Freethought & Rationalism Archive

philechat · 02-20-2003, 03:02 PM

According to himself, he was an atheist converted to Christianity. He argued for Christianity in a pseudo-philosophical, not-too-technical way which could trick non-philosophers into accepting his argument. Well...

Often Christian conversion and decline in creativity went hand-in-hand though. Look at Wordsworth and T.S. Eliot.

Gunnaheave · 02-20-2003, 05:29 PM

Ah St. Lewis, I must admit that I have never seen the attraction. As to this one, a single word answer should be sufficient: EQUIVOCATION.

�'nuff said.

diana · 02-20-2003, 08:16 PM

Quote:

My parents did not intend to get pregnant

rw: So which one of them got pregnant?

I always have the same automatic reaction to comments like that, rainbow walking. My response is usually a surprised, "Both of you are preggers? Get out!"

I know it takes two, but...to put the man's 2 minutes of effort on equal footing with the woman's nine months of bloated, cramping, morning sickness crankiness is equivocation of the worst sort.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled rending asunder of Lewis.

d

Steven Carr · 02-21-2003, 06:14 AM

Of course, Lewis thinks we can trust our thoughts only if there really are demons which are capable of deceiving us, and an omnipotent being which can alter our thoughts, remove evidence at will and change the laws of physics at will.

Christians have no right to say that the world runs by magic and that the world is also rational and ordered.

Baloo · 02-21-2003, 07:06 AM

Yeah, I think my friend - a recently deconverted Christian who now identifies as an "evangelical agnostic" - is suffering from RWTS*, making Lewis-tripe and other non-impressive theological arguments seem deeper than they actually are.

RWTS* = Removed Wisdom Tooth Syndrome: The wisdom tooth is an anachronism to modern man, and in many cases must be removed. In the period shortly after this operation, the person who has lost the tooth is acutely aware of an unusualy "void" where the tooth used to be. Further, until mouth has healed, all sorts of contaminents can fill vulnerable gum from which the tooth was removed. In terms of deconversion, replace wisdom tooth with religion.

bd-from-kg · 02-21-2003, 08:24 AM

Baloo:

Lewis gives a much better exposition of this argument in his book Miracles:

Quote:

Consider the following sentences. (1) �He thinks that dog dangerous because he has often seen it muzzled and he has noticed that messengers always try to avoid going to that house.� (2) �He thinks that dog dangerous because it is black and ever since he was bitten by a black dog in childhood he has always been afraid of black dogs.�

Both sentences explain why the man thinks as he does. But the one explanation substantiates the value of his thought, the other wholly discredits it. Why is it that to discover the cause of a thought sometimes damages its credit and sometimes reinforces it? Because the one cause is a good cause and the other a bad cause? But the man�s complex about black dogs is not a bad cause in the sense of being a weak or inefficient one. If the man is in a sufficiently pathological condition, it may be quite irresistible and, in that sense, as good a cause for his belief as the Earth�s revolution is for day and night. The real difference is that in the first instance the man�s belief is caused by something rational (by argument from observed facts) while in the other it is caused by something irrational (association of ideas).

We may in fact state it as a rule that no thought is valid if it can be fully explained as the result of irrational causes. Every reader of this book applies this rule automatically all day long. When a sober man tells you that the house is full of rats or snakes, you attend to him; if you know that his belief in the rats and snakes is due to delirium tremens you do not even bother to look for them. If you even suspect an irrational cause, you begin to pay less attention to a man�s beliefs: your friend�s pessimism about the European situation alarms you less when you discover that he is suffering from a bad liver attack... The whole disruptive power of Marxism and Freudianism against traditional beliefs has lain in their claim to expose irrational causes for them. If any Marxist is reading these lines at this moment he is murmuring to himself, �All this argument really results from the fact that the author is a bourgeois.� Because he thinks that my thoughts result from an irrational cause he therefore discounts them. All thoughts which are so caused are valueless. We never, in our ordinary thinking, admit any exceptions to this rule.

Now it would clearly be preposterous to apply this rule to each particular thought as we come to it and yet not apply it to all thoughts taken collectively, that is, to human reason as a whole. Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proof. Which is nonsense.

But Naturalism, as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort. The mind, like every other particular thing or event, is supposed to be simply the product of the Total System... And the Total System is not supposed to be rational. All thoughts whatever are therefore the results of irrational causes, and nothing more than that. The finest piece of scientific reasoning is caused in just the same irrational way as the thoughts a man has because a bit of bone is pressing on his brain. If we continue to apply our Rule, both are equally valueless.

