So in an effort to better understand how someone could
possibly buy into the whole religious ideology, I’ve begun to explore
Christianity a bit further. After
scouring many websites and forums “Mere Christianity” seemed to be the most
highly recommended book to give to an Atheist according to Christians. So I took the bait and read this book. I’ve been trying desperately to find a valid
argument for the existence of God. Not
so much because I want to believe, but rather I want to know what could
possibly make someone else believe. I
was optimistic that I might find it within “Mere Christianity” since it is so
highly regarded among Christians.
However, what I found instead was simply more of the same. In fact, I found this writing to be one of
the worst cases for Christianity that I have yet discovered.
The last 2 chapters did very well at making the “Modern
Christian” look like a sinful heathen. I
actually found it humorous, at times, to read.
The fact of the matter is, based on C.S. Lewis’ interpretation of
Christianity I have yet to actually meet a Christian. That is to say that no one I have yet to meet
who call themselves Christians actually live a life of a true Christian according to this book. So maybe he just got it wrong. I could believe that if the very same things
he preaches in his book weren’t the very things I hear so called Christians say
as well. The discrepancy shows itself in
the hypocrisy of these very words. These
people who call themselves Christians and who claim to live by this particular
doctrine indeed do not. They claim they
are better people by living their live through the teachings of Jesus yet I have
not yet seen it. Maybe these very same
people should read this book as well.
While I’d hate to see them become even narrower minded at least they
would be practicing what they preach (as the saying goes).
I’ve pulled some quotes from this book. These are just some things that, while
reading it, I decided that I would like to touch upon and add my opinion on the
matter. I will add the disclaimer that
it is possible that I might have simply misunderstood the point being made or
simply took it out of context. I leave
it to you to read the book for yourself and decide. As it is, this is my take on some of the
things C.S. Lewis had to say:
“But when the
older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong ‘the Law of Nature’, they
really meant the Law of Human Nature.”
“…but the law
which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals
or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses.”
So the gist of this portion of reading is basically on
morality. Not necessarily what is right
and wrong but that there are rights as well as wrongs. This is basically the argument of objective
morality that Christians try to use to prove that there must be a God for how
else would we know these sorts of things.
Well, if you choose to believe that such a thing as objective morality exists
rather than it being a subjective matter, so be it. The thing is, his whole argument centers
around the premise of the aforementioned quotes. What I find fascinating is that he calls it
the “Law of Human Nature”. Human Nature, even he italicizes the
word Human. The interesting fact about
that is what he is going on about this whole time sounds more like Humanism
than Christianity. All he is really
doing here is validating the Humanist subculture of the Atheist movement. That only seems to make the case for Atheism
that must stronger in my opinion. A bit
ironic, isn’t it?
“If there was
a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one
of the facts inside the universe – no more than the architect of a house could
actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house.”
“Do not think
I am going faster than I really am. I am
not yet within a hundred miles of the God of Christian Theology.”
Okay, here we see one of the
greatest cop-outs of Christianity. I add
the second quote only to prove that he isn’t even actually arguing about the
God from the bible but simply taking a Deistic approach to the subject. Even so, the point here is that this is what
Christians do all the time. They say
that God is beyond our comprehension and therefore there is no possible way to
prove/disprove the existence of such a thing.
Basically, we are all too dumb to ever understand it for ourselves so we
should just take the word of those who wrote the bible instead. Then, of course, we have Jesus who is the “bridge”
between the level we are at as humanity and the level of the divine in heaven. So the only way we could possibly ever
understand is to follow the teachings of Jesus and transcend from our humanity
into something much more. It is this
appeal that has people brainwashed into all this nonsensical doctrine. I hear many people, most of them Christians,
talk about how crazy Mormons are or any of these suicidal cults that have
existed. The funny thing is that
Christianity is no different!
“But what
should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that
he forgave you for treading on other men’s toes and stealing other men’s
money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest
description we should give his conduct.
Yet this is what Jesus did. He
told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the
other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the
party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offenses. This makes sense only if He really was the
God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin.”
“A man who was
merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral
teacher. He would either be a lunatic –
on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the
Devil of Hell. You must make your
choice. Either this man was, and is, the
Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.”
It almost seems unfair to
even touch on these quotes. If this is
the best you have to argue that Jesus was the Son of God than maybe you should
rethink your faith. So, what I gather
from the first quote is: because a man calling himself Jesus forgave a bad
person on behalf of a victim he must surely be the “real deal”. Well, that’s some rather hard evidence to
contest (that was sarcasm just in case you didn’t pick up on that). Based on this argument I could forgive a
rapist on behalf of the woman he raped and by doing so it would prove I was
God. I hope you realize how silly that
really is. As for the second quote,
well, that’s just too easy. I choose the
latter. It has always been my opinion
that if Jesus actually did exist and said the things the New Testament claims
he said, that he most likely was just a crazy cult leader no different than the
likes of David Koresh.*
“I have
explained why I have to believe that Jesus was (and is) God. And it seems plain as a matter of history
that He taught His followers that the new life was communicated in this
way. In other words, I believe it on His
authority. 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 blood on authority – because 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.”
This here is an excellent
example of the true ignorance of the Christian mindset. To start with, you cannot prove that Jesus
ever existed (at least it has yet to be undeniably proven) nor that the things
he said or did ever happened. Therefore,
to consider him such an “authority” is an error. Now, let’s talk about this “authority concept”
some. First off, it is incredibly
frustrating to have to explain this over and over again to Christians: An
Atheists sense of faith is completely different than a Christians. Lewis is right in that most, if not all, of
us take it on faith that what a physicist tells us about the universe is
correct. But the difference lies in a
very crucial point. Science is conducted
through something we sane people call the Scientific Method. This means we don’t just seem something and
make a conclusion based on that alone.
