/lit/ - Literature

>>15929555
It's better for its description of Christianity than for its argumentation. Lewis was insightful, but not exactly a great thinker.

>>15929555
>Religion
>illogical assertions
Are you new anon?

>>15929564
fpbp

>>15929580

so continues my quest to find an argument for Christianity not written by an absolute pseud

>>15929555
It's the worst book he wrote by far. You would literally be better off with any other book he wrote.

>>15929564
this.

Better read A Grief Observed. Lewis was incessantly smug in his most of his works, but in A Grief Observed he was suddenly not so smug.

I like Lewis a lot, but he wasn't a particularly adept at logical argumentation. A lot of religious people might not be well read enough to notice how weak many of his points are, which may account for his ongoing popularity (that and the lack of other cogent Christian apologists in recent memory).

>A Grief Observed

I read this when my grandmother died and was very touched by it. It is difficult to accept smugness from a man who was apparently only capable of landing an older single mother, yes.

>>15929564
Agreed.

>>15929555

He waters down the thing. Lewis was too sentimental.

>>15929665
Why do you want one?

>>15929555
>have encountered many illogical assertions
Post them please and we will discuss.

>>15929555
Checked and read Intro to Christianity by Ratzinger.

>>15929555
Yeah the arguments are bullshit but it's good at describing the Christian lifestyle.

>>15929555
I know a beautiful model woman who recently converted to Christianity and stopped modeling, so she's gotten really into this book and other low-tier christian lit

she's so excited to tell me about this book and show everyone she's reading it, so I looked into it and it was completely retarded. Trying to steer her toward Kierkegaard instead. Don't have the hear to tell her what she's reading is completely retarded

>>15929555
mere degeneracy

>>15929555
c s lewis sucks

just read g k chesterton.

>>15929555
It's an introductory book and intended to be, it does well at that

>>15929665
Are you also investigating the existence of magical unicorns and leprechauns?

>>15929555

Read Chesterton, particularly Everlasting Man and Orthodoxy. Screwtape Letters is Lewis' best.

Better yet, read Plato (Republic, Phaedo, Symposium, Phaedrus) - - > Aristotle (De Anima, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics) - - > Augustine (Confessions, On Christian Teaching, City of God) - - > Aquinas (Feser intro + Kreeft concise version rather than slogging through). Maybe Pensees by Pascal.

Fulton Sheen wrote a good little book on the Life of Christ as did Pope Benedict. Various encyclicals will satisfy you after the Big 4 above if you're more of an intellectual bent.

Fiction can also be complementary to faith. Aside from classics like Divine Comedy I recommend more modern works, in particular the writings of Bernanos (Country Priest, Sun of Satan), Greene (Power and the Glory, End of the Affair), Death Comes for the Archbishop and the stories of Evelyn Waugh and Flannery O'connor.

There are countless others but read even a few of these and they will be more helpful than Mere Christianity which is really very basic.

>>15930345

fair enough.

>15929968

This is how his argument proving God goes:

1.) There exists a universal moral law that everyone, everywhere has an innate perception of (e.g. everyone sees running away from battle as cowardly, selfishness as bad, dishonesty as bad, etc.)

2.) People act as if these laws are real because they a.) don't like it when people break them in ways that personally harm them, and b.) because they readily come up with excuses when they inevitably break these laws

3.) Because these laws are innate, they come from something outside human design

4.) Because the universe can't come from nothing, something created it. This something also created the law of human nature, so having defined this morality, this being is purely good. This is who we call God.

He goes on to elaborate why this God is specifically the Christian god

>>15930499
>Because these laws are innate, they come from something outside human design
or...evolution

>>15929555
>reading anything by this proestant cuck

>>15930515
Certain laws are illogical from an evolutionary perspective, such as altruism which results in personal disadvantage.

>>15929665

yes I'm sure you'll find a reasonable argument for why a man could die and come back to life after three days, you're bound to stumble upon it any day now.

>>15930526
You must be over 18 to post here

>>15930499
>e.g. everyone sees running away from battle as cowardly, selfishness as bad, dishonesty as bad, etc
Most people generally do not.

