So my dad gets me these presents... and one is...

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-12-24 12:58am

First of all, it's the thought that counts. I fully appreciate his efforts with the gifts he's given me for the Christmas season. He is also an extremely liberal Christian, and one who is probably even more of a deist... anyway...

This one gift he gives me (oddly enough, I recently mentioned it in a conversation with Gandalf) is a book called "The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud." The book is a work of fiction where the author pretends to write from the perspective of CS Lewis; a so called atheist-turned Christian (author of the Narnia books and one of evangelical Christianity's foremost apologists), and also from the perspective of Sigmund Freud (staunch atheist, "father of psychiatry," etc). The book is presented as a debate between the two.

First of all, the author is, of course, a believer. He "stacks the deck" in Lewis' favor, and makes it appear as if his arguments for Christianity are somehow "better."

C.S. Lewis was a hack; a pseudo-intellectual who mastered the appeal to ignorance. Freud has, in his writings, indirectly addressed all of Lewis' arguments; all Lewis did was repeat the centuries old garbage that's been repeated since the dawn of religion. The end result is the same; Freud was a naturalist who didn't require supernatural garbage to explain the world, and Lewis did.

Anyway, avoid this book like the plague. Meh.

Cos Dashit · Post by **Cos Dashit** » 2006-12-24 01:15am

Who is the author?

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-12-24 01:18am

Armand M. Nicholi Jr.

He is, or was, a Harvard professor... although it's a little hard to believe after reading some of this book.

Cos Dashit · Post by **Cos Dashit** » 2006-12-24 01:25am

Professor of Theology, or what?

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-12-24 01:34am

Lewis is the best Christianity could muster; but he himself is more of a Daoist than a Christian, which is clear from "Abolition of Man" (though he insists on Christianity being sole religion in other books, "AoM" is then inconsistent with his own views). This is almost ironic. But his books actually rocked. I mean, a talking lion who actually kills his enemies in brutal ways?

I don't like Freud (because his theories are unfalsifiable, really), but I agree that a naturalist position makes far more sense than a theist one to which Lewis subscribes.

Lewis arguments for Christianity are mostly rubbish. I wonder though why would someone need to write a book _about_ Lewis arguments when Lewis himself wrote _several_ books in which he presented his theist views and defended them.

I'd say it's better to let Lewis speak for himself; it dispells illusions of logic quite soon. Making books that "defend" Lewis is just as pathetic as making books which defend the Bible's "logic".

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-12-24 01:44am

...but I agree that a naturalist position makes far more sense than a theist one to which Lewis subscribes.

That's my point.

Have you read "Mere Christianity?" The man claims that he cannot honestly see a world without this silly notion of absolute morality. That doesn't fall in line with Taoism very well...

As for Freud, I find most of his knee-jerk critics (I'm not meaning you, just in general) haven't read any of his works. His position on atheism is the same as any scientist, and he always advocated a naturalist viewpoint. (In fact, this is what started his rift with Carl Jung, but that's another story...).

Just as Dawkins and Sagan demolished arguments of popular theologians of today, Freud would have smashed Lewis' appeals to ignorance. In "Totem and Taboo," "Moses and Monotheism," and "The Future of an Illusion," Freud DID tear apart common arguments of believers (and frequently cited Darwin). Of course, Lewis and the rest of the Christians would pay no attention, and it would be no different than what goes on today.

Norseman · Post by **Norseman** » 2006-12-24 06:31am

I'm sorry but Freud?

Freuds theories were most definately pseudo-science, they are non-falsifiable, and there's no particular evidence that they work better or as well as other theories or psychology (of which there are several).

Before you ask me to read his works let me ask you something, do you feel compelled to read the works of Dr Samuel Hahnemann before you pronounce them rubbish?

I can assure you that Hahnemann, in the tradition of German intellectuals, wrote long and most elaborate tomes explaining everything worth knowing about... homeopathy.

Hahnemann also has lots of modern day advocates, you can find homeopathic medicine in most pharmacies, and moreover his theories have acually been developed further by some of his disciples!

So obviously we shouldn't have any knee jerk reactions here?

Why is one pseudo-science afforded far more respectability than another? Is it because there's no way to say "you just say that because you are sexually repressed" in homeopathic terms?

Freud?

Naw, save your money, if you want to know what's percolating in your subconsciousness buy yourself a pack of tarot cards, they're far cheaper and you can amuse your friends with party tricks.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-12-24 06:35am

I'm not arguing Freud's theories here; the point was over the stupidity of a book that pretends to pose a debate between Freud and CS Lewis, and then turns out to be nothing more than Christian propaganda.

Post by **Zaia** » 2006-12-24 06:57am

If the point is to talk about the "Christian propaganda" of the book, then this thread belongs elsewhere.

*boots to SLAM*

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-12-24 06:58am

Have you read "Mere Christianity?" The man claims that he cannot honestly see a world without this silly notion of absolute morality. That doesn't fall in line with Taoism very well...

Indeed. I've read it, just as most other Lewis' works. The concept of Tao in AoM is also more close to a Confucian understanding than to a Taoist one. For Lewis, Tao is some sort of fundamental "natural law" in humans (of course, his later extrapolation that the natural law must have supernatural origins is a non-sequitur bullshit

). This is why his own works aren't exactly consistent.

As for Freud, I find most of his knee-jerk critics (I'm not meaning you, just in general) haven't read any of his works.

I'm not a "knee-jerk critic", and I have read Freud - not all of his works, granted, only those that were in the main and supplementary school program for psychology course. The problem with Freud is that while, granted, as a naturalist he could've vaped any religions superstutions, his theories, most of them, are unfalsifiable rubbish - and even their modified versions aren't much of an improvement. So just as I may have respect for his more sensible materialist position, I have little good to say on his theories. Just as I may respect Lewis as a talented writer and enjoy his works, but find his adherence to religion utterly stupid and not worthy of much respect.

momochan · Post by **momochan** » 2006-12-26 03:50pm

Yeah, I got that Lewis vs Freud book as a gift a couple of years ago. The thing that was so annoying was that the whole point seemed to be: Xian Lewis was happier than atheist Freud. The implication is, therefore Lewis' worldview must be correct.
But hasn't anyone ever heard of "comforting delusion"? It's actually a very good argument as to why religion evolved in our brains as we became smarter and more self-aware. We're the only animal that deeply comprehends the fact that we're going to die.