Debunking CS Lewis - Richard Dawkins

[@poke_warrior]

Alex low key pisses Dawkins off every time he plays devils advocate lmao. As a deconverted Christian, I do love how Alex absolutely knows the Christian argument. It’s what makes him so effective at dismantling it.

[@mitslev4043]

I disagree with him on many points but I do think he makes very effective arguments. I would say it's less from being a Christian and more an analytical nature.

[@jarjargod5127]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@mitslev4043They never said Alex’s quick-wittedness or analytical capabilities were due to previously being a Christian, if that’s what you’re implying. However, his knowledge of the way the Christian, apologists especially, think and a history of dealing with their arguments make him well-equipped when he encounters them.

[@mitslev4043]

@@jarjargod5127 no that's not what I was implying. Just in my opinion I don't think he does any better than atheists who were not Christians. Also I could be wrong but I mostly see him argue against more philosophical arguments for God than theological ones. Many of his arguments seemed to me to be form a logical basis than on theological grounds. But I haven't seen everything from him. It's just my opinion based on what I've seen.

[@antzpantz8778]

I don't see him dismantling anything. He is the only one that I see actually trying to see others views without assuming they are stupid.

[@motherisape]

When same thing he does against conservative philosopher they get angry

[@jackdemarais7731]

So much respect for Alex. Someone who gives a fair shake to both the theist and atheist perspectives and still honestly expresses their own beliefs is the example to which all of us should aspire.

[@hundly]

You mean debating someone that is dead

[@deewesthill1213]

​@@hundly "someone that is dead"?! Alex is alive.

[@hundly]

@@deewesthill1213 CS Lewis is dead .. unless i missed something...Lewis cleraly is not about to respond to the accusation

[@deewesthill1213]

@@hundly Alex was only critiquing the words of C.S. Lewis, not "debating" him. No one calls a critique of the Gospels "debating" the authors of them.

[@hundly]

@@deewesthill1213 you should critique the message of the Gospel. That is absolutely right thing to do, otherwise how will you know their value?. But that is also debating the authors. When I read a book I enter into a conversation witht the authors, no?....yet CS is still dead, easy to call silky he is not about to respond. Is he? ..So do critique the Gospel, the Christian beleive it os a conversation with God, at least He got more chance to respond

[@CWojcieszak]

I love that, even if its in good faith and more to have a little laugh than anything, the fact that you're actually trying to counter his argument is fantastic. It's good to think critically about the opposition's argument, it's even better to give the same treatment to those on your side of the argument

[@teresaamanfu7408]

He sounds like one of those damn apologists. I don’t have the patience for it.

[@Draezeth]

​@@teresaamanfu7408Then you don't have patience for truth. If you can't stand pushback on your position, then you aren't going to give your views the stress-test they need.

[@numbersix8919]

Strongest of all is to take your opponent's position and do your best to defend it.

[@jamesthecat]

​​​​@@DraezethAll very well in theory, but the Gish Gallop is a thoroughly dispiriting thing to face. You may be both fantastically concise *and* scrupulously address every throwaway point, and still seem the less convincing. Sometimes the only play is, indeed, not to play.

[@philramsay8222]

Alex misses the point and splits hairs in superfluous points in order to derail the conversation or argument, he tends to do that.

[@cmcapps1963]

I'll take Lewis over Dawkins any day. It's only logical.

[@ColinFox]

Dawkins has advanced biological science, and had a significant impact on culture, all the way down to the fact that HE coined the term "meme", and you probably didn't know that, or what the actual definition is. Why on earth would you favour an ignorant, muddle-headed Christian over a clear-eyed scientist?

[@jessesammons2508]

He missed a button!!!

[@antseanbheanbocht4993]

Did the button ever exist?

[@davidbroadfoot1864]

@@antseanbheanbocht4993 The button existed, but you cannot see it because Alex pushed it.

[@SamoaVsEverybody814]

He did it on purpose so Christians would have easier access to his heart😊

[@simmyjester]

Came here to say that, of course someone beat me to it!

[@MultiverseMediaSpace]

Lol & the point! I love that man (Dawkins) but C.S was talking about actuality of thought and need. Evolution prepares us for encounters, and with the complexity of thought that echoes reality it is possible that the mind is evolving for something we don't understand.

[@moderndayheretic]

I have a lot of respect for Lewis, but I agree with Dawkins here, it’s not a good argument.

[@shwanjalal8709]

Agreed

[@blakechesney3370]

@@AllFather19watch the video

[@harrykane_]

​​@@AllFather19 Well if he says he agrees then he clearly has the same explanation as Dawkins in the video I'd assume

[@tylerdias8323]

He misunderstood, what he meant was that of he was born to want something that he cannot have in this reality/world, then he wasn't born for this reality/world, he was born to the one where he could have his desire, I see it as a cope when you can't have what you want. It makes perfect sense.

[@tinystegosaurus587]

​@@tylerdias8323 Perfect sense as to why he would think that yes, it's still a bad argument for the *actual* existence of said other world

[@Phill0old]

Dawkins says that is a bad argument and then comes up with his own bad argument.

[@JH-ji6cj]

Oh, please do explain Dawkins' bad argument.

[@Phill0old]

@@JH-ji6cj You watched it and you can't tell? Are you normally so incapable of thinking or is this a special occasion.

[@cygnusustus]

Yes, tell us what was bad about Dawkins' argument, please.

[@Phill0old]

@@cygnusustus "It's a natural projection" oh? Says what science?

[@cygnusustus]

@@Phill0old And the fuck you are talking about is what?

[@nomadicrecovery1586]

Lewis. As usual. Is correct

[@kf1559]

Dawkins almost headbutting the host at the end. 😂

[@bigvwfan]

I wish Alex hadn't cancelled his joke - Richard Dawkins squirming is a feast for the eyes 😍

[@mcgragor1]

Yep, I don't think most of the commenters realize, Alex just argued Lewis's point very well. It started when he said "the film star exist" and only got better after that.

[@joecheffo5942]

@@mcgragor1I dont know who put this clip up or why. I think people have a desire to fly like Superman or a bird, but we can’t. We even dream about flying. We probably want imaginary friends , fruit trees, that are always in season, trees that grow money, breathe underwater, grow back limb or turn young when we are old. But we cant and wanting them doesn’t make them real.

[@sadbishdish]

​@@joecheffo5942What kind of dreams do you have? Lol.

[@joecheffo5942]

@@sadbishdish not ones of god that I can remeber. I am sure flying, other nirmal stuff like romantic stuff with a pretty lady. I was very religious a while back. I never dreant of “the Good”

[@jackwhitbread4583]

​@@mcgragor1the point stands, the point Dawkins was making was valid and Alex knew exactly the point he was making but chose to be pedantic instead.

