You’re looking at the Lewis quote from the wrong angle entirely.
The meaning of what Lewis said is that honest men will always be driven by their honesty to want to believe what’s true, whether or not they immediately know the truth of it. In fact, sometimes honest men will not be aware that they have failed to believe truth. But their desire to believe truth will drive them to seek to know it.
Lewis did not mean that a man’s honesty can be used as an automatic truth detector.
You know, the thing about a dishonest man is that he always has to go around pretending to be honest. It’s never the other way around.
This goes all the way back to the one whom Alinsky called the original rebel. He’s a liar, but he can’t go around broadcasting that fact. He is forced to pretend to be honest. Alinsky had the same fate. But the honest man never has to go around pretending to be dishonest. Funny how it works, isn’t it?
You quote C. S. Lewis as saying “If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be; if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all.”
The question is how would they know it is not true in order to not believe it? Or, conversely, how would they know it is true in order to believe it? People believe or disbelieve without knowing everything there is to know. They hope! That's what faith is. But some things are more likely than other things...and that's where intellectual honesty tips the scale. Some people trusttheir fantasy, others trust what they know.
You know, the thing about a dishonest man is that he always has to go around pretending to be honest. It’s never the other way around
People have a way of convincing themselves that what they believe is true. They almost "need" to claim the "truth." For example, when someone reads the Bible and finds something utterly wrong, they dismiss it in order not to destroys their preconceived notion of inerrant scriptures. How intellectually honest is that?
Or, they see that bible prophesies have not fulfilled yet, and those that supposedly fulfilled really didn't yet they still insist the prophesies somehow prove their faith to be "true"!
Or, you have Paul says that all writings (scriptures) are "God-breathed" (i.e. inspired) and yet he offers no proof whatsoever, for such a statement. Yet, every Christian I know believes it as a matter of "fact", which they then use to justify their beliefs. How intellectually honest is it to accept one man's opinion or unsubstantiated statement as "truth"?
It makes me think of Jim Jones and the naive, if not outright brainwashed followers of his, drinking Kool Aid and dying en masse because they "knew" the "truth."
But the honest man never has to go around pretending to be dishonest. Funny how it works, isn’t it?
Show me one person who has never been dishonest. Funny how that works, isn't it?