|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
 Posted - 02/04/2004 : 14:21:10
|
Has anyone read any of their works? I started "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, and in the first chapter alone I was impressed by his style and by what seems to me as a solid foundation. Any comments? And I also started reading "Assimov's Guide To The Bible", but haven't gotten far into it yet. Any comments on that book or any of their other works?
Jarrid
|
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2004 : 06:24:57 [Permalink]
|
No comment here,
But seeing as how you are posting in a forum where 95% of the people are probably atheist, you won't get too many other comments. |
 |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2004 : 06:56:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jarrid
Has anyone read any of their works? I started "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, and in the first chapter alone I was impressed by his style and by what seems to me as a solid foundation. Any comments? And I also started reading "Assimov's Guide To The Bible", but haven't gotten far into it yet. Any comments on that book or any of their other works?
Jarrid
List one of his assertions that you found compelling and maybe a discussion can be started. His assertions are essentially like any other book on apologetics, presented without independently observable, experemently varifiable evidence. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2004 : 07:12:16 [Permalink]
|
"No comment here,
But seeing as how you are posting in a forum where 95% of the people are probably atheist, you won't get too many other comments."
Well, from what I understand Isaac Assimov was atheist as well, and converted. And also, from what I understand from "Assimov's Guide to the Bible," he was trying to discredit the Bible scientifically? |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2004 : 07:21:13 [Permalink]
|
"Lewis does not believe that differing civilizations have had differing moralities: " . . . these have never amounted to anything like a total difference." (Oh? What about culturally sanctioned polygamy, infanticide, cannibalism, wife beating, self mutilation, castration, incest and war?) "
I disagree here. Lewis clearly states that he in fact DOES believe that the concept of morality differs from culture to culture. He says something along the lines of take a cannabalistic society for example. They may believe that it is immoral to eat someone from the same tribe, or to eat a female, or maybe eat without a fork?;) Lewis, in my opinion, makes it clear that he believes that the idea of morality does change, according to the society, and what the society deems acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Am I way off base here? I am far from being a scholar of human behavior lol. |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2004 : 07:27:07 [Permalink]
|
"He dismisses the critics who claim that morality is a result of the species' survival instinct by noting that we are free to obey or disobey this "instinct" and make our decision by a higher standard of Right and Wrong. 'You might as well say the sheet music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one of the notes on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.'"
Can we not choose to be immoral? Is it not our choice to follow this "Law of Human Nature" or other "natural laws"? He uses the example of how we choose to follow it or not in this sense: we have an instinct of self preservation, so take the idea of a person sitting on the side of a body of water and another person swimming in the water. The person in the water starts to drown, and so the person sitting on the shore has 2 choices: they might be inclined to follow their instinct for self preservation and let the swimmer drown, or they may choose to jump in and save them in order to "do the right thing".
|
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2004 : 07:34:46 [Permalink]
|
"You can see that Lewis is fond of arguing by analogy. (His whole Narnia series is one huge metaphor.) This can sometimes be an effective way of communicating with uncritical readers; but it can be deviously misleading if used in place of disciplined reasoning. Mere assertions (a better title for his book) can be used in place of carefully defended statements, and can be made to "stick" in the mind with an analogy which, though perhaps apt, nevertheless skirts the question of the truthfulness of the basic idea."
If he makes a sound argument through analogies, what's the problem? This subject is a hard one to scientifically disect, in my opinion(again, not a lot of weight in my opinion;>)
How does it 'skirt the question of truthfulness of the basic idea'? Lewis makes a sound argument for his ideas of morality. If I were to use analogies to explain sadness or emotion, would that make me wrong? I think that analogies at times bring research to life. I'm sure that Lewis didn't just out of the blue decide to write this book without researching. Sigmund Freud's ideas are a lot like this I believe...of course I'd need my memory to be refreshed it's been a couple years since I had to study him;) But I believe a lot of his ideas were just "assertations"? |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2004 : 07:44:45 [Permalink]
|
"You might as well say the sheet music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one of the notes on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys."
Again, I believe here Lewis was trying to explain how we can choose to follow or not to follow the "Moral Law." We can choose to play another tune if we desire so, but that doesn't mean we don't know the "right" tune? Just like at a piano, we can sit down in a concert with a choir and play a different song than the choir is singing, but does it go together at all? |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2004 : 07:47:57 [Permalink]
|
"Even if it is true that all cultures share a common morality, why does this prove a supreme intelligence? After all, don't we humanists sometimes claim that there is a common thread of humanistic values running through history across cultural and religious lines? Lewis's attempt to leap from the shaky platform of a "Natural Moral Law" into the arms of a loving deity is even less convincing than his basic premise."
