Fundamentalists sometimes use this C.S. Lewis quote in support of Christianity being important:
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
But that quote works both ways. I know of no evidence for any of the miracles which the Christian faith is built on, just as I know of no evidence for the miracles claimed for Judaism, Islam, or Mormonism. To me, that puts them all in the “false” category.
I think C.S. Lewis was right in the sense that it’s no longer important to my life. But Christianity is important to other people and has had a large influence in history — which to me makes it important. The same goes for Islam — yes, it’s false, but that doesn’t mean it has no importance.
What do you think? Are religions of no importance because they are false?
He was pretty fond of extremes, wasn’t he?
That’s just not true – as long as other people believe it, guide their morals and behavior by it, swear by it, kill for it, it’s important indeed, Mr. Lewis simplistic opinion notwithstanding. Only ’cause it’s not true doesn’t mean it’s unimportant.
Beat me to it, Siberia. I always thought of him as a somewhat reasonable guy, but these extremes he forces on people “liar, lord, or lunatic” and “no importance or infinite importance” reveal his absolutism and his distasteful, manipulative sales approach, built entirely on false dichotomies. It’s as though he’s trying to get the reader to reason, “Welll, obviously Christianity’s not completely unimportant. But the only option is infinite importance. Well, I guess it’s infinitely important then.” “Welll, Jesus is too good a guy to be a liar or a lunatic, so I guess he has to be the Lord.” It’s so unbearably facile.
I disagree with that last one. Jesus could have easily been a liar and he could’ve easily been a loon.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that he was evil, which was Mr. Lewis’ point: either he was Lord and therefore good, or a liar/loon and therefore evil. Since he wasn’t evil…
Silly, but true.
I don’t think being a liar or loon would automatically qualify him to be evil. If he knowingly did that without being the lord, then he’d be evil. Though he may have been just as taken in by what he said as others, even though he was wrong.
Contemporary people (when Lewis wrote that) couldn’t even conceive Jesus as a liar or a lunatic, that’s the point. Fortunately our society has evolved so we can think otherwise.
I would also bet my afterlife for the “lunatic or literary fiction”
He could have been all three: Liar, Lunatic AND Lord! Or, he could have been mistaken that he was “Lord”, and therefore would be ‘none of the above.’ Or, he could be entirely mythical, which would be another ‘none of the above’ options.
If he thaught he was lord but was wrong that’s delusional which fall nicely into the lunatic box. I always found it too convenient that option 4, fictional just isn’t there (I been trying to think of a word starting in L for this one but no luck yet, any ideas).
If he thaught he was lord but was wrong that’s delusional which fall nicely into the lunatic box.
Not necessarily. What if all signs pointed to him being Lord but it turns out they were just coincidences? Then a reasonable person in his position could think “hey, I’m the Lord” and still be wrong, and yet not be a lunatic.
Probably doesn’t fit the medical definition of lunatic but I think that when putting these 3 options Lewis was generalizing.
Liar: He knew he wasn’t god.
Lunatic: He believed he is god but wasn’t really.
Lord: Well, This one is simple.
Even if we accept that these are the only possibilities (which I don’t) I can’t see on what basis does he dismiss the liar and lunatic option to get to the conclusion that jesus was god.
As I recall, the context of his “liar, lunatic or lord” proposal was Lewis’ rejoinder to those who hold that Jesus may have been a wise man, great teacher, etc., but won’t accept his divinity. In other words, he was trying to establish that the “wise but not divine” option was logically incoherent.
Which again only works if the written record of his supposed claims about himself are at all trustworthy.
Legend
Liar, lunatic, Lord, legend, or a combination. Most likely Jesus existed, but most of what is told about him is fabricated. Jesus himself also likely lied about much of what he did, especially if any of the more spectacular miracles are based on historical events (these would have to be cons). He was a lunatic to the extent that he probably believed that he really could heal people, etc., but “lunatic” isn’t really the right word, because it was a very superstitious time when many people believed such things. “Lord” I’m not so sure about . . . he was just some dude.
“Most likely Jesus existed, but most of what is told about him is fabricated.”
