Interesting Argument Against Atheism from CS Lewis

[PietroPaolo]

In reading The Silver Chair from CS Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia to my five year old, I came across an interesting argument from Lewis against atheism, one I hadn’t considered before and wanted to see how you all think it might work “in real life” not so much to convert convicted atheists, but to sway those “nones”, those fence-sitters that lean toward atheism, but haven’t fully embraced it. I’ve placed the passage (with context) from the book on my blog - HERE - for those interested, but the argument, in summary works on comparing the relative worth of the world with Christ vs reality of a Christless world and calls the unbeliever to stand with Christ even without surety of belief. It also exposes the weakness in believing the “real world” (if there is no God) is so much less important than a “make-believe” world (with God) would have been. I was struck by the argument because it works on a visceral level and might work well with those who are not philosophically minded and might not “get” arguments like Aquinas’ proof from contingency.

 

[Obsculta]

Quite helpful.

 

[jeb53]

What a great way to look at it and respond!

 

[JamesTheJust]

Very interesting.

BTW, if you like picking up on Lewis’ hidden arguments for faith, just wait until you read The Last Battle. It, especially the latter half, offers an amazing viewpoint of Christianity and atheism, and shows how belief is far superior to unbelief.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Very interesting.

BTW, if you like picking up on Lewis’ hidden arguments for faith, just wait until you read [IThe Last Battle*. It, especially the latter half, offers an amazing viewpoint of Christianity and atheism, and shows how belief is far superior to unbelief.

Looking forward to it!

 

[PietroPaolo]

I don’t see how this argument will work to prove a “truth” that God exists to Atheists.

Atheists and Agnostics see the importance, worth and beauty of this “real” world without attributing it to the specific deity of one religion–in fact, that this world would come about with such beauty naturally on it’s own seems even more of a wonder to them.
That someone would want to think our lives and this world mean nothing without the structure of a religion/God and basically just toss it like garbage baffles an Atheist/Agnostic.

And the fact that a person can live in a “Narnian” way (tho i don’t know exactly what that means, cause i haven’t read the book) without an actual Narnia or “play world” existing—shows the exact opposite, IMO, of what you are saying it proves.
It shows that we can have truth and beauty and light and love of each other and grass and sun and moon and stars…even without a deity.

.

There are two elements to the argument. First, the idea that a bunch of children (in Narnia) or a bunch of fishermen (for Christianity) or a bunch of bronze age Jews (for monotheism) can create a world with infinitely more value than what would be the “real world” if atheism is true is absurd, therefore atheism must be false. Second, the worth of the world, if only given by us, amounts to nothing, even if we enjoy sun and moon and stars, because we all will (very shortly cosmically speaking) die. Not just you and me individually, but our whole species. Indeed, our whole planet will be destroyed by the sun when it supernovas, leaving behind not a trace. In fact, the entire universe will enter “heat death” eventually, ending any other possible life anywhere in the universe. To live as if the world as “sound and fury signifying nothing” (which is what atheism must ultimately claim) should be a dreadful thought even to the committed atheist. They might have to resign themselves to such a view, if reality is such, but to pretend the world has value on an atheistic conception is to avoid the logical consequences of the position. IOW, never trust a happy atheist

 

[z_0101]

And the fact that a person can live in a “Narnian” way (tho i don’t know exactly what that means, cause i haven’t read the book) without an actual Narnia or “play world” existing—shows the exact opposite, IMO, of what you are saying it proves.

Then please read the books, it is well worth your time. I read them as child and again as an adult… and each time, I could see the worth of this statement. Hence, even as an Agnostic in my youth, I still sided with the exsistance of God-the-Father. It just took me a little while to see the rest of his love… better to grumble and obey, than to smile and walkaway.