A little later Lewis replies to the obvious answer as follows:

Quote:

An attempt to get out of the difficulty might be made along the following lines. Even if thoughts are produced by irrational causes, still it might happen by mere accident that some of them were true � just as the black dog might, after all, have been really dangerous though the man�s reason for thinking it so was worthless. Now individuals whose thoughts happened, in this accidental way, to be truer than other people�s would have an advantage in the struggle for existence. And if habits of thought can be inherited, natural selection would gradually eliminate or weed out the people who have the less useful types of thought. It might therefore have come about by now that the present type of human mind � the sort of thought that has survived � was tolerably reliable.

But it won�t do. In the first place, the argument works only if there are such things as heredity, the struggle for existence, and elimination. But we know about these things � certainly about their existence in the past � only by inference. Unless, therefore, you start by assuming inference to be valid, you cannot know about them. You have to assume that inference is valid before you can even begin your arguments for its validity. And a proof which sets out by assuming the thing you have to prove, is rubbish. But waive that point. Let heredity and the rest be granted. Even then you cannot show that our processes of thought yield truth unless you are allowed to argue �Because a thought is useful, therefore it must be (at least partly) true.� But this is itself an inference. If you trust it, you are once more assuming that very validity which you set out to prove.

In recent years Alvin Plantinga has expanded on the last point by arguing at length that there are good reasons to doubt that �Because a thought is useful, therefore it must be (at least partly) true.�

Quote:

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".

There�s nothing in the least paradoxical about this. Here�s a good illustration. Suppose that the following message appears on your computer screen: �This computer has experienced a malfunction. It is now displaying messages completely at random.� If we assume that this message is true we must conclude that there is no good reason to believe that it�s true � in other words that we were not justified in assuming that it�s true.

Quote:

Apparently he doesn't feel that a belief actually BEING true is a sufficient reason to believe it is true. If 2+2 equaled 5, there would be one very good reason to believe that 2+2=5.

Let�s try this on a statement about the real world. For example: �If Smith murdered Jones, this would be a very good reason to believe that Smith murdered Jones.� I hope that it�s obvious that this is nonsense. The mere fact that Smith murdered Jones isn�t a reason to believe that Smith murdered Jones at all � not even a weak reason. The only thing that would be a (rational) reason for believing that Smith murdered Jones would be evidence that he did.

I think that Lewis�s argument is ultimately invalid, but it cannot be dismissed as �laughable�. It�s a serious argument, taken seriously today by some very bright philosophers. The issues here are a little deeper than you imagine.

Biff the unclean · 02-21-2003, 09:36 AM

I think that Lewis�s argument is ultimately invalid, but it cannot be dismissed as "laughable".

I don't know, I got a pretty good chuckle. I thought that We may in fact state it as a rule that no thought is valid if it can be fully explained as the result of irrational causes was funny considering that the rational causes he is championing are magical.

More laughs were found at Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proof. Which is nonsense. where he demonstrates an unbelievable amount of ignorance of the science of the 100 years preceding his statement.

But the real side splitter is In the first place, the argument works only if there are such things as heredity, the struggle for existence, and elimination. But we know about these things � certainly about their existence in the past � only by inference. Here he summarily writes off everything one can learn through inference; insisting only on direct observation; while arguing in favor of a completely non-observable God.

For someone who claims to have once been an Atheist he demonstrates an inordinate amount of credulity. If I were allowed to make inferences I would infer that he had told a big fat fib about that as a form of self promotion.

The issues here are shallower than you suppose. It reminds me of Acts 20:9 where Paul's sermon is so long and so boring that Eutychus falls out a third story window. You mustn't confuse the tedious use of language with scholarly argument.

Steven Carr · 02-21-2003, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bd-from-kg
Baloo:

Lewis gives a much better exposition of this argument in his book Miracles:

the Total System is not supposed to be rational. All thoughts whatever are therefore the results of irrational causes, and nothing more than that. The finest piece of scientific reasoning is caused in just the same irrational way as the thoughts a man has because a bit of bone is pressing on his brain.

This is garbage! Utter crap.

Is Lewis saying that scientific reasoning is the product of one person?

Newton said he had been standing on the shoulders of giants.

So Lewis's analogy of scientific thought being like the thoughts of one person is rubbish.

And who says the Total System is not supposed to be rational?

This is a completely unsupported assertion. There are rational beings in the Total System. This is a fact, no matter how much Lewis tries to deny facts.

Presumably, the Total System is not supposed to be green as well. Therefore, according to Lewis's logic, grass is not green.

After all, Lewis says that as the Total System is not supposed to be rational, thoughts can not be rational.

Therefore, as the Total System is not supposed to be green, grass can not be green. Such is the absurdit of Lewis's logic.

