No! Atheists are NOT like that!

[mymamamary]

I cannot believe my eyes! How could he know what “many atheists” think? Did he interview - say - a thousand of them, and got his information that way? How could a rational person be “angry” at a being in whose existence he does not believe? And angry for what that non-existent being “did”? What kind of nonsense is that?

Of course no rational person would expect the universe to be “kind” or “just”. The universe is not a thinking and/or acting person who could act in a kind or cruel manner or be just or unjust. Sheer anthropomorphization on his part.

And this “so-called thinker” is respected? If atheists would really be like that, they would deserve all the negative adjectives you could pile up on them… But we are NOT like that.

Actually, yes most atheists are. Look at the late Hitchens, or Dawkins. They are angry at something that is apparently non existent. If GOD does not exist, why does Dawkins need to tour around to try prove this to me? Is he trying to prove this to himself deep-down? I think he is. In fact, even one of my best friends. He labelled himself an atheist yet I could sense the residual anger inside of him. The overwhelming majority of Atheist arguements stem from moral arguements. If GOD exists why does HE allow this or that? There are very few “scientific” or “empirical” arguments against the existence of GOD. I remember watching Hitchens debate William Lane Craig and the majority of the arguements that were thrown into Craigs face were : “If GOD is so good” or “if GOD exists” or the funniest of them all “Why would GOD”(Implying that HE does exist)

 

[Elizium23]

This reminds me of a recent blog post:

Ayn Rand Really, Really Hated C.S. Lewis

 

[snarflemike]

Actually, yes most atheists are. Look at the late Hitchens, or Dawkins. They are angry at something that is apparently non existent. If GOD does not exist, why does Dawkins need to tour around to try prove this to me? Is he trying to prove this to himself deep-down? I think he is. In fact, even one of my best friends. He labelled himself an atheist yet I could sense the residual anger inside of him. The overwhelming majority of Atheist arguements stem from moral arguements. If GOD exists why does HE allow this or that? There are very few “scientific” or “empirical” arguments against the existence of GOD. I remember watching Hitchens debate William Lane Craig and the majority of the arguements that were thrown into Craigs face were : “If GOD is so good” or “if GOD exists” or the funniest of them all “Why would GOD”(Implying that HE does exist)

In my experience, the single most notable defining characteristic of atheists today is anger (mixed with contempt). A very unattractive mix, as even other atheists have pointed out.

One thing that I’ve never gotten a good answer to, is why, if an atheist is objecting to evil in the world (“If God is good, why did he let my child die of cancer?!”), why would that atheist prefer to believe there was no God, and the child dying of cancer was the end of the story, rather than believing that the child dying of cancer was NOT the end of the story, and that the child might after all enjoy eternal bliss? Note that this question is directed specifically at atheists who invoke the problem of evil as their reason for being atheist, not at atheists who are atheists for other reasons.

 

[stephe1987]

He is clearly talking about his own experiences and the people he met.

It is impossible to say all of any group are a certain way because there are too many of them, and no two people are exactly alike.

The only thing one can do, which is what he did, is comment on the most common beliefs: the arguments heard most often.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Quite frankly who gives a plug nickel what they are like. Let them blather on and on. The only problem is they aren’t the innocent little fellows they like to pretend. They aren’t the least squimish about forcing their atheism on your children, using the coersive power of government to indoctrinate their little minds with all manner of nonsense incombatible with Christain values. So whatever you think, don’t think they are innocent, disinterested bystanders.

Linus2nd

 

[Michael57]

In this, my sixth decade of life, I have yet to encounter a real atheist. I have met plenty of pseudo-atheists, but no real atheists. Nor even any true agnostics, for they seem to have some sense of Deity, though they largely remain in willful ignorance.

It seems to me somewhat odd that anyone proclaiming themselves “atheist” would even be concerned about what other people think of God, if that is truly nonsense to them.

It is even more incredible that they would compare themselves with other so-called atheists in their non-theology.

What I welcome in the original post is that an “atheist” is posting in a Catholic Forum. To what end but their own eventual enlightenment? Or do atheists hope to “evangelize” their atheism to those that are convinced of it’s error and eventual destruction?

Praise God Everlasting, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit!

 

[Mumbles140]

I cannot believe my eyes! How could he know what “many atheists” think? Did he interview - say - a thousand of them, and got his information that way? How could a rational person be “angry” at a being in whose existence he does not believe? And angry for what that non-existent being “did”? What kind of nonsense is that?

In early 20th Century England, Lewis was actually among a very strong group of atheists throughout his studies, both in boarding school and at university. They would meet, discuss, have tea, etc. In fact, Lewis recounts that a professor of his, one of the staunchest atheists Lewis knew, would meet with him on a weekly basis for drinks and conversation. One evening, the professor came to him and asked if he had ever read the Gospels. Lewis laughed, until the professor (also trained in literary criticism) detailed how their writing was different from that of every other religious mythology - in fact, they were written as newspaper articles (not op-eds) were written. Lewis was stunned and hurt that his dear friend and professor could betray him by reading the Gospels, and the professor did not converse with Lewis on that level until after Lewis’ conversion.

If you have access to e-books, there is on CS Lewis book available in the public domain entitled “Spirits in Bondage: A Cycle of Lyrics” - a very dark, disturbing anthology of poems from Lewis’ atheistic, God-hating stage that seemed to peak in his early 20s while at Oxford - a hot-bed for English atheism and agnosticism. Reading that after having already read “Surprised by Joy” and " The Pilgrim’s Regress" shows how far this brilliant mind (as literary critic, philosopher, and theologian) came in his journey towards attaining salvation, not only for himself, but for everyone (a task Lewis wholeheartedly believed was one of the single greatest callings of all Christians on Earth today).

 

[polytropos]

C.S. Lewis does not, in my opinion, make strong arguments for the existence of God. He was a popular writer who made very analogical, unrigorous arguments for Christianity. What his writing does do well is push those who have drifted back to more orthodox faith. But although he converted from staunch atheism, I can’t really see him convincing someone who really understands naturalism.

 

[polytropos]

The point is that he described himself as being angry at God for NOT existing, and for also creating the world. Maybe you guys do not see that this as a not-really-borderline lunacy. There would be no difference if he expressed his anger at Santa Claus for not existing and also for not bringing him presents at Christmas. Maybe he would have described himself an atheist, but if so… then personally I am happy that he left our camp. He would have been an embarrassment.

I think you are taking his statement a bit too literally.

Sometimes today theists will comment upon the irony that there are atheists who are deeply committed to refuting the existence of a God that they don’t believe in. Their attitudes toward the imperfect world/problem of evil that the alleged God created might be called “anger.” They would be angry at such a God if such a God existed, but they believe that the existence of such a God would constitute a contradiction since a good God could not permit evil. This is the attitude that Richard Dawkins takes when he accuses Yahweh of genocide. His anger is subjunctive, so to speak.

I personally do not find the activity of atheists so ironic, but it is a popular notion. I don’t think that Lewis was actually directing anger towards an object he did not believe in.

 

[polytropos]

Actually, yes most atheists are. Look at the late Hitchens, or Dawkins. They are angry at something that is apparently non existent. If GOD does not exist, why does Dawkins need to tour around to try prove this to me? Is he trying to prove this to himself deep-down? I think he is. In fact, even one of my best friends. He labelled himself an atheist yet I could sense the residual anger inside of him. The overwhelming majority of Atheist arguements stem from moral arguements. If GOD exists why does HE allow this or that? There are very few “scientific” or “empirical” arguments against the existence of GOD. I remember watching Hitchens debate William Lane Craig and the majority of the arguements that were thrown into Craigs face were : “If GOD is so good” or “if GOD exists” or the funniest of them all “Why would GOD”(Implying that HE does exist)

Hmm, I am going to disagree. I was an atheist for years and I really did not believe in God. I was not particularly angry at God (I attended a Catholic school and actually liked Catholic morality, although I didn’t think it was very compatible with atheism).

Atheists use a lot of ifs in their arguments not because they deep-down believe in God, but because they find the Christian notion of God contradictory. That is how formal proof by contradiction works: you assume p, demonstrate that it leads to a contradiction; therefore not p. It is a hypothetical.

I don’t find it constructive to make sweeping claims about how atheists all know God exists but are denying him. They are denying him in their hearts, but generally it is not in the overt, conscious manner implied here. When you make claims like this, you arouse the atheist’s stubbornness and pride. He finds ridiculous your claim that he implicitly believes, and it pushes him away. There are more suitable and profitable ways to converse with atheists.

 

[tonyrey]

C.S. Lewis does not, in my opinion, make strong arguments for the existence of God. He was a popular writer who made very analogical, unrigorous arguments for Christianity. What his writing does do well is push those who have drifted back to more orthodox faith. But although he converted from staunch atheism, I can’t really see him convincing someone who really understands naturalism.

He presents a powerful argument that the power of reason is inconsistent with the self-refuting explanation that it is produced by physical causes…

 

[polytropos]

He presents a powerful argument that the power of reason is inconsistent with the self-refuting explanation that it is produced by physical causes…

My point is that Lewis’s writings are not equipped to argue against today’s naturalism. The philosophical naturalist does not mind conceding that reason does not formally exist under his worldview.

 

[snarflemike]

My point is that Lewis’s writings are not equipped to argue against today’s naturalism. The philosophical naturalist does not mind conceding that reason does not formally exist under his worldview.

He also makes the argument from morality or conscience, which I have never seen an atheist refute.

 

[polytropos]

He also makes the argument from morality or conscience, which I have never seen an atheist refute.

Yes, he does make those arguments. The philosophical naturalist still concedes that morality and conscience don’t exist and he is fine with that.

This is not really Lewis’s fault. He was writing a while ago and philosophical naturalism has developed a lot with the fields of evolutionary biology and psychology. But I would hesitate to extend the implications of his arguments further than they go.

 

[polytropos]

There seems to be a bit of an underestimation of what philosophical naturalism is and how it might be refuted. It is not so easily refuted as saying, for instance, “If the mind doesn’t exist, then you can’t think about this sentence, but you can think about this sentence, so the mind exists.”

The fallacy committed in this refutation is that realist philosophy is smuggled into the definition of thinking, while we are trying to demonstrate a contradiction in the naturalist conception of thinking. Realist philosophy is fine, but here we are trying to show that the naturalist is inconsistent, so we must adopt all of his principles and show that they are contradictory.

The philosophical naturalist’s reconception of thinking is couched within his rejection of the mind. Particularly he is not just saying that the abstract mind does not formally exist but that thinking does not either. The key distinction here is between formal existence and conventional existence. The philosophical naturalist is essentially making the claim that what we call thinking (conventionally) is just an accident of fully natural action potentials, and so it can occur without some abstract thing called the mind. One way to think of philosophical naturalism is as modern nominalism.

The problem that the philosophical naturalist runs into is that he does not really understand what thinking is from a biological standpoint. He is just willing to accept that what he does not know about must be natural. In terms of conscience and morality, the philosophical naturalist argues that they are accidents of physical things, which we have given a name, rather than existent things.

There are objections to these claims, but Lewis does not quite offer them. Particularly one can point out that most of these accidents are still unexplained and are actually not accounted for by evolutionary biology (which does little more than insist their possibility). One can argue as well that naturalism is insufficient for explaining the observed qualities (human morality is complex and evolutionary psychology doesn’t really come close to explaining more than very basic qualities of it). But a simple contradiction is not so easily demonstrated because the demonstration does not meet philosophical naturalism on its own terms, as would be necessary to demonstrate philosophical naturalism’s inconsistency. Lewis does not do this.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I cannot believe my eyes! How could he know what “many atheists” think? Did he interview - say - a thousand of them, and got his information that way? How could a rational person be “angry” at a being in whose existence he does not believe? And angry for what that non-existent being “did”? What kind of nonsense is that?

Of course no rational person would expect the universe to be “kind” or “just”. The universe is not a thinking and/or acting person who could act in a kind or cruel manner or be just or unjust. Sheer anthropomorphization on his part.

And this “so-called thinker” is respected? If atheists would really be like that, they would deserve all the negative adjectives you could pile up on them… But we are NOT like that.