There are two elements to the argument. First, the idea that a bunch of children (in Narnia) or a bunch of fishermen (for Christianity) or a bunch of bronze age Jews (for monotheism) can create a world with infinitely more value than what would be the “real world” if atheism is true is absurd, therefore atheism must be false. Second, the worth of the world, if only given by us, amounts to nothing, even if we enjoy sun and moon and stars, because we all will (very shortly cosmically speaking) die. Not just you and me individually(…)

So well put, and yet, I fear that so may will still, “not get it.”
Lead a horse to water, yet you’ll drown that poor thing before you can make it drink one milliliter of water against its will.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

To live as if the world as “sound and fury signifying nothing” (which is what atheism must ultimately claim) should be a dreadful thought even to the committed atheist. They might have to resign themselves to such a view, if reality is such, but to pretend the world has value on an atheistic conception is to avoid the logical consequences of the position. IOW, never trust a happy atheist

I know many atheists but not a single one resigns themselves to the reality of a Godless world. I think this just shows that atheism is simply unnatural and that all people seek God, even when they don’t know it. To believe that there must be good and justice and love in a meaningless universe makes no sense. Yet they do believe it.

I must read the whole Narnia series, it sounds beautiful. I have only read the first book.

 

[PietroPaolo]

?
But (again)…Atheists don’t think or see the universe as “meaningless”.
Do the Atheists you know say they believe this?

.

And that is exactly Contra Mundum’s point.

If Atheism is true then the universe is meaningless.
But the universe has meaning.
Therefore, Atheism is false.

The fact that even atheists admit the truth of the second premise (the universe has meaning) simply strengthens the argument.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

?
But (again)…Atheists don’t think or see the universe as “meaningless”.
Do the Atheists you know say they believe this?

.

I think that atheists don’t understand the implications of what they believe
I see that over and over again. In case you are an atheist you don’t understand it either it seems. (I hope you are not of course.)

Everything in human beings points towards God. We believe in love and truth and beauty even though the world around us is full of anger and death and misery. People
feel that they deserve something better, that truth and beauty and justice simply must be. But that is simply not compatible with atheism. No, truth and justice and beauty don’t have to be, there is no reason for these things to exist. So how do we explain that atheists believe in them? Because we are wired that way, to seek God who is Truth, Beauty and Justice.

 

[PietroPaolo]

That doesn’t work logically at all.
First of all…just to be clear on our definitions…an Atheist is, pure and simple, someone who has not been convinced that a deity exists–a deity that we have described so far, anyway.
If new evidence comes forth of a different kind of God that is very solid, an Atheist will believe with good proofe.

But just because a person has not been convinced of a “God”, it still doesn’t meant the universe is meaningless.
This must be your description of a universe without God. You yourself must think that the universe is “meaningless” without a God.
Someone must have convinced you–or you you decided this on your own–that the universe is meaningless without a God.
But why would this necessarily be the case?
There is no reason for this line of thinking. There is no reason to limit the meaning of life and the universe and only attach it to one of many Gods we have had so far.

An Atheist sees much, much meaning in life even if there is no God.

So to use your same (IMO faulty) logic above…if an Atheist sees a lot of meaning in the universe without a God, therefore “Atheism is true”.

.

For my argument (or any argument) to “not work logically at all” it must have either:

1. at least one ambiguous term
2. at least one false premise
3. at least one logical fallacy

Let’s look at the term atheist, the one you think I am using ambiguously. An atheist is someone who believes there is no God, someone who affirms that statement. Someone who, in your words, “has not been convinced that a deity exists–a deity that we have described so far, anyway” would not be an atheist, but an agnostic.

Let’s look at the second premise, the one you think is false. There can be no meaning in the universe or of life without God. Why? Because there must be someone who exists outside the universe to give it meaning. A Godless universe would have the same meaning as a monkey writing a book with his feces, none.

You can think about it like this. There cannot be more in the effect than in the cause. If the universe was caused by nothing or by something random (i.e. without meaning) the universe itself must have no meaning.

Look at it another way. If atheism (as defined above) is true, that is to say, if there is no God, then human thought is nothing more than the random firing of electricity in a clump of grey matter inside your skull. These natural processes can no more “give meaning” to the universe than can the waves that lap onto the sea. Honest atheists, like Nietzsche and Sarte, recognize this. If atheism is true, the universe can be no more than “sound and fury signifying nothing.”

