Mailbag: C.S. Lewis, Part 1
Subject: A RATIONALLY calm dismissal of atheism...
[T]here is a trend among young persons not to "believe" in God, I feel. Atheism becomes a compound of arrogance and fear, as though belief in something higher than one's self is compromised by a fear in the inability to comprehend. A weirdness. People want to be God, and want what they want for them, not "what God wants" of them. Yet, if a Perfect Being knows what is best for you, is He/She/It not more likely in the right than your own misguided imperfect self? Just a thought...
First David suggest that he might offer a "rational" and calm dismissal of atheism, then he immediately launches into a series of half-truths and invectives against those with the temerity not to believe in his god. Quite sad, really, but not at all surprising - it's been my experience that those who think that they have easy answers to the challenges posed by atheism are also those who have the least understanding of what it means to be rational and logical in the first place.
Is there a trend towards atheism among young people? Not that I am aware of - I've not seen any indications of any real drop in theism among young people today. I have to wonder if David simply made that up...
Assuming that atheism is "a compound of arrogance and fear" is not a "rational" dismissal of atheism. Why? Because it dismisses atheism based upon presumed psychological attitudes of atheists. It totally neglects any actual arguments made by people against theism or in defense of atheism. I doubt that David really knows any atheists, much less enough atheists in order to make such a massive generalization.
It might make David feel better to imagine that there are no more grounds to atheism than "arrogance and fear," but one might plausible argue that the exact same things motivate theism - and I doubt that he would take such a suggestion very kindly. Would that make David a hypocrite? You bet.
And, for them to consider religion at all in a serious light is mocking, insulting. Many without having read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, or Christian mysticism, assume to know what Christianity is. They ask of the theist to explain himself.
Here we find David assuming that atheists don't know a great deal about religion while pretending to discuss it intelligently - but David is simply projecting here. It is he who is pretending to talk intelligently about a topic which he knows nothing or next to nothing: atheism. I doubt that he has read anything by atheists philosophers on the subject of religion and theism, but then he asks atheists to explain themselves...
While it is certainly true that there are any number of atheists out there who don't know a great deal about certain religions or even religion generally, that certainly isn't true of all. In fact, a great many atheists are very well educated about religion - often better educated and better informed than the average theist. A large number of atheists were once religious themselves, thus giving them an "insider's" view of that faith, and then only left their religious beliefs behind after detailed examination of those beliefs, of their religion's history, and even of other religions as well.
When we ask theists to explain themselves, it is generally because we are aware of the issues and don't believe that the theists' arguments are valid. We ask that the theist go through their arguments as we have done in order to recognize the flaws; this would allow them to either construct a better argument or to drop a flawed argument in favor of something else entirely.
How does a Christian, then, deal with the atheism of so many? How is a Christian to respond to a bitter atheist, like Sartre, or Shopenhauser? And, lastly, how shall a Christian present Christianity to an unChristian group, without there being derision, hostility, misapprehension? Almost too simply the answer is within THE CASE FOR CHRISTIANITY, by C.S. Lewis.
Too simple is correct - C.S. Lewis' book is quite popular among Christians, but it is one of the weakest attempts at apologetics one could possibly try and use. There seems to be an almost inversely proportional relationship between the popularity of a work of apologetics and the soundness of its logical arguments - the works of Josh McDowell are another good example of that.
If someone like David wants to avoid derision and hostility, here are a couple of tips. First, don't assume that you already know all you need to about atheism and atheists - chances are, you don't know a fraction of what you think you do, and even less of what you need to. Second, educate yourself about atheism and make a concerted attempt to avoid common myths and misunderstandings. That might mean independent research of atheists' writings or it might simply mean asking some questions. In general, asking questions is a far wiser course of action than making assumptions about people you don't know and have never met.
Third, learn a bit more about your own religion and theology as well - employing the weakest apologists like Lewis or McDowell makes it look like you haven't even done your homework on your own beliefs, much less on atheists. More sophisticated apologists, like William Lane Craig, will help you make more sophisticated arguments; that, in turn, will allow you to get a great deal more respect from atheists, no matter how much they may disagree with you. A good argument that isn't convincing is much better than lousy argument that you yourself wouldn't find convincing if you only understood the issues at hand.
