I?  

You certainly can.  But this would put your name and thus your existence on par with God's.  Where's the logic?

[LegendarySandwich]

In this book, he also introduces the "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" argument, which is one of the stupidest ones I've ever heard for the divinity of Jesus.

So lets hear the argument against it.

First off, as Whitney said, for the argument to work at all it presumes that Jesus did, in fact, exist, and the modern Gospels we have are correct when they say he said he was the son of God. Both of these assumptions are heavily debatable.

Second, it's far too simplistic in its reasoning. For example, maybe he was deliberately lying when he said he was the son of God -- does this necessarily disqualify him from being a great moral teacher? If this is true, he's only human. Everyone makes mistakes and slips up sometimes. Also, maybe he was a bit crazy, and was deluded into thinking he was the son of God -- so? Does him being a bit of a whacko disqualify him from being a great moral teacher? Et al.

Third (and this one ties into the other two), it ignores Occam's Razor. Which one of these hypotheses is preferable -- that Jesus existed and was the son of God, or that Jesus probably didn't exist, and if he did, he was just a man?