How does this quote by C.S. Lewis' make sense?

I suspect language is one of the ways that the human species expresses consciousness which permeates but is also beyond the stuff that popped out of the big bang. Another way to describe "God", I guess.

I agree that atheism, new or old, is a side show when it comes to understanding what is going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I suspect language is one of the ways that the human species expresses consciousness which permeates but is also beyond the stuff that popped out of the big bang. Another way to describe "God", I guess.

I agree that atheism, new or old, is a side show when it comes to understanding what is going on.

---

But so is theism and the most insane stooge of history is the agnostic peacemaker, because he makes a deal out of a stupid and futil dispute.:leaving:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

But so is theism and the most insane stooge of history is the agnostic peacemaker, because he makes a deal out of a stupid and futil dispute.:leaving:

---

I don't know, Caf, but it seems like you may have missed the point.

You know, more than once I have had an atheist tell me the Bible is a ridiculous collection of fairy tales, but that the Bhagavad Gita is a beautiful book of wisdom. I don't think they are generally capable of understanding how ridiculous that sort of statement is. I suppose works like the Tao te Ching and Bhagavad Gita are more obvious in their approach, or perhaps multicultural sensitivity requires people to make such statements these days. The Bible isn’t even a book, per se, but rather a compendium of an entire culture(s). Saying the Bible is stupid isn’t anything at all like saying the Odyssey is stupid; it’s more like saying that Illiad, Odyssey, the major Greek tragedies and the writings of Plato and Aristotle are stupid.

Often I think a lot of atheists are just ignorant of what “theists” are really up to. Consider, for instance, the book of Genesis. Forget what you’ve heard about it detailing the mechanisms of creation and reread it as a metaphor for the emergence of consciousness. It sounds fairly modern to suggest that humans alone know they are going to die or that they are alone in their ability to discern moral decisions or that their consciousness is, in and of itself, uncomfortable. The “naked” in Genesis isn’t talking about bared genitals. Whoever wrote Genesis, whether Moses or the so called “J” writer, was a freaking genius. This person makes Kafka look second rate, and I love Kafka. There’s also a sustained artistry that spans centuries. Take the whole nudity issue and then consider how much of the Bible is about being “clothed,” from Joseph’s coat to being “clothed in the spirit.” That writers from Dante to Joyce were thoroughly bewitched by this monstrously beautiful work of literature, history, philosophy and religion is no accident. And this says nothing of overtly religious artists like Donne and Mozart.

And what have atheists provided us? They just keep reminding us how all that stuff is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

I don't know, Caf, but it seems like you may have missed the point.

You know, more than once I have had an atheist tell me the Bible is a ridiculous collection of fairy tales, but that the Bhagavad Gita is a beautiful book of wisdom. I don't think they are generally capable of understanding how ridiculous that sort of statement is. I suppose works like the Tao te Ching and Bhagavad Gita are more obvious in their approach, or perhaps multicultural sensitivity requires people to make such statements these days. The Bible isn’t even a book, per se, but rather a compendium of an entire culture(s). Saying the Bible is stupid isn’t anything at all like saying the Odyssey is stupid; it’s more like saying that Illiad, Odyssey, the major Greek tragedies and the writings of Plato and Aristotle are stupid.

Often I think a lot of atheists are just ignorant of what “theists” are really up to. Consider, for instance, the book of Genesis. Forget what you’ve heard about it detailing the mechanisms of creation and reread it as a metaphor for the emergence of consciousness. It sounds fairly modern to suggest that humans alone know they are going to die or that they are alone in their ability to discern moral decisions or that their consciousness is, in and of itself, uncomfortable. The “naked” in Genesis isn’t talking about bared genitals. Whoever wrote Genesis, whether Moses or the so called “J” writer, was a freaking genius. This person makes Kafka look second rate, and I love Kafka. There’s also a sustained artistry that spans centuries. Take the whole nudity issue and then consider how much of the Bible is about being “clothed,” from Joseph’s coat to being “clothed in the spirit.” That writers from Dante to Joyce were thoroughly bewitched by this monstrously beautiful work of literature, history, philosophy and religion is no accident. And this says nothing of overtly religious artists like Donne and Mozart.

And what have atheists provided us? They just keep reminding us how all that stuff is ridiculous.

---

That point I always miss. You are correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

I don't know, Caf, but it seems like you may have missed the point.

You know, more than once I have had an atheist tell me the Bible is a ridiculous collection of fairy tales, but that the Bhagavad Gita is a beautiful book of wisdom. I don't think they are generally capable of understanding how ridiculous that sort of statement is. I suppose works like the Tao te Ching and Bhagavad Gita are more obvious in their approach, or perhaps multicultural sensitivity requires people to make such statements these days. The Bible isn’t even a book, per se, but rather a compendium of an entire culture(s). Saying the Bible is stupid isn’t anything at all like saying the Odyssey is stupid; it’s more like saying that Illiad, Odyssey, the major Greek tragedies and the writings of Plato and Aristotle are stupid.