[@ethanpreston6990]

Dawkins fundamentally misunderstands Lewis’s argument though. Lewis is not talking about wanting to live forever, he is speaking of a desire for a joy that nothing in the material world is able to provide. Just because I’m hungry doesn’t mean I will get food, but it points to the fact that something exists that could satiate my hunger.

[@amriteshmukherjee646]

On the contrary, I think you fundamentally misunderstand Dawkins' argument. He's answering exactly what you're talking of here, rather clearly, just follows up with a not-so-clear example.

[@ethanpreston6990]

He thinks Lewis’s argument is if you wish something were true it must be. But the argument is that a desire points to the possibility of it being fulfilled. Another way of stating it is that lacking something by definition means there is something that is lacked. Lewis’s logic is sound, the better critique of the argument is whether everyone feels this lack and that we may think that we are lacking God but it’s really something else. I’m not saying it’s a foolproof argument for God, but Dawkins critique doesn’t work

[@sulljoh1]

We desire things that aren't based in reality all the time. It's a very strange argument

[@ethanpreston6990]

Like what?

[@aquatick1848]

​@@ethanpreston6990the desire for say, intergalatic space travel?

[@holdenstrausser]

Almost no one in these comments understands Lewis argument: we have desires that cannot be satisified by anything in this world. All desires have some object that is grounded in reality. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that those desires that cannot be satisified by this world can be satisified by something not in this world. But if those desires are truly mere daydreams, why do we have them? Its like having hunger but never hearing of food.

[@user-md7uc5tx6b]

Bingo.

[@snaphaan5049]

Interesting.

[@talcono4476]

"All desires have some object that is grounded in reality" To me this statement is either absurd or meaninglessly trivial. If my desire is to go live on Krypton, then the only way the object of my desire is grounded in reality is by being creative about what my desire "actually" is or by how Krypton is actually grounded to reality in some convoluted way. You can imagine a Buddhist C.S. Lewis using the same argument to demonstrate the existence of nirvana, and therefore the cycle of reincarnation and the doctrine of non-self -- so the same logic leading to exactly the opposite conclusion as the Christian logic positing an eternal soul. Both can't be right so the argument is just not helpful for determining the truth of the matter.

[@holdenstrausser]

@talcono4476 just to clarify, Lewis is not arguing that we have a specific desire for Jesus therefore it's true. He is arguing that we have desires nothing we know of can satisfy, and the nature of desire is that it can be satisified. Like if you did not know food existed, so you try to satisfy your hunger with drink. He is not trying to justify Christianity, he is ruling out materialism.

[@julesjacobs1]

There is absolutely nothing reasonable about that conclusion. It's obviously patently absurd to conclude that anything you desire can be satisfied.

[@LeoDas688]

The best example would be if you want to be a superhero with supernatural power or a witch, but you can't

[@IanM-id8or]

Indeed. While approaching the end of a lifetime of wanting those powers, I can assure you that wishing doesn't make it so.

[@yoeyyoey8937]

But what did Lewis desire here? An afterlife? It seemed like they just made that up

[@CharliesTrousers-od3lt]

Once again, Dawkins answers a question that wasn't asked

[@jesseoreilly1792]

Thanks for noticing that the desire to leave, and the unquenchable need for higher meaning are not the same. We live in the safest and most pampered world that has ever existed for human beings, and yet, in the absence of a deeper purpose, we rapidly descend into vapid materialism, narcissism, mass depression, and form quasi-religous beliefs around secular ideas and movement (ie, wokeness).

[@jacksonbenincosa3759]

I don't understand how people don't see that pattern. The toil of trying to unify heaven and earth, meaning and material, fact and theory, is one of the defining struggles of the human condition. And people like Dawkins don't look closely enough at the thing they're to dismantle. We destroy that which we stand on at our great peril, and to not take seriously the stories that try to dramatize these patterns is a grave mistake. @@jesseoreilly1792

[@vorpal22]

@@jesseoreilly1792 What an absolutely absurd claim to make. I'm atheist, as are the majority of my relatives, friends, and coworkers, and very few of them struggle with vapid materialism, narcissism, mass depression, or an obsession with "quasi-religious beliefs," as you put it. 🙄

[@marksnow7569]

​@@jesseoreilly1792 Lewis's statement, "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world" does not mention higher meaning. The non-specificity may well be a deliberate rhetorical tactic.

[@charliecinnella9090]

@@vorpal22 we all have a god. Whether it’s off this world or not. You can pretend you don’t, but if you’re honest with yourself you do.

[@steverational8615]

As usual, Dawkins just doesn’t get it.

[@TheGreatPerahia]

Yes. It's easy to assume because someone is an intellectual they are infallible. Actually there are many things Dawkins is either wrong on or simply doesn't get it. Dawkins thinking is if I don't get it, therefore it's not true.. People give far too much credit to this man. As far as scientists go there are far more interesting and better qualified ones than him.

[@marksnow7569]

Dawkins only "doesn't get it" because it's too vaguely stated.

[@IanM-id8or]

He got it quite well enough to be able to debunk it very effectively

[@Medvelelet]

​@@IanM-id8orHe can debunk it very effectively because he doesn't get it

[@matthewphilip1977]

@@TheGreatPerahia Dawkins is the best we've seen at this, of the prominent scientists. Krauss, et al, NEVER pause, stroke their chin, and consider anything. They always just steam in with what's already in their head, with anything that might impress their audience. Dawkins often says, "Ah, interesting point, I never thought about that," then resolves to go away and consider it. And his discipline is much more difficult than, for example, physics. Physics is simple. Evolution is messy, very mess. Dawkins is one of the smartest men of modern times.

[@PaulMcCaffreyfmac]

Even as an agnostic I find the idea of god laughing in Dawkins' face very satisfying.

[@TerribleEnglish]

Do you believe in God? It's a yes or no question, so 'agnostics' don't exist.

[@RichardTClark396]

Agnostic is another word for lazy.

[@KaiColloquoun-gt7kw]

Why would a god be laughing in Dawkins' face?

[@ThomaceKisho]

Agnosticism is simply a belief that the nature of God is unknowable- including whether a God exists or not. Agnosticism is concerned with knowledge rather than belief, so agnostics can exist.

[@TerribleEnglish]

@@KaiColloquoun-gt7kw Maybe because he likes to have a laugh. That's probably why he invented all the other religions and created atheists too! 😅

[@rawcopper604]

Alex, I hope you understand how lucky you are to be able to not only talk with Richard Dawkins, but joke around with him. I can only wish

[@AlexeiX1]

Ew, Dawkins is long gone. He deserves no respect at all and has been doing his absolute best to tarnish his reputation in the last few years. Wish people would give him less time to speak nowadays as he is most undeserving. Don’t know what’s wrong with Brits, they seem to all be going full JK Rowling lately. Edit: what I am saying doesn’t have anything to do with his stance on religion, but on his latest rants with anti trans rhetoric.