You are reading it completely the wrong way… with regards to the first objection, he is remarking on the way many atheists think, and how often have you heard the question: if God exists, then why is there so much suffering in the world? And the second paragraph has more to do with an appeal to good and evil, neither of which exist according to secular thought but both of which seem to have a very powerful presence in the human consciousness. So I think the problem is not C.S. Lewis’ writing, but rather your reading of it. I think you are reading certain phrases too literally and missing the big picture.

 

[Aloysium]

I cannot believe my eyes! How could he know what “many atheists” think? Did he interview - say - a thousand of them, and got his information that way? How could a rational person be “angry” at a being in whose existence he does not believe? And angry for what that non-existent being “did”? What kind of nonsense is that?

Of course no rational person would expect the universe to be “kind” or “just”. The universe is not a thinking and/or acting person who could act in a kind or cruel manner or be just or unjust. Sheer anthropomorphization on his part.

And this “so-called thinker” is respected? If atheists would really be like that, they would deserve all the negative adjectives you could pile up on them… But we are NOT like that.

Haven’t you heard? “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”.
Chill out. How does any of this possibly matter to you?

 

[Tyrion]

I think you are taking his statement a bit too literally.

Yes, I am aware of this fault of mine. I tend to accept that people actually mean what they say. It probably comes from my upbringing when I was “indoctrinated” into being honest; not to “beat around the bush”. And because of that I still despise the politically correct euphemisms and “flowery” speech (outside poetry, of course).

Sometimes today theists will comment upon the irony that there are atheists who are deeply committed to refuting the existence of a God that they don’t believe in. Their attitudes toward the imperfect world/problem of evil that the alleged God created might be called “anger.”

It should not be called “anger”. Those who point out the internal inconsistencies of the god-concept might be upset at the acceptance of this logically inconsistent concept, but that is not “anger” by any stretch of the imagination.

They would be angry at such a God if such a God existed, but they believe that the existence of such a God would constitute a contradiction since a good God could not permit evil. This is the attitude that Richard Dawkins takes when he accuses Yahweh of genocide. His anger is subjunctive, so to speak.

I am glad you realize that there is a world of difference there.

I personally do not find the activity of atheists so ironic, but it is a popular notion. I don’t think that Lewis was actually directing anger towards an object he did not believe in.

If he was not, then his choice of the words was rather unfortunate and imprecise.

Atheists use a lot of ifs in their arguments not because they deep-down believe in God, but because they find the Christian notion of God contradictory. That is how formal proof by contradiction works: you assume p, demonstrate that it leads to a contradiction; therefore not p. It is a hypothetical.

Very well said. This is exactly how the “indirect proof” works in mathematics. Thank you!

I don’t find it constructive to make sweeping claims about how atheists all know God exists but are denying him.

True again. I have seen it many times that atheists were accused of such dishonesty, and then it was asserted that their “aim” was to continue their sinful ways of life. I usually put such people on my ignore list…

 

[Tyrion]

There seems to be a bit of an underestimation of what philosophical naturalism is and how it might be refuted. It is not so easily refuted as saying, for instance, “If the mind doesn’t exist, then you can’t think about this sentence, but you can think about this sentence, so the mind exists.”

The fallacy committed in this refutation is that realist philosophy is smuggled into the definition of thinking, while we are trying to demonstrate a contradiction in the naturalist conception of thinking. Realist philosophy is fine, but here we are trying to show that the naturalist is inconsistent, so we must adopt all of his principles and show that they are contradictory.

The philosophical naturalist’s reconception of thinking is couched within his rejection of the mind.

I suggest we discuss this somewhere else. Just a short summary here. The “mind” is not rejected at all. It is accepted as the “activity” of the brain, and this activity is clearly demonstrated by innumerable experiments. The mind itself is not a material object for the materialist, just like the activity of the muscles in the legs (walking) is not a material object either. It only shows a misunderstanding about materialism that it allegedly rejects “immaterial existence”. But this does not belong to this thread.

 

[Tyrion]

Haven’t you heard? “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”.
Chill out. How does any of this possibly matter to you?

Actually, it does matter, because I am compassionate (another fault of mine), and because the concept of God definitely exists. When I happen to wander over in the “Moral Theology” sub-forum, I always get sad and depressed when I see the amount of frustration and guilt expressed there by some unfortunate teenagers, who try to live according to the church’s teaching on sexuality.