Tag: CS Lewis

Posted on

CS Lewis’s Desires

In Mere Christianity, CS Lewis gives the oft quoted, manipulated, and paraphrased statement, “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” It’s in the context of desires which cannot be satisfied.

I’ve always thought this attitude was flawed, much like Ivan Karamazov’s attitude that just because he wants something, he is entitled to have it. There is no particular reason a desire must have an attainable object. Lewis mentions swimming, food, and sex all as attainable objects of desire, and from them extrapolates all such desires must have objects. But this is flawed logic. First of all, one can desire something that is a negative: misery on others. One can desire things that are clearly impossible: spending 12 hours a day on fun projects, spending 12 hours a day on different projects, and getting enough sleep, food, and personal required time.

If you take the counter premise as valid, there is no afterlife to desire, then the counter argument becomes consistent.

0) There is no god or afterlife.
1) Mankind desires things.
2) Some of those desires are impossible/unachievable.
3) Some of mankind’s desires imply an afterlife or divinity.
4) Those specific desires are impossible/unachievable.

Likewise, one could easily see a fourth case in Lewis’s analysis. His are the fool’s proposition, if I desire a woman and this woman doesn’t satisfy me, I need a new woman; the bitter proposition, yearning for things is foolish; and the Christian proposition, my desires aim at something beyond this world, so I must be intended for things beyond this world. But one could easily say that the desire for more, improvement, greater perfection is a useful, worthwhile desire. It keeps things moving. And by seeking improvement, one improves things for the self, others, and culture.

A couple days ago I quoted the oldest joke in the English language. It’s a dick joke. As of this writing, the oldest known humorous statement is a fart joke. People haven’t really changed in the last few thousand years. Yet society certainly has, and I attribute much of that to institutional growth. Institutional growth certainly isn’t perfect, but it is a net good. Medicine is a good example: far from perfect, but I’d rather not die of dysentery even if they can’t cure rabies. Things have changed, and the abstract desire for change, specifically change for the better, is something that could support that. It would be a desire that is passed along positively, even if it could easily become negative for the bearer.

Takeaway? I don’t know. I like Lewis’s writings a great deal, but I don’t find his apologia convincing.

Posted on

Thought Experiment 2

A follow-up to yesterday.

I used to have a dog. I’d like to get one again, but my current living arrangement precludes it. My dog, Honey, was a good dog. He was not, however, a bright dog.

Honey could never understand that why we went to the vet. The notion of it escaped him. I’m not sure if dogs can comprehend ‘why’ at all, but I certainly know he didn’t understand the why of a vet. It was simply beyond his mind.

Why did he go to the vet? Because it was the best thing for him we, the humans, his loving family, could arrange. Within our abilities, in many cases, the best thing for Honey was going to the vet sometimes.

I speak not of humans as gods, but rather humans as dogs. The future was unknowable and incomprehensible to him. There was no way he could peer through it. And between him and this ineffable future was suffering in the form of the vet. Of course they were wonderful people, but he didn’t know that. He didn’t like the vet!

Humans have things we cannot understand. Why is there suffering in the world? Why are things so bad? Why can’t we see what happens on the other side of death? But like the ineffable future, all of us come to death. All dogs go forward in time. And the mere fact that Honey couldn’t comprehend it was a reflection of his own limitations, not the hateful nature of his family taking him to get his toe-nails clipped.

So is the cognitive dissonance of trying to reconcile a harsh, suffering filled world with a kind, loving God the same kind of myopia, limited by our own cognitive demesne? Is there a way forward that we just don’t understand? Honey never considered that the future might exist and that he didn’t know something. Those questions were beyond him as a dog. Likewise, we can’t imagine the questions we can’t imagine, but we can imagine that such questions could exist. Humility may be a key to unlock cognitive dissonance.

All that smacks of sophistry to me, but Honey looked at me with love and betrayal when he had to get his toenails clipped. I miss that dog.

Posted on

Thought Experiment

I’m still turning over some CS Lewis, and I have another thought experiment. How can the idea of Hell be reconciled with Christian theology?

After death comes an afterlife. The veils pull aside, and you meet God. He gives you 100% of joy. All the euphoria, all the happiness, all of all good feelings are yours forever. You get Heaven, and all sins forgiven, all mistakes pardoned, all failings blessed. You get it.

And so does everyone else.

There is no judgement, no condemnation, and no ruin. Everyone meets the same end on the other side of the veil: Heaven. All the good people, all the bad people, everyone is given the glory of a kind and purely munificent God.

For eternity, you will see everyone granted the same euphoria you have. Everyone who’s ever done you wrong, hurt you, or disregarded you through callous feelings is given the exact same euphoria as yourself, and you get to witness it forever. Every vile human being, every murderer, rapist, abuser, Nazi, everyone is given the same joy. And you will witness it forever. Hell is thus your own jealousy and ill feeling, not lakes of fire or tormenting demons.

I see only two choices. The first is that you delight in Heaven, delight that suffering has been wiped away from everyone, and rejoice. Forever is a long time, and it’s full of joy.

Or the fury that those people who don’t deserve it are in Heaven too will eat you, forever, and you’ll never be free of them. Because God gave you nothing but happiness, and the only limit is what you bring with you. I think that would destroy many people, and they would make for themselves Hell in Heaven.

Aside, it matches up pretty closely with Judeo-Christian Theology. The workers in the vinyard speaks of everyone being treated the same. The prodigal son talks about this as well.

The counter argument is that for all the supposed kindness involved, this afterlife does indeed incorporate many people who will suffer forever. Regardless of whether or not it’s their fault, the people who won’t forgive others with still suffer in agony. Sure, for the sake of argument, they’re suffering because of their own jealousy, pride, or what have you. But that is no less suffering. Why would a kind and loving God, the fundamental basis of any Christian belief, allow for such a thing to happen?

Which returns us to the initial question, though perhaps a more simplified version of it. How can any idea of Hell be reconciled with Christian theology? If the failing is not in the mechanics but in the end result, then can any suffering coexist with Christianity?

That’s really my problem with suffering and Christianity as a whole. Sophistry aside, people do suffer, and Christianity postulates a kind, loving God. I don’t see how that could ever be combined.

However, the question itself can be avoided.