[@jgg6932]

​@@AlexeiX1calm down Karen

[@smoothntheclutch]

It’s sad to think there are people out there that think R.D. makes sense. I have never seen this man have a rational, intelligent conversation about the reality of things. Never!

[@ahmadjamalmughal47]

I knoww 😂

[@cygnusustus]

@@AlexeiX1 Sorry someone disagrees with by using logic an reasoning. That must hurt.

[@diegog1853]

Yeah this seems to be rationalization made into an argument. Normally someone wanting a proposition to be true is either irrelevant or kind of a red flag in their defense of that proposition. Lewis is going one step above and saying that him wanting for God to exist is itself an argument for the existence of God.

[@JH-ji6cj]

Such a great way you put that.

[@SaladDongs]

It does seem to be a quite universal desire for what that's worth.

[@starfishsystems]

Interestingly, it also runs exactly counter to the core observations of Buddhism, namely that while it's our human nature to endlessly crave things, that craving is the principal cause of our suffering. Lewis makes out like this is a Good Thing. But then, he was always ready to retreat into the imaginary when plain old reality didn't deliver what he expected of it.

[@diegog1853]

@@SaladDongs I don't know, I feel like this notion might be a consequence of us living in a judeo-christian centric society... Who believes in a loving God that wants the best of us and will give us eternal life. But a lot of cultures didn't believe in eternal life (like not even the jews, they didn't believe in souls separated from the body, they believed that life after death must mean physically rising from the tomb). And also not every culture believed in loving Gods... As ancient cultures interpreted natural disasters as vengeful actions from Gods they feared Gods, thought that rituals were a way to appease the Gods so that they don't kill you rather than loving beings that want the best for you. So I think this "universality" might just be a christian bias.

[@SaladDongs]

@@diegog1853 Perhaps you're right, but be careful with life after death. You mention jewish religion but the concept of life after death *is* there, even if not everyone gets to be a part of it. That is the ideal towards which they go. Buddhists and Hindus don't believe in souls in a very comparable way but most *do* believe in things like reincarnation, spirits, past lives, karma. Something beyond this life. In that broader sense it does *seem* to me to be universal, but then again I don't agree with CS Lewis that this is proof god exists.

[@zachdavenport8509]

I don’t think it’s the strongest argument, but I also don’t think the argument was actually presented here.

[@yoeyyoey8937]

Me neither. Like what did Lewis actually say he desired?

[@zachdavenport8509]

@@yoeyyoey8937 In the fuller context of the argument, it’s everything he desires. He basically was saying that we can spend our lives chasing things that are obviously good (beauty, sex, wealth, happiness, kindness, etc.) but at the end of the day none of those things or anything else satisfies the deeper desire within us. Thus, the desires we are trying to fulfill with all these pleasures are actually for something else entirely. Otherwise we could feel satisfied. The premise on which it is all based is that desires must have a real object. Otherwise, how would we know to desire it? So that’s where Dawkins misunderstood. It’s not necessarily that we can have anything we desire, but that anything we have a deep intrinsic desire for must exist somewhere. So he may not be able to marry a super model, but super models exist. So like I said, not the best argument Lewis ever made, but the actual argument wasn’t really discussed here.

[@luis_sa78]

That's a really weak argument.

[@AllFather19]

Why?

[@ZeYoX-mw7sh]

@@AllFather19 I want anime girls to be real, but it doesnt mean that when i die i will have an afterlife where anime girls are real.

[@stefans.466]

@@ZeYoX-mw7sh But the anime girls are real in the sense that they exist on the screen and i can see and hear them.

[@jake3938]

@@stefans.466Well in that case god is real because you can see pictures of him and read passages from the bible

[@ZeYoX-mw7sh]

@@stefans.466 Dont give me hope 😔

[@louisehaley5105]

Never underestimate the importance of Desire, without it we would have achieved nothing. Before we had the medicine that would someday cure the disease, we had to have the DESIRE to cure that disease in the first place. Not sit back and accept our fate. Before we had the technology that would someday put us into space, we had to have the DESIRE to go into space in the first place. Not be resigned to our earthbound fate. Thanks to the wonders of science we now have the means of making these desires a reality - what was once considered impossible now becomes possible. Could the same principle apply to our quest for immortality ?

[@Sage1Million]

We’re going to achieve immortality this century.

[@yoeyyoey8937]

Did he desire an afterlife or something else?

[@rafaeldonnelly3593]

I am sure, if CS Lewis was alive, that he would have batted away R Dawkin’s bouncers,

[@tomarmstrong3297]

Lewis’s quote “a desire which nothing in this world can satisfy “ and Dawkins proceeds to give examples of desires this world can satisfy

[@Tiowulf]

It’s an argument from spirituality. Not a particularly good one. It’s just a repackaging of the first cause problem. Not to mention even if we were to accept this why does it only support Christianity? Every religion claims or implies some sort of spiritual desire

[@0j48F7hairy48p96ddMs]

What's your solution to the "first cause problem" big guy

[@Tiowulf]

@@0j48F7hairy48p96ddMs Firstly it assumes that the universe needs a creator because of complication but god himself has no precursor or creator. I’ve talked with many Christian’s about this and they effectively dodge the question or claim it’s irrelevant. It isn’t though because if the universe or life on earth can’t come from nothing then how could god come from nothing? The only attempt I have seen is a begging the question fallacy Secondly according to physics there was never a “nothing” even before the Big Bang so unless a research is done to prove that energy never existed before the Big Bang then god isn’t even needed There’s also the problem of evidence which is made worse by my second point. This is a strictly philosophical argument. Theres no archaeology, history, science, or even scripture to support it. It’s effectively entirely based upon inference. Lastly and most importantly even if we could prove the first cause is divine how does only and specifically prove YHWH? Virtually every religion has a creation myth story or deity and while some are taken to be nonliterally (Such as Paganism) others are taken to be semi or fully literal such as Hinduism, Islam or Zoroastrianism. Since Christianity cannot be proven this argument only negates atheism if we accept it and doesn’t even rule out certain types of religion such as polytheism/monotheism or stoic/epicurean thought or deism/a personal god and so on.

[@starfishsystems]

​@@Tiowulf Just to add, there's a very evident Special Pleading fallacy: in claiming that reality needs a creator, but the creator is under no such requirement.

[@oneoflokis]

​@@TiowulfWhy is there something and not nothing?

[@Tiowulf]

@@oneoflokis Why are you unable to comprehend that Christianity makes the claim that there was nothing and god created everything while this is disproven by physics and astronomy? The infallible word of god sure seems flawed

[@David-iv6je]

The ultimate religious argument; "magic"

[@mitslev4043]

All any argument boils down to ultimately. Religious or otherwise.

[@mekullag9787]

maybe we should be a little more careful differentiating “argument” and “explanation”

[@AndrewHunterMusic]

Science: “give me one miracle and I’ll explain the rest.”

[@abberss]

@@mitslev4043 How do you figure?

