Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Post #1

Post by Purple Knight »

Question for Debate: Is it only ever possible for prehistoric goat herders to be divinely inspired, or may anyone* be?

* I mean anyone in the same way that Chef Gusteau from Ratatouille meant it: Not that literally anyone can cook (some people in fact cannot) but that a great cook can come from anywhere. In other words, anyone can cook means that a rat (in the context of Disney movies animals are people), or a poor person, or a skinny person, or a fat person, or even a French person, all might be good cooks, not that necessarily any or all of them are good cooks.

There seems to be, amongst those likely to believe religious claims, a bias against the new. Scientology seems kooky not because of any of its claims, but because it is new (and perhaps also that it was invented by a sci-fi author). Mormonism seems kooky because it is new.

Now, just full disclosure, I am never ever going to believe there were literally golden plates. That's the type of thing I would have to see to believe and might doubt even then. But does that mean that Joseph Smith can't be divinely inspired? Personally, if we're looking at Christianity in the context of it being true, I see no reason Joseph Smith can't have been divinely inspired. I don't see Joseph Smith as somehow less than anyone who wrote Genesis simply on the basis of him being born within recorded history. Nothing is weirder or more unbelievable that Joseph Smith has said than that which is in the Bible, especially considering Revelations.

C.S. Lewis also wrote... basically about God. He wrote books for children that contained a Jesus/God allegory and he writes lines for this character. It's a really fine line to tread here because you could easily say that if he wasn't divinely inspired, then he was a blasphemer. But that's not to say that intellect and study alone can't amount to divine inspiration (in fact saying it can't is dooming anyone who isn't supernaturally divinely inspired). Suppose C.S. Lewis accurately portrayed everything about God, Sacrifice, Good, and Evil that he chose to write about, and he did it with perfect accuracy because he was studious and learned. Well, if he didn't make a mistake I don't see how that can count against him, so, perhaps, there doesn't have to be anything supernatural about it whatsoever.

People may say that Jesus completed Christianity into its final, perfect form. But that doesn't mean that the people following the religion were complete. Regardless of whether any new prophets were prophesied, new prophets are needed. Because either tolerance and inclusion in the way we practice them now are the Devil, or at very least, the people practicing Christianity were incomplete before. We need to know whether homosexuality is still evil or not. We need to know how all the new, advanced morality fits into Christianity.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Post #11

Post by Difflugia »

Mithrae wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 1:27 pmReally? Several cultures have had stories of gods either having a divine/human son or personally taking on a form of flesh. One likely impetus behind such stories - bridging the gulf between god and men - has philosophical merit, particularly to anyone who's ever wondered what it's like to be a dog or cat or the like.
Are you arguing that Scientology lacks this? Even if we just treat it as science fiction cynically repackaged as religion, it works because science fiction itself is just a modern version of what you describe. Gods and aliens are the same thing; one is from Asgard, the other from Mars. I'd argue that science fiction and religious fiction tickle the same parts of the psyche and, if popularity is a guide, science fiction is just as good at doing so for modern audiences.
Mithrae wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 1:27 pmBy contrast as far as I know scientology is totally unique and seems totally random.
It seems to me that the main differences between traditional religions and Scientology are that the latter is a product of a single author (mostly, anyway) and has a more modern setting. In that sense, Scientology is much like Mormonism. I'd argue that, while both Scientology and Mormonism are definitely idiosyncratic, they're also less random than Christianity and are far more internally consistent. While one can find evidence of Joseph Smith's religious philosophy morphing somewhat through the Book of Mormon, it's nothing like trying to reconcile Isaiah's messianic prophecies or Daniel's "Son of Man" with any of the New Testament Jesuses. In the same way, Scientology's overarching idea of psychic harm caused by disembodied alien spirits ("Thetans" and their "engrams") is little different than either demon possession as present in the Gospels or Paul's concept of sin as a spiritual force that causes disobedience. The difference as I see it is that Christianity's concept of the spirit world and its relationship with human death has changed so much through the centuries that what's left is incoherent as a whole.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Post #12

Post by Mithrae »

Difflugia wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:30 am
Mithrae wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 1:27 pmReally? Several cultures have had stories of gods either having a divine/human son or personally taking on a form of flesh. One likely impetus behind such stories - bridging the gulf between god and men - has philosophical merit, particularly to anyone who's ever wondered what it's like to be a dog or cat or the like.
Are you arguing that Scientology lacks this? Even if we just treat it as science fiction cynically repackaged as religion, it works because science fiction itself is just a modern version of what you describe. Gods and aliens are the same thing; one is from Asgard, the other from Mars. I'd argue that science fiction and religious fiction tickle the same parts of the psyche and, if popularity is a guide, science fiction is just as good at doing so for modern audiences.
That's probably true for some religious fiction, but at their core gods and creation myths serve the very different and more fundamental purpose of 'explaining' observed reality; why do things exist, why are humans different from animals, what causes weather etc.? By contrast the story of Xenu doesn't explain anything about observed reality, just adds all kinds of weird and exciting extra stuff.
Difflugia wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:30 am
Mithrae wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 1:27 pmBy contrast as far as I know scientology is totally unique and seems totally random.
It seems to me that the main differences between traditional religions and Scientology are that the latter is a product of a single author (mostly, anyway) and has a more modern setting. In that sense, Scientology is much like Mormonism. I'd argue that, while both Scientology and Mormonism are definitely idiosyncratic, they're also less random than Christianity and are far more internally consistent. While one can find evidence of Joseph Smith's religious philosophy morphing somewhat through the Book of Mormon, it's nothing like trying to reconcile Isaiah's messianic prophecies or Daniel's "Son of Man" with any of the New Testament Jesuses. In the same way, Scientology's overarching idea of psychic harm caused by disembodied alien spirits ("Thetans" and their "engrams") is little different than either demon possession as present in the Gospels or Paul's concept of sin as a spiritual force that causes disobedience. The difference as I see it is that Christianity's concept of the spirit world and its relationship with human death has changed so much through the centuries that what's left is incoherent as a whole.
As a whole is the key phrase there, I think. The breadth and inconsistencies of Christian scripture and tradition are a problem if we're asking "Is some religion in its entirety true or divinely inspired?" But if we're asking "Might we find divine inspiration within some religion?" that breadth arguably makes Christianity a better candidate than single-author religions like Islam and particularly whacky single-author religions like Scientology! Isaiah's messianic prophecies may have little to do with Jesus, but deutero-Isaiah's servant songs seem a much better fit; Aramaic Daniel's Son of Man could be hard to reconcile, while Hebrew Daniel's anointed one is a very interesting comparison. Revelation may be garbled nonsense imputing teleology to humanity's future, while the story of garden in Genesis may be an insightful allegory for the development of intelligence and civilization. There's nothing strange or unexpected about various Jews and Christians having all kinds of weird and wonderful notions throughout history which sometimes gained mainstream acceptance - especially since the most problematic stuff tends to be crowd-pleasers about Israel conquering the world or unbelievers suffering nasty hemorrhoids and seas of blood. What would be strange is if basically every single mystic, sage, philosopher and scientist throughout history got it all totally and completely wrong and suddenly one guy learned everything, all at once, and it turned out to be so weird and contrary to everything we'd otherwise expect. I'd hardly defend the historical reliability of Luke or 'Matthew' any more than you'd defend the veracity of Hubbard's tales, but there's still no good comparison between their virgin birth and his Xenu story as far as I can tell; if the virgin birth were a 1 out of 10 for plausibility, Xenu is surely in the low decimals.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Post #13

Post by Tcg »

Mithrae wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:17 am if the virgin birth were a 1 out of 10 for plausibility, Xenu is surely in the low decimals.
Wait, are you suggesting that 1 out of 10 virgins get pregnant? That is what you are presenting as evidence that Xenu is even more unlikely? I'd love to see the math which supports this one.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Divine Inspiration -or- Is C.S. Lewis a Blasphemer?

Post #14

Post by Mithrae »

Tcg wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:12 am
Mithrae wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:17 am if the virgin birth were a 1 out of 10 for plausibility, Xenu is surely in the low decimals.
Wait, are you suggesting that 1 out of 10 virgins get pregnant? That is what you are presenting as evidence that Xenu is even more unlikely? I'd love to see the math which supports this one.
It's a comparison, that however unlikely the bible's virgin birth story may be the story of Xenu is an order of magnitude less plausible. Feel free to make up other numbers more to your liking.

Post Reply