I´m not atheist.
Even so I don´t have the need nor feel tempted at all to find pseudo scientific / "rational"-like arguments to support my faith.
All of those approaches are something between weak ones (better case) to have lack of intellectual honesty.
Within said extremes they are populated by fallacies and "poetic" analogies.
In the posted quote we may find:
- Equating intrinsic causality without a priory agency with absence of "meaning". That entails a specific definition of "meaning" that is far to be a necessary one.
It´s like equating non guided laws of nature with randomness and causation with supernatural purpose. Merely speculative if not just ignorance,
- Another one is a garden varity of the more elaborated but no less circular "fine tunning" stuff.
The "if ...we should never" is dressed as a counterfactual. And counterfactuals are only conjectural objections to some explanation (that may be as badly formulated as creationist use of probabilities) but are not a foundation for any other particular explanation.
A "logical need" is not factual evidence.
- The third one is in the analogy.
I wouln´t ask C. S. Lewis to have even a moderate knowledge of Theory of Information (and the proposed metaphor falls in that domain).
But specifying certain unmet conditions to be able to "kow" can´t prove that whatever is not known is evident.
Moreover, things don´t need to be known / perceived to become / be like they are.
-
