lewis' metaphysical quandaries

Barry Wallace writes:

[C.S. Lewis] was a careful thinker, and a former atheist, which means he wrestled with a multitude of metaphysical quandaries both as an unbeliever and as a believer. In neither case were all doubts erased from his mind.

Here are a couple of other excerpts from his writings that shed some additional light, I think, both on his reasoning and on your reflections.

"Now Faith…is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods where they get off, you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion." [Mere Christianity]

“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...”

“A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound-a proof that there are no such things as proofs-which is nonsense. Thus a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: `If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true … and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.’” [Possible Worlds] But Naturalism, even if it is not purely materialistic, seems to me to involve the same difficulty, though in a somewhat less obvious form. It discredits our processes of reasoning or at least reduces their credit to such a humble level that it can no longer support Naturalism itself.'” [Miracles: A Preliminary Study]

your rationalization reveals your soul

You’ve seen this clown-- the half evangelical, half circus act that plants himself around universities, city centers, or wherever else the scent of sin settles into a thick dew and secularism endures almost as well as was intended by our Founding Fathers. He squats a local grassy mound, hill, stage, knoll, or whatever other vantage allows him to yell and yell and be heard all the while manically waving his Bible like a wand that just might, with the grace of God, render these troubled iPod adorned souls spellbound. Let’s call our esteemed patron of the Lord Fred, the graced, the pious, the blessed, the sacred warrior.

Few listen to Fred, and probably zero sequentially credit his sermon for the sudden overpowering presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives. And I think I understand why. Fred does not preach subtly. This might be our fault: it’s rather hard to grab the attention of godless fiends without a little hint of extremism, maybe a dash of racism, pinch of disguised hate. Try to imagine Fred posted on his sad little hill talking nonsense like “forgive trespasses” or “turn the other cheek.” What a joke.

But, in spite of this, I don't think it is our fault. I think Fred-- Fred the devout, the righteous, the faithful-- passionately and unconditionally loves the Lord with all his being. Fred prepares to speak at that day’s chosen grassy, crowded place and feels the Lord lift him. “Give me courage, Lord; give me strength; give me the words.” Fred speaks. Harshly but honestly.

Let me pause here. For now, I am not very interested in Fred’s story-- not his intentions, or his background, or his particular flavor of Christianity. I am more interested in the Christian that heard his sermon on the street. “He gives Christians a bad name!” they'll say. “He’s not a true Christian!”

Fred-- our esteemed Christian zealot-- is not a true Christian? Now, wait a minute. I understand that Fred might have some ingrained extremist, racist, and apocalyptic thoughts, but he read the Bible just as you. Page by page, Fred formed the Christian foundation that now defines his life and drives his heart. Go ahead and try preaching to Fred. Try to shake up Fred’s roots with some Scripture that seemingly contradicts his actions and he will just as quickly bellow a rationalization or additional Scripture that counters your point. This happens so frequently within Christian circles. If you’re Christian, I urge you to read the Scripture that motivates the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) to commit their horrid actions in the name of the Lord.

As you read their proof (supported by Scripture) that God does not love everyone, you’ll be inclined to say “No, they’re interpreting the Scripture incorrectly.” But not so fast. Read those lines again. Do they loosely support the claims of the WBC? Yes. Other than simply recalling your understanding of the Bible and Christianity, can you explain why one interpretation (yours) should supersede theirs? No. The problem here is that the Bible is infinitely interpretable. One can manipulate its words to reflect whatever backward and narrow-minded or uplifting and inclusive message they wish. Thankfully, overall, mainstream Christianity preaches a message of hope and benevolence. But one cannot claim that the interpretations of the WBC are not at least as solid as mainstream Christianity’s interpretation of when life begins or whether homosexual marriage should be prohibited by law.

So the next time you see Fred, don’t get angry at him and call his sermon blasphemous. Rather, consider Fred a gift-- a symbol of the malleability of the Bible. Let Fred remind you that you needn’t pursue petty intolerances just because someone’s slanted interpretation of the Bible asks otherwise.

how do atheists explain jesus?

What do I do with the figure of Jesus? Jesus professed great common sense—blessed are the poor, blessed are the meek, blessed are the peacekeepers, love your enemy, turn the other cheek, forgive trespasses, don't pray in public, judge not lest you be judged, do unto others as you want to be done by. Of course, most of that message predates Jesus by thousands of years and most modern Christians refuse it anyway-- not that Christianity should be blamed for its misuse.

