“CS Lewis Had Better Come Up With A Better Argument Than That” – Richard Dawkins

For early access to episodes, ad-free, support the show at https://www.Patreon.com/AlexOC

I put it this way: I cant see FM radio waves, but they pervade the world. why would a car have an antenna capable of pulling them out of the air unless FM radio waves are really there? The antennas presence indicates the FM radio waves' presence. Not definitively. Not conclusively. It's not a water tight argument. But it makes me think, if FM radio waves weren't there, what are all these cars doing with antennas? Similarly, if you go to the funeral of a loved one, you can see that everyone's got their spiritual antennas up. Perhaps this is not indicative of the Christian conception of heaven and the trinity. But it's indicative of something, and it strongly suggests other-than -Materialism. I dont think it's naive or philosophically foolhardy to follow that suggestion and ask where it leads.

dawkins is a guy that has studied a lot of evolution and that's it. he is not a philosopher nor a thinker. you can tell he has almost no idea what he's talking about in terms of forming or replying to arguments in a debate setting. he's like a necessary "starter pack" of every edgy atheist teen (like i was at one point) to like really test the waters of atheism but it's important to outgrow him as you get older (turn 20) this guy is like training wheels for bicycles. helps you at the start but you need to throw them away when you learn to ride and improve at everything

8:30 richard dawkins describes himself

I think Dawkins is very intelligent, but that somehow leads to him trying to force his own interpretation onto other peoples questions and he ends up answering an entirely different question. Even if I agree with his end assessments, many times, it’s his rational process that bugs me.

Dawkins is attacking some simpleton caricature

This is not what cs lewis told 😂😂

Really hits harder when you address the relativism, as well as the uniqueness of this "desire" like he does in mere Christianity. I know the pace of the conversation matters but the distinction he builds up like how "moral law" isn't always just something that benefits us like he explains, and what is instinct what Dawkins puts out isn't based on that sort of rational. It's an inconsistent gut thing, like giving up your seat for an old man, and he uses several examples in the book.

Fascinating – Dawkins seems unable to think beyond his rigidly materialist framework. Lewis' argument from desire is not meant to legitimate any flight of fancy, but probe at what is behind the deepest longings that people have, which he borrows the term 'sehnsucht' to describe (which I would define as the interminable longing for something beyond or out of reach). If we feel unsatisfied by anything the world has to offer – as a materialist account of existence is wont to do – where do we go to satisfy that desire? What are we meant for?

Alex, if you have not read it already, I would suggest that you read Lewis' *Abolition of Man*. He explores exactly the notion that, barring some differences in custom and belief, in cultures around the world and throughout time there is a kind of underlying pan-cultural moral code, which he terms the Tao for short (after the Chinese philosophical term for the underlying way of the universe). I think it would be a fascinating read and I would be interested to hear your take as an atheist skeptic of religion (and please tell me if you would identify yourself with those descriptors, or prefer another).

For a surprising intersection of CS Lewis with the hip-hop world (yep!) check out Shad K's album TAO.

A very easy way to talk about this from an evolutionary perspective it's the idea of spandrels, observations of traits that look it appear to have been selected for but are only an emergent property of slextong for something else.

I think that I'm too stupid to understand that analogy about maths. I mean, if we remove the words naming the numbers, through mere observation we always find that (let me use those words) 2 + 2 always equals 4. It's not a believe. It's mere observation. Now, if I say this to a 3 years old child, maybe they are believing in what I say it's true but, as they grow up, they'll observe how that is, in fact true. Believe has nothing to do with observation. Believe is about what cannot be tested or demonstrated,

Pft! Dawkins, Satans best spokesman.

that matter evolves into beings that have desires is crazy enough as an assumption. That they then ask about the meaning of these desires, in a universe that (according to atheistic understanding) only got this category through themselves, is insane.

New atheists are honest but not open minded, they are grounded in reality but not in its depth, they like truth-seeking but never find it.

How dare you. I'm gorgeous 😂

Some people consume for comfort ( eating, shopping , the such) a quick fix. Others are in it for the long haul, and hope for a treat at the end.

It seems as though philosophy is for the most part better suited to qualifying the nature of reality than quantifying the nature of reality.

It's admirable the justice you do to Lewis and Plantinga in this section. You're a true Socratic. Do you have a follow-up to challenge Lewis's argument from desire and Plantinga's argument against naturalism by evolution?

I find it funny that Darwin got such a silly view on Islam that his still thinks the 72 virgin is a real thing that Muslims believe in, it doesn't exist it came from a weak hadith, not a single muslim accepts it but alot in the west use it as propaganda l guess.

At the end there, Alex, somewhat unwittingly it seems to me, touches upon the question of whether mathematics is invented or discovered. His train of logic, drawing on Planting, offers an intriguing path to the conclusion that mathematicians who believe maths are discovered (which is most mathematicians, I think) are religious.

We didn't 'evolve' a desire for food or temperature Alex. We were made that way from the get go. No evolving whatsoever. Eating is a necessity. It is essential for survival. Wanting to eat is not an 'evolved desire'. Wanting to be warm is necessity and not an evolved desire. You try and take down Lewis but your assumptions and premises are extremely flawed.