[@mitslev4043]

@@abberss it depends a bit what you mean by magic. atheists don't really have a definitive definition on magic. and i don't either. when i say magic i normally invoke that it is having to do with the super natural. super natural as in something beyond the physical world and its associated forces. most arguments if you probe deep enough have to invoke things like logic and truth and maths as well as other forms of logical proofs. but of course things like logic and truth and math do not exists physically. there are no atoms of logic after all. and because there is no physical basis for logic and its laws we would conclude it exists in some other form than a physical one. this is as opposed to physical laws such as the electromagnetic force which as a physical particle (a photon) that carries it. but again it would depend on what you mean by magic.

[@LuccianoX]

😂😂 I love how annoyed Dawkins was by that little quip

[@Brosowski]

I think what makes Lewis's argument interesting is that he is saying that if Humans desire things that aren't realistic or logical IN this world, then there must be something or someone BEYOND what we know that created and allows for those desires to exist. Look at how Immortality is one of the biggest quests for Humans across History. We can't achieve it (although we could potentially in the future), but we still long for it. It doesn't mean that God does 100% exist, but it does tell us that Humans are wired for it, so there could be a reason as to why.

[@SupachargedGaming]

Or you do desire something that does exist in real life... given hydras are immortal, and the "immortal jellyfish" can reset it's life cycle. Or maybe you desire *avoiding* something that actually does exist. Death. It's something we are aware of, something we experience the suffering caused by... Don't need some supernatural justification for wanting to prevent it. Doesn't mean it's possible, doesn't mean we're "wired for it". If we stick with the afterlife example, though it's irrelevant to the argument - "We want it therefore it must exist" is a bad argument regardless of what it is wanted, then that would kind of imply the opposite, no? If there was some life after death, we'd be wired to... want to die? Or, alternatively, people are told there's a "next life" and so you get sentiments like, "This life is overwhelming and I'm ready for the next one" -Badflower, Ghost (2019)

[@AIIA23]

No one can know with any certainty what happens after you die. So for many they are willing to simply assume they will live on because it benefits them psychologically while alive. If they chose to assume they will cease to exist permanently, psychologically it is disturbing for most. Since no one knows for sure either way, it seems just as rational to assume an afterlife as it does to assume non existence. Probably being agnostic is the most realistic position but that too triggers our need for certainty on key questions which is almost as bad as assuming we cease to exist.

[@marksnow7569]

Given the known realities of brain damage, any afterlife is unlikely to involve the survival of what we, in life, think we are.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Everything that we know about how reality works contradicts the existence of an afterlife. And we aren’t just agnostic about every crazy idea that has zero supporting evidence and is entirely unfalsifiable.

[@stevenlester985]

This isn't the case Lewis was making. He was speaking instead of something Cicero refers to in terms of a monument. Humans not only have this evolutionary desire to continue living after they die, but more importantly to leave behind a remembrance. You don't see that anywhere else in the natural world. No animal is writing books that will outlive the animal. No animal is forming governments for posterity. Humans do this and Cicero thinks it speaks to an immortal soul. Science has no explanation for this and evolution doesn't get at it either. Humans don't just desire to extend their lives in some way. They desire legacy. The rest of the natural world doesn't manifest that in any meaningful way.

[@Crannogman4686]

I think a desire for legacy could also be considered a form of death denial

[@stevenlester985]

@@Crannogman4686 if, by death death denial, you simply mean what Dawkins is talking about, you would need to explain why it's unique to humans. I'm not saying there isn't an explanation. But one could argue (i think convincingly) that the progress that is unique to humans, both socially and technologically, is a natural result of that very same innate desire for legacy - or whatever you want to call it (I like Cicero's formulation - "Do they not wish to be remembered well after death." ). Nothing else in all of nature seems to care whether or not it's remembered at all, let alone remembered well, after death. Conversely, it's a pretty rare exception that humans don't care in some capacity whether or not they're remembered, and particularly that they be remembered well (what that means varies from human to human, but it still seems to be nearly omnipresent).

[@smithblack5945]

I mean, animals desire legacy too by propagating their species. The reason you don't see animals forming governments or writing books is because they don't have the faculties for it. It doesn't speak to an immortal soul, it speaks to a biological reality.

[@markusklyver6277]

​​@@stevenlester985 People's legacy desires may be a means for acquiring symbolic immortality and overcoming existential death anxiety. Legacy provides a satisfying end to one's 'life story' and an ability to influence others long after one's death. Other animals have this instinct in varying degrees, having offspring is the ultimate form of legacy in nature and most species are very good at that. Most animals value their own continued life, and it's hard to know what they think of death. We know that animals procreate, build homes and sometimes return to the same places over and over again. Elephants are known to visit and respect skeletons of former elephants. But if you wonder why humans are the only ones with a well-developed sense of intellectual legacy, that may be a biproduct of the fact that human Intelligence is the most developed among any species here on Earth.

[@SupachargedGaming]

No other species in nature gives a single fuck about the "legacy of humans". Oh you wrote a book? Narwhals don't care. Oh, you were a famous sports person? The gorillas find your attempts "cute". Humans also don't do a whole bunch of things that other animals do. Guess that makes those animals special too. "Animals don't speak!" -Said by someone who can't speak the language of the animal.

[@ginge641]

"wretched person" Holy shit, Dawkins.

[@raizan1526]

I thought he'd go the curiosity route. We also have a high degree of curiousity which leads to the feeling of "there must be something more", "something we're not seeing". Its just a desire to understand the environment. We also from experience "know" that there is always a reason or a cause behind the state of things. So we find it hard to accept an idea such as "the world just is". Not that we innately know there must be some divine thing behind the universe. It was attributed to a divine agent because in a way, its reasonable to think it must be something extremely powerful and intelligent to be able to create literally everything. A naturalistic explaination of this phenomenon of desire, makes much more sense to me than "therefore god must exist" lol.

[@AtheismActually]

I always thought this was a dumb argument, and another piece of evidence for Lewis' awful understanding of evolution. The implication is that we would expect some inherent cap on orientation towards survival/propagation on naturalism. But any lifeform with such programming would be outlived/outbred by those without.

[@mekullag9787]

it’s certainly not a “dumb” argument. In fact it can absolutely be considered in an argument to the best explanation. To me, at least, it’s anything but clear why evolution created desires in the first place, my smartphone charges when I plug it in without desiring anything and it stops charging at 80% without requiring any feeling of satiation. Then again, we would expect evolution to take less optimal paths from time to time, so it’s not too big of an issue. So if we assume evolution accidentally went the “desire” route to get us what we need to procreate, it’s still not clear why this would need to result in the desire of things we can’t ever get. Basically we have to accept that any unfulfillable desires are “accidental” appendixes of more useful adaptations. As you can see, we’re now stacking assumptions on top of assumptions. It’s not impossible evolution would get us here, but it’s obvious that religions do. However, this only really works if the person you’re talking to actually agrees that we do have such desires (innately). I can easily imagine that f.e. a desire for perfect love isn’t actually something all humans feel, maybe it’s only those who have been conditioned to do so by being brought up in a religious household. And I might feel a desire to remain healthy and alive, but I don’t think I feel a desire to experience an afterlife I know nothing about, even if people tell me it’s going to be awesome.