Finally, all life will ultimately perish. You will die. I will die. All humans will die. The sun will, eventually, supernova and burn up the Earth and everything humans even did (if Atheism is true) will be forgotten and will have as much meaning as what ants did or rocks for that matter. In fact, the entire universe itself will, thanks to the second law of thermodynamics, enter “heat death” and cease to have any life anywhere. If such is our fate, there is no real meaning to anything we do or think.

Whether or not atheists recognize this, whether they admit it is true, is irrelevant. Atheism itself entails a meaningless universe as most atheists with the courage to follow their convictions to where they logically lead admit.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I’m not saying a God does not exist. A God might exist.
I’m just saying that the reasons you and Pietro and a few others give as your reasoning for God for-sure existing are not solid, logical, or convincing evidence…to many, many of the brightest thinkers of the world, and for a long, long time.

If they were, we would all believe in a God or the God.
Atheists don’t form their opinions merely because they are stubborn or not smart or selfish or something silly like that, as some people do think.

.

This is a silly argument. One which is easily turned on its head. I can just as easily assert the following.

The reasons you and other atheists give for your reasoning that God doesn’t exist are not solid, logical, or convincing evidence…to many, many of the brightest thinkers of the world, and for a long, long time.

If they were, no one would believe in a God or the God.
Theists don’t form their opinions merely because they are stubborn or not smart or selfish or something silly like that, as some people do think.

 

[PietroPaolo]

…
So to use your same (IMO faulty) logic above…if an Atheist sees a lot of meaning in the universe without a God, therefore “Atheism is true”.

.

This also is a silly argument, one that doesn’t follow the same logic in my original argument at all. Again, my argument is:

If Atheism is true then the universe is meaningless.
But the universe has meaning.
Therefore, Atheism is false.

Yours is:

If an Atheist sees a lot of meaning in the universe without God
Therefore, Atheism is true.

I think you can see the two arguments are not even close to the same, logically. For starters, this is a non sequitur. Your conclusion has no relation to your premise. Secondly, you need two premises to prove a conclusion, thus your argument would have to contain a hidden premise (a style of argument called an “enthymeme”). To arrive at your conclusion your second (hidden) premise would have to be “anyone who sees a lot of meaning in the universe has a correct belief about the existence of God” which would make your argument run like this:

If an Atheist sees a lot of meaning in the universe without God
Anyone who sees a lot of meaning in the universe has a correct belief about the existence of God
Therefore, Atheism is true.

But this second premise is clearly false.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I think Pietro paolo has shown what happens when people use logic

Daddy’s Girl,

you are very much repeating the discourse that is in vogue. What we are trying to explain is that your logic is faulty. If a certain belief system says that the way the world has come into existence and the way that life evolves is random and without anything behind it, then it is insane to insist that the life and the world have meaning. How do you not see that? There is no *inherent meaning *to it all. There is no essence to it.

What is fascinating is that so many people who believe that there is no essential meaning to life still believe that there is essential meaning to life! Despite their atheism they seek meaning and believe that it must exist. I know so many people who are like this. Now, as a Christian I know why: because God has made us that way, to seek Him and to believe that there is something/someone behind it all that gives meaning. But this is a mystery for an atheist because what they believe about the world is in total contradiction. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation from an atheist who believes in the meaningful universe/life. It is just not happening I’m afraid

The way that some atheists deal with this inconsistency is to claim that each individual must decide on what is meaningful to them and in that way create meaning in life. This is a more coherent position. But still the mystery remains: why are people obsessed with finding meaning in their life when they believe that they live in a meaningless universe?

 

[PietroPaolo]

This wasn’t an argument that i was making…I was merely describing the thought processes of an Atheist.
But you are a bit turned around on this argument thing.
If someone is going to make a claim that something exists–something that will determine the outcome of our eternal lives and something that could send us to the fires of hell forever–then you’ve got to convince people that this very important thing exists.
The existence of a God isn’t an obvious “given” to be disproved.
It is a claim–and a very big one, indeed–that you must show to be true. And for Atheists, it has not been shown yet. That’s all.

