C.S. Lewis was an idiot

C.S. Lewis has had an enormous impact on the evangelical mind. His books still top the charts in bookstores. But what about the substance of his arguments? Once critically examined, it becomes apparent that this great apologist extraordinaire wasn't as smart as everyone thought.

For instance, Lewis really shoots himself in the roof of his mouth when he states “I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it” (Mere Christianity p. 123). Now, why would a Christian apologist write such a thing? Why would a defender of the Christian faith try to divert his audience from his personal beliefs? Why not just say "I am asking everyone reading this to have a fair and balanced consideration for Christianity and its truths." Now, why didn't C.S. Lewis write something intelligent like this?

Why you ask? Because he was stupid. If Lewis had been smarter, he would have wrote those exact words. I just know it because I am smarter than he ever was. When one examines the credentials in comparison and contrast, I'd have to say a Ph.D. equivalent in Religious Philosophy outdoes anything in 'English Literature.' I mean 'blech!' Can somebody say "booorrrrrring!"

Another reason not to like C.S. Lewis is his books. C.S. Lewis was a herroundous writer. He fills his book with nonsensical things like talking lions, coat closets that serve as a portal to another dimension, beasts from Greek mythology, etc, etc, etc, the list goes on. If Lewis was a serious thinker, why did he insist on writing such garbage? Magical fairies and mystical monsters? Sorry Lewis, no serious thinker would take you seriously after reading your books and watching those movies. Especially me, and that says allot right there.

Lewis’ Moral Argument is basically that all people have a notion of right and wrong, and the only explanation for this inner sense of morality must come from a Power behind the moral law known as God. Clearly, Lewis was on some serious narcotic drugs. He probably never even heard or pondered on the concept of altruism. We see it in animals all the time. Ranging from male lions caring for foreign young, to schools of fish. So not only can we conclude that C.S. Lewis was in fact, stupid, we can also conclude that he was indeed ignorant of harmonic nature. Lewis' idiot argument goes something like this: 1) If there is a Power behind the moral law then it must make itself known internally within us. 2) We do find this moral law internally within us. .: Therefore, there is a Power behind the moral law. As such this argument is unsound. As we have demonstrated, humans are not the only animals with morals and belief systems. Lewis didn't answer any of these arguments and I'll be damned if he's smart enough to answer mine coherently. That incompetent dumbass.

In his Argument From Reason, Lewis champions the idea that if naturalism is true such a theory “impugns the validity of reason and rational inference,” and as such, naturalists contradict themselves if they use reason to argue their case. If you as a naturalist have ever been troubled by such an argument you need to read Beversluis’ response to it (if I haven't mentioned who this guy is yet he's a former fundamentalist Christian philosopher professor at Burkley University with a book that critiques Lewis), which is the largest chapter in his book, and something I can’t adequately summarize in a few short sentences. Suffice it to say, he approvingly quotes Keith Parsons who said: “surely Lewis cannot mean that if naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as valid reasoning. If he really thought this, he would have to endorse the hypothetical ‘If naturalism is true, then modus ponens is invalid.’ But since the consequent is necessarily false, then the hypothetical is false if we suppose naturalism is true (which is what the antecedent asserts), and Lewis has no argument.” (p. 174). Lewis couldn't comprehend the fundamentals of logical deduction. Let's say that reasoning is derived through naturalistic progressions, and if naturalism is true, then naturalists are justified to use reason and reasonable interference. Duh!

Lewis’ Liar, Lunatic, Lord Dilemma/Trilemma is one of the most widely used arguments among popular apologists, in variations, where since Jesus claimed he was God, the only other options are that he was either a liar or a lunatic, or both, which Lewis argues isn’t reasonable. Therefore Jesus is God, who he claimed he was. Even William Lane Craig (whom I studied under!) defends it in his book Reasonable Faith. But it is widely heralded as Lewis’ weakest argument as he defended it, and fundamentally flawed. Beversluis subjects Lewis’ defense of it and his defenders to a barrage of rigorous intellectual attacks. There is the problem of knowing what Jesus claimed, which by itself “is sufficient to rebut the Trilemma.” (p. 115). What Lewis' stupid ass didn't realize was that the Biblical claims of Jesus are ambigious (Jesus is never reported having said "I am the revealed Son of God, the Messiah, God incarnate" for example). Even if Jesus claimed he was God he could simply be mistaken, not a lunatic, for lunatics can be very reasonable in everyday life and still have delusions of grandeur. And it’s quite possible for someone to be a good moral teacher and yet be wrong about whether he was God. It's not radical to suggest that Christianity flourished from false beliefs despite the fact that Jesus most likely never returned from the dead. Furthermore, the New Testament itself indicates many people around him including his own family thought he was crazy. Clearly C.S. Lewis did not understand the implications of his own argument and was just Biblically illiterate. Then again it is something you would expect from a moronic atheist-converted Christian. That imbecile.

In Lewis’ book, The Problem of Pain, he deals head on with the Problem of Evil coming at the heels of WWII. Suffice it to say, as Victor Reppert summarized the argument of his first book, Beversluis: “If the word ‘good’ must mean approximately the same thing when we apply it to God as what it means when we apply it to human beings, then the fact of suffering provides a clear empirical refutation of the existence of a being who is both omnipotent and perfectly good." In other words, if we equate God with Santa Clause, for example, then he should behave as we ought to expect a Clause to behave. Furthermore: "If on the other hand, we are prepared to give up the idea that ‘good’ in reference to God means anything like what it means when we refer to humans as good, then the problem of evil can be sidestepped, but any hope of a rational defense of the Christian God goes by the boards.” Seeing as Christians are relentless in having us go according to the will of their invisible Santa Clause in the sky and yet their Santa Clause fails to carry out the duty of the Clause, the Christian God is then an irrational construct that cannot be defended by reason (i.e., does not exist).

These arguments are obviously very brilliant and devestating to the apologetics of Lewis and company. But it still doesn't surpass the quality of my book.