27 July 2009 at 6:00 am (Atheist, Debate)
Tags: Apologetics, C S Lewis, Christianity, Literature
I’m reading C S Lewis’ Mere Christianity at the moment and found myself ranting (in my head) before I’d even finished the first chapter. Most distracting, I had to kept shutting me up and going back to read what I’d missed. With that in mind I’d like to examine the points raised in each chapter to see if there is any merit to what he’s written. Fortunately he writes very well with some excellent examples so there are few distinct points in each chapter to confuse thing.
In chapter one Lewis argues that there are things he calls Laws of Nature that are universal for all people. This is essentially a default moral standard enjoyed by all of humanity that included compunctions against killing, stealing, rape, deceit, etc. He argues that these are not learned traits but inherent in the human condition.
There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Creeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to–whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put Yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.
I disagree. Although he does follow up with some neat examples that I do agree with I think he is too sweeping in his assumptions.
There are many different characteristics that human beings could be said to have. I can indeed think of a country where aggression in war is frowned upon and pacifism is considered a positive trait or even where cowardice is excused. I think that we live in societies where exploiting those weaker than us is permissible and even encouraged. Selfishness and self dependence are certainly considered to be traits of value although we do not think of self promotion in such terms.
Are there really universal human characteristics or is Lewis just making a huge assumption? Even if he’s right what does this prove?
5 Comments
20 July 2009 at 6:00 am (Atheist, Debate)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/12/2623435.htm
Knowledge of the Bible is in decline in Britain, with fewer than one in 20 people able to name all Ten Commandments and youngsters viewing the Christian holy book as “old-fashioned”, a survey said.
Atheists, however, were not unduly worried about the decline in the Bible’s popularity.
“It shows really that religion is becoming less important to people,” said Pepper Harow, campaigns officer at the British Humanist Association.
I got the article link from the BBC’s Big Question forum. Here was my own response at the time.
Whether you are a believer or not the Bible and the Church of England is part of our national culture and heritage. How can you hope to understand and appreciate the Reformation, The English Civil War or The Enlightenment without some idea of what the bible meant to people. Our language is resplendent with biblical references, our laws are often derived from biblical sources and overturned because we have no secular reason for keeping them.
We should have an awareness of the bible even if we believe that it is myth because people took it very seriously for a very long time. How can you argue against something if you don’t know where the idea came from. If you support stem cell research then you must know about the objections that are derived from Christian dogma as well as those that come from ethical considerations. If you support a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy then you need to understand how others object to it. If you support free education then you need to understand the basis for it and how Christianity was instrumental in creating the public school system.
Some responses lament the decline of knowledge in the general populace. “We are becoming dumber” they say. I disagree though that knowledge is in decline. In the 21st century we have unprecedented access to knowledge on almost any subject you can imagine. I can read Ulysses online, go to a library, order it from Amazon or even borrow a copy. I can discuss the references in a forum with people all over the world if I wish and can even search for one if I don’t know where to find one. I can join a correspondence course, arrange to meet up with Joyce or Tennyson enthusiasts or just write a blog about it. None of this was possible even 10 years ago on the scale we have today.
I think what is in decline is interest. We are becoming the Eloi and the Morlocks, neither is a fate I find particularly appealing. Do you disagree? Should we lament the loss of our history or allow that which has served it’s purpose to pass unremarked and unmourned? Is the decline of biblical knowledge, as I believe, a symptom of a society that has grown bored and indolent, that seeks only survival and entertainment. If we are losing the roots of our history then is this a step to replacing these old myths with something better for everyone?
4 Comments
1 July 2009 at 10:10 am (Atheist, Debate)
A round up of interesting news stories. What ho!
Britain’s libel laws threaten Free Speech. The article begins with some interesting background on chiropractors and how my nation’s laws are being used to silence science writers who criticise crackpot pseudoscience. Oh the shame.
Research reveals how super-sleeper frogs survive Oh I sometimes wish I could sleep for so long.
Outsourcing Faith Apparently the faithful want to be able to talk about faith rather than do their jobs. Fine, but it should be unpaid work right? Like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who always come round when I’m in the middle of a strenuous workout (ahem) on a Sunday morning. They don’t get paid.
Thanks.
18 Comments
31 December 2008 at 11:59 pm (Debate, Reasons to be cheerful)
Tags: 2009, banks, BNP, destiny, fail, Littlejohn, Obama, predictions, Zimbabwe
Ages ago I wrote some predictions for 2008.
Here are my five predictions:
-
Well known celebrity couple Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt (Bradgelina) will announce a split and will go their separate ways.
FAIL. It appears that the celebrity couple are still together.
-
Hillary Clinton will be the first female president of the United States of America. I’m only saying this because the democrats will probably win and I’m certain that Americans will vote for a woman before they will vote for a black man.
FAIL. Clinton lost out to Barack Obama early on so that didn’t happen..
-
England will experience freak weather conditions on an unprecedented scale. I include heat waves, snow storms and\or tornadoes. None of these will stop me from getting to work though…unfortunately.
FAIL. We had the usual weather this year as far as i could tell. At least there was nothing so strange as to be newsworthy.