I don't think that Jesus performed the miracles that Christianity claims. A common but remarkably uncreative "proof" of the divinity of Jesus unfolds as follows: Jesus called himself the Son of God and claimed to perform miracles. This allows three possibilities: 1) he lied, 2) he was a psychopath, or 3) he was telling the truth. I don't consider any of these answers appropriate. I think his divine nature was prescribed onto him by oral traditionalists in the century following his death. Otherwise, he was either a liar or a psychopath-- but still a good guy that preached some great common sense!

the bible is the inspired word of god

I realize that the Bible provides hope to both those suffering on Earth and those perfectly accommodated, but one cannot honestly and purely examine the Bible-- its messages and its history-- and claim its divinity. The Bible's evolution and interpretation over the past twenty-five centuries reflects-- century for century-- the political and social drivers of the day. Did God aid clergymen in judging which gospels to include in the earliest version of the Bible?-- no, it was political. Did God guide the insertion of increasingly misogynistic text in the middle of the previous millennium?-- no, it was political. Did God demand the insertion of Mark 16:9-20 hundreds of years after the original?-- no. Did God intend that the term "homosexual" be added to the Bible for the first time in 1946?-- no, it was political. There are literally thousands of other examples. A common response to such evidence goes something like: "just because humans are fallible doesn't make the religion fallible." I adamantly agree, but to admit that the fallible nature of humankind has impacted the Bible necessarily strips the Bible of its divinity.

What I cannot understand is how one-- knowing that our earliest copy of the Bible dates only to the 3rd or 4th century AD; knowing that the Bible has undergone explicit, in-your-face alterations; knowing that the Gospels date 100 or more years after the supposed death of Jesus; knowing that the Bible's vagueness offers any person license to advance their own petty, narrow-minded beliefs; knowing countless other damning evidences-- can claim faith in its messages. I blame circular logic; remember that the only source that claims that the Bible is the word of God is the Bible itself. I often wonder, "In what do you have faith-- God or the Bible?" I do feel that each answer is mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, most Christians' understanding of God-- including how He perceives us-- follow directly from the teachings of the Bible. I imagine it incredibly difficult to divorce the two.

how do atheists cope with death?

You ask what I, as an atheist, think happens when I die. Well, I suppose I rot. But seriously, can I imagine a universe absent of my own consciousness?-- no. Do I believe my consciousness blinks out at death?-- I don't know. This is as honest an answer as I, or anyone else, can provide.

atheism leads to moral relativism

You consider Christian morals superior to those derived from an atheistic perspective. You cite the consistency of Christian ethics, as well as its focus on human dignity and stewardship, as evidence for your position. You further demonstrate the inadequacy of atheistic ethics through its equal treatment of "all substances"-- so, whether rock, insect, or human, atheists (at least after careful logical consideration) must value each equally. To be precise, this latter claim is not accurate: numerous spiritual traditions throughout history have emphasized the equality of "all substances." Consider, for example, some Native American societies. It is interesting to note that these societies, perhaps more effectively than most Christians or even atheists, rationalized apparent inconsistencies in their behavior (e.g. how they might justify killing a buffalo for food) rather cleverly.

Moving back on topic, simple right/wrong Christian ethics prove fabulously incomplete. It works well only for elementary, one-dimensional scenario-- to lie or not lie, to kill or not kill. Increasingly complex situations require a pragmatic (or morally relativistic) approach. Again consider lying and killing. Each is abominable, but a pragmatic approach allows one to, for example, lie to a murderer to save the life of another. Obviously, the appropriateness of lying is conditional.

Consider a more demanding example: would you allow one person to die in order to save two? Most people might answer "No!" But would you allow one person to die in order to save 1 million? Most people might answer "Yes!" Notice that a curious condition arises. Two persons and 1 million persons represent extremes-- a very small number of people and a very large number of people. But what if the numbers weren't so extreme? Logically, there must exist a number between 2 and 1 million where a person becomes ethically torn. Herein lies moral ambiguity. I argue that practically all dilemma we humans encounter on a daily basis are of this form-- falling within the gray areas where simple right/wrong ethics do not suffice. Moral ambiguity arises not from evil or corruptness, but, rather, from the complexity and diversity of our societal interactions. I further argue that regardless of your preferred moral identity, all humans operate pragmatically; it is necessary for survival.

faith offers my life meaning

To summarize your point, you're a Christian because you seek meaning. And, as you rationalize it, meaning offers the only logical barrier to suicide. You expand this point to address those atheists who haven't yet realized that suicide is their only logical next step, and conclude that their accomplishments cannot logically derive self-gratification because, in the end, there's no point to their pursuits. Honestly, this assessment is both juvenile in its depth and personally insulting. It reiterates a lame, narrow minded, and partisan dogma that permeates throughout the Christian world. Allow me to demonstrate its lack of rational merit: you claim self-meaning because, by definition, God offers your life meaning. You will live, you will die, and will henceforth spend eternity glorifying God. You find joy in this eternity because, by definition, you derive all- encompassing and everlasting joy in the presence of God. Trudging beyond the demonstrably cyclic nature of these statements, one is left with the following question: how does one justify meaning in the eternal glorification of God? At best, a God offers one additional degree of separation from the inevitable question: "What's the meaning of all this?"

As an atheist, I derive meaning from the same sources as the Christian (in an actionable sense). I recognize the merit in caring for one's family; in caring for one's children; in striving for the betterment of society and self; in intellectual pursuit. These offer my life meaning, and they offer your life meaning as well. And, sure, when asked "what's the point of it all?" you can proudly claim the glorification of God. But when asked to justify the meaning of the glorification of God, you'll need to resort to circular logic. Unfortunately, God offers no solution to our biggest questions-- He merely redirects them. So, you can kill yourself if you want, but I'm going to keep on living.