Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Baloo · 02-19-2003, 03:32 PM

A good friend of mine was recently taken in by the following Lewis quote:

Quote:

'If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts � i.e. of Materialism and astronomy � are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.'

I wrote my own personal critique of the quote, which I will also include, but was wondering if anyone else had any input...

My critique:

Quote:

Lewis' argument is a non sequitor.

Lewis sees no reason to believe that one accident should be able to give him a correct account of all the other accidents.

I see no reason to DOUBT that one accident should be able to give Lewis a correct account of all the other accidents. Nor does Lewis give such a reason - that's the non sequitor.

Now read my statement if I add the following clarifying [bracketed] text:

"Lewis sees no reason to believe that one accident [which caused trillions of additional accidents over billions of years including one or more which led to the formation of a self-replicating cluster of chemicals which after several billion additional years - and in complete accordance with the laws of physics - evolved into the self-replicating set of chemicals constituting the human body, which has come to dominate most other self-replicating groups of chemicals largely due an innate ability to discern beliefs about the universe that are true from those that are not] should be able to give Lewis a correct account of all the other accidents."

Further, in making his rather weak statement, Lewis tries to "strenghten" his non-argument by amateurish word-play; namely, equivocating his usage of the term "accident" with a more common usage normally associated with things "unimpressive", "simple", and "unwanted"... In fact, I feel his use of the word "by-products" shows his hand through and through. Between the lines, he is making an argument that materialists' beliefs are the result of simple, unimpressive events, thus they are themselves simple and unimpressive, thus they ought not be believed. So weak is this argument that it is quite clear why Lewis chose to make it as subtly as possible.

I'll only mention in passing that Lewis' argument is laughable in a different light. Paraphrased, he has said "Assuming Materialists are right in their beliefs, he sees *no* reason to believe they are right". Apparently he doesn't feel that a belief actually BEING true is a sufficient reason to believe it is true. Let me put it in this light:

If 2+2 equaled 5, there would be no reason to believe that 2+2=5

(contrast with)

If 2+2 equaled 5, there would be one very good reason to believe that 2+2=5 (namely, the fact that 2+2=5).

02-19-2003, 03:49 PM

To state the obvious, everyone is familiar with the use of the word 'accident' in everyday life, e.g., when I trip and fall and sprain my ankle, that is an accident, when the brakes fail and I go through a red light and smack another car, causing injury and death, that is an accident.

But is there a special meaning for 'accident' in formal logic or in philosophy? Does it just mean 'an event happens unexpectedly, that no one had predicted could or would happen?'

If that is all 'accident' means, then what it the problem? Humans don't know everything - that's a given.

Or is the 'accident' argument just a restating of the design argument or, perhaps, the first cause argument?

If so, then who designed or created god? Is god's existence an accident? If a 'brute fact' is not an 'accident', then what is it?
If not, then the brute fact of the existence of the universe is not an accident so, metaphysically speaking, what's the alleged problem that Lewis is addressing?

I see no persuasive argument of any kind here. Is there something I am missing that a professional philosopher can 'splain to me?

Silent Acorns · 02-19-2003, 04:39 PM

I would reply by saying that we are all the result of an "accidental" collision between my father's sperm and my mother's egg. Using Lewis' "logic", one must conclude that even our lives are nothing but random accidents since each of us is was created by a random accident.

Despite what Lewis says, a large amount of chaos can produce a small amount or order.

sandlewood · 02-19-2003, 05:12 PM

I am an accident. My parents did not intend to get pregnant. Therefore, nothing I say can be taken as the truth.

PandaJoe · 02-19-2003, 05:28 PM

Well, it's better than his "Atheism is too simple, therefore it is wrong" argument in Mere Christianity.

rainbow walking · 02-19-2003, 06:35 PM

Let me be sure I've got this right. Silent Acorn says:

we are all the result of an "accidental" collision between my father's sperm and my mother's egg.

rw: Did I miss something here...

And then sandlewood says:

My parents did not intend to get pregnant

rw: So which one of them got pregnant?

Sorry guys, I just couldn't resist

Baloo · 02-19-2003, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
I would reply by saying that we are all the result of an "accidental" collision between my father's sperm and my mother's egg. Using Lewis' "logic", one must conclude that even our lives are nothing but random accidents since each of us is was created by a random accident.

Despite what Lewis says, a large amount of chaos can produce a small amount or order.

hmm... captures it quite nicely - thanks!

errm, but maybe phrased slightly differently (see rw's post)

Fiach · 02-19-2003, 06:54 PM

Accident is simply as Robert Ingersoll suggested, just an event for which we have no explanation yet. Lewis' screwball ideas are deceiving because they seem well written. Irrational bollocks can be made palatable to the gullible by good writing style.

Many say that the universe came to be by accident. That is some unexpected event, mistake, or whatever. I don't think anything happens by accident. A person falls because of inattentiveness, an unseen cause such as a wrinkle in the carpet, or a projection of the table that one fails to notice. All of it can be explained if closely investigated and it is not an accident. It is the result of a series of definite causes.

We don't know the exact trigger of the Big Bang. That doesn't mean that there isn't one. It is just that we may never know it. There is no reason to hypothesise conscious being as the cause. It may be the nature of the cosmos that particles pop out of the fabric of vacuum all of the time, and occasionally in true vacuums a vortex of particles explodes into a universe. It may be the natural property of the universe that it forms in a big bang from another dimension, or from the poorly understood vacuum itself.

If something else triggered the Big Bang, that something may be inanimate, non-conscious, and non-cognitive or it is conscious and intelligent. We must answer two questions.