-
There will be a large food scare in England akin to the salmonella, BSE, or bird flu farces of recent years. I don’t know, maybe it’ll be the turn of vegetables to receive some bad press.
FAIL. Again there were some little scares and some silly rumours mainly involving Scottish salmon and grain but no big scares.
-
The west will go to war against a major nation in the middle east… again.
FAIL. I was expecting a big war in Iran by that nutter Bush but it never happened. We may well be picking fights with our middle eastern cousins but there is no major assault.
That’s terrible. Zero out of five. Dom did much better with four out of five. Clearly my psychic powers were on the fritz last year. Perhaps I should try to be a bit more outrageous in my claims.
With that in mind these are my 2009 Psychic Predictions from the Brain of Destiny.
- Sticking to American politics I’m going to go for an assassination attempt against the President. His first year in office and a new face always upsets a few loonies. This may be too easy as there were whisperings of nutters coming out of the woodwork from the minute he put his hat in the election. I’m going out on a limb here and I’m going to suggest that the assassination fails miserably and improves the public perception of Barack Obama due to his level headed handling of the event.
- Banks will continue to be greedy, irresponsible buggers. Now that they know that the government will bail them out when they make costly mistakes they will stop caring about risk and invest in all sorts of hare-brained schemes while throwing away confidential information or leaving it down the pub. Something stupid like that. The FSA will fail to make a difference.
- I have a particular dislike of the BNP as a bunch of racist loudmouthed twats. I therefore predict see some serious legal ramifications for some hate mongering by the BNP. Perhaps a senior policeman gets sacked or a court case challenges them in a publicly embarrassing way. I don’t want to get too specific because that’s not how predictions work. The words BNP, legal, and funny will certainly be involved though.
- Setting aside politics and steering clear of religion (for a change) I focus prediction number four directly on the mystical configurations of the cult of celebrity. A footballer’s wife, perhaps one who sings a bit, will be exposed in the press as being a bit unfaithful. The popular press will use such choice and sensitive phrases as “slapper” and “love cheat” and I fully expect Richard Littlejohn’s head to explode with glee. As a private matter I will fail miserably to have an opinion but the constant chatter about two people who I’ve never heard of will annoy me and I’ll be forced to blog about it.
- No prediction would be complete with a little popular news, Zimbabwe in this case. The country will continue to deteriorate and nobody will do anything about it. Not a thing. There will be plenty of talk though.
That’s it. What are yours?
8 Comments
25 September 2008 at 10:19 pm (Atheist, Debate)
I find this incredibly short sighted. It’s a good thing that the papilloma virus can’t be transmitted by married sexual intercourse….Oh wait, biology doesn’t work like that.
Malaria will apparently wither in the face of determined religious opposition. Maybe mosquito nets or a vaccine would be a better idea. Just a suggestion.
It looks as if the historical “rough” treatment of dogs under Shari’ah law is finally under review.
I really hope that she’s been misquoted because it’s a bit of a silly statement otherwise.
‘There’s something heroic about battling off the forces of scepticism’
‘There’s something heroic about credulity’
‘I was starting to think sceptically but then I pushed the idea away and kept thinking magical thoughts’
Good grief.
25 Comments
26 February 2008 at 12:10 am (Bad things happen, Debate)
Apparently 99% of people want to bring back hanging. It’s OK though because they’re Sun readers.
How does another act of violence, another grisly, sordid killing make the world a better place?
Seriously.
18 Comments
8 February 2008 at 10:43 am (Debate, Pedantic)
This is just for discussion. I would love to hear some comments from people. Here’s the issue:
Someone approaches you and states that yesterday never existed. In fact everything has only existed since 6am this morning. When everything came into existence, it was already “pre-programmed” with the appearance of age and we were installed with our memories of non-existent past days.
Your goal is to attempt to prove them wrong. How would you? What would you say?
22 Comments
5 November 2007 at 1:20 pm (Atheist, Debate, Religion, You decide)
On my way to work this morning I was perusing the headlines of the papers. One headline caught my attention. This was the story of a mother of twins who apparently died after refusing a blood transfusion on the grounds of her religious beliefs. Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions because they believe that God has forbidden it in the Bible. They believe that accepting a blood transfusion is a sin. Whether the story is true or not is another issue.
Now, many of you know that I’m an atheist who has some particularly strong views against religion. It is just this sort of thing that really gets me angry about religion.
My many recent debates on Bill’s site have tempered my usual rant somewhat. I think that you’ll agree that tempering my usual rants about religion is something of a good thing. 
However I’m still disgusted that anyone would prefer to die and leave their children without a mother than break a rule of their church. Note please that this is a church rule. It is an interpretation of a particular passage in a holy book. It is just as valid as any other interpretation of any other passage in any other holy book. People of faith may consider the death of this woman as abhorrent as I do and some may consider it laudable.
I think that self sacrifice in the cause of something that you believe in is possibly the noblest reason to die. If any reason for dying can be said to be noble. I also think that living for something that you believe in is by far the better option even if you have to compromise occasionally. I’d rather be alive and compromised than dead and right. You don’t get to apologise once your dead.
20 Comments
/