Tests are conducted based on hypotheses and only when there is enough
demonstrable evidence are conclusions made.
Even then, nothing is written in stone.
Once our knowledge on things grows and we develop new ways of testing or
gain some new knowledge not yet discovered those conclusions can, and will,
change. It was once concluded that the
Earth was flat but as well all know today that is not now the case. Furthermore, when we are told of some new
conclusion we are not forced to believe such on faith. If we so choose we can run the tests and find
out the answers for ourselves. That is science. Now I must admit that the point, as far as it
relates to history, is a little more valid.
There is really no way for me to know for certain that Lincoln ever gave
a speech at Gettysburg. However, I do
not base any of my choices in life on this knowledge either. History
is not a doctrine which I live by. I may
take lessons learned from the history I’m taught and make better decisions
because of it but I do not do so because they are true. I do so because I see the logic and reason
within the lesson. I do not go around
and kill in the name of George Washington, but people have done such things in
the name of Jesus. And this only
pertains to some aspects of our history.
Many other historical facts are derived through the same sort of
principals used in science. Evidence of
arrow heads does indeed tell us when our species started to use tools. We might only be able to speculate how those
tools were used but we do know they were man made through to procedure or
running tests/experiments.
“According to
Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and
all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil
became the devil: Pride leads to every other vide: it is the complete anti-God
state of mind.”
“The more you
delight in yourself and the less you delight in the praise, the worse you are
becoming.”
“We say in
English that a man is ‘proud’ of his son, or his father, or his school, or
regiment, and it may be asked whether ‘pride’ in this sense is a sin. I think it depends on what, exactly, we mean
by ‘proud of’. Very often, in such
sentences, the phrase ‘is proud of’ means ‘has a warm-hearted admiration for’. Such an admiration is, of course, very far
from being a sin. But it might, perhaps,
mean that the person in question give himself airs on the ground of his
distinguished father, or because he belongs to a famous regiment. This would, cleverly, be a fault; but even
then, it would be better than being proud simply of himself.
Yet another technique used to brainwash the
masses. This type of doctrine causes the
religious to feel lowly and undeserving.
This is the type of tactic used by slave owners back before it was
abolished. Make the people believe they
are beneath you and they will do as you command. That’s exactly what Christianity is, slavery.
It’s amazing how easy it is for those
people of religious authority to use this type of thinking to their advantage. It’s this type of doctrine that allows little
boys to be molested by priests.
Christianity forbids pride. In my
opinion pride, especially in the sense used in this book, is another word for
self-esteem. It is people with low self-esteem
who are most susceptible to joining new cults.
Charles Manson, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, these were people who
preyed upon those with little or no pride.
I, for one, have plenty of pride and will continue to have it regardless
if it’s a so-called sin or not.
“It is very
different for the nasty people – the little, low, timid, warped, thin-blooded,
lonely people, or the passionate, sensual, unbalanced people. If they make any attempt at goodness at all,
they learn, in double quick time, that they need help. It is Christ or nothing for them. It is taking up the cross and following – or else
despair. They are lost sheep; He came
specially to find them. They are (in one
very real and terrible sense) the ‘poor’: He blessed them. They are the ‘awful set’ he goes about with…”
Yet another example of the type of person Christianity
targets. Isn’t it great how well this
religion thinks of its people?
“I want to
start by saying something that I would like everyone to notice carefully. It is this.
If this chapter means nothing to you, if it seems to be trying to answer
questions you never asked, drop it at once.
Do not bother about it at all. There
are certain things in Christianity that can be understood from the outside,
before you have become Christian. But
there are a great many things that cannot be understood until after you have a
gone a certain distance along the Christian road.”
I added this quote only because I think it is complete
nonsense. All it is basically saying is
to really understand Christianity, to really buy into all the illogical irrationality
of it, you have to brainwash yourself first.
Which further proves my point that Christianity is nothing more than
just another cult, like any other, except that it does a much better job at it
than the others.
“The other set
were accused of saying, ‘Faith is all that matters. Consequently, if you have faith, it doesn’t matter
what you do. Sin away, my lad, and have
a good time and Christ will see that it makes no difference in the end.’ The answer to that nonsense is that, if what
you call ‘faith’ in Christ does not involve taking the slightest notice of what
He says, then it Is not Faith at all – not faith or trust in Him, but only
intellectual acceptance of some theory about Him.”
This here is just a small sample of what lies at the
later portion of the book. And an
example of what most Christians say and do as opposed to what Christianity is
supposed to be all about. It’s amazing
how many Christians get offended or pissed off at things I say about their
religion when, in fact, I know more about it than they do. I know more about what it means to be a
Christian (especially after reading this book) than most Christians and yet I
still think its complete nonsense.
Ignorance is the ammo of religion.
Well, I choose not to be ignorant.
Well, that about wraps up my review of “Mere Christianity”
by C.S. Lewis. I would have to say that
I would not recommend this book to my fellow Atheists. In fact, I found it very difficult to even
put forth the effort into reading a lot of it, let alone the entire thing. The last couple of chapters were the worst as
it was really geared towards those who have faith (or at least think they do)
rather than a general interpretation of Christianity itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment