Reddit reviews C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion (Revised and Updated)

> Funny how you say it can be done, but you don't actually do it or point to anyone else who has done it.

Are you blind? Did you skip the "criticisms" section of the wiki argument you linked to?

And, I must ask again, because you avoided the question.. did you even read The Moral Landscape? Seems to me that you didn't because you're misrepresenting Sam's argument and citing religious apologist trash as some sort of refutation. Uh... if you think that Argument from Reason is unshakeable then you probably cannot be helped.

Additionally, here: https://www.amazon.com/Search-Rational-Religion-Revised-Updated/dp/1591025311

Why are you even on this sub if you're just playing religious language games. C.S. Lewis' games are no different than Peterson's, they are just of a different time. This nonsense has been thoroughly debunked, but you're pretending like it stands uncontested.

What a joke.

A wild chase through crumbling parts of the Internet led me to this archived page, which gives the following information:

>This quotation comes from pages 295-296 of C. S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion by John Beversluis, a book which I highly recommend. As Beversluis writes in the introduction:

>"C. S. Lewis needs to rescued: not only from the evils of excessive loyalty. His apologetic writings deserve better than cavalier rejection or uncritical acceptance. He believed that Christianity is not only true but rationally defensible, and he was willing to debate it with all comers. An open forum of this kind is rare. In the following chapters, I take up his challenge and reconstruct and critically examine his 'case for Christianity.'"

EDIT: The book is still in print, and available from Amazon here.

>Are you blind? Did you skip the "criticisms" section of the wiki argument you linked to?

None of the criticisms refute the argument, they only refine it.

>And, I must ask again, because you avoided the question.. did you even read The Moral Landscape?

Parts of it. But Sam has repeated the core of the argument in many other venues, so it's not necessary to read the book to understand Sam's point of view.

>Seems to me that you didn't because you're misrepresenting Sam's argument and citing religious apologist trash as some sort of refutation. Uh... if you think that Argument from Reason is unshakeable then you probably cannot be helped.

You say that there has been a misrepresentation, but you don't specify what that misrepresentation is. Suffice it to say that your empty claims are unconvincing.

And it's not that I believe that the argument from reason is unshakable, it's just that I have observed that nobody who advocates for a position of naturalism has managed to shake it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVxSca_1Fmk&feature=youtu.be&t=183

See for example Matt Dillahunty (whose views are almost a carbon copy of Sam's) versus Matt Slick.

If you think you can do better, then let's hear it.

>Why are you even on this sub if you're just playing religious language games. C.S. Lewis' games are no different than Peterson's, they are just of a different time. This nonsense has been thoroughly debunked, but you're pretending like it stands uncontested.

The only thing I'm "pretending" is that you have yet to contest it. But I find reality is a rather easy pretense to manage.

>Additionally, here: https://www.amazon.com/Search-Rational-Religion-Revised-Updated/dp/1591025311

You realise that an argument for Christianity is distinct from an argument for the necessarily supernatural nature of reason, right?

Free

Not free but exactly what you want. EDIT: I noticed that SuperConfused also recommended this book. His linked to review was mildly hostile. John Loftus has left a detailed review on the Amazon page I linked to that is overly supportive.

As an aside, Lewis is very popular with laypeople, but his arguments have severe issues and are generally ignored by serious(professional?) theologians and atheologians.