Against God

I submit for your approval and/or discussion a quote from C.S. Lewis.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. 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 have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

I've flipped this one over and then over again every way I can think of. I invite everyone to do the same analyze disect discuss. I will join in if discussion does arise if/when my interest leads me to it.

Originally posted by randyvs
Against God

I read this as, For or Against you are still part of it.

It is interesting that Lewis questions the origin of his thought.

Jung wrote quite a bit on the collective subconscious that humanity pull from.

The hermetic axioms state that the "All is mind" which is spot on to recent quantum mechanics theory. Also that polarity is required within the construct of the material world.

In fact Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D would tell you that God is super-conscious and people are antennas.

What I am most impressed with is how Lewis stumbled on the fact that everything is connected and he did this simply by unraveling a question as old as self-realization.

How do you articulate the inconceivable and is it possible that all wars are born from the frustration of not being able to clearly state what you are thinking when contemplating God? It can drive you mad or bring clarity!

Originally posted by zroth

I read this as, For or Against you are still part of it.

I think Lewis' point is that the judgement "There is something wrong with things as they are" must come from something outside "things as they are"- implicitly, from God.
If we were not in some way distinct from the world, we would not be able to recognise anything as wrong.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by DISRAELI]

I never understood why god, if existing, would have to be nice. Maybe the only way to learn and to evolve is through tough love, negative catalysts. All the pain in this life may seem significant to us, but our entire lifespans are merely a second compared to the beginning of time, so in the grand scheme of things its not significant.

It is written that Humans were given these abilities, to sense what was just and unjust. It is obvious enough that we have and utilize these things.

Given these abilities, not that we just had them without any reason.

I have read some CS Lewis before but hadn't seen the one you quote above... It is very good insight into an examination of what we are.

I feel that any open minded and humble person will always discover for themselves the real universal truths of existence, just be living every day and examining what everything is. Most everyone already does this, some more than others. People filled with pride and arrogance usually can not come to any conclusion except ones that don't interfere with their pride and arrogance.

Good post

Originally posted by zroth
...is it possible that all wars are born from the frustration of not being able to clearly state what you are thinking when contemplating God?

Nah, wars are all ego: they are born from pride ambition.

It is the nature of war, though, that it requires a pretext to get the people into it (and also perhaps to justify the ambition to the kings themselves).

Religion has made a great one througout history. But religion lost much of its foothold with the scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th centuries. By the "wars are started by religion" logic we should be living in an era of peace.

Instead, what happened? WWI was "fought over" national pride. WWII was largely "fought over" whether socialism should be national or international.

Same #, different #holes.

Wars are all about ego. Always have been since the beginning of time.

Anyway, sorry to go off-topic. I wasn't expecting this post to be this long when I first hit the button.



[edit on 16-7-2010 by NewlyAwakened]

reply to post by randyvs



Good stuff Randy Buddy. You're a great example of how this site can help people broaden their views.





This is some profound stuff, but only because I can't seem to wrap my head around it. But what's new..? Between the grammar and dualistic nature of the quote, I seem to trip over my own translation of the words.


I did come across a site that has content that may assist us in deciphering this stuff.

theologia.indicium.us...


From Source:

It may be represented as an argument against atheism. Strictly speaking, though, it is more of an argument against an argument for atheism - namely an argument that Lewis made before his conversion.

There are essentially four propositions at work here:

1. If God does not exist, then reality is senseless.
2. If there is injustice, then reality is not senseless.
3. If there is injustice, then God does not exist.
4. There is injustice.


As an atheist, Lewis wanted to argue that because there is injustice in the world, therefore God does not exist. But further thought revealed to him that not all of the above four propositions could be true at the same time. For if there is injustice, then reality is not senseless. And so it follows (denying the consequent of the first proposition) that God must exist. But it follows from the third and fourth propositions that God does not exist! And so we have a contradiction.


So...this helps, but I still find myself shaking my head. I may need a drink after this.

How do you articulate the inconceivable and is it possible that all wars are born from the frustration of not being able to clearly state what you are thinking when contemplating God? It can drive you mad or bring clarity!

reply to post by zroth


I am impressed with your understanding of this quote. I think it relates so well to Einstiens Pantheism. Both your understanding and the quote.

Alien reality
I love this what you said here. A notable quote IMO.

I feel that any open minded and humble person will always discover for themselves the real universal truths of existence, just be living every day and examining what everything is. Most everyone already does this, some more than others. People filled with pride and arrogance usually can not come to any conclusion except ones that don't interfere with their pride and arrogance

[edit on 16-7-2010 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs

Slight flaw in the original argument, namely, that the universe is so unjust god can't exist. The counter logic implies that if the universe is full of just wonder god must exist! NO! The existence of justice or not, wonder or not etc etc has nothing to do with the existence of a mythical creature UNLESS you claim that ONLY a mythical creature can produce such outcomes. But that argument is put forward by those who are too stubborn or arrogant to admit "I don't know why". It is OK not to know why, you leave the explanation for discovery in the future but you do NOT need to invent God as the cause (that's for cavemen!!!!!).

So this means that irrespective of any state of the universe good or bad and knowing or not knowing why or how does not need a God as explanation. Things are the way they are and we may found out one day. In the meantime don't worry, just get on with life and live by one rule : do whatever you like as long as it respects all others right to the same. (e.g. you have to drive in unison on the same side of the road to respect the folks on the other side who want to live!, same sex marriage does not involve you only the two who want to marry so it's ok, you can believe in any deity you like just don't force your beliefs on others, if a church does not want women as priests and you do don't join that church!, etc etc get the drift?)

reply to post by malcr

I think you're slightly missing the point of Lewis's original argument, which is that "injustice" in the world cannot be recognised as injustice, except from a standpoint originating outside the world. That's where God comes in.
Lewis is saying that without a standpoint ouside the world, you cannot say "the world is wrong"; you can only say "the world is".

reply to post by malcr

So this means that irrespective of any state of the universe good or bad and knowing or not knowing why or how does not need a God as explanation. Things are the way they are and we may found out one day. In the meantime don't worry, just get on with life and live by one rule : do whatever you like as long as it respects all others right to the same. (e.g. you have to drive in unison on the same side of the road to respect the folks on the other side who want to live!, same sex marriage does not involve you only the two who want to marry so it's ok, you can believe in any deity you like just don't force your beliefs on others, if a church does not want women as priests and you do don't join that church!, etc etc get the drift?)

It's just that with the use of the word force your statement drifts.

Facelift

I did come across a site that has content that may assist us in deciphering this stuff.

Great link I'm all over it thank you very much.

Disraeli

I think you're slightly missing the point of Lewis's original argument, which is that "injustice" in the world cannot be recognised as injustice, except from a standpoint originating outside the world. That's where God comes in.

That's my interpretation as well. Nothing to add.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs


I feel Lewis has simply demonstrated his propensity for talking himself in circles. He assumes that a knowledge of justice implies a higer power. This does not have to be true, although some may feel the same way. If we take the position that it is not true, then his argument, once again, collapes upon itself. He also, by including himself as part of this unjust world and part of a "show", assumes a creator to the "show" . . . So, he never truly stop believing in a god. If he truly had rejected a belief in a creator, his argument doesn't initially collapse, simply due to a realization that justice is personal and the questioning of where this knowledge originated. Lewis' writings are full of confliction and this is excerpt is a prime example.

Also, think bringing Jung into the discussion was great . . . His study of the ego would point to justice being a totally personal perception, driven by ego and personal preference.

I do love reading his ramblings though . . . Thanks for the topic.

reply to post by solomons path

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 have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

Then you are also saying this dosn't have to be true either. Are you not?

[edit on 16-7-2010 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs


In once sense yes and in another no . . . (How's that for fitting into a Lewis thread!!)

"Dark" is a term we have created to associate with the absence of light, so in that sense Lewis is right. However, if there were never light or we never had eyes, but our language developed the same way . . . then the syllabic combination of "dark" would have been associated with something else because there would be no need to describe the absence of light . . . as there would be no knowledge of light. Once again, it assumes that these conditions are eternal and therefore true, but they do not have to be. However, they do have to be true for him to make is argument. If there were no light being dark all the time would not be un-natural to us and without eyes he can not verify that there is any such thing as light. Circular ramblings . . .

reply to post by solomons path

In once sense yes and in another no . . . (How's that for fitting into a Lewis thread!!)

