Avandris Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 So...because our thoughts are just a chemical reaction within our minds we cannot trust them? Why is that? The -fact- is that that is all our thoughts are, chemical/electrical firings of synapses, and with these same processes Atheists and Christians alike make thoughts. Regardless of whether God exists at all, or if our brains are 'designed' our thoughts are still these chemical reactions. So if Atheists can't trust their thoughts then surely Christians can't either. Or am I missing the point? 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flutters Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 Sounds like his words can be summed with "I think, therefore God." Emotion is a chemical reaction to stimuli, but can also be evoked. If both thought and emotion are chemical reactions which we can manipluate, then by his reasoning, we must all be gods. Besides that, if we can only think what we think because god, then free will is a lie. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven77 Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 Personally, I think CS Lewis was full of crap. This argument is highly flawed. Spilled milk never equals a map of London, therefore chemical reactions in the brain don't exist...unless God! If an individual can't trust their thoughts, then you can't trust logic and you can't trust the arguments in favor of atheism. If you can't believe in a God, then you can't believe in thought, and from there he reaches an absurd conclusion that you can never use thought to disbelieve God. I find his argument lacking due to the following: The word "believe" has many meanings, such as: : a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true : a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable : a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone In the above cases, belief is a matter of emotion, not logic. One can argue from a place of emotion, but those arguments will not be given the same weight as those based in logic. Apologists often fail to make this key distinction when they form their arguments. Faith is an emotional opinion, not a series of logical facts. You can believe (feel) however you wish, but those beliefs (feelings) do not become fact unless you can logically prove that they should be taken seriously or discarded, in both cases due to evidence and not conjecture or assurance. : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing Many apologetic arguments take this definition of belief and rework it into something resembling logic or a series of "proofs" or "facts". Their entire argument is really based on a faulty a priori assumption ie the Christian God is real. They trust in this "fact" so much that they ignore the contrary evidence and simple logic that indicates otherwise. That is why most counterarguments for atheism end up being "non-believers don't know/don't trust God and you just cannot understand the argument for Christ." : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group Quantity vs quality, IMO. Since more people believe (feel) that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is real, that delegitimatizes the minority who don't feel (or think) that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is real. That's how believers function and this often leads to infighting amongst various denominations. Denomination X has more believers than denomination Y, so X is the "true" faith and so on. : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence This is the sort of belief that "smart" Christians claim to have. "I've examined the evidence," they claim, "and while some parts are shaky, I still believe in Jesus...." However, those that have left the fold, or those who have done serious research and wrestled with the faith, HAVE ACTUALLY EXAMINED THE FREAKING EVIDENCE and are led to a very different truth, one of non-belief or perhaps skepticism. Namely, that Christianity and the other members of its family tree, have little logical, historical or scientific evidence in their favor. What they do have is a lot of emotion, energy, and two millennia of practice at captivating, manipulating, and outright lying to maintain their spotlight in the collective consciousness of the Western world. Those are my opinions, fwiw. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 CS Lewis wrote mediocre fiction, and horrible theist apologetics. He is known for the ability to pack more logical fallacies into a paragraph than just about anyone else. His paragraph quoted above is a fair example. 1) He fails to take natural selection into account. This destroys his initial false dichotomy (either his sky fairy created the human brain or "nobody" did). 2) Even assuming his initial strawman is correct ("nobody" directs the brain's formation), he presumes a mere chemical reaction can't be "trusted". This mere assertion is unsupported with any evidence he presents. He also offers a side salad of an appeal to emotion fallacy (this guy is good). Ask any chemistry professor if chemical reactions are predictable or not. They are. Always. Chemical reactions can be trusted to occur as predicted. 3) His analogy to a spilled milk jug is an infantile non-sequitur. And a poor analogy. And another appeal to emotion. 4) He assumes he can only trust his thinking if his sky fairy created things, which in itself is a matter of trust. How circular can your get? 5) As pointed out by the OP, he uses special pleading - if "nobody" created the brain then Atheist thinking can't be trusted, but Lewis implicitly implies that belief in his god can be trusted regardless. How convenient. 6) His conclusion reeks of the initial false false dichotomy and is based on his prior fallacious and irrational thinking. I'll leave aside the category error, false equivalence and genetic fallacy he employed. Yes, Lewis, one of the favorite Christian apologists, is an intellectual basket case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 It's a god of the gaps argument: "I don't understand rational thought, therefore God". Utter nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avandris Posted August 19, 2014 Author Share Posted August 19, 2014 Thank you folks. You have all articulated what I was too infuriated to. I should have mentioned that this was posted on facebook by a friend and as I watched the likes increase I simply wanted to scream. One of these days I'm quite sure I'm going to go off the deep end in the comments of one of these inane posts. It is so frustrating to see good, honest and intelligent people swallow this rubbish without engaging their brain! It is also frightening to think I was right there with them not so long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Thank you folks. You have all articulated what I was too infuriated to. I should have mentioned that this was posted on facebook by a friend and as I watched the likes increase I simply wanted to scream. One of these days I'm quite sure I'm going to go off the deep end in the comments of one of these inane posts. It is so frustrating to see good, honest and intelligent people swallow this rubbish without engaging their brain! It is also frightening to think I was right there with them not so long ago. Lewis wrote to the believers. He believed they would swallow his bullshit hook, line and sinker. He was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted August 19, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted August 19, 2014 If he can't trust his own thinking, of course he can't trust the arguments leading to christianity, either. Stick to childrens books, Lewis; you're better at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 If he can't trust his own thinking, of course he can't trust the arguments leading to christianity, either. Stick to childrens books, Lewis; you're better at them. Except when he can - classic special pleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 That doesn't work at all for me. If I cannot trust my thought I have no reason to believe anything in particular. Atheism, Christianity (in any of its forms), or anything else are equally bad in this scenario. If I can trust my own thinking, I shouldn't be abandoning it to nonsensical, dubious and speculative arguments. These from Denis Diderot came to mind... V If reason is a gift from heaven, and the same thing can be said of faith, then heaven has given us two incompatible and contradictory presents. VIII Lost in an immense forest during the night I only have a small light to guide me. An unknown man appears and says to me: “My friend, blow out your candle so you can better find your way.” This unknown man is a theologian. LV Oh Christians, you have two different ideas of good and evil, of truth and falsehood. You are thus either the most absurd of dogmatists or the most extreme of skeptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts