"Consequently 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: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning." -"Mere Christianity", C.S. Lewis
Thoughts, comments?
2007-03-29 14:23:17 · 18 answers · asked by Michael C 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
We wouldnt know as much as we do today if it werent for free thinking that is not restricted by religion. Progress is not as simple as you would think!
2007-03-29 14:28:19 · answer #1 · answered by Maikeru 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's a fun one. I should pick up some C.S. Lewis some time. I know my response won't be the best, but take it for what it is.
I question the analogy used because we can conceptualize of things that do not exist. For example, while we're at the mercy of time and can't budge from our steady procession down its axis, people have conceived of time machines which travel through time in whatever direction at whatever pace. I would say that an accurate analogy would have beings who have eyes and can postulate their purpose. They can conceive of sight even though there is no light to make it possible. In a similar way, I can conceive of a greater being who has a specific purpose for me, even though this being may not exist.
Considering that people tend to personalize inanimate objects (that dark tree branch looks like an arm grabbing at you), it would be consistent that people who search for purpose and direction would personalize these concepts as the will of a parent-like figure who comforts and guides them. However, this personalization often turns out to be an illusion. Lewis personalizes a path in life with the term meaning. Meaning implies a will, and will implies intelligence. If this personalization is incorrect, the question is moot.
2007-03-30 00:02:44 · answer #2 · answered by Phil 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Im am an atheist, and I don't know what most of that crap was talking about, but just because your an atheist doesn't mean that "Life has no light". It simply means you don't believe in god, which is a hard concept to grasp...if heaven is so good than why are you still living on Earth? If your positive that there is a god and a heaven then wouldn't you rather be in heaven?
2007-03-29 21:30:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, his words help reinforce my stance. There is no such a thing as "too simple". It is my experience that the simplest solution is the right one in almost every case. So, I ask myself: Is it more probable that an invisible, all-powerful being created the universe and it's trillions of bodies, then selected one world among all of them, manipulated it for around two billion years until it was able to be inhabited by creatures that he would make in his image (or just make humans for non-Christians), while in the process randomly creating other creatures that he decided were not worth keeping around, controlled everything for thousands of more years while separating this new species all over the world and keeping them unaware of each other (North and South America separated from the rest of the world, mountains to separate other cultures, the seas, etc.), then waited and chose one particular fraction of the populous to reveal himself to, sent his son to save us from sin (which would then vary from generation to generation and from culture to culture) or sent a prophet (whichever religion you want to place here), punished those among this species that would never even know about him by sending them to eternal damnation, and then sat back and watched as countless atrocities were committed either in his name or just because his little creations didn't like one another; or, is it more likely that through billions of years, tiny particles collided with one another until they formed solids, that life sprang from several sources but could not be maintained except for maybe a few instances where distant from a light and heat source were ideal (out of probably trillions of celestial bodies), and that over time life either died out or continued and changed over time to a variety of forms, including humans? I'll take option two.
2007-03-30 12:47:43 · answer #4 · answered by seattlefan74 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I find his writings interesting but nonsense. Asking for meaning of the universe and the world and us, is just like walking into a wardrobe and listening to a lion speak.
2007-03-29 21:58:39 · answer #5 · answered by Freethinking Liberal 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just because something has no meaning, doesn't mean its meaningless.
God does not supply meaning, just an explanation of how things came to be.
It is arrogant for a human to think that they can possibly know anything about God.
agnostic
2007-03-29 21:33:32 · answer #6 · answered by MONK 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You must understand, of course, that Mr. Lewis, as a Christian, was a bit biased and as a Christian apologist, had a particular reason for writing what he did. The analogy is a bit strained as well.
2007-03-29 21:31:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lewis is assuming that there must be meaning to the world because we can instill meaning in events. There is no reason to assume this, as meaning is arbitrary and completely in the eye of the beholder.
2007-03-29 21:29:47 · answer #8 · answered by Michael 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why would the universe have meaning? Life has whatever meaning one gives to it.
2007-03-29 21:33:31 · answer #9 · answered by CD 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"You will never be happy if you keep searching for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you keep looking for the meaning of life without living it." Albert Camus
who also writes that the only meaning life has is what we give it.
The universe is. Life is. Meaning is our interpretation of these facts.
2007-03-29 21:39:35 · answer #10 · answered by The angels have the phone box. 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