I thought I would blog today. I felt
that I may need to respond to a series of comments; yet again, levied toward a
quote from an author I deeply admire. Then it occurred to me; why not let the
man himself, do the explaining? So here
it is; the thought, in its entirety, if you still can't understand it, I'd
begin to question your willingness to comprehend...
“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 violent reaction
against it? A man feels wet when he
falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.
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 that 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. 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.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (1952; Harper Collins: 2001)
38-39.
2 comments:
NOTE: I assume that posts such as these are meant to encourage consideration of ideas and promote the sharing of alternative points of view in an effort to foster thoughtful discussion and debate. If I am wrong about this feel free to remove this post and give it no further thought.
So as I understand the case being made here the author's assertion is that god is to meaning as eyes are to light? That is to say that god is the instrument through which man experiences any meaning in life. Therefore without god the universe must be meaningless, just as without eyes the world must be dark. Have I understood this point correctly? But let's come back to that.
First let's deal with the question of Mr. Lewis's atheism. What he seems to be saying is he made a choice to become Atheist because he was angry at god for the injustice in the world. This is, unfortunately, the reasoning of a great many who would call themselves Atheists. This is not atheism, this is embittered theism. To feel anger or bitterness toward a thing is to admit the reality of the thing, which of course is completely contradictory to the only true tenant of Atheism. This single tenant is the conviction that there is no supernatural deity to be embittered against. To say an Atheist hates god, or is angry at god is roughly the same as saying they hate unicorns or are angry at leprechauns. Given that he approached atheism in this way it is not surprising that he returned to theism, since he never really left it.
Returning to the central point, which seems to be that god is necessary in order for there to be meaning to existence. I suppose that view is true for Mr. Lewis since he wrote it and for a great many other theists as well.
For myself, I find great meaning in a universe in which, against incredible odds and without conscious design, life found a way to not only exist but abound.
I am overcome with wonder for a process that through unknowable eons of change and adaptation managed to transform ephemeral energy into solid matter, to combine base chemicals into the complex structures of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies.
For me the meaning of the universe is cheapened by the idea that it is simply the whim of a bored all-powerful creator, who created all the wonders of nature simply so that we could exist in order to worship said being.
In my view humanity is a race which has clawed it's way up from barbarous animality gaining sentience and intelligence step by step in spite of a system in which most attempts at life flounder and fail. According to my belief, we are a race which has accomplished through sheer tenacity and will that which no other animal ever has: an awareness of ourselves and our place in the wider universe. To me this is a truly noble, awe inspiring, and deeply meaningful accomplishment.
To me the theistic way of looking at the world says that the meaning of existence isn't that perseverance and strength lead to accomplishment and knowledge. Instead the meaning of existence is that we are the beholden creations of another being, granted all that we have and all that we are through it's grace and forbearance. The purpose of life, in this model, is not our own personal and societal growth and evolution. In fact that growth and evolution is merely an inconsequential by-product of our true purpose: to better serve and worship our creator in the hope of favour and reward. This position seems to require three things which are, to me, impossible to reconcile 1) faith in something there is no objective reason to believe exists 2) the overweening pride to imagine that all the universe exists so that we might inhabit it and 3) the self hating belief that we as a species can aspire to no more than being good and faithful servants of a distant and aloof master.
I feel your approaching a philosophical concept from an academic position if that makes any sense. Understand that in no way do I claim to be right, or wrong. This entire dialogue pre-supposes some burden of proof, that one or the other must be responsible for, & at the end of the day I see real value in both sides. I feel, & have always asserted that here, Mr. Lewis is sharing with us, his personal journey from, what he perceived as an atheist perspective to a position of faith. Would all "atheists" agree that this was his position in the 1'st place? Certainly not. What I am most fascinated by are the concepts he proposes here. The idea that as creatures born into a dark universe, we would never comprehend darkness & therefore never be-moan the lack of light. The idea that as a water animal, a fish would never comprehend what it is to be dry. These are concepts that foster out of the box thinking, beyond mere academia. He discusses a personal journey from anger & confusion to epiphany, at the end of the day, the piece is far more about his experience & the concepts he considered to muddle through, then it is an argument for or against God.
Post a Comment