I don't remember Lewis mentioning a "loving deity" in the first book when he is discussing the "Moral Law". He is, again, trying to illustrate how he believes that everyone has a knowledge of morality, not a COMMON knowledge of morality. It is illustrated that he believes that the knowledge of morality differs between societies.
|
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2004 : 07:56:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jarrid
Has anyone read any of their works? I started "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, and in the first chapter alone I was impressed by his style and by what seems to me as a solid foundation. Any comments? And I also started reading "Asimov Guide To The Bible", but haven't gotten far into it yet. Any comments on that book or any of their other works?
Jarrid
I haven't read any C.S. Lewis, but a lot of Isaac Asimov sci-fi...
I, Robot is a good place to start, followed by The Rest of the Robots.
Robot novels in general are catchy, short and mostly interesting.
The Martian Way and Other Stories are cool.
The End of Eternity.
All books I have read has been translations to Swedish, hence I'm not sure about the English title. Besides, I read most of them 15+ years ago... 
The Foundation series, and the Robot series beginning with Caves Of Steel are very good, but requires some sci-fi priming of the reader. I started reading Foundation twice but quit after a few chapters, because my mind wasn't "primed" or "matured" enough. It wasn't until I was 18 years old when I finally found myself reading it and enjoying it immensely. I stayed up until 3AM on ordinary school days, just because I couldn't stop reading.
When you read about The Foundation and the Robot-series (Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun, Robots of Dawn, and Robots and Empire) make sure you read them in the order they were first published. Later books will eventually tie the different series together into one complete "Asimov Universe", with a complete time-line. Reading them in the wrong order will spoil some surprises.
Foundation's edge, Foundation and Earth, Prelude to Foundation, and finally Forward the Foundation should be read after "Robots and Empire"
There are some books that are stand-alone but also tie in nicely with the series, however these have in my opinion no requirements as to in what order you read them. "Pebble in the Sky" and "The Currents of Space". You could actually read them before the Foundation series. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/05/2004 08:08:27 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2004 : 09:26:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jarrid
"No comment here,
But seeing as how you are posting in a forum where 95% of the people are probably atheist, you won't get too many other comments."
Well, from what I understand Isaac Assimov was atheist as well, and converted. And also, from what I understand from "Assimov's Guide to the Bible," he was trying to discredit the Bible scientifically?
Did you verify that Assimov converted or did you just take someones word for it because an atheist converting in the end appeals to you ? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
TG
Skeptic Friend
USA
121 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2004 : 17:46:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by TG
Asimov can hardly be lumped in with C.S. Lewis in spite of the title "Asimov's Guide to the Bible": http://www.angelfire.com/wi/mikebru/Alps.html
I did a quick browsing of Michael Brummond's essay, and I do not agree with the points he made about The Foundation. I'll read it some more and perhaps comment on it.
But you're right TG, Asimov was an atheist. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/08/2004 18:29:07 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2004 : 18:19:19 [Permalink]
|
In the essay found at http://www.angelfire.com/wi/mikebru/Alps.html Michael Brummond writes:
quote:
"...all this talk of about the Prophet Hari Seldon and how he appointed the Foundation to carry on his commandments that there might some day be a return of the Earthly paradise: and how anyone who disobeys his commandments will be destroyed for eternity. They believe it." (p. 103)
The parallelism to Christianity is apparent: the Prophet Hari Seldon represents Jesus Christ, the Foundation is organised religion, the commandments are similar to those given to Moses in the old testament, the Earthly paradise is Heaven, and to be destroyed for eternity is the Christian idea of Hell.
This does not necessarily have to be Christianity, it might just as well be Islam. Or probably any other mono-theistic religion. Christianity is not singled out.
quote:
These examples of Asimov's work reveal some interesting views on religion. First, it is said that those that believe are "barbarians," and that religion is a "delusion." Also, these examples suggest that religion is created by man as a tool to control and manipulate the ignorant and uneducated.
And he is right about that. Too many times have we seen men creating (Ron L. Hubbard) or using an already existing religion as a tool for control and manipulation (don't drink that Cool-Aid).
The situation described is how The Foundation is using religion as a tool to maintain power in order to survive. The foundation was created to preserve science and knowledge, and the surrounding kingdoms were fast loosing their's. The surrounding kingdoms had much more military power than the Foundation, and there had already been a chrises where the Foundation was almost obliterated. By foundation standards, as enlightened keepers of knowledge, those people were barbarians, and dangerous and simply had to be controlled. Just as the Christian priest-hood regarded native Africans or other native populations during the colonial era. In Asimov's books there are numerous examples where he has used historical events or myths as inspiration. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/08/2004 18:27:15 |
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2004 : 23:57:30 [Permalink]
|
Hey Jarrid, I am one of the 5% of the non-athiest on here.
Lewis is an absolutly incredible writer. His Narnia series is among my favorite of all time. He has fantastic thoughts on many issues, and I lok forward to continueing to read his works. |
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
