We’re winding down the Saturday School because…

…I’ve learned everything there is to know about humanism and atheism.

As I’ve been reminded by the proponents…

…It’s not terribly difficult to understand.

However, it does seem to be difficult to explain.

This is because analysis reveals atheism’s philosophical deficiency.

The more the worldview is explained…

…the weaker the premise becomes.

I wouldn’t expect a seasoned skeptic to take my word for it.

The thought doesn’t originate with me.

As an atheist, C.S. Lewis thought a lot about godlessness and then said:

” Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.”

Lewis was different from the most notorious atheists of present.

…he changed his mind when his theories proved faulty.

One of atheism’s staunchest disciples, Richard Dawkins, said this:

“Now an extreme determinist… might say that everything we do, everything we think, everything that we write has been determined from the beginning of time in which case the very idea of taking credit for anything doesn’t seem to make any sense. Now I don’t actually know what I actually think about that, I haven’t taken up a position about that, it’s not part of my remit to talk about the philosophical issue of determinism. What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do. None of us ever actually as a matter of fact says, “Oh well he couldn’t help doing it, he was determined by his molecules.” Maybe we should… it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.”

Dr. Dawkins, unlike C.S. Lewis, continues to profess a philosophy that he knows is inconsistent with experience.

So my question this week is:

What is wrong with C.S. Lewis’ conclusion? And, if Lewis’ reasoning is sound, why would you continue to profess atheism?