True, true.

The full segment, from one of, if not my, favourite book

My argument against God was that the

universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But

how had I got this idea of just and unjust?

A man does not call a line crooked unless

he has some idea of a straight line. What

was I comparing this universe with when I

called it unjust? If the whole show was

bad and senseless from A to Z, so to

speak, why did I, who was supposed to be

part of the show, find myself in such

violent reaction against it? A man feels

wet when he falls into water, because

man is not a water animal: A fish would

not feel wet. Of course I could have given

up my idea of justice by saying it was

nothing but a private idea of my own. But

if I did that, then my argument against

God collapsed too—for the argument

depended on saying that the world was

really unjust, not simply that it did not

happen to please my private fancies.

Thus in the very act of trying to prove that

God did not exist—in other words, that the

whole of reality was senseless—I found I

was forced to assume that one part of

reality—namely my idea of justice—was

full of sense. Consequently atheism turns

out to be too simple. If the whole universe

has no meaning, we should never have

found out that it has no meaning: Just as,

if there were no light in the universe and

therefore no creatures with eyes, we

should never know it was dark. Dark

would be without meaning.

Mere Christianity, II, 1