[@simon5007]

@@mekullag9787 Always having higher aspirations and never being quite happy with what is available is arguably one of the most beneficial traits to human cultural evolution. If we didn't want things that was beyond reach, we would never have invented farming for example. Unfulfillable desires are only unfulfillable until we come up with a way of fulfilling them. They are what drives invention, creativity and progression as a species, outside of biological evolution. This also happens among other animals by the way, they are just generally much worse at actually fulfilling those desires.

[@markusklyver6277]

​@@mekullag9787 People's legacy desires may be a means for acquiring symbolic immortality and overcoming existential death anxiety. Legacy provides a satisfying end to one's 'life story' and an ability to influence others long after one's death. Other animals have this instinct in varying degrees, having offspring is the ultimate form of legacy in nature and most species are very good at that. Most animals value their own continued life, and it's hard to know what they think of death. We know that animals procreate, build homes and sometimes return to the same places over and over again. Elephants are known to visit and respect skeletons of former elephants. But if you wonder why humans are the only ones with a well-developed sense of intellectual legacy, that may be a biproduct of the fact that human Intelligence is the most developed among any species here on Earth.

[@callum4337]

​@@simon5007hats an excellent point. I always just presumed it was more i can never no matter how much "desires" i indulge in ever actually think its done. Its the god shaped hole people talk about. You can have sex till you're sexually satisfied, you can make money till youre monetarily satisfied and you can eat till you're satisfied. But when the god shaped hole is yearning, none of it is ever enough. When its in fact the god shaped hole, you will eat till death, you will hoard vast amounts of unspendabke wealth far beyond what even your childrens children could ever spend without the business continueing, and still be policing piss breaks, and then the sex stuff i wont mention, and it wont fill the hole because it isnt the right one. People destroy their lives, and others, and so im not sure it can be concluded beneficial to have deaires you cant naturally fill.

[@mekullag9787]

@@simon5007 unfulfillable desires cannot be fulfilled no matter what we come up with, reason dictates this. We have to be accurate in our use of language when it comes to metaphysics. Philosopher Peter Kreeft put the premise this way: There exists in us a [natural, innate] desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy. As I said, I doubt this premise, but it´s still easy for me to see that if someone were to accept it, they´d have a hard time explaining what otherwise useful adaptation could have produced it, when it seems obvious that desires connected to our lived reality would be much more likely to randomly appear and be selected for. Anyway, not about to defend an argument that doesn´t convince me. I just get annoyed when randoms in comment sections call arguments dumb that people much smarter than them have taken very seriously, even if those arguments don´t actually end up succeeding.

[@vincestraw]

I desire for Richard Dawkins to button all the buttons on his shirt. It won't matter in the next world though.

[@JustAnApe445]

I love Richard Dawkins

[@oliverholland7236]

I desire to ride to work on Cathulu Doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

[@JesusGarcia-bu7tf]

What Dawkins is saying about Lewis and other theologians is that their arguments are idiotic. He’s just being eloquent about it.

[@ShPekmaster]

Yes, "your argument is idiotic" is my favourite argument. Wins every debate. Dude just missed the point and you all act like morons. Just forgive about that and live on.

[@IanM-id8or]

@@ShPekmaster In what way did he miss the point? Dawkins hit it right on the head

[@JesusGarcia-bu7tf]

@@ShPekmasterI don’t understand your comment. What point was missed and by whom?

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@ShPekmaster But lots of apologetic arguments are idiotic and try to define made up things into existence. Look up the "modal ontological argument“ or "reformed epistemology“… they make nonsense like the argument from desire sound brilliant in comparison.😂

[@yoeyyoey8937]

Not really. And I’m pretty sure he strawmanned him. I don’t think that’s what Lewis was trying to say, that he desired an afterlife

[@jah8875]

Lewis' "Liar, lunatic or lord" argument also reveals a poor grasp of mental illness.

[@marksnow7569]

Furthermore, it ignores the possibility of lying in a good cause.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@marksnow7569 And it also ignores "legend“ as the most likely explanation.

[@marksnow7569]

@@ramigilneas9274 The legend seems to be based on a core of fact- it would be nice to know how large a core

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@marksnow7569 I thought that all legends are based on real events that got exaggerated and embellished until the legend has not much in common with what actually happened. That’s what distinguishes legends from myths… which are entirely made up. But I also agree that the Jesus legend is probably based on a real preacher or possibly multiple preachers.

[@marksnow7569]

@@ramigilneas9274 It's not so much that legends are necessarily based on real events as a matter of scale. Myths deal with grand themes, typically involving generous helpings of the supernatural (deities, birth of the universe, founding of a nation etc.). Legends deal with more particular ones and are usually less reliant on the woo-woo (the biography of a person who may or may not ever have existed; the story of how a town was defended from attackers etc.)

[@anthonyhomer3288]

I really wanted Dawkins to start referencing sexual desires that really dont have any existence in reality (furries, aliens, monsters, bronies, other victims of rule 34) but I knew he be too classy for that

[@tomd96]

Those desires have some deep mental connections that aren't apparent immediately. From a psychological perspective, it has nothing to do with wanting something that doesn't exist. Animals exist. People attach their feelings to an animal, anthropomorphising it, and insert their human wants and needs. For this argument to be similar, you would want an attraction with something that does not exist to satisfy your needs. Though, the argument itself is also moot. It is human nature to want more than what you have. It is a trait that has stuck with us since our earliest years on the planet. For humanity to survive, it needs to multiply, and you need food, water, and shelter. We're always creating a vacuum of demand for ourselves. As technology advances, people live longer, and a wider generation gap occurs. Religion is a human creation. The rest of us haven't caught up yet.

[@young_dan_kee]

Alex is so clever that even when joking, he makes tough and pressing arguments

[@FR-ty5vn]

The film star exists but the desired sexual relationship with the film star does not and will not in all likelihood…that was his analogy and point.

[@kevbertjensen7692]

Some of us have desires that transcend a "desire to survive and live". Richard Dawkins is a very sad figure

[@JH-ji6cj]

And yet I bet all your desires you claim are deeper, more meaningful, or transcend the baser desires of survival and propagation are NOT the desires that one would consider 'base'. You're not considering that the story you tell yourself which leads you believe you have access to deeper meaning is exactly the story which contains a more attentive, attractive propagation property (into the future), so, yes, that story is exactly the mechanism by which you are trying to extend your genes and possibly your own 'soul' / self into the future (so leads right back to your survival instinct).