… but where do you draw the line with he existed if most of what is believed about him is untrue? King Arthur and Count Dracula can be have said to have existed i.e. the stories where inspired by real life people (possibly) but we would still call both of them legends.
Conversion to Christianity will mess you up, man. Have you read “The Chronicles of Narnia”? You couldn’t miss the Christian (and quite racist) metaphors if you were blindfolded!
Funny thing. When I first read them, I was about eight or nine years old, and not having been raised Christian and having not yet been particularly interested in religion, the Christian apologetics and symbolism went right over my head. I went back to read them before the first movie came out for kicks, and nearly retched at how anvilicious they were with the Christ-stuff.
Same for me.
Man, I’m glad the second movie quietly died at the theater.
That whole, “They can’t see me because they don’t believe in me,” crap made me want to vomit in my popcorn bucket.
At least the first movie had the badass White Witch with the *Awesome* freakin’ Polar Bears drawing her war chariot.
The second movie had…nothing.
Yes, Tilda Swinton as the White Witch was awesome.
In the second movie, when it looks like they might be bringing her back, I actually sat up a bit in my chair. I was like, “right on! this has sucked till now, but she will knock it up a notch!” No such luck.
In the second movie, when it looks like they might be bringing her back, I actually sat up a bit in my chair. I was like, “right on! this has sucked till now, but she will knock it up a notch!” No such luck.
Exactly.
“They can’t see me because they don’t believe in me,
That sounds like The Emperor’s New Clothes.
It was weird for me, I had been church-going from 5 years old and read the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe at 11. I remember a profound sense of familiarity to the story and “got it” in some way that it was an allegory about Jesus, but it didn’t compute in my mind that it was that way by formula. It just made a lot of sense, like recognizing you know this story even though you hadn’t read it before. It was weird. I loved it at the time. I groaned my way through the film several years back.
A friend of mine gave me the Chronicles of Narnia as a birthday present (the logic being that I loved the Lord of the Rings; ergo, I’d also probably love CoN). In short, I hated it. And the movie was even worse.
Tolkien hated it too.
People who assume liking LotR means you will like Narnia probably haven’t read both.
And Chesterton was better than both. At times it seemed like Tolkien and Lewis were like two kids squabbling.
IIRC, though, Tolkien launched many of the same criticisms he had for The Chronicles of Narnia against his own Hobbit; it wasn’t so much that he hated it, more so that he thought that both books suffered from similar defects that prevented them from being as awesome as the LotR..
If you’ve read his critiques, you know that he found the world building in Narnia to be terrible.
“Talking animals?”
If you will recall, the Hobbit also had talking animals. And yes, if I remember, the main criticism was that Lewis sort of haphazardly threw pieces of many different mythologies together to create his mythos, rather than building it from the ground up with consistent muted loaners.
Tolkien and Lewis were very good friends – they used to go to pus in Oxford with Lewis Carol and Mervyn Peake and write while drinking. Apparently their group was known as “The Inklings” because of that. In fact, I’m not sure, but I’m pretty sure it was Tolkien who converted Lewis to Christianity.
It was Chesterton that converted Lewis to Christianity (or, technically, a book Chesterton wrote). Tolkien and Lewis were good friends for a while, but they had a falling out (ironically) over religion, because Tolkien was a Catholic and Lewis an Anglican.
IIRC. I’m more sure about the first part than the second.
Tolkien was instrumental in Lewis’ conversion. They had a long talk one night about myth, where Tolkien explained to Lewis that Christianity was a myth, but a true myth. That clicked with Lewis, and the next day (or shortly thereafter), he said he was riding in his brother’s motorcycle sidecar, and got in a unbeliever and got out a believer.
It was a tag-team. C. S. Lewis, in his correspondence, referenced the profound effect that Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man had on his view of Christianity, and then Tolkien gave him the final shove.
I’m not suggesting he wasn’t influenced by Chesterton — he certainly was. Also by McDonald.
MacDonald was like the grandfather of all of them.
CS Lewis was admittedly most influenced by George MacDonald (1824-1905) whom he professed to be his “master”. GM is a bit of a fascinating, mysterious fellow. I have spent a lot of time in his various works that cross numerous genres. It would not be fair to simply label him as a “Christian” writer, his work is varied and appeals to all audiences and ages. While there are overtones of german mysticism (Novalis, etc) yet at the same time his work is uniquely his.