Finally, don't assume that your beliefs are so obviously and plainly true that there aren't any good reasons for anyone to disagree with you. The fact of the matter is, you are a human and you aren't infallible. No matter how strongly and sincerely you hold your beliefs, it is possible that you could be wrong and that the atheist's position is in fact more reasonable. There is always the chance that you may have more to learn - so enter into any such conversation with enough humility and humanity to recognize that could find out that you have been mistaken and may adopt a new position in the end. Otherwise, you're just preaching - and there's no reason to assume that anyone is really interested in listening to you preach.
This conversation continues tomorrow.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
“You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say that there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man! because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not there is no God.”
-Sri Ramakrishna
O man! Because you cannot find the Invisible, Magic Space Elephant in the days of your ignorance, say not there is no Invisible, Magic Space Elephant.
There is observable evidence of stars at night and scientific evidence of stars during the day. No such evidence exists for the existence of god.
Well a quote from a 19th century Indian mystic will certainly sway me.
how about
a philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn’t there. A theologian is the one who finds it -
H.L. Mencken
I’m just curious, what about Lewis makes his attempts the worst at apologetics. I’m not saying you’re wrong, though using the one book and not Mere Christianity might not have been David’s best idea. I would like, however, more of an explanation on what makes it so poor would be appreciative. Also, a better understanding of the context of the original broadcast talks might be in order for both of you. Don’t forget the “book” was written as a radio broadcast for British citizens during WWII and was not intended, specifically, as an apologetic to convince atheists to become Christians. Just my thought on that part of the conversation.
Lewis is among the worst because he never offers any sound or substantive arguments. The arguments he does offer are filled with fallacies and unstated assumptions which almost make them seem designed to appeal to those who already believe rather than the skeptics and nonbelievers he claims he is trying to appeal to.
I’ve written a number of articles about Lewis here:
http://atheism.about.com/od/cslewisnarnia/
The remark that we atheists “without having read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, or Christian mysticism, assume to know what Christianity is” really annoyed me. I’m reminded of an old Richard Dawkins line: “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” (Fortune, 4 October 1999)
To follow that train of thought, wouldn’t David have to be well-versed in the various Sutras of Buddhism, in the Vedas of Hinduism, the Qur’an and Hadith of Islam, the Avesta of Zoroastrianism—not to mention the Tao te Ching, Analects, and Dianetics—in order to dismiss all the religions in which he disbelieves?
cognitive dissident, Yes, yes he would.
“And, for them to consider religion at all in a serious light is mocking, insulting. Many without having read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, or Christian mysticism, assume to know what Christianity is. They ask of the theist to explain himself.”
I don’t follow the “logic” that anyone who hasn’t read the Bible or other Christian books shouldn’t not believe Christianity is true. Must one read the Artemis Fowl books to not believe in fairies?
Austin:
If you want to see some evidence of rising atheism in youth, look at the recent publication of Canadian 2008 data (and do a post on it!). Reg Bibby, a religious apologist posing as a sociologist at the University of Lethbridge, has just released a report on the “millenial” generation.
If you read the titles on Bibby’s site, you’ll realise that religion is by far his most frequent topic, and that his articles are an elaborate denial of the growth of atheism. He has tracked god belief for decades, and allowed for four categories of respondent: gnostic and agnostic theist/deists, and gnostic and agnostic atheists. Like most religionists, he adds the theist/deists together, but separates the two atheist categories, in order to minimise the number of atheists.
But even he has been forced to admit that atheism is taking off. Granted, he only admits that the gnostic atheists, are “atheists”, but this category is now 16% among Cdn youth (up from 5% in the mid-1980s, when I was one). The agnostic atheists which he refuses to admit are also atheists are another 16%. On par with Catholics (32%), outnumbering Protestants (20%) and “Other faiths (16%) combined, atheists are growing at a rate which has alarmed religionists. Bibby’s 2008 data for the first time includes people who didn’t answer (a large 7%), who can logically (although not statistically) be assumed to be closet atheists.
Bibby’s report is featured in MacLeans magazine, and can be found on the internet. I’m hoping my letter in response to it will be published.
As to “David’s” comments: the statements of religionists, in defence of their belief, consists largely of the 180 degree inversion of reality. For example:
“Atheism becomes a compound of arrogance and fear . . .”
It is religion, of course, that is an amalgam of arrogance and fear. I’d add ignorance and self-delusion to the mix, though fear is the most important ingredient: fear of not getting the afterlife (ie soul) that religions promise (but cannot provide any evidence for).