C.S. Lewis On Atheism

I love C.S. Lewis. He was a great thinker and a prolific author.

Here’s his take on atheism.



14 thoughts on “C.S. Lewis On Atheism”

  1. Reblogged this on The Sensualist and commented:
    It’s been awhile since I read Lewis, and I remember disagreeing with him quite a bit. But having read this, and after realizing I more or less agree with him (though I would probably use different terminology), I may have to re-read the old chap


    1. I think part of the reason is to identify yourself to others of like mind. Also we have a need to define ourselves and the most basic thing that defines us are our beliefs.


      1. It can. But I think there is a difference between division and divisiveness. One being a reality the other being a cause of enmity between people.


  2. This was a case where CS Lewis’ thinking got a bit fuzzy. There are eight different way to arrange hydrogen and oxygen into a set of three atoms, but the laws of chemistry ensure that only one is chosen: H-O-H, aka hydrogen hydroxide, aka water. It’s not at all like spilling milk and getting a map of London.


    1. I think the chemistry involved in creating thoughts is a little bit more complicated than making water.

      Also, where did these laws come from?


      1. When you ask the question “where did these laws come from?” you ask a question that scientists are not asking, for such a question is in the field of metaphysics rather than physics. If that makes you feel superior, so be it, but science is set up to analyze what’s there, not what’s missing.


      2. Right. Science doesn’t ask those questions because their materialistic framework doesn’t provide answers.

        A universe governed by physical laws could not have created those laws by which it exists and functions. They needed to come into being at the same time.

        An amoral universe could not impart a sense of morality as it does not contain the requisite information nor is it conscious that morality would be necessary.

        It is precisely what is “missing” that makes modern science unable to properly analyze what’s there.

        In other words, materialistic science’s inability to acknowledge it’s limits has turned it from a discipline to a faith.


      3. I don’t know why you said “science’s inability to acknowledge it’s limits” when I just stated in my previous post that questions of ultimate origins are ones that science freely admits it is not prepared to answer.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. But evolution is totally beyond the limits of science. It cannot be reproduced, is not observable and is in no way subject to the scientific method.

        Also it is the very topic of ultimate origins where materialistic science fails. It must assume it’s premise (evolution) because those very questions show the impossibility of the premise being true.

        Therefore avoiding the questions is ultimately self-serving.


      5. Evolution doesn’t need to be observable or reproducible in real time. It serves to explain why the DNA of human beings has sequences that coincide with other apes as well as even more distant relatives, and DNA sequences, as well as fossils, etc, are indeed observable. And if you don’t think evolution does occur, then you should not fear Ebola mutating into a more deadly form.


      6. Anything that can’t be observed or reproduced is not science, it is a story. It explains nothing about DNA and the relationship to apes is fanciful and inferred. Common functionality is just as good of an explanation as common ancestry and there are no intermediary fossils showing any physical link from apes to humans.

        Mutation is not evolution as it is a random reordering of already existing information. For evolution of one kind to another would require the addition of information which has never been shown to occur.

        Also the virus remains a virus. The bacteria always remains a bacteria. The vast variety in all species is wonderful but never are they observed in the present or the fossil record to go from one kind to another.


Comments are closed.