He had a very rich, divine imagination. If one enjoys literature, He is well worth the read regardless of one’s world view, all the best.
yea they have NO legitimate information, no religion can show you proof of anything. There right there next to ghost hunters and psychics. Taking advantage of the dumb and the vulnerable. Religion is bad, bad for the whole human race.
True, good thing that “religion” is not at all what Christ offers us.
Importance is a function of neccesity or utility. So if it’s true it would be of ultimate importance (pascal’s wager) but if it’s false it’s no more important than what zack said, just ghost hunting. Ghost hunting maybe important for ratings but not for life.
Well, they are not completely useless. They are about as important as Greek mythology or any other ancient folklore. They are as necessary to read as The Bacchae or Hippolytus.
I think that depends on if we are discussing personally important, or important as a people. Personally, nope, does nothing for me. But from a historical and sociological perspective, I think Christianity is very important. Lives have been given in it’s name, boundaries moved and fought over, it’s what our ancestors started and believed in. Of course, I “dig” archeology, so maybe I am looking kind of deeper into this, but it’s hard to rule out ideology that has survived the ages (and also been mutilated through that time) as unimportant. In many ways, it has shaped the world that we live in today.
Of course Christianity has shaped the world in which we live, so has the bubonic plague and influenza. They aren’t really important to me outside of getting a vaccine. Their destructive histories maybe fascinating reads but I don’t adjust my life around them or fear of them, even though others do. I think Lewis is attacking the idea of cultural Christianity, or said another way the rtuals without the dogmas.
Well whose interpretation is he talking about? The Baptist “go to hell” version? The Catholic “loop hole” version? Or the Episcoplian “everyone gets in” version?
Of course if can be moderately important. It isn’t supremely important because it’s not founded on fact. But it’s of some importance because so many people buy into it. The day will come when no one does. Then, it’ll still be more important than, say, Greek mythology because if was believed by more people for a longer time. As long as it’s remembered at all it’ll be studied, if for no other reason than the insight it offers into the psyches of its adherents.
Understanding the Bible/Koran/Talmud is important for all educated people. Literary history is based on many stories from these books. To be ignorant of the Bible puts one at a distinct disadvantage in society. The more we understand about the holy books and their origins the more we can understand our history and ourselves. I agree with C.Hitchens that we can learn more about human nature and behavior from Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and Orwell than any Bible story but to remain ignorant is not an option.
I don’t think Lewis would have ever died the social impact of religion (and thus its historical importance) even if he concluded that Christianity was false.
I think it’s fairly obvious that this quote is getting at a different type of “ultimate” importance (or at least what Lewis would have perceived to be of ultimate importance), which transcends religion’s historical importance.
*died = denied
In that case, he is only copying Pascal’s wager…
What would make Christianity true? What would make it false?
“What would make Christianity true?”
The existence of the Christian god would help.
” What would make it false?”
The utter lack of evidence for his existence.
How would the existence of “the Christian God” make it true?
I said it would help.
It’s the required starting point. There are other steps that follow that one.
Not that Christianity would become unimportant, but that it would become less important. Christianity used to be everything to me. Now it’s not, because I know it’s false. I think that’s what CS Lewis should have said, but I guess he went a bit overboard.
I take this more as a response to the sort of person who would say, “Religion is kind of important to me, sure. I go to church every once in a while.” In such a context, his statement is right – if you really think it’s true, it should be the most important thing in your life.
Personally, I’ve always thought of religion as something reliant on beliefs rather than proof. Perhaps a particular faith or religion is false to me, and thus carries little importance, but that doesn’t mean it’s the same for someone who does carry strong beliefs.
I think much of Lewis’ writing was aimed at nominal or lukewarm Christians. In that context, perhaps the quote makes sense, speaking to people who already believe the premise that Christianity is true, it is an exhortation to practice what they already believe. Even then though, I don’t like the quote because of the way it speaks for other people. Speak for yourself! Perhaps it would not be important to C.S. Lewis, but obviously it is to a lot of others who don’t accept his premise.
