RSS
Religion Under the Lens
- Philosophy of Religion (7)
- Criticism and Defense (17) : Criticism of Religion
- Afterlife (31) : Heaven, Hell, Immortality
- Pluralism (8) : One Way or Many
- Prayer (2) : Speaking with God?
Cur Deus Homo ("Why God Became Man") (1033-1109).
When it is said that what God wishes is just, and that what He does not
wish is unjust, we must not understand that if God wished anything
improper it would be just, simply because he wished it. For if God
wishes to lie, we must not conclude that it is right to lie, but rather
that he is not God. For no will can ever wish to lie, unless truth in
it is impaired, nay, unless the will itself be impaired by forsaking
truth. When, then, it is said: "If God wishes to lie," the meaning is
simply this: "If the nature of God is such as that he wishes to lie;"
and, therefore, it does not follow that falsehood is right, except it
be understood in the same manner as when we speak of two impossible
things: "If this be true, then that follows; because neither this nor
that is true;" as if a man should say: "Supposing water to be dry, and
fire to be moist;" for neither is the case. Therefore, with regard to
these things, to speak the whole truth: If God desires a thing, it is
right that he should desire that which involves no unfitness. For if
God chooses that it should rain, it is right that it should rain; and
if he desires that any man should die, then is it right that he should
die. Wherefore, if it be not fitting for God to do anything unjustly,
or out of course, it does not belong to his liberty or compassion or
will to let the sinner go unpunished who makes no return to God of what
the sinner has
Article 18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and
freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance.
The Range of Reason (London: Geoffrey Bles Ltd. And New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1953), 60.
A spiritual soul cannot be corrupted, since it possesses no matter; it cannot be disintegrated, since it has no substantial parts; it cannot lose its individual unity, since it is self-subsisting, nor its internal energy, since it contains within itself all the sources of its energies. The human soul cannot die. Once it exists, it cannot disappear; it will necessarily exist forever, endure without end. Thus philosophic reason is able to prove the immortality of the human soul
in a demonstrative manner.
"Do We Survive Death?" in Why I Am Not a Christian (London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1957), 88-93.
It is not rational arguments but emotions that cause belief in a future life. The most important of these emotions is fear of death, which is instinctive and biologically useful. If we genuinely and wholeheartedly believed in the future life, we should cease completely to fear death. The effects would be curious, and probably such as most of us would deplore. But our human and subhuman ancestors have fought and exterminated their enemies throughout many geological ages and have
profited by courage; it is therefore an advantage to the victors in the struggle for life to be able, on occasion, to overcome the natural fear of death. Among animals and savages, instinctive pugnacity suffices for this purpose; but at a certain stage of development, as the Mohammedans
first proved, belief in Paradise has considerable military value as reinforcing natural pugnacity. We should therefore admit that militarists are wise in encouraging the belief in immortality, always
supposing that this belief does not become so profound as to produce indifference to the affairs of the world.
After Death, What? (New York: The Christian Herald, 1908), 81.
Were we to believe that death ends all, that the cessation of the
mortal life terminated the career of being, that the sun of hope was
never to arise above the eternal horizon of tomorrow, the present
existence would be a nightmare of horror, even to those who fall heirs
to the enjoyments of the world, for earth's pleasures are but pain,
earth's riches but dross. Nothing satisfies here; everything cloys and
palls upon the senses. The man of wealth and learning in this respect
is no better off than his poorest neighbor. The latter is often envying
the wealthy, while the rich man is sighing for an indefinable something
to fill up the void in his life, but the void can never be filled by
time; its capacity is the measure of eternity. The ever-constant
longing in the heart of man is a proof that this world is not his home,
that the tomb is not the objective point where the final line is drawn,
beyond which none may go.
C.S. Lewis on Prayer said...
God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1970)
Praying for particular things,' said I, 'always seems to me like
advising God how too run the world. Wouldn't it be wiser to assume that
He knows best?' 'On the same principle', said he, 'I suppose you never
ask a man next to you to pass the salt, because God knows best whether
you ought to have salt or not. And I suppose you never take an
umbrella, because God knows whether you ought to be wet or dry.'
'That's quite different,' I protested. 'I don't see why,' said he. 'The
odd thing is that He should let us influence the course of events at
all. But since he lets us do it in one way I don't see why He shouldn't
let us do it in the other.'
C.S. Lewis on Pagan Parallels said...
God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1970)
And I still think that the agnostic argument from similarities between
Christianity and paganism works only if you know the answer. If you
start by knowing on other grounds that Christianity is false, then the
pagan stories may be another nail in its coffin: just as if you started
by knowing that there were no crocodiles then the various stories about
dragons might be helpful to confirm your disbelief. But if the truth or
falsehood of Christianity is the very question you are discussing, then
the argument from anthropology is surely a petitio.
God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1970)
Others may protest that intellecutal discussion can neither build
Christianity nor destroy it. They may feel that religion is too sacred
to be thus bandied to and fro in public debate, too sacred to be talked
of — almost, perhaps, too sacred for anything to be done with it at
all. Clearly, the Christian members of the Society (Oxford Socratic
Club) think differently. They know that intellectual assent is not
faith, but they do not believe that religion is only 'what a man does
with his solitude'. Or if it is, then they care nothing for 'religion'
and all for Christianity. Christianity is not merely what a man does
with his solitude. It is not even what God does with His solitude. It
tells of God descending into the coarse publicity of history and there
enacting what can — and must — be talked about.
God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1970)
In the twinkling of an eye, in a time too small to be measured, and in
any place, all that seems to divide us from God can flee away, vanish,
leaving us naked before Him, like the first man, like the only man, as
if nothing but He and I existed. And since that contact cannot be
avoided for long, and since it means either bliss or horror, the
business of life is to learn to like it. That is the first and great
commandment.