1. Does the trigger of the universe need conscious awareness or just the property of farting out universes? Mindless wind and temperature fluxes can create tornados. Does anyone seriously believe that the wind is consciously making the tornado? Consciousness is not shown to be necessary.

2. What is consciousness and cognition? All of the conscious awareness and intelligence we know for sure is that of animals. Why do animals and only animals have intelligence? Consciousness and cognition evolved in animals and only animals for three basic mechanisms. (A) To find food for survival, (B) To find a reproductive mate to perpetuate the species because we die someday, (C) To avoid predators so that they can survive. In other words conscious awareness and cognition are evolution adapted survival traits of animals.

Accident is the cop out for "I don't know".

Fiach

Silent Acorns · 02-20-2003, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking
Let me be sure I've got this right. Silent Acorn says:

we are all the result of an "accidental" collision between my father's sperm and my mother's egg.

rw: Did I miss something here...

OK, by "my father ... and my mother" I meant our original father and mother, Adam and Eve ... yeah ... that's it ... Adam and Eve ... it all makes sense now ... yes! ... THAT was what I meant ... honestly ...

Biff the unclean · 02-20-2003, 12:11 PM

Am I missing something? I've tried to read Lewis' religious books and I've tried to read his Narnia books to my kids. He is a dreadful writer. His style is unreadable, his plots plodding and his logic non-existent. Why does his name keep coming up?

02-19-2003, 06:54 PM	#8
Fiach Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 602	Accidental word game Accident is simply as Robert Ingersoll suggested, just an event for which we have no explanation yet. Lewis' screwball ideas are deceiving because they seem well written. Irrational bollocks can be made palatable to the gullible by good writing style. Many say that the universe came to be by accident. That is some unexpected event, mistake, or whatever. I don't think anything happens by accident. A person falls because of inattentiveness, an unseen cause such as a wrinkle in the carpet, or a projection of the table that one fails to notice. All of it can be explained if closely investigated and it is not an accident. It is the result of a series of definite causes. We don't know the exact trigger of the Big Bang. That doesn't mean that there isn't one. It is just that we may never know it. There is no reason to hypothesise conscious being as the cause. It may be the nature of the cosmos that particles pop out of the fabric of vacuum all of the time, and occasionally in true vacuums a vortex of particles explodes into a universe. It may be the natural property of the universe that it forms in a big bang from another dimension, or from the poorly understood vacuum itself. If something else triggered the Big Bang, that something may be inanimate, non-conscious, and non-cognitive or it is conscious and intelligent. We must answer two questions. 1. Does the trigger of the universe need conscious awareness or just the property of farting out universes? Mindless wind and temperature fluxes can create tornados. Does anyone seriously believe that the wind is consciously making the tornado? Consciousness is not shown to be necessary. 2. What is consciousness and cognition? All of the conscious awareness and intelligence we know for sure is that of animals. Why do animals and only animals have intelligence? Consciousness and cognition evolved in animals and only animals for three basic mechanisms. (A) To find food for survival, (B) To find a reproductive mate to perpetuate the species because we die someday, (C) To avoid predators so that they can survive. In other words conscious awareness and cognition are evolution adapted survival traits of animals. Accident is the cop out for "I don't know". Fiach

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-19-2003, 03:49 PM	#2
Robert G. Ingersoll Guest Posts: n/a	To state the obvious, everyone is familiar with the use of the word 'accident' in everyday life, e.g., when I trip and fall and sprain my ankle, that is an accident, when the brakes fail and I go through a red light and smack another car, causing injury and death, that is an accident. But is there a special meaning for 'accident' in formal logic or in philosophy? Does it just mean 'an event happens unexpectedly, that no one had predicted could or would happen?' If that is all 'accident' means, then what it the problem? Humans don't know everything - that's a given. Or is the 'accident' argument just a restating of the design argument or, perhaps, the first cause argument? If so, then who designed or created god? Is god's existence an accident? If a 'brute fact' is not an 'accident', then what is it? If not, then the brute fact of the existence of the universe is not an accident so, metaphysically speaking, what's the alleged problem that Lewis is addressing? I see no persuasive argument of any kind here. Is there something I am missing that a professional philosopher can 'splain to me?

02-19-2003, 04:39 PM	#3
Silent Acorns Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: SW 31 52 24W4 Posts: 1,508	I would reply by saying that we are all the result of an "accidental" collision between my father's sperm and my mother's egg. Using Lewis' "logic", one must conclude that even our lives are nothing but random accidents since each of us is was created by a random accident. Despite what Lewis says, a large amount of chaos can produce a small amount or order.

02-19-2003, 05:12 PM	#4
sandlewood Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Jose, CA, USA Posts: 264	I am an accident. My parents did not intend to get pregnant. Therefore, nothing I say can be taken as the truth.

02-19-2003, 05:28 PM	#5
PandaJoe Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Bloomington, Indiana Posts: 188	Well, it's better than his "Atheism is too simple, therefore it is wrong" argument in Mere Christianity.

02-19-2003, 06:35 PM	#6
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	Let me be sure I've got this right. Silent Acorn says: we are all the result of an "accidental" collision between my father's sperm and my mother's egg. rw: Did I miss something here... And then sandlewood says: My parents did not intend to get pregnant rw: So which one of them got pregnant? Sorry guys, I just couldn't resist

02-20-2003, 12:11 PM	#10
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Am I missing something? I've tried to read Lewis' religious books and I've tried to read his Narnia books to my kids. He is a dreadful writer. His style is unreadable, his plots plodding and his logic non-existent. Why does his name keep coming up?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.