The problem with that quote is, it’s absolute bullshit.
Iraqi WMDs turned out to be completely false, yet they were pretty important anyway, weren’t they? Same thing with religions, really.
Custador…are you aware of the several high ranking Iraqi officials and Generals who came forward (at great risk to themselves) to testify that actually Hussein did have a stock of WMD’s, was in fact in the planning stages on pro-western targets and that the materials themselves were covertly trucked into Syria only days before the US invasion? Apparently, the Israeli’s already knew this thru their intelligence sources.
Now I’m not a defender of any political party, am actually quite anti-political. What would they have to gain from this disclosure? They didn’t write any books, didnt make any money from it, just took a big risk to tell their collective (same) story. Wouldn’t it be the ultimate irony if you (and I) actually owed a debt of gratitude to Bush, et al? ha. Take care.
John C…are you a complete moron? More importantly, what do you take us for, complete morons?
I think “yes” might be the answer to both of your questions, Ivan. It’s usually better to ignore his comments than to try to get him to say anything remotely logical.
Pics or it didn’t happen.
Oh, El, don’t you know that the pics are inside you? They radiate down from the Real Loving (Ok, Not Always) Father into your inner Photosmart printer. That’s how GWB knew there were WMDs in Iraq.
Oh Elemenope and Roger. It’s too bad I took up a new (busier) position at my job, because I sure miss this blog — especially you two :)
Aw, shucks. :-)
Ditto what Roger said. I wondered where you were off to…ironically, I’ve been posting more because of a new job; I find myself sitting during work ours in front of a computer and have absolutely nothing to do for long hours at a time.
Like all of your posts, John, I’m going to ask: Where’s your evidence? Because I would think that Lord Hutton might have mentioned it in his enquiry into the Iraq War, and he didn’t.
Keep in mind that C.S. Lewis was a mathematician, and this was basically an exercise in expected values, logic and probability. The problem is ultimately one of the nature of zero and infinity. It’s an attempt to justify belief as the safe bet because of the overwhelming return.
You are thinking of Lewis Carroll, perhaps?
Lewis was a philologist.
Yes, please, we mathematicians don’t want to be in C.S.Lewis’s set.
I once read (sorry, can’t locate the source) that a British philosopher once proposed that every church be required to inscribe above the door: “
I once read (sorry, can’t locate the source) that a British philosopher once proposed that every church be required to inscribe above the door: “VERY IMPORTANT, IF TRUE.” I have always thought that this summed it up rather nicely!
That sounds like something Bertrand Russell would say.
Typical vacuous blather from an apologist, and I mean that in a technical sense. Since Lewis was sure that Christianity is true, any statement beginning “If Christianity is false, then…” would be vacuously true from his point of view.
To me, this goes a long way toward explaining why hardcore religionists so frequently make absurdly unreflective statements.
I can prove that, if christianity is true, I’m God
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/curry-paradox/
I feel he is only making the point that ‘it is of no importance/cannot be is moderately important’ with regard to salvation & afterlife.
I don’t think he is making any other point
Actually, religion is very important if you want to groups people with a common goal and control them. I have seen many religious people that are clearly knowledgeable of that this religion is not that true but somehow they keep on insisting that it is true. It puzzeled me a long time only to realize that these people are actually Atheist but they pretend to be very religious since they have lost of power and control over those believers.
Also look at some discussions about evolution and darwin. Some of these religious people actually have brains and know a lot about evolution. enough to start realizing that evolution must be true, but still they keep on dismissing it. Have you ever wondered how a person that knows somuch about evolution keeps pretending that it is wrong? It is simple, it is all about the power. These people get praised more about these believers since they are fighting those stupid darwinists. Little do these believers realize that it is a setup to gain more power in the religious community.
Religion is a power struggle, with people that have no believe but pretend that they do so they get more control over believers, and those mindless believers genetically programmed to follow the bigges fraud that they can find.
Yup. “true by the common, false by the wise, useful by the rulers” …
C.S. Lewis sure loved the fallacy of the false dilemma, didn’t he?
I love this blog :D
The bible and friends are as useful as any persistent literary work. Religion is (or should be) interesting in a historical context, and thats about it.