/lit/ - Literature

>The Lion represents Jesus

“At that time [17th and 18th centuries] the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons, we have largely altered that. Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily “true” or “false,” but as “academic” or “practical,” “outworn” or “contemporary,” “conventional” or “ruthless.” Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don’t waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong or stark or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That’s the sort of thing he cares about.“

-The Screwtape Letters

>>9214737
>What do you think of the idea of a personal god?
I believe it to be correct. Explains a lot of stuff that mere Deism/Theism doesn’t. Pic related’s Mere Christianity is the best modern exposition of it. Lewis sums it up well:
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

>What's your opinion on the god of Spinoza?
Unfamiliar with the concept, so I don’t have the right to an opinion. Will look into it further. According to Wikipedia:
>defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance. “substance” meaning “what is in itself and is conceived through itself, i.e., that whose concept does not require the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed.”
I see no particular problem with this, as a philosophic baseline for Theism. Seems about what you’d find in Aquinas. Thanks for sharing.

>Have you read the arguments against your position?
We’re on 4chan. It’s a given that we’ve been exposed to ideas outside our comfort zone. Granted, I’ve never actually read a book with the express purpose of “debunking” the idea of god, like Dawkins. But I’ve read some of Michio Kaku’s stuff on physics, and read/watched various atheist authors/celebrities like Penn/Teller, Arthur C. Clarke, and Rand.

>What do you think of them?
Some are good arguments that any sane person should ask themselves:
>Burden of proof is on the one with positive assertions; one must not believe in something until you have enough reason to do so. I have not seen sufficient evidence of a deity, much less a personal God, therefore I do not believe in one.
> The Epicurean argument: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Some are bad, mostly because they are founded on false axioms:
>We’ve found that many phenomena previously attributed to supernatural causes (lightning, disease, etc) are reducible to purely physical causes. Therefore, god/gods must be a human creation as a substitute for scientific knowledge to make sense of a cruel universe.
>There are thousands of gods you *don’t* believe in as a Christian (Ra, Odin, Allah, Amaterasu, etc). You admit that every one of those belief systems is false, yet proclaim that your god is real. You’re an atheist to every god except one. What makes you think yours is so special?


But I’ve yet to find one that undermines the philosophical basis of theism, much less Christianity in particular.