[@joex9865]

Most atheists are sad

[@carolfleetwood2419]

Because you have desires that transcend survival it doesn't mean they are realistic. Many want to be president. Most want wealth. Sadly, those goals are unrealistic for everyone except for a chosen few.

[@StephanDallaPria]

Richard Dawkins is definitely not a sad figure. He always seems jolly with a great sense of humour and certainly gives no f*cks for Christians' fake piety.

[@StephanDallaPria]

Richard Dawkins is definitely not a sad figure. He always seems jolly with a great sense of humour and certainly gives no f*cks for Christians' fake piety.

[@herminlionel1909]

CS Lewis makes Dawkins point himself: “A man may love a woman and not win her; but it would be very odd if the phenomenon called “falling in love” occurred in a sexless world.” He’s not talking about a desire for life to go on exactly as it is now forever. He’s talking about the desire for a perfect world and infinite happiness. The feeling we all have when we start something new. Maybe this job or this person or this thing that I bought will finally satisfy me deep down. Read “The Weight of Glory”.

[@jonkeene8788]

I'm a Christian. It's been a very long time since I've read this passage in "Mere Christianity", so it's possible there's a bit more to his argument than just this short quote. Honestly, though, based on this short clip I agree with Dawkins here. One can offer a secular scientific and philosophical explanation for why we desire something beyond this worldly, mortal life that is persuasive.

[@charliecinnella9090]

And what would that be?

[@jonkeene8788]

​@charliecinnella9090 *please ignore my second comment if this is all too much to read. My apologies, i tend to write a lot! Lol* Anyway, just as he says, "Because we have a desire to survive and live, which makes perfect evolutionary sense, it's a natural projection of that desire that we might desire to go on living after we die." Right after this he adds, "The idea that because you want something therefore it must be true, I find that a most extraordinary idea." His attempts to find a good analogy were geared at this idea, of there being a difference between desiring something and actually having it. It appears that O'Connor "bested" him at the end of this brief edit when he twice interjected with points of disagreement, causing Dawkins to appear dismayed. But really, Dawkins was just trying to come up with a good analogy in the moment. With more time to think, he may've come up with a better analogy (or response to the interjections) in writing.

[@kidlotus1095]

C S Lewis: inscrutable desire Dawkins: film star

[@joratto2833]

Freudian slip

[@Ice51234]

Someone picked up on it 😂

[@IanM-id8or]

@@joratto2833 No - a more down to Earth example that is still out of reach enough drive the point home

[@imbecilicGenius-hn3jo]

Missing the point of the argument. Where does the desire come from? If I desire a film star, it is because I first saw the film star. What Lewis is getting at is that when there is a longing that only could be spiritual, it must be a spirit within oneself that is longing.

[@someonesomeone25]

But it's just projections of normal desires. A desire for love, life, joy, and so on.

[@Tiowulf]

Not to mention how does this idea of desire specifically and only support YHWH?

[@lartrak]

He didn't miss it, just mostly glosses over it. Dawkins essentially implies it's basically a desire for the temporal (the desire to live as long as possible and so on) extended to the intemporal, that it isn't meaningfully different desire. Honestly I don't know how you can argue this point much in either direction. It's like saying you can feel God. Someone else challenges you and says you're imagining it. Now what? It's just going to go in circles.

[@mesplin3]

Where do desires come from? It sounds like a neurological question, not a spiritual one.

[@Sinthe]

He answers the point pretty obviously: desire for life comes from evolution, desire for eternal life comes from the previous desire.

[@mothgirl326]

I think a better option for Dawkins argument than a film star is a furry :3

[@ItsSnagret]

I can’t trust anyone who leaves their shirt unbuttoned like that

[@eristic1281]

There's a fine, blurry line between theology and psychiatry

[@etienne_laforet]

C.S. Lewis is just logical. Dawkins loves probability: Well, if you feel thirst, it's more likely that there exists water than that there isn't. There is so little consistency and analytical depth in Dawkins' thought. Elsewhere he said: "There is no evidence that any religion is true.” I agree - and include his own. I can easily deal with Dawkins' atheism, but as a mathematician I can't accept his stunning lack of logic. What is a “religion” but a metaphysical worldview based on dogma and shared with others? And doesn't Dawkins share with his followers a worldview based on a dogmatic claim to empirical evidence (rather than simply reason, which is actually the basis of science by not ignoring the fact that there is a lot of "non-empirical" reality, such as dealt with in mathematics, e.g.) ? This is obviously a very dogmatic stance, because where the hell is the evidence that all existence is empirically evident ? It is Dawkins' faith, his “religion“, he believes in it without evidence. On the contrary, It is astonishingly illogical, especially for an evolutionary biologist. For obviously there is a reality beyond the horizon of Homo sapiens, just as there is beyond the horizon of Pan troglodytes. This is what is called “transcendence” - something that Dawkins seems completely blind to, although if it lies in the very logic of evolution. So when Dawkins finally understands that there is no evidence that ANY religion is true - including his own - he has finally discovered the fact of transcendence 😆 A very fact that allowed a great mathematician to make another probability statement: “There probably is a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn't." [ John v. Neumann ]

[@erberlon]

That is a long text to say that you understand very little about science, logic, or religion...

[@etienne_laforet]

​@@erberlonThat's a very short comment without substance nor content 😂😂😂

[@marie-jeanne_decourroux]

​@@etienne_laforet👍😆

[@asdfghjkl2261]

I don't believe Dawkins said anything about denying "transcendence," at least not a bare minimum form of it such as a VR future, transhumanism, etc. He merely denies the inference from "I have a desire no worldy thing can satisfy" to "there must be an otherworldly realm for me." Mind you, I'm no fan of Dawkins, but I'm also very opposed to this strain of dogmatic rationalism that you and people like Ed Feser think definitively proves the Christian God, when it does no such thing.

[@98danielray]

are you seriously comparing first order logic to your metaphysical entity? also, what kind of mathematician are you and when was the last time you actually dealt with logic directly?

[@reriuqne0-ny1er]

Lewis was an excellent scholar of literature. However as a philosopher and theologian he was an overated third rate thinker .

[@BLVGamingY]

organisms can evolve random useless things and keep them for generations

[@NecroMorrius]

Richard Dawkins: invented memes, can’t do all his shirt buttons up.

[@Nuggetmonk]

The Problem with These Kind of discussion is: Scientist try to find the truth with Experiments and evidence while Religious people claim to have found IT despite any real evidence. You cant convince people Like that.

[@hasoaxe]

yeah tho it can help skeptic theists.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

Yeah, as hasoaxe said, it will help people who are unsure, are asking questions and will make them think instead of blindly believe.

[@aarondavis8943]

Why is he trashing my love of Raquel Welch?

[@fredtwo8347]

The very definition of wishful thinking

[@seandowling1729]

Alex seems to confirm the logic of C S Lewis's statement much to the discomfort of Dr Dawkins.

[@AustGM]

Dawkins gets destroyed in a debate against someone who’s playing devils advocate 😂.

