Insufficient Christianity: 10.1
This is a critique of chapter 10 of the book Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. You can find the critique of this book so far by clicking the “C.S. Lewis” tab at the bottom of this page. You can also find an online copy of the book by clicking the link at the bottom.
The first half of this chapter is interesting because Lewis lays out two bits of apologetics: one a very popular apologetics argument and one less so. We’ll start with the first.
In this argument, Lewis points out that this process of atonement and receiving a “new life” as a Christian involves at least these three things: belief, baptism, and partaking in Communion/Mass/Lord’s Supper. He says that he really does not see why these three particular things are the conductors of new life. He likens this to sex: when people are children, they don’t know how sex works, and they could never guess that mommy and daddy bonking each other nine months before they were born produced them. It seems so odd to children when they learn of conception that many of them react in disbelief. Lewis says, “Now the God who arranged that process is the same God who arranges how the new kind of life-the Christ life--is to be spread. We must be prepared for it being odd too. He did not consult us when He invented sex: He has not consulted us either when He invented this.”
To me, this argument could be used to explain the actions of any religious practice – and if you can use an argument to explain the actions of any religious practice, it has no authority as an argument. The issue we take with the Christian religion in particular is not that it is odd, but that its followers can use it to justify unethical behaviors. To use a recent example: when you believe so strongly in your religion that you are willing to let your own children die for it (in the case of parents neglecting medical care for their children in favor of prayer), yet you believe it is immoral to allow certain sounds to escape your mouth because those sounds insult your god, we consider your moral compass to be fundamentally broken by your religion.
The truth is that the universe is unmistakably odd. We humans only understand the universe within the narrow band created by the lumpy tissue and the exchange of sodium ions from one area to the next within our skulls. When I call religion odd, this is not because it is oddness atop a mountain of evidence. It is because it is odd, and that oddness stands alone. If there were compelling evidence, I would gladly change my mind and shake the hands of the individuals responsible for such change. If I believed in god I would fully expect his ways to be beyond my understanding. Alas, the crux lies in the premise.
In the second argument, Lewis says that he believes Jesus is god due to his authority. He says that most of the mundane things we believe in we believe on authority, and so believing Jesus is no different:
1. New York is a city. St. Louis is also a city (that I live in), so I know things like cities exist. I have been to many other cities besides St. Louis. I have seen many pictures and videos of New York, and know many people who have visited New York. It is no impeccable feat of faith to accept that New York exists.
Now, let’s pretend that I currently am incapable of observing New York in any way. If 30% of the world told me New York existed, but was floating 15 feet above Rhode Island, 20% of the world told me New York existed, but was actually an ancient sunken city, 10% of the world told me New York existed, but was a part of every city, 10% of the world told me New York existed but only in my heart, 10% of the world told me that New York was actually called Planet X and was a mystery planet in our solar system we could not actually observe at all, and they all told me that I could not see New York unless I really believed in New York with my whole heart, I’d side with the 20% remaining who had come to the conclusion that there is no New York.
2. If someone whom I trust told me something that was contrary to empirical evidence, I would not trust them, no matter how great an authority figure they were. I trust Flimsy very much. If he told me he had Taco Bell for lunch, I would not ask for evidence. If he came home from work one day insisting that he had been abducted by aliens in the Taco Bell drive through during lunch, I would not believe him. This is because I apply a standard of evidence to extraordinary claims: namely that the more extraordinary the claim, the greater wealth of evidence such a claim must have before I accept it. We apply this standard all the time: if a telemarketer calls us, we know the offer is probably too good to be true. If someone claims to have discovered the cure for cancer, we require evidence. We understand that our senses deceive us: this is why we do not think our dreams are real. We might not know for sure what will happen if we stop paying our mortgage, but we do not stop paying it simply because we cannot know for sure whether or not it will matter.
3. I believe in evolution because I have studied the theory, and the theory makes sense. I need no authority other than my rational mind and observation.
4. History is another matter. I do not blindly accept histories as Lewis says, neither do historians. History is far more complicated than simply accepting things we see written. I would not accept a history if it contained things contrary to physical laws or empirical evidence. There are two stories of Nazi Germany: I accept the one with evidence. I understand that fables, legends and stories are told along with histories. How do we determine which is which? How is a talking wolf less extraordinary than a talking serpent? How is it that a story of a man walking on water is believable, but a story of a man on a flying carpet unbelievable?
5. Finally, other people will claim that they believe in their gods on authority. What do we do with a spiritualist who believes in the authority of her spirit guides, the new-ager who believes in the authority of her psychics, the Muslim who believes in the authority of Mohammad, the conspiracy theorist who believes in the authority of the Holocaust denier? I would imagine that Lewis might look at the claims of these authority figures and analyze them based on reason, observation, empirical evidence, and the like. He would absolutely apply some measure of standard to the claims made by other religions, yet in this one instance when his religion is on the line, these standards do not apply. It is not unreasonable to apply the same standard by which we judge other claims to our own claims.
Mere Christianity Online
The first half of this chapter is interesting because Lewis lays out two bits of apologetics: one a very popular apologetics argument and one less so. We’ll start with the first.
