LT,
Frankly I don't even know where to start... I guess at the beginning. The whole book - the whole entire argument - is based on the foundation that there is such a thing as a Universal Moral Law. It seems to me that Lewis just assumes this is true and does little to actually try and prove it. At best he shot down some weak strawmen against his position. At worst he totally contradicted himself by claiming that some people don't know this Universal Moral Law and have to learn it. Why should I continue reading the rest of the book when the founding premise is so weak (I'll finish it anyway hehe).
Other things he says are silly to me. He dismisses atheism because it's "too simple". He likens it to fish who don't know they are wet - atheism can't be true because if life really had no meaning then we wouldn't know it. That is bizarre thinking to me... a non sequeter if I've ever heard one. Then - no more discussion about atheism. That was the nail in the coffin for it.
Then he goes on to talk about good and evil (dualism). He claims that nobody can do bad for the sake of doing bad - they have to be doing bad things to pursue what is actaully good (power, sexual pleasure, etc.). He never explains why power and sexual pleasure are "good" and not neutral. He just assumes it's true. He also starts talking about a higher standard that would be beyond both the all good god and the all bad god. Well, doesn't that mean that the Christian god would also be held to a higher standard and doesn't actually "decide" what is good and bad? Then isn't god subbordinate to a higher law?
There are many many more things I've come accross just in barely the first half of the book. You are right - he does make you think. I haven't pondered these subjects in a few months - but they are nothing new (at least if you frequent JWD) ;)
Too me, he just makes way too many assumptions and expects you to see them as naturally as he can - as if his beliefs are somehow self evident. The tone of his writing reminds me of my weekly home bible study with my parents out of the "Great Teacher" book. After almost every paragraph I'm saying "but... but... but..." but he quickly runs off to a new topic as if the last one was neatly taken care of in it's entirety.
I'll finish it... and it is a very easy read, but I have to say that I definitely am not impressed with his logic. The problem being that this is supposed to be a book that appeals to a thinking atheist. I think this book would only appeal to the weakest sort of atheist - someone who doesn't know much about science, philosophy, logic, and maybe even religion and who is just areligious because of their lack of exposure to such things.
What did you get out of this book? I don't necessarily want to get down to page and paragraph, but I'm curious about your thoughts on it. Do you think I'm off the mark with my criticism? Did this book or any other apolgist writings influence your views about Christianity to a great extent? I have to admit that this is probably the first apologetic work I've read since being a JW (besides excerpts). Maybe there is a more "atheist friendly" tomme out there. :)
rem