Often I think a lot of atheists are just ignorant of what “theists” are really up to. Consider, for instance, the book of Genesis. Forget what you’ve heard about it detailing the mechanisms of creation and reread it as a metaphor for the emergence of consciousness. It sounds fairly modern to suggest that humans alone know they are going to die or that they are alone in their ability to discern moral decisions or that their consciousness is, in and of itself, uncomfortable. The “naked” in Genesis isn’t talking about bared genitals. Whoever wrote Genesis, whether Moses or the so called “J” writer, was a freaking genius. This person makes Kafka look second rate, and I love Kafka. There’s also a sustained artistry that spans centuries. Take the whole nudity issue and then consider how much of the Bible is about being “clothed,” from Joseph’s coat to being “clothed in the spirit.” That writers from Dante to Joyce were thoroughly bewitched by this monstrously beautiful work of literature, history, philosophy and religion is no accident. And this says nothing of overtly religious artists like Donne and Mozart.

And what have atheists provided us? They just keep reminding us how all that stuff is ridiculous.

---

For every intolerant atheist there is a fundamentalist believer who would contend that the Bible is true literally, word for word. And I, as an atheist, do not think the Bible is at all ridiculous. It might just be my favourite book. I'm right now in the middle of a cover-to-cover reading of it and am greatly enjoying it. Also I find this distinction between new and old atheism somewhat pointless. Nietzsche's atheism was as virulent as any you might witness today. I think the term "new atheist" is intended to refer to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, ect, and not to all present-day atheists.

You should check out Chris Hedges' book I don't Believe in Atheists , or perhaps one of Karen Armstrong's many titles, if you want to get a look at a softer, more respectful variety of atheism, the kind I myself ascribe to.

And what do I consider the greatest teaching of the Bible?

"Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth."

That.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

For every intolerant atheist there is a fundamentalist believer who would contend that the Bible is true literally, word for word. And I, as an atheist, do not think the Bible is at all ridiculous. It might just be my favourite book. I'm right now in the middle of a cover-to-cover reading of it and am greatly enjoying it. Also I find this distinction between new and old atheism somewhat pointless. Nietzsche's atheism was as virulent as any you might witness today. I think the term "new atheist" is intended to refer to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, ect, and not to all present-day atheists.

You should check out Chris Hedges' book I don't Believe in Atheists , or perhaps one of Karen Armstrong's many titles, if you want to get a look at a softer, more respectful variety of atheism, the kind I myself ascribe to.

And what do I consider the greatest teaching of the Bible?

"Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth."

That.

---

"New Atheism" refers to the very modern phenomenon of proselytizing atheism, ridiculing atheism, incompetent atheism. Nietzsche never stood up and started shouting fallacies and nonsequiturs so ridiculous that everyone wondered whether he had even read the Bible. You know who doesn't share your love of the Bible? Sam Harris. He called it the "least useful book possible." Of course, he's also the dullard who wrote a book about how science could determine morality that was so chock-full of naturalistic fallacies and elementary blunders that everyone just sort of stood around shrugging their shoulders. The difference between New Atheism and old atheism is that, now, no one can discuss religion or religious texts (even in the appropriate fora) without some adolescent atheist poking his head in, misconstruing the entire conversation, misstating some irrelevant argument, flipping everyone the bird and departing.

This newest iteration of atheism is unique.

Your attempt at a moral equivalence claim by mentioning the beliefs of fundamentalists is precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about. Fundamentalist Christians are only bothersome insofar as they use religion as a political platform; or said another way: they're simply not religious enough. Their own Holy Book prescribes withdrawing from the material world and the institutions of man. I can't imagine Jesus supporting the Iraq war. Etc.

There's very little difference between the religious fundamentalists and most New Atheists. You see, originally the early Christian church considered the Old Testament to be largely allegorical. It was not until the advent of science that protestants started to propose this strictly literal reworking in which scripture was describing a material world and natural processes. At the same time extreme naturalists started trying to replace metaphysics with some ghastly scientism. What we really have now are two similar groups trying to meet each other half way. Of course, they don't look similar now, but they will in the future looking back, as is always the case. They're both doing the same thing: trying to interpret everything through one narrow lens. They're both really just political movements, neither of which care all that much about God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

I think what Lewis is saying is far less esoteric than many here seem to think. He is proposing that the statement "the universe has no meaning" is an irrational statement, since when one uses the word "universe," one does so presuming one will be understood. Of course, the half-clever second-rater will reply with something like the following: "asdfkjh has no meaning;" but this is an entirely different variety of statement, which demonstrates that no one understands what "asdfkjh" refers to (moreover, "asdfkjh" probably even qualifies as a nonce word and, thus, has some meaning), whereas "universe" is understood to refer to an object or collection of objects/things. You can of course try to refine what precisely Lewis is referring to when he uses the word "universe," but this itself implies that you have understood, in part, what he meant. Consider YesNo's response in which he/she wonders whether Lewis means "matter-energy space-time universe that science claims to study"--which immediately demonstrates that we are all in the same ballpark of meaning.

