More BS from CS Lewis

I stumbled across this:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it?  A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. 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. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.

Words cannot describe how stupid I felt after I read this.  CS Lewis has a knack of making arguments sound valid when they are just downright retarded.

Watch as I summarise Mr Lewis’s words into prose:

I was an atheist because I thought the world was a cruel and unjust place.
But then I realised that it was only cruel and unjust in my opinion.
So the world might not be as cruel and unjust as I thought.
Therefore, I have no other reason to be an atheist.
Atheism “turns out to be too simple”.
So, I’m no longer an atheist!

Also take note of this absurdity of a sentence:

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning

Or this one:

“Atheism turns out to be too simple.”

He means HIS concept of atheism turns out to be simple.  But Lewis didn’t have the courtesy to address other arguments for atheism here.  He picked one on the topic of justice, and infer from that that atheism is too simple. But when you consider the whole picture, you find that a lot of atheists aren’t atheists just because they find the world to be a cruel or an unjust place.  Imagine if some thousands of years in the future when we all live in utopia, and there’s not a single poor person in the world left and all sicknesses can be cured, would you still be an atheist? I can’t speak for you, but I know I still wouldn’t believe in God.  That’s because I have other arguments for atheism, not just this one.  Atheism wouldn’t “turn out to be too simple” if he had ever been a well-read atheist, prior to his conversion into insanity.

And, think about it. Why do atheists even have to argue that the world is cruel or unjust?  Because certain theists, especially Christians, love to claim that their god is loving and just. If there was no concept of God, people wouldn’t have to argue against God. Likewise, if there was no concept of a just and loving God, people wouldn’t have to argue against that idea either.  So the only conceivable reason why atheists might say that “the world is cruel and unjust” would only be because the Christians claimed that the Creator of it is “loving and just”.

But if you look closely, you’ll notice that all of this is just a sly rewording of the classic excuse: “God works in mysterious ways”.  The world might seem cruel and unjust, but it mightn’t be as it seems.  After all, who are we to define God’s justice???  It’s just unjust in our opinion…

Aslan wept.