Theism Versus Atheism, Essay Example

A sharp difference exists between people who believe in the existence of God (theists) and those who do not believe that God exists (Atheists). This has led to many debates between people from the two parties. One of such debates is the famous dialog between Lewis (theist) and Russell (atheist) about the existence of God. From this dialog, the arguments for theism as presented by Lewis make more sense and are more believable than Russell’s ideas.

Atheists believe that God does not exist; hence, they also do not believe in heaven and hell. However, a logical argument can lead to the belief that the two destinations exist. Lewis tries to argue this logic in a dialog written by Kreeft; set in 1963 in which the three characters involved are C.S. Lewis who is a theist, John F. Kennedy who is a humanist and Aldous Huxley. In this dialog, the three characters seem to be somewhere between heaven and hell after death (Kreeft 15). Lewis goes on to argue with his counterpart, Huxley, who thinks that everywhere is heaven. In such a case, there are two possibilities that hell does not exist, or it is part of heaven (Kreeft 15).

According to Lewis, the only way to find out about things people cannot see is by faith (Kreeft 16). Jesus Christ taught about heaven, hell, and those who will go there. Like other Jesus’ teachings, humanists hold the belief that the discussion is poetic and should not be interpreted literally. However, the three parties agree that Jesus was a brilliant teacher, and would not use poetic examples where he thinks the audience may misinterpret them. On this basis, Lewis argues that Jesus must have intended the teaching about heaven and earth to be interpreted literally (Kreeft 18).

The other argument that comes from the dialog is the question of the badness of God. According to Kennedy, God is the worst of the kind for creating hell in order to punish people. However, according to Lewis’ belief, which makes sense, God did not create hell (Kreeft 19-20). Human beings have the will to make a choice to go to heaven or hell by accepting or rejecting Him. This portrays God’s love and justice (Kreeft 20). The dialog discussed above lays a firm ground for the belief in the existence of God, heaven and hell. Despite the disagreements between theists, humanists and pantheists regarding heaven and hell, it is clear that the three parties mutually accept the existence of God. This basis makes Lewis’ argument in his dialog with Russell (an atheist) more legitimate than anyone else does.

Wielenberg (1-243) brings Lewis, Hume, and Russell into dialog concerning their beliefs about the existence of God, the cause and reason for pain. Russell believes that if God existed and was just, He would act within a moral law, which He has not authored; an argument to which Lewis has no adequate answer (Wielenberg 65). However, Russell’s argument can be countered by the assumption that God is omnipotent, Omniscient and morally perfect. This is where the faith discussed in the previous dialog may find use. This means that due to these attributes, God wants there to be no suffering in the world. In a way, Russell is acknowledging the existence of God despite his argument that the God that exists is unjust.

The reason, which Lewis gives for the presence of suffering in the world, is to make human beings aware of their shortcomings and drive them to choose the relationship with God as the only sure way to overcome the pain (Wielenberg 29-30). There is a concern from the atheists that suffering is unevenly distributed in the world, which gives them the doubt about the existence of a just God. Lewis argues this on the basis that no one knows the heart of another person, and it is not possible for one can judge if another person is good or evil (Wielenberg 44-45). Despite Wielenberg’s concern that Lewis has no adequate answer about suffering and evil, Lewis only fails to explain the causes of suffering. This does not mean that there is adequate reason for any suffering because of Lewis’ failure to provide the explanation for the same. Therefore, this does not rule out the possibility of the existence of God. Besides, there may still be overriding reasons for believing in a Christian God than the problem of pain. It is necessary to consider the reasons that Lewis suggests for the existence of God.

Lewis argues on the competence of all human beings to realize know moral truths in detail. In order to decipher what is right or wrong, there must be a source of such knowledge. The sense of obligation to do right, and the feeling of guilt when one does something wrong must be controlled by a higher power (Wielenberg 88-89). This can give us a valid reason of believing in God who exists in Might and Power. The other reason that Lewis offers to justify the existence of a higher power is the ability to reason and know. If we know what is right or wrong, there must be an inspiration for that knowledge.

Finally, there is the sense of “Joy” in each person, which Lewis interprets as the desire to be united with God (Wielenberg 113). Because all natural desires can be satisfied, God must exist for if joy is to be satisfied (Wielenberg 109).

In conclusion, the arguments made by Russell are just aimed at disapproving the existence of a Christian God. They do not attempt to offer an alternative explanation about life. On the other hand, Lewis bases his arguments on the presence of phenomena that can only be satisfied by believing in the existence of a higher power. Although Lewis does not have the perfect explanation about some problems such as pain and suffering, it does not mean that such explanations do not exist. Therefore, it is sensible for anyone to believe that God exists just like Lewis’ confidence rather than believing that there exists no God.

Works cited

Kreeft, Peter. Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death With John F. Kennedy, C. S. Lewis & Aldous Huxley. London: InterVarsity Press, 2008. Print

Wielenberg, Erik Joseph. God and the Reach of Reason: C.S. Lewis, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Print