I mean, most people would never fight someone or stick up for what they belief, most people would agree thinking about yourself and your family is the most important thing and they practise this openly. Most people would never tell their boss, wife, child or the person walking down the street what they really think about them! what would be unpolite.

So your argument is bullshit.

>>15930310

chesterton is equally smug and retarded, just in a more entertaining fashion.

"yes yes you think you know the truth, but have you ever considered PARADOX? ohohoh it appears i have outwitted you again, accept jesus and you won't have to think on these troubles a second longer!"

>>15930532
There is reciprocal altruism though

>>15930596
Most of his paradoxes are really milquetoast.

>>15930582
You've missed the point. It's not about subjective behaviour but objective moral standards acknowledged even if rarely followed

>>15930596
>>15930607
okay okay, lets subvert Chesterton!

The original:


Humility is the mother of giants. One sees great things from the valley; only small things from the peak.

Now lets flip it over

Humility is the mother of giants. One sees horrible things from the valley; but the serene bigger picture from the peak.

so... just outchestertoned chesterton!!!

>>15930532

only if you don't understand how evolution works. altruism is an excellent adaptation that helps the species as a whole, which helps the individual in turn. social organisms dominate.

>>15930617
>You've missed the point. It's not about subjective behaviour but objective moral standards acknowledged even if rarely followed
Except that they dont.

Most people value honesty above unpoliteness, or loving your family above loving your family, even saving your own life is prefered to dying in battle.

Someone who insults people all the time, takes the clothes and food of his family and gives it to hobos and gets into fights constantly is considered by society to be a sociopath, not a saint!

>>15930499
>There exists a universal moral law that everyone, everywhere has an innate perception of (e.g. everyone sees running away from battle as cowardly, selfishness as bad, dishonesty as bad, etc.)
Jesus christ.

>>15930532
>such as altruism which results in personal disadvantage.

If altruism propagates your bloodline then it would make sense from an evolutionary standpoint.

>>15930499
>There exists a universal moral law that everyone, everywhere has an innate perception of (e.g. everyone sees running away from battle as cowardly, selfishness as bad, dishonesty as bad, etc.)
Oh yes, I am sure artists think dishonesty is bad. Are weeds also altruistic?

>>15930499
>There exists a universal moral law that everyone, everywhere has an innate perception of (e.g. everyone sees running away from battle as cowardly, selfishness as bad, dishonesty as bad, etc.)
Same pretension of an objectively recognized moral law. But if a law can be broken, what exactly is necessary or innate about it? That a law can be broken proves it is arbitrary, and holds about just as much ascendancy from god as the law that you have to look both ways before you cross the street.

>>15930650
Honesty is an objective good, yes, but brutal honesty could conflict with charity. I can think of few instances where even hard honesty is the same as an insult, as coupled with charity even home truths should be patient and constructive.

Likewise it is a good to help others but nobody is saying to render your own family homeless in the process. Prudence is a virtue. It's more the higher sense that charity is a universal good.

As far as your last example, I think you have a poor view of human nature. Heroism does exist and I do not believe there exists a coward who does not regret his cowardice somewhere in the shadowy recesses of his heart.

>>15929564
Very accurate. His trilemma argument deserves some consideration, though that's a tangential point on how to interpret the teachings of Christ and not an argument for Christianity as a whole. Even Anscombe disagreed with the urban legend that she destroyed that argument.

>>15929555
the youtube channel apparently alexandria says that C.S. Lewis is a fake christian, is this true?

>>15931961
Not really. How critical is she of Catholics? Or does she say that because he inserts greek mythology into his books?

>>15931619

The trilemma argument assumes that what is written about Jesus is correct. Many scholars think that Jesus never actually claimed to be divine, and that was just added later to the text

https://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/300246095/if-jesus-never-called-himself-god-how-did-he-become-one

>>15929555
>Ordered this the other week because there was a /lit/ thread with everyone heaping praise on it
>Now /lit/ says it's shit

>>15931999
Not saying the trilemma is bulletproof (Ehrman does preclude that, even if his argument isn't undisputed), but it is a more serious argument than most of Lewis's work and deserves consideration in theological study the Gospels.
>>15932427
It's still good, even if it's not rigorous apologetics. Lewis and Chesterton both make more sentimental arguments for Christianity, but for explaining the Christian outlook and basic beliefs they are good.

>>15932427
I am /lit/ and I think the book is good

>>15932427
It's a bummer I wasn't in that thread I would've told you it's the worst thing he ever wrote

>>15929555
Mogs c s lewis

>>15929555
Why don't any of you faggots read the entire book before posting your dogshit criticisms? I swear this board is more low effort than /v.

>>15929555
Are you a fedora?

I really enjoyed this book and just finished it a week ago. Sad to see that most of /lit/ doesn't seem to like it. I'm just at the beginning of my path to becoming a Christian and this book really helped me, it came to me at just the right moment in my life. Can anyone else recommend me some more beginner-tier Christian lit? Already read the bible and I'm really eager to learn and to pray. Next on my list is probably 'Introduction to the Devout Life' by Francis de Sales.

I've only seen two types of people reading this book: white women and Korean men. It's so strange to see a Christian Asian, like a Mexican wearing an Nigerian headdress

>>15936292
bump because I need answers

>>15936292
>>15932427
It's not a rigorous treatise on metaphysics or whatever dude, it's a children's book author jerking you off for being a believer. If it makes you feel better, it's doing its job. It's job isn't to hold up under sustained pressure from dweebs on the internet looking to prove Lewis wrong about some individual thing that he was probably wrong about because he was dumb (there's a reason he became a children's book author).

>>15936292
Ignatius catholic study Bible new testament

>>15930532
altruism isn't illogical. if you believe that humans are capable of being nice then why would you want to live in a world where nice people are outnumbered by mean people?

>>15936292
god might exist but most of christianity is nonsense that was made up by the greeks or stolen from the jews. even the stuff that's from judaism was originally just an oral tradition from various pagan polytheists that was written down many years later in such a way that it sounds like they're all talking about the same god when they clearly aren't. many of these stories are even stolen from various other cultures in the region who were definitely not monotheists. when i say "god might exist" i definitely dont mean to imply anything involving immaculate conception or prophets or anything. i'm referring to aristotle, who wasn't even a christian.

>>15936292
>>15936799
See >>15929994

>>15932427
I downloaded it for free, started reading it and stopped. Buy an ereader bro :)

>>15936978
Aristotle was a Muslim, anon.

>>15937964
>hurf durf aquinas PROVED GOD
Aristotle argues for multiple Prime Movers, anon.

>>15929666
>It's the worst book he wrote by far. You would literally be better off with any other book he wrote.
Someone sounds salty... I wonder why?

>>15929555
imagine being such an autist that you don't know the difference between rhetoric and logic

>>15930532
Or maybe, just maybe, it’s not in people’s interest to be selfish and individualistic at all times...

>>15937981
Yees and Aquinas improved his theory by pointing out how there can only be a single prime mover.

>>15938086
Zero prime movers is even more perfect.

>logic
fuck off

>>15936292

>>15930725
well, for starters if you don't look both ways you maximize your chance of getting hit by a car whereas by trying to ignore your own sense of moral law you're increasing your chances of eternal damnation

>>15938086
No he didn't, Aristotle also argued a single prime mover in his De Caelo. The One Mover vs Many Movers distinction occurs because of empirical evidence (tl;dr Greek Astronomy is radically different from how we think about space and planets today, he was wrong, but he did the best he could with what he had).

The point is that Aristotelianism doesn't require a single Prime Mover, and indeed allows for multiple. Aristotle believed multiple Prime Movers was a totally rational, sound, and logical idea, there just was empirically only one.

Aquinas's project was defanging Aristotle as a weapon against Christianity, not "improving" on Aristotle. Read a book for once, anon.

>>15930494
Nice list, I'd add Léon Bloy (Salvation by the Jews, Blood of the Poor, Christopher Columbus in front of the bulls).

Cs Lewis was the Head of philosophy department and Head of the debate team at Oxford University, he could break down unimaginabley complex theological and philosophical ideas in such a way as to make them understandable for the masses, and everything he wrote on is still richer for his warmth and sincerity, that is why he is great and loved by all Christians, he said " if you want to remain an athiest you have to be very careful about what you read" and I would agree with him when it comes to his books

>>15931229
>I think you have a poor view of human nature.
If I did not, I would be an atheist.