.

This is called “shifting the burden of proof.” The fact is we are both making a claim about reality and if either of us wants to convince the other that they are right we are obligated to prove our claim to be true. Yes, if I want to convince you that God exists, I will have to do so. But you must prove that the universe is godless, if you want to convince me atheism is true, or you must prove there isn’t enough evidence if you want to convince me that agnosticism is the best route. Trying to shift all the burden of proof onto the theists simply won’t work.

Is the theistic claim, i.e. God exists, a “big one” yes, but so is “everything came from nothing” which you are asserting.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I think there is overlap on the definitions of Atheist and Agnostic, they have become blurry around the edges. By your definition above, that would have Hitchens, Dawkins, et al as Agnostics and they describe themselves as Atheists–which may not adhere to the original dictionary definition. The people whom CAF members call “the new Atheists” including Dawkins and Hitchens etc do not affirm there is no God. Those two, for example, have said over and over in lectures and debates that they will believe in a deity if the evidence is strong enough, that they have so far not been convinced, that they are open to being convinced, and that they cannot prove a God does *not *exist.
So there is a definition issue here, for sure…

Let’s clarify things by using the following definitions for the sake of clarity in this conversation (as they are more accurate and eliminate the overlap):

Atheist - someone who asserts the truth of the proposition “there is no God”
Agnostic Type 1 - someone who asserts the truth of the proposition “we cannot know whether God exists.”
Seeker - someone who is open to the possibility of God but currently neither affirms nor denies His existence, neither do they assert the impossibility of knowing whether God exists.

With this more precise terms in place we can know exactly what we are talking about.

But once again, this is your opinion–not fact based on anything solid.
You yourself believe that someone outside the universe has to give it meaning.
But why do you believe this?

Far from being a mere opinion I’ve given you several reasons why this must be a true fact, none of which you’ve wrestled with. Simply saying “person x thinks a meaningful universe can exist without God” doesn’t prove it is true anymore than me saying “person x thinks God exists” proves God in fact exists. I’ve given you several reasons why a Godless universe must be meaningless, you’ve given me none to believe such a universe can have meaning.

There are many people who don’t believe in someone “outside this universe” whose lives have great meaning to them and to others. You are saying that does not count?
Are you saying that Sigmund Freud’s life had no meaning? Or Thomas Edison? Marie Curie? Or Arthur Miller, Edgar Allen Poe, Mark Twain? Helen Keller?
(And I don’t mean to say that they have meaning only because they made great contributions to our society…I just use them as examples of people we both know who have, indeed, contributed well)

This is an argumentum ad verecundiam.

Here, I feel you are adding to the definition of Atheist. Just because someone doesn’t see evidence of a deity, it doesn’t mean they think the universe is caused by something random or nothing. Many Scientists believe this at this moment in time, yes. But this is not part and parcel for the definition of an Atheist.
BUT…again, even if the universe was caused by something random or nothing…it still does not automatically or necessarily mean the universe has no meaning.
Perhaps you, personally, would feel no meaning to your life without a God if you have based your entire life and meaning around the structure of a religion. But just because you feel that way, it doesn’t mean others do…and it doesn’t make it true for others (or even, you).
In fact, others might argue quite the opposite. But that’s a whole other discussion…

You are focusing entirely on what people “feel” about whether the universe and life has meaning, but that is beside the point. The argument is not whether an atheist can “feel like the universe / there life has meaning” the argument is whether such a universe really would have any meaning at all. You’ve failed to give any argument showing a Godless universe could, in principal have meaning. Appeals to future science (“science of the gaps”) cannot refute an argument based on principal.

We don’t know this. There is more to discover. Think of how much we have learned about the mind, the earth, the stars, the body…in only fifty years, and how rapidly we are learning more and more. It would be hubristic of us to think we have all the answers now and we should stop seeking.
If Nietzsche and Sartre were alive today, there’s no telling what they would say now. (Shakespeare was not an Atheist, I don’t think…)
But again…who is to say that just those random firings on their own have no meaning? You don’t think they do, but that doesn’t make that thought true.

