Least Convincing Lewis Argument?

External Since: Feb 05, 2006 Posts: 2

This one just confuses me:

1. Things in real life are not aesthically appealing.

2. Christianity is not aesthically appealing.

3. Therefore, Christianity is more likely to be real.

This actually leads him in several places (Weight of Glory, Mere
Christianity) to actually *play down* Christianity's beauty and even
coherence as evidence *in its favor*.

Kind of insulting to God there, calling him a crummy creator. He really
loses me with this one, man.

External Since: Mar 15, 2005 Posts: 128

>
> I don't think he's really saying that Christianity is not aesthically
> appealing, still less that it is not coherent. Rather, I think the
> point is that the beauty (and coherence) that it has is non-obvious: it
> is not what a human artist would have chosen to do, and thus not what
> one would expect if Christianity were a human invention.
>

I think you have the argument exactly. If the stories were lies or
inventions then they would not be as blemished as scripture. The New
Testament comes off as something written by people who often had no
idea which events or communications were important and which were not,
so they toss in most everything they remember. If it were polished,
like some other religious works, it would be less credible imho.

Daryl