Llyricist · 02-21-2003, 10:15 AM

Quote:

You mustn't confuse the tedious use of language with scholarly argument.

Amen !!

Quote:

But waive that point. Let heredity and the rest be granted. Even then you cannot show that our processes of thought yield truth unless you are allowed to argue �Because a thought is useful, therefore it must be (at least partly) true.� But this is itself an inference. If you trust it, you are once more assuming that very validity which you set out to prove.

This is why I never persued philosophy too deeply, lines of argument like this eventually argue everything out of existence, which isn't very helpful/useful/gratifying, or even particularly interesting.

Baloo · 02-21-2003, 10:59 AM

Lewis:

Quote:

The real difference is that in the first instance the man�s belief is caused by something rational (by argument from observed facts) while in the other it is caused by something irrational (association of ideas). We may in fact state it as a rule that no thought is valid if it can be fully explained as the result of irrational causes.

Can you write a definition of "irrational" that fits the way Lewis uses the word above? Because, from the way I read it, one usage refers to a person having a belief hinged upon a clear logic fallacy (google: post hoc fallacy), the other refers to an event with no teological intent. However, he is clearly using the first to support the second! Eliminating the equivocation renders Lewis' Rule to: "no thought is valid if it can be fully explained as the result of logical fallacies." Ooh, this is fun. Let me translate some more of his tripe:

Deep, insightful Lewis:

Quote:

Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational causes. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proof. Which is nonsense.

Without equivocation:

Quote:

Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of logical fallacies. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of logical fallacies. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind a result of logical fallacies is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proof. Which is nonsense.

Preach it brother Lewis! So much for all of those theories of origins based on ad hominems and red herrings.

And wow, I really thought the whole "Lewis is an idiot, Lewis believes God made the universe, therefore God didn't make the universe" argument really had something going for it...

My rebuttal aside, why should I take Lewis seriously when he plays amateurish word games like this?

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

02-20-2003, 03:02 PM	#11
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	According to himself, he was an atheist converted to Christianity. He argued for Christianity in a pseudo-philosophical, not-too-technical way which could trick non-philosophers into accepting his argument. Well... Often Christian conversion and decline in creativity went hand-in-hand though. Look at Wordsworth and T.S. Eliot.

02-20-2003, 05:29 PM	#12
Gunnaheave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: AZ Posts: 3,250	Ah St. Lewis, I must admit that I have never seen the attraction. As to this one, a single word answer should be sufficient: EQUIVOCATION. �'nuff said.

02-21-2003, 06:14 AM	#14
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Of course, Lewis thinks we can trust our thoughts only if there really are demons which are capable of deceiving us, and an omnipotent being which can alter our thoughts, remove evidence at will and change the laws of physics at will. Christians have no right to say that the world runs by magic and that the world is also rational and ordered.

02-21-2003, 07:06 AM	#15
Baloo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 417	Yeah, I think my friend - a recently deconverted Christian who now identifies as an "evangelical agnostic" - is suffering from RWTS, making Lewis-tripe and other non-impressive theological arguments seem deeper than they actually are. RWTS = Removed Wisdom Tooth Syndrome: The wisdom tooth is an anachronism to modern man, and in many cases must be removed. In the period shortly after this operation, the person who has lost the tooth is acutely aware of an unusualy "void" where the tooth used to be. Further, until mouth has healed, all sorts of contaminents can fill vulnerable gum from which the tooth was removed. In terms of deconversion, replace wisdom tooth with religion.

02-21-2003, 09:36 AM	#17
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	I think that Lewis�s argument is ultimately invalid, but it cannot be dismissed as "laughable". I don't know, I got a pretty good chuckle. I thought that We may in fact state it as a rule that no thought is valid if it can be fully explained as the result of irrational causes was funny considering that the rational causes he is championing are magical. More laughs were found at Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind a result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that there are no such things as proof. Which is nonsense. where he demonstrates an unbelievable amount of ignorance of the science of the 100 years preceding his statement. But the real side splitter is In the first place, the argument works only if there are such things as heredity, the struggle for existence, and elimination. But we know about these things � certainly about their existence in the past � only by inference. Here he summarily writes off everything one can learn through inference; insisting only on direct observation; while arguing in favor of a completely non-observable God. For someone who claims to have once been an Atheist he demonstrates an inordinate amount of credulity. If I were allowed to make inferences I would infer that he had told a big fat fib about that as a form of self promotion. The issues here are shallower than you suppose. It reminds me of Acts 20:9 where Paul's sermon is so long and so boring that Eutychus falls out a third story window. You mustn't confuse the tedious use of language with scholarly argument.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.