In this argument, Lewis points out that this process of atonement and receiving a “new life” as a Christian involves at least these three things: belief, baptism, and partaking in Communion/Mass/Lord’s Supper. He says that he really does not see why these three particular things are the conductors of new life. He likens this to sex: when people are children, they don’t know how sex works, and they could never guess that mommy and daddy bonking each other nine months before they were born produced them. It seems so odd to children when they learn of conception that many of them react in disbelief. Lewis says, “Now the God who arranged that process is the same God who arranges how the new kind of life-the Christ life--is to be spread. We must be prepared for it being odd too. He did not consult us when He invented sex: He has not consulted us either when He invented this.”
To me, this argument could be used to explain the actions of any religious practice – and if you can use an argument to explain the actions of any religious practice, it has no authority as an argument. The issue we take with the Christian religion in particular is not that it is odd, but that its followers can use it to justify unethical behaviors. To use a recent example: when you believe so strongly in your religion that you are willing to let your own children die for it (in the case of parents neglecting medical care for their children in favor of prayer), yet you believe it is immoral to allow certain sounds to escape your mouth because those sounds insult your god, we consider your moral compass to be fundamentally broken by your religion.
The truth is that the universe is unmistakably odd. We humans only understand the universe within the narrow band created by the lumpy tissue and the exchange of sodium ions from one area to the next within our skulls. When I call religion odd, this is not because it is oddness atop a mountain of evidence. It is because it is odd, and that oddness stands alone. If there were compelling evidence, I would gladly change my mind and shake the hands of the individuals responsible for such change. If I believed in god I would fully expect his ways to be beyond my understanding. Alas, the crux lies in the premise.
In the second argument, Lewis says that he believes Jesus is god due to his authority. He says that most of the mundane things we believe in we believe on authority, and so believing Jesus is no different:
“Do not be scared by the word authority. Believing things on authority only means believing them because you have been told them by someone you think trustworthy. Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority. I believe there is such a place as New York. I have not seen it myself. I could not prove by abstract reasoning that there must be such a place. I believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood on authority--because the scientists say so. Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life.We’ve heard this argument, or one like it, from various sources. The central problem I see with this argument is that while things like New York or the Solar system or blood flow can be measured objectively, the claims of religion cannot. It is easy for me to accept that New York exists (having not been there) for several reasons:
1. New York is a city. St. Louis is also a city (that I live in), so I know things like cities exist. I have been to many other cities besides St. Louis. I have seen many pictures and videos of New York, and know many people who have visited New York. It is no impeccable feat of faith to accept that New York exists.
Now, let’s pretend that I currently am incapable of observing New York in any way. If 30% of the world told me New York existed, but was floating 15 feet above Rhode Island, 20% of the world told me New York existed, but was actually an ancient sunken city, 10% of the world told me New York existed, but was a part of every city, 10% of the world told me New York existed but only in my heart, 10% of the world told me that New York was actually called Planet X and was a mystery planet in our solar system we could not actually observe at all, and they all told me that I could not see New York unless I really believed in New York with my whole heart, I’d side with the 20% remaining who had come to the conclusion that there is no New York.
2. If someone whom I trust told me something that was contrary to empirical evidence, I would not trust them, no matter how great an authority figure they were. I trust Flimsy very much. If he told me he had Taco Bell for lunch, I would not ask for evidence. If he came home from work one day insisting that he had been abducted by aliens in the Taco Bell drive through during lunch, I would not believe him. This is because I apply a standard of evidence to extraordinary claims: namely that the more extraordinary the claim, the greater wealth of evidence such a claim must have before I accept it. We apply this standard all the time: if a telemarketer calls us, we know the offer is probably too good to be true. If someone claims to have discovered the cure for cancer, we require evidence. We understand that our senses deceive us: this is why we do not think our dreams are real. We might not know for sure what will happen if we stop paying our mortgage, but we do not stop paying it simply because we cannot know for sure whether or not it will matter.
3. I believe in evolution because I have studied the theory, and the theory makes sense. I need no authority other than my rational mind and observation.
4. History is another matter. I do not blindly accept histories as Lewis says, neither do historians. History is far more complicated than simply accepting things we see written. I would not accept a history if it contained things contrary to physical laws or empirical evidence. There are two stories of Nazi Germany: I accept the one with evidence. I understand that fables, legends and stories are told along with histories. How do we determine which is which? How is a talking wolf less extraordinary than a talking serpent? How is it that a story of a man walking on water is believable, but a story of a man on a flying carpet unbelievable?
5. Finally, other people will claim that they believe in their gods on authority. What do we do with a spiritualist who believes in the authority of her spirit guides, the new-ager who believes in the authority of her psychics, the Muslim who believes in the authority of Mohammad, the conspiracy theorist who believes in the authority of the Holocaust denier? I would imagine that Lewis might look at the claims of these authority figures and analyze them based on reason, observation, empirical evidence, and the like. He would absolutely apply some measure of standard to the claims made by other religions, yet in this one instance when his religion is on the line, these standards do not apply. It is not unreasonable to apply the same standard by which we judge other claims to our own claims.
Mere Christianity Online
Labels: atheism, blasphemy, books, C.S. Lewis, philosophy
posted by Ziztur
at
8:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
I will never delete a comment because I disagree with you, but if you're posting anonymously, at least give us a name so that if you make multiple comments we can tell you apart from the other anonymous people.
<< Home