Reading

I have been reading some C. S. Lewis and it's been great. I picked up "The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics" and have so far read Mere Christianity and Miracles.

I've actually read these books before, and it's become clear to me that I carried away many things from them without consciously remembering it--my philosophy has definitely been informed by this writer. Reading them again was such a pleasure. I plan to read the others very soon and also to pick up other C. S. Lewis books I have missed in the past like The Four Loves.

As part of a reading exchange with an atheist I know that I think might find these books meaningful, I also just picked up The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and read the first 58 pages last night. What's been interesting so far is the mix, paragraph by paragraph or even sentence by sentence, where I wholehearted agree with him (and might even say it more strongly myself) and then shortly have to question his very foundation and all his assumptions. For example:

Dawkins, Richard —The God Delusion p.35: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006.

And we mustn't forget the four Choirs of Angelic Hosts, arrayed in nine orders: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels (heads of all hosts), and just plain old Angels, including our closest friends, the ever-watchful Guardian Angels. What impresses me about Catholic mythology is partly its tasteless kitsch but mostly the airy nonchalance with which these people make up the details as they go along. It is just shamelessly invented.

I have to agree with the shamelessly invented part. I don't mean to needlessly slander the Roman Catholic faith. But All This Religious Stuff piled on top of a pure devotion to Jesus is at best distracting and at worst contributes to people losing their faith or alternately insulating themselves against ever acquiring it.

So far:

• The book is rife with ad hominem attacks
• He presupposes Naturalism (that is, non-Supernaturalism) in every argument without adequately supporting this contention (we'll see how the rest of the book does)
• At one point he said something about God in the Universe (I'll try to find the reference and speak more specifically). But that's precisely the problem. If you assume that the universe is everything that is, and that everything that is is physical, you have assumed God right out of existence from the start with nothing more than a skip, a jump, a lighthearted flip of the hand, and a very jolly sort of giggle. The proposition about God is that the Universe is not all that is. One must leave off nonsense about God in the Universe as though it was his container as it is ours.

I'll briefly point out something C. S. Lewis had to say that I predict will be the best and lasting criticism of Dawkins' entire book: men get so busy thinking that they forget that they are doing it, much like we can read an entire book without once thinking about reading itself. And when one turns to thinking, the question one has to ask is: how do I suppose that my reason has any validity or merit whatsoever?

If I am to think that my thinking can arrive at any kind of truth (or for those who can't stomach truth, arrive at stuff worth believing) then I have already disposed of pure Naturalism. For when something is fully explained by previous events it is then it is least true, as in "you are only saying that because you love her" or "you only believe that because you were taught it as a child." If these are convincing, then how convincing ought the argument be that "you only think there is no God because each event in the universe progresses to the next event, and your brain is part of the universe, and you could no less think another thought than you could fail to fall to the ground by the force of gravity should you step off the top of a building."

You see? If Reason's cause is fully natural, there is no reason to suppose that its conclusions merit belief. All reason becomes mere animal urges and feelings. To say then that "the chances of God's existence are near zero," for the Naturalist, cannot be any different than "I have a great fondness for cheese and I just absolutely can't stand spiders." Who cares? If that is all you have to say, go home and stop shouting at everyone about it all.

Dawkins has forgotten that he is doing something unnatural, even super-natural, constantly in his book: reasoning. What are we to make of someone who yells at great length at us that there is no such thing as yelling?