You’ve failed to give any argument showing a Godless universe could, in principal have meaning. Appeals to future science (“science of the gaps”) logically cannot refute an argument based on principal.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

DaddyGirl is far more eloquent than I am, and I don’t want to step on her toes. I did want to comment on one item written to her:

Let’s look at the second premise, the one you think is false. There can be no meaning in the universe or of life without God. Why? Because there must be someone who exists outside the universe to give it meaning. A Godless universe would have the same meaning as a monkey writing a book with his feces, none.

For something to have meaning does it require that there is something outside of it? Is God’s existence, which is said to have nothing outside of it, as meaningless as a monkey writing a book with his feces?

 

[PietroPaolo]

DaddyGirl is far more eloquent than I am, and I don’t want to step on her toes. I did want to comment on one item written to her:

For something to have meaning does it require that there is something outside of it? Is God’s existence, which is said to have nothing outside of it, as meaningless as a monkey writing a book with his feces?

You’ll note that I never said everything must have meaning from outside itself, you are misrepresenting my argument. I said nothing that occurred randomly can have meaning. A randomly generated universe, one that just began to exist without a creator, is like the book written by the monkey because both are random and thus meaningless.

For something to have meaning it must have intentionality. For it to have intentionality it must have intellect and will. The creation of the universe was either the result of an intentional act of mind and will (and thus is created by God) or it was a mindless chance occurrence (in which case it lacks intentionality and thereby meaning).

God, unlike the universe, has both intellect and will - indeed is intellect and will. Therefore, He doesn’t need to receive meaning from without. Further, God is not created randomly (He isn’t created at all), thus He again need not receive meaning from without.

Think of it like this. This message has meaning because there is an intellect and will choosing which letters to write to make certain words that convey certain meanings to a reader. If our friend the monkey was randomly banging away on my keyboard in reply to you, his message would lack intentionality and thus meaning.

Therefore we are left with the following:

A godless universe (one generated randomly, without intentionality) is meaningless.
But our universe has meaning.
Therefore, our universe was created intentionally.
But an intentionally created universe must have been created by a will and intellect.
This creator will and intellect is what men call God.
Therefore, God exists.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Very interesting.

BTW, if you like picking up on Lewis’ hidden arguments for faith, just wait until you read The Last Battle. It, especially the latter half, offers an amazing viewpoint of Christianity and atheism, and shows how belief is far superior to unbelief.

It’s not a children’s book of course, but if you enjoyed the Narnia books and want to read more Lewis, then i recommend you move on to the Space Trilogy when you’ve finished with Narnia. As I said, it’s not something you’d want to read to children but as an adult reader, I’m sure you’ll enjoy it. The stories are essentiually set in our world but involve space travel to Mars and Venus where the story dips into various philosophical and theological arguments, and in the third book, visits a huge scientific research center on Earth run by atheist scientists but led without them knowing it by very dark forces. Despite the serious nature of the books, Lewis manages to build in a number of comic scenes in which atheists act the buffoon. Lewis revisits many of the themes from the Narnia books but more explicitly so and there are many very memorable scenes where you see belief being discussed against atheism, godliness against demons and how demons influence atheist and modernist thinking, the meaning of original sin, and many more such topics.

In fact re-reading Narnia after that gives you a deeper understanding of many secenes that you maybe thought were just nice bits of storytelling but nothing more.

 

[PietroPaolo]

It’s not a children’s book of course, but if you enjoyed the Narnia books and want to read more Lewis, then i recommend you move on to the Space Trology when you’ve finished with Narnia. As I said, it’s not something you’d want to read to children but as an adult reader, I’m sure you’ll enjoy it. Lewis revisits many of the themes from the Narnia books but more explicitly so and there are many very memorable scenes whee you see belief being discussed against atheism, godliness against demons and how demons influence atheist and modernist thinking, the meaning of original sin, and many more such topics.

Thanks for the recommendation. My exposure to Lewis has primarily been through his non-fiction, although I do love The Great Divorce and, thanks to having 3 kids, the Narnia books. I’ll have to check those out.