[@BrotherTris]

Which is so ironic…

[@vamonaa]

Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists noone was born with the desire for afterlife

[@tankgrief1031]

I always wanted to be able to fly. Still not happening.

[@vamonaa]

@@tankgrief1031 we desire that what we know about. you must have seen flying in early childhood:)

[@guaporeturns9472]

You have no way of knowing what other creatures desire or don’t desire. Fail

[@akkuestix]

I guess they both missed the " cannot be had in this world" part of the argument while they bullied the Strawman

[@nickgeorgiou123]

I think Alex is such an awesome host, as a Christian myself I have nothing but respect for his fair and balanced questioning

[@ajeelone]

Richard Dawkins, talking about sexual desire perhaps from Epstein Islands

[@ajeelone]

Young dude bringing his denial for God's existence for the millionth time in conversation to get Dawkins Approval. Real classy

[@kylenewberry9792]

“Young dude” is way more charitable towards religious people than Dawkins. Did you even watch the interview or are you just a bitter parasite trying to spread your misery around?

[@johnbaker7102]

Dawkins is either really bad at arguing or he didn’t understand what Alex said. Dawkins is talking about something completely different than what CS Lewis is stating

[@KrelianLoke]

Dawkins is addressing Lewis's argument, he's trying to say that some desires can be completely projected and imaginary, and it doesn't validate positing another world just because said desire can't be satisfied in our world.

[@markusklyver6277]

Dawkins is saying desires don't have to correspond to something real.

[@KrelianLoke]

I desire to have huge wings grown out of my shoulder blades that enable me to fly. I desire to make out with Rinoa from Final Fantasy 8. I desire to never feel fatigued and never have the need to sleep. Do any of these correspond to reality?

[@SM_757]

@@KrelianLoke "A man’s physical hunger does not prove that that man will get any bread; he may die on a raft in the Atlantic. But surely a man’s hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist. In the same way, though I do not believe . . . that my desire for Paradise proves that I shall enjoy it, I think it a pretty good indication that such a thing exists and that some men will"

[@usptact]

Dawkins doesn’t address directly what was said. Instead he creates some weird analogy.

[@zackkrueger1260]

"We disproved Christianity guys!! We responded to a dead theologians quote on the possibility of there being more to life based on the evidence found in our human nature and then filled the space with our own atheistic chest pumping! Great job!" -Everyone in the comments

[@MicahBuzanANIMATION]

CS Lewis is such a boring writer.

[@biharek7595]

I dunno about that, I really enjoyed the chronicles of Narnia.

[@jonharrison9222]

Disagree. A Grief Observed should be read by every adult.

[@davidzack8735]

​@@biharek7595The Narnia stuff is lovely but I have to break it to you. It's not true. And neither is this argument - that because we want something, i.e. afterlife with a god, it has to exist. 🤔

[@biharek7595]

@@davidzack8735I agree. Why are you bringing this up?

[@MFWCORNONTHECOB]

>CS lewis is such a boring write-ACK! Be quite troon

[@holdenstrausser]

Dawkins never fails to outclass himself. He literally provides evidence for what Lewis is arguing.

[@Joe-biden69914]

The one missing button is bothering me more than it should

[@LeftFootMediaNZ]

This is a complete failure to understand the argument. The argument is not ‘every arbitrary desire that I have will be satisfied,’ or ‘every arbitrary desire that I have proves the thing I desire is real.’ Lewis’ position is much more profound than such a childish straw man. Instead, Lewis is arguing that every fundamental human desire we have (thirst, hunger, loneliness, etc) all have corresponding real objects, that exist, which can not only satisfy the desire, but which also make sense of why we would possess such a desire in the first place. I thirst, because there is a real object, water, which exists, and which can satisfy that desire. So, if this is true, then why would man have evolved with a fundamental desire - the desire for God - if there wasn’t actually a real object (God) that existed, and could satisfy that fundamental desire. If this was the case, then this would be the only such desire which humanity posses for no rational reason.

[@billyheather]

Richard missing that button in his shirt gets me every time

[@FriendofDorothy]

how superficial

[@andywatson611]

Lewis was not talking about a desire to live after death. He was talking about a desire for purpose and meaning as well as a connection to God. Evolution can not fulfil any of these.

[@2ARM4170]

Thank you. Not a christian, but I respect Lewis. Atheism leads to nihilistic, depressing existence. Naturalism cannot help you with the questions that actually matter.

[@ahmedmunaibari9985]

Blessings To Richard ❤

[@rudigersimpson]

I only just noticed, Richard missed a button on his shirt.

[@jumpinjohnnyruss]

The right response to "the film-star exists" is "so does time after we die... that doesn't mean we're going to, uh, inhabit it".

[@hewasfuzzywuzzy3583]

"Oh that's why I'm slipping under the table." ~Metaphorical Dawkins

[@rooting4starks239]

Dawkins is one of the great thinkers of his generation. He’s never led by his personal opinion or agenda. He lets science and logic do the work and should be considered the beacon of “common sense and logical thinking”.

[@nadercarun]

I desire to go back in time and be an 11-year-old with the mind of a 36-year-old, but it'll never happen

[@meganwarr6258]

Dawkins is no replying to Lewis’s real point, it’s not about living forever, it’s about wanting things that seem impossible in this world like perfect justice

[@atheistcomments]

This is spot on.

[@iammichaeldavis]

“The idea that because you want something, therefor it must be true……….. I find that a most extraordinary idea.” 😂😂😂😂

[@pb5640]

Dr Dawkins is absolutely brilliant, Alex a close second.

[@adamrice9740]

Many have said this already, but thank you Alex for engaging those of contrary viewpoints with such poise, understanding, and patience. Keep it up.

[@JBHACKSAW]

Dawkins missed his third button. That's tragic.

[@EDCPride]

Why does Richard Dawkins always have a confused look on his face. Like he’s wondering if a Crochet is a French sandwich? 😂

[@matthewpocock4824]

Professor Dawkins won the argument with his first reply.

[@ICRA95]

All the money in the word, all the sex, all the food, all the success, all the pride, nothing can console my tribulated heart

[@JiM-SWEET-art]

I'd say we don't really WANT at all, in a way. Life, itself, is not wanted by the individual, it's something we HAVE to do. So, everything else that comes within an unwanted position, then it's not really want more than it is having to pick what we like more than something else and trying to pick what we like the most. The same way as asking, "Does a prisoner WANT to eat prison food?" No, he doesn't want it, he has to do it, because there is no other choice because of the position that individual is in. I have no other choice, but to live. Now I only get to pick surviving or not surviving. Life is the problem we all face. Life also solves it's problem as long as it can, but the problem will over take you sometime and then no more problem. It's solved for good in a way.

[@joshjeggs]

the argument is actually solid.

[@AM_o2000]

Replace Lewis's 'most probable explanation' with 'least probable explanation' and Lewis would be onto something.