Imagine that someone said "words don't have meaning." Is the receiver of the statement supposed to understand it? After all, the obvious intention of the speaker is to impeach the very vehicle he uses. So the the recipient is justified in responding "that is nonsense" or "no thanks, I just ate" or "strawberry."

The usage of the word "universe" implies some meaning; otherwise one would not use it. When one speaks or writes one does so with the assumption that one will be understood.

Lewis's example of darkness tries to elaborate by showing how in a world where no eyes existed there wouldn't be a debate about whether or not "darkness" had meaning, simply because no one would be able to formulate the question. The very fact that there IS a debate about whether the universe has meaning settles the argument.

---

Thanks for all of your insightful replies. I finally understand the quote, which is much appreciated. Although the quote doesn't seem too stupefying as I was expecting.

You've also changed my perspective on religion. I've been somewhat of an atheist most of my life, but I want to start believing. I'm just struggling to have faith right now. I'm on a religious journey right now, I guess you could say.

Thank you so much. I need to stop being so ignorant towards religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

From my perspective there is no need to "believe in" this evidence anymore than there is need to believe in the evidence for the big bang.

---

I don't believe in the evidence for the big bang. The math is way beyond my comprehension, so I can't tell if it's valid, and since I can't take anyone's word on it I've got to either get better at math and physics or continue to be curious about it. The thought of humans at out current stage of development figuring out how the universe originated seems pretty unlikely though. We haven't even found a self-sustaining energy resource yet.

If something is unexplained, than I think that it's better for us to recognize it as unexplaned. Fooling ourselves into believing an explination, or choosing to say "well, it's just unexplainable" strikes me as counter-productive. You might as well just say "not knowing makes me feel uncomfortable, so let's just stop looking."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

Why? Are you terrified of sleep? .

---

It's not sleep. That's a comparison that's used to assuage fear, in reality sleep = life, and death = death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

How can you be terrified of anything that places you in a state where you cannot feel pain, or be terrified, ever again. The ancients are very good on this - Plato, Seneca especially - and also Schopenhauer. Read these masters and you may not feel so uneasy - I don't.

---

I've read them. But anyway, wouldn't you rather feel pain than nothing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Try

Thanks for all of your insightful replies. I finally understand the quote, which is much appreciated. Although the quote doesn't seem too stupefying as I was expecting.

You've also changed my perspective on religion. I've been somewhat of an atheist most of my life, but I want to start believing. I'm just struggling to have faith right now. I'm on a religious journey right now, I guess you could say.

Thank you so much. I need to stop being so ignorant towards religion.

---

I was an atheist until age 30. The only prayer I can recall having ever made is to better understand. Good luck on your journey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

I don't believe in the evidence for the big bang. The math is way beyond my comprehension, so I can't tell if it's valid, and since I can't take anyone's word on it I've got to either get better at math and physics or continue to be curious about it. The thought of humans at out current stage of development figuring out how the universe originated seems pretty unlikely though. We haven't even found a self-sustaining energy resource yet.

If something is unexplained, than I think that it's better for us to recognize it as unexplaned. Fooling ourselves into believing an explination, or choosing to say "well, it's just unexplainable" strikes me as counter-productive. You might as well just say "not knowing makes me feel uncomfortable, so let's just stop looking."

---

I don't follow what you said about the "unexplained", but thanks for the response.

I wish I could directly verify the evidence for the big bang, but I can't, so I have to take someone's word for it. They may be wrong, but I suspect the errors are more in the details than the general idea which is all I'm really interested in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I don't follow what you said about the "unexplained", but thanks for the response.

---

It's just that that's what "believing in" something is. Accepting an explination when you can't directly verify it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

It's just that that's what "believing in" something is. Accepting an explination when you can't directly verify it.

---

I see. That makes sense. I guess, then, I choose to believe in the evidence for the big bang since I can't verify it directly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I see. That makes sense. I guess, then, I choose to believe in the evidence for the big bang since I can't verify it directly.

---

What is the evidence for the big bang?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

What is the evidence for the big bang?

---

Off the top of my head, the original evidence comes from measuring the expansion rate of the universe. With that estimate one could calculate back to when the expansion started. The discovery of the "cosmic background radiation" later provided more direct evidence that there was an initial beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Off the top of my head, the original evidence comes from measuring the expansion rate of the universe. With that estimate one could calculate back to when the expansion started. The discovery of the "cosmic background radiation" later provided more direct evidence that there was an initial beginning.

---

Seems to be the most unstable evidence that I've ever heard of. The evidence merely points to a expanding universe. That is like trying to determine New York City as being the point of origin of a ship sailing in the Pacific based solely on it's current speed and direction without ever consulting the captain's log, navigational charts, or even the type of ship. It sounds like completely reckless logic.