Yeah! You know I do find that perfectly acceptable.
You still leave quit a bit of meat on the bone though because darkness
and justice can never be personal. Einsteins pantheism is against a personal God. A belief I can't fully agree with, yet I do agree with many of
it's observations

[edit on 16-7-2010 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs


One doesn't need an argument against God. The existence of a God is a positive claim by those that believe, therefore the burden of proof is on them. Atheism, at least most forms of it, is merely a default skepticism that basically says to the theists: "Oh yeah, PROVE IT."

Since no one has ever proven God it is foolhardy to accept the burden of proof and then try to disprove God as Mister Narnia himself is attempting in this piece.

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 have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

I don't think the comparison is valid here. Light is an objectively verifiable phenomenon that exists in the real world while meaning is a subjective and abstract idea. We can all find meaning in our lives and there are plenty of religious and non-religious meanings thought up for the Universe, the fact that we used our imaginations to dream them up doesn't prove that there is an ultimate meaning - it just means we came up with the concept of meaning and applied it to things.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

I don't think the comparison is valid here. Light is an objectively verifiable phenomenon that exists in the real world while meaning is a subjective and abstract idea. We can all find meaning in our lives and there are plenty of religious and non-religious meanings thought up for the Universe, the fact that we used our imaginations to dream them up doesn't prove that there is an ultimate meaning - it just means we came up with the concept of meaning and applied it to things

Hmm, Hmmm, With 'in the constructs of the quote. You bring a valid point.
Made you dig though .

[edit on 17-7-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by solomons path

 

In once sense yes and in another no . . . (How's that for fitting into a Lewis thread!!)

Yeah! You know I do find that perfectly acceptable.

You still leave quit a bit of meat on the bone though because darkness
and justice can never be personal. Einsteins pantheism is against a personal God. A belief I can't fully agree with, yet I do agree with many of
it's observations

[edit on 16-7-2010 by randyvs]

Justice is entirely prejudicial. Perception of the severity of the crime is always at play. If you mean metaphorically, then it's still based on your personal belief structure. Darkness, meaning the absence of light, is either present or not. However, that's simply not the point Lewis is trying to make. He is equating that simple fact with reaffirmation of his god against an unjust world . . . His ascertion is that just as you cannot know darkness without the light, then without just (god) there could be no unjust and since he sees unjust there must be just (god). Claiming he would not know unjust without god and equating just to a god, he assumes only a god is capable of providing a just world, therefore there must be a god. Logical fallacies and circular reasoning.

As for Einstein's pantheism, that is Spinoza's pantheism. For me, while there is no belief in a personal god, it isn't simply that. Pantheism, god is everthing, is a deification of nature, the universe, and the laws that govern it. Spiritual Atheism or Natural Agnosticism or Paganism in a Christian world . . . call it what you will. However, when they talk about god it is not symbolized by the accepted nomenclature. Their god is the unknown forces that bind us and connect us to everything else. A deification of atomic theory, chemisty, evolutionary theory, cosmology, UST, and m-theory . . . if you will?


[edit on 7/16/10 by solomons path]

reply to post by randyvs


Thanks for the thread! Very interesting!

I would like to post my quick opinion. To state very quickly, however, I don't think the condition of the world is an argument against God. Now then...

What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?

Perhaps he was comparing the universe with an abstract version that would suit his views of a good one. Basically, the universe he was comparing it with was a fictional one he formed within his own mind.

At least, that's what I think it may be!

Kind regards

[edit on 16-7-2010 by Hitotsumami]

reply to post by randyvs

I highly suggest you study some advaita vedanta, nonduality, and nondual philosophy.

I've had this recurring feeling from the very moment I could have any trace of reason beginning to emerge ...maybe 4 or 5 years old. The feeling has always been that this existence doesnt seem right ....cruel and unusual, a sort of prison like the matrix ...it has been there my whole life and I've met others hat also have had this.

But my answers to all this came in studying the aforementioned topics. In the sense the once an awakening from within happens, then all things fall into place and everything the seems fine.

Lewis was merely philosophizing existence ......however he had to do so within the confines of Christianity which limited his responses to be wrapped in dogma and fundamentalism