Yes, they are assuming that it is a dogma, much like the dogmas they adhere to.
I'm not so sure about that. I've met certain Christian apologists (whose names shall remain "anonymous") who present amiably and pretend to be interested in philosophical discourse, but who later reveal that they are closed-minded. They aren't hostile though.
Not sure how combativeness necessarily follows to close mindedness. Refusal to engage could just easily entail the same pattern of resistance to change
Or that everyone who is combative is closed-minded, for as I said before, people can be combative for reasons wholly apart from their openness. It's not a pathognomic sign of being closed-minded; the specificity is too low.
I often wonder about Lewis' atheism. In Mere Christianity, he states:
If Lewis expected atheism to provide an account for meaning, morality, and the motions of the planets, then he was always destined to be disappointed. As a response to a singular question (the existence of deities), atheism isn't equipped to provide any of that; it isn't a "worldview" on meaning, morality, or anything else. Consequently, Lewis was only half-right. Atheism is simple, but not "too simple."C.S. Lewis said:
Person x is combative. Why? Potential explanations: (1) Closed-mindedness, (2) Previous bad experience in dialogue with atheists, (3) Trolling, (4) ... and so on. Note that these explanations aren't mutually exclusive, but that (1) is not the only explanation possible for combative behaviour. In fact, in my experience on here, it is most often (2) or (3).
C.S. Lewis said:
Yet the very claim of meaninglessness assumes a standard of meaning that is failing to be met, and therefore at least within the standard there exists meaning. If it were truly meaningless then meaninglessness could not be deciphered, as Lewis so eloquently points out.
In other words, the moral argument, more or less. Lewis assumes that, "on atheism," there can be no "objective moral duties." My friend (former Catholic, now Baptist) bought me a copy of Mere Christianity for my birthday two years back. I was struck by how the points Lewis raised closely paralleled the apologetic arguments I would see played out on this very forum. The only difference was that Lewis wrote well, and even though he never articulated his arguments precisely, they were nevertheless clear to the reader.
Exactly. Lewis has equated atheism with nihilism.
None of which bears any relation to atheism, which is not equivalent to nihilism, even though Lewis treats it as such.In Lewis' time this was easier to see, for Feuerbach and Sartre make Dawkins and Hitchens look like children.
Perhaps I'm trying to examine it too scientifically. If someone is combative, I want to know why, rather than jumping straight to (1) which, in my experience, is often only a partial explanation at best. But the metaphor is apt, so I see what you mean.
Being combative, they cannot be in a state of open-mindedness as they are unlikely to be receptive to alternative ways of thinking about the matter at hand.
Perhaps I'm trying to examine it too scientifically. If someone is combative, I want to know why, rather than jumping straight to (1) which, in my experience, is often only a partial explanation at best. But the metaphor is apt, so I see what you mean.
That's assuming that the atheist can only be a moral realist if he is a theist or, in other words, that atheism somehow precludes moral realism.
You mean once you assume that everything must be imbued with theological significance or else it has no significance at all. Lewis apparently held this notion.
I think you're describing what might best be characterised as anti-theism.
So today, I look back and always reevaluate. Sometimes I think I might have some evidence in that mess somewhere.
An atheist is a member of that subset of the human race that claims there is no God.