[@ethanwright8402]

I dont see the issue in the logic of seeing all these systems and unification as god. It is distinguishing between the systems we live in as physics or a being with mind.

[@jazzman2516]

C.S Lewis was essentially on the side of postmodernism.

[@ramigilneas9274]

A lot of Apologists argue against post modernism, pretend that Atheists are post modernists and think that truth is relative… Meanwhile in reality most Apologists sound exactly like post modernists and argue for their own version of truth that seems to be incompatible with objective reality.

[@Amerimuttguy]

"Erm akshually cs lewis was a post modernist or however i got c- on my homework 🤓"

[@jonathanesayiasberhe3222]

Im a Christian and agree with Dawkins on this one. You cant argue from desire and great analogy. Sadly his frustration towards believers isnt treating him well. Mans skin looks like he mad 24/7

[@Left-Foot-Brake]

haha - got 'im a bit flustered for no reason. Classic!

[@ramigilneas9274]

I once heard a similar argument from an Apologist. Something like: Humans wouldn’t have been able to invent a perfect being like God with all of its omni properties that we don’t experience in our world… therefore God must actually exist and has his existence revealed to humans. For me the case is pretty obvious. Humans are able to invent lots of ideas and concepts of things that do not and can not exist in reality… and of course we are also able to desire that those made up things actually exist in reality. There is no mystery here.

[@chrisnorris7527]

That argument literally makes no sense lol what a strange guy. "If I want jello it's clear to me that jello must be from outer space"

[@mr.graves2867]

In terms of impact, C. S. Lewis is often described as one of the greatest Christian apologists of the twentieth century. The great strength of his writing is in connecting spiritual ideas to everyday experience. Lewis’s approach to defending the faith is simple and direct, yet profound. Rather than grappling with convoluted philosophy, his best writing explains Christianity in terms easily understood by all readers. For Lewis, faith in Christ wasn’t some irrational leap into the dark. Instead, faith was a submission to common sense-an acknowledgement of everything daily life already tells us. The ability to present Christianity in a clear, personal way is especially notable, given that C. S. Lewis was a vigorous atheist through his teenage years. It was his exposure to new ideas and deeper learning while at the university that eventually led to his conversion. A voracious reader, Lewis was fond of the writings of Christian authors George MacDonald and G. K. Chesterton. MacDonald’s book Phantastes caused Lewis to rethink his atheism. In much the same way, G. K. Chesterton’s book The Everlasting Man led Lewis to question his dismissal of religion. While teaching at Magdalen College, C. S. Lewis met two Christian men who later became close friends: Hugo Dyson and J. R. R. Tolkien. Soon Lewis recognized that most of his friends, like his favorite authors-MacDonald, Chesterton, Johnson, Spenser, and Milton-were Christians. He was also greatly influenced by Owen Barfield, a writer who had earlier converted from atheism to Christianity, and author Nevill Coghill, another devout Christian. Unlike many converts, C. S. Lewis was not eager to become a believer. Even as evidence mounted, demonstrating the truth of the Bible, Lewis struggled to maintain his unbelief. Rather than fleeing to faith or fulfilling a personal wish, Lewis resisted acceptance of God. He came to faith, in his own words, “kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting [my] eyes in every direction for a chance of escape” (Surprised by Joy: The Early Shape of My Life, p. 228-229.). Lewis described himself, at the moment of his conversion in 1929, as “perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England” (ibid.). C. S. Lewis’s eventual enthusiasm for Christianity spawned a lifelong stream of books on Christian apologetics and discipleship. His first major work, The Pilgrim’s Regress, published in 1933, was about his own spiritual journey to Christian faith. Though best known for his Chronicles of Narnia series, Lewis wrote 74 books during his lifetime, leaving an enormous literary legacy for generations to follow. In 1956 Lewis married American divorcée Joy Gresham, sixteen years his junior, who died four years later of cancer. Despondent over her death, Lewis turned to the outlet he knew best: writing. His book describing the process of loss, A Grief Observed, was originally published under the pseudonym N. W. Clerk to avoid the pain of even greater publicity. Ironically, friends and relatives often suggested that Lewis read the book as a means of overcoming his anguish. Only after Lewis’s death did the publisher acknowledge that Lewis was, in fact, the author. After the death of his wife, Lewis’s own health deteriorated, and in the summer of 1963 he resigned from Cambridge. Mere months later, Lewis died. His death would have been considered a more notable event, but at that moment, the entire world was watching the United States. On November 22, 1963, Lewis passed away on the same day that American President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. As with any deeply studied figure of religion or philosophy, C. S. Lewis also attracts criticism for some of his doctrinal positions. Among the most frequently mentioned are his views on the inerrancy of the Bible, the existence of a literal Adam and Eve, and eternal security. While conservative Christian scholars would generally consider Lewis to be in error on these points, such issues clearly didn’t dampen his zeal for literary evangelism. In fact, Lewis was often criticized by his peers and passed over for teaching opportunities for his vocal defense of the gospel. A major plank of Lewis’s philosophy of religion was that myths were mankind’s way of foreshadowing God’s eventual revealed truth. In accordance to that belief, he accepted the possibility that many Old Testament stories, including those of creation, were purely mythical and not necessarily true. For Lewis, this even included the possibility that Adam and Eve were entirely mythical, and not actual people. In a similar way, Lewis held that the Bible was the work of human authors and therefore fallible. While convinced that the New Testament was more literally true than the Old Testament, he still believed there were errors and contradictions within the Scriptures. In Lewis’s view, divine inspiration by God simply meant that truth was contained in the Bible, not necessarily that everything written in the Bible was true. As explored in books such as The Screwtape Letters, Lewis held to a conditional view of salvation. According to his perspective, people were in constant spiritual motion, either toward God, or away from Him. This, rather than some once-for-all redemption, was what eventually determined their eternal destiny. While not as overtly controversial as his views of inerrancy or history, this is a point of caution that should be applied when interpreting Lewis’s works. C. S. Lewis stands as a shining example of the influence a Christian can have in both the university and popular culture. His works changed the lives of many during his lifetime and beyond, offering a model for those who desire to live as “salt and light” in a dark culture (Matthew 5:13). As an apologist and writer, C. S. Lewis was exemplary, and his books are among the most useful ever written for explaining the value of Christian faith to a skeptical world.

[@ralphstarling6707]

I tend to lean toward Lewis' perspective!

[@Alwaysdoubt100]

Dawkins is my hero from logic.

[@theogetics]

NGL Alex would be the greatest apologist ever if he converted

[@madjackmcjock]

Please don't ask Dawkins philosophical questions.

[@jimmyquck]

Lewis is referring to a desire that nothing in the world can satisfy. Do we all have it? I'm not sure. I know most of us numb ourselves sufficiently that our desires are trivial and mundane. The Bible says that some people will never know or desire God, and that's what it is