What do you think of "Mere Chrisianity" by C.S. Lewis ch. 1 (link included)?

www.philosophyforlife.com/mctoc.htm


(entire book is online to read if you want to)


I have only read the first 2 chapters...but it seems like an interesting book.


C.S. Lewis started out as an aetheist then he converted to Christianity...while he was at Oxford University he wrote this book...so he understood both sides to a degree, and has some interesting points, I think.


But since it is a long book...what do you think of just ch. 1 (for now)...(it is fairly short if you are considering whether to read it or not)

What do you think of "Mere Chrisianity" by C.S. Lewis ch. 1 (link included)?
I read the whole thing but it's been a while.





I think it's a good book. He presents many arguments against Christianity and then defeats them. He goes into the abstract, but not too far that his readers (or his listeners, as the case was when he was on the radio) can't follow him. I think it's a must-read for all Christians, especially those who don't understand much about their faith.
Reply:"While intellectually the young Lewis was an atheist, Lewis later described his young self ( in Surprised by Joy) as being "very angry with God for not existing"."





Sorry, but that's not an atheist. If I called myself a christian but didn't start believing in god or jesus, am I actually a christian?
Reply:I haven't read it. But it seems pointless to discuss whether or not Christianity is true if you don't first prove that god even exists. What proof does he provide for that?
Reply:Amazing book, but just a side note: Mere Christianity is a collection of radio talks that C.S. Lewis gave during WWII. He didn't write it during his time at Oxford, but that is where he became a Christian from being an atheist.
Reply:His entire premise is that there is some unifying morality that proves that a divine source gave morality to humanity. At the time, it was not understood how altruism could happen under evolution, and therefore, it could be confusing that many cultures shared certain aspects of morality.





However, his claim that most moral systems were in near agreement was and remains patently false, so his entire arguement falls apart.