Xeno wrote:Edit: I can't say anything about Lewis because I never read his stuff, but Strobel's work is hilariously bad. A lot of it attempts to use science and logic to provide proofs for the spiritual/supernatural, problem his arguments fall apart entirely too easily.
Without veering this thread too much off-topic, Lewis has an argument for the divinity of Jesus often called "the three L's." He was upset with the claim that Jesus was a great moral teacher but not the Son of God, and said that due to things Jesus said, the only way you can view him is as Lord, a Liar (and therefore could not be a great moral teacher) or a Lunatic, "on the level of someone who says they are a poached egg" and therefore we should not listen to him.
Now even taken at face value, a liar does not always lie about everything and a person can be a liar and still teach good moral values...a liar can even teach that lying is bad even if he does it himself. Likewise, if the hobo at the street corner that says that he can control rats with his mind also says to brush your teeth twice a day, it would be ridiculous to think that brushing your teeth twice a day is therefore wrong or should be ignored.
However, more importantly it ignores what can be called the "four M's," which of course are that Jesus was Mistaken about his claim, but still a good moral teacher who should be listened to, Misquoted by people who heard him preach, that his claims to divinity were Made up by the writers of the gospels, or that Jesus himself was Mythological (which does not invalidate the teachings themselves).
The second is that Lewis has said if life has no meaning, "we should not know that it has no meaning," same as if we lived in a universe where light didn't exist, we would not know the meaning of light or that it existed. It falls in line with other statements of his that boil down to "I desire x, therefore that implies that x exists." Which isn't a very strong argument for the existence of something (one could make the same statement about karmic retribution, for example, which isn't a Christian concept), not to mention comparing a physical thing such as light to an intangible concept such as meaning. Likewise with his statement of how he rejected atheism, because he said he was originally an atheist because he thought the world was cruel and unjust, then realized "But that implies that there is an objective standard of what is just and righteous," and said that the concept of justice could only come from God. Unfortunately, as I said, this completely ignores that non-theistic arguments for objective morality exist, and even besides that, even if you accept his premise that objective morality comes from a deity that doesn't prove the Christian God, but merely a
To get this thread back on track.
Princess Kairi wrote:We've actually touched on that. My take on it is I have nothing to lose if I'm wrong.
This isn't entirely true. I know what you're getting at, Pascal's wager (if God doesn't exist, I cease to exist just like an atheist, therefore no loss). The problem with Pascal's wager is that it ignores things like "What if Zoroastrianism is the correct religion?" Then you would still have everything to lose if you were wrong.
Thank you so much for the help and prayers, everyone. He's actually starting to seriously consider everything. He told me tonight that for the past few days he's been trying to decide if he should start believing again or not. I took this as a very good sign and he even told me that he's surprised with how far he's gotten.
You're quite welcome, but remember, you're saying that he's trying to decide and you take that as a good sign, but what if he comes out of it and says "Eh I'm still not convinced?" What do you do then? I think it would be a very bad idea if you tied your happiness to whether or not he became a believer or not. I guess what I'm asking is, would you be upset or depressed if he stayed agnostic/atheist? And also, more importantly, why would you be upset/depressed if you did?