Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis

Rhinoq,
You inspired me. I've always wanted to read Mere Christianity so I picked up a copy yesterday from the handy-dandy library. If you don't mind, post your thoughts as you read it.

Odd coincidence.

I'm almost done with it now. It's a good book, and one of the best arguments for Christianity I've read. The first book was great, as it was from more of a broader Theist point of view instead of from Christianity alone. The second book was not very well written and the rest of the book (so far) has been more of a lesson in morals that I already knew.

The first book, however, was interesting. What is your take on it? I don't know anyone else who has read it, so I'm interested in what everyone else thinks. I am more interested in WHY someone would choose Christianity over other religions, so I wish he would have spent more time addressing that.

Heather

Yes, C.S. Lewis, I've been told that he was an athiest that studied so long that eventually he became christian. I'm not sure if I believe this story, but I did like this book. Didn't convince me of anything, and his 'natural law' theory I didn't agree with, but I'll be damned if he isn't a good writer.

His converting to Christianity is true. I think that he actually converted while writing Mere Christianity - it started out as a book to prove Christianity false. He was first well-known as an adamant Atheist.

He is a good writer. It's a little childish, but I enjoyed his Chronicles of Narnia. There are hidden meanings that a child wouldn't understand. I also don't agree with his theory about the Law of Human Nature. It seems to overlook the fact that there are other explanations than just the herding instinct and a God. Sort of like with Pascal's Wager.

Heather

[Erik]

Good writing, bad thinking, although I'll give him some slack for writing before the discovery of the structure of DNA. Lewis makes breathtaking leaps of logic and faith that are not defensible. And then commits what I believe to be an ethnocentrist's conclusion, that there is in fact one correct way of believing, even if others kinda get close to the truth. The Natural Law argument, which forms the primary basis for Mere Christianity, is unfounded. To ask why we have a notion of right and wrong is in my view the same as asking why we have ten fingers and ten toes. Ascribing these things to a supreme being gives you no explanation at all and encourages you to stop looking into the actual answers to these questions.

Erik wrote

To ask why we have a notion of right and wrong is in my view the same as asking why we have ten fingers and ten toes. Ascribing these things to a supreme being gives you no explanation at all and encourages you to stop looking into the actual answers to these questions.

Do you think science can EVER discover why you have 10 fingers and 10 toes? I don't. I liked the natural law stuff at the beginning of the book. Made sense to me, but of course you probably expected that. I'm not through with the book yet and want to read it again just to make sure I understand it.

"Do you think science can EVER discover why you have 10 fingers and 10 toes? I don't."

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/m5digit.html

[Rhinoqulous]

lurker wrote

Rhinoq,
You inspired me. I've always wanted to read Mere Christianity so I picked up a copy yesterday from the handy-dandy library. If you don't mind, post your thoughts as you read it.

Good idea. Haven't had a chance to look at it yet, I started reading through The Phenomenon of Man, a book by a Jesuit Priest, after Pan started the Process Philosophy thread. I'll try to get a start on it later this weekend.

Maybe we should start a "book club" thread, where we agree to read a book and post our thoughts on it. Mere Christianity is a good place to start.

Rhinoq