Path: ultra.sonic.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!news.walltech.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!205.252.116.190!feed1.news.erols.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!aristos.demon.co.uk!aristos.demon.co.uk!sam From: Sam Dodsworth Newsgroups: alt.books.cs-lewis Subject: Re: Difficulties with "Miracles" - no quantum mechanics Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 14:11:45 +0000 Organization: Annexia Free Press Distribution: world Message-ID: <6OaIvAAhyy$yEwvI@aristos.demon.co.uk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.01 <7c0azr3XvpMr4dZzpifF$I+pPf> Lines: 58 In article , Roger Denholm writes > >Dr Roger Penrose spends much time on the concepts of knowing >in The Emperors new Mind and amplifies this in Shadows of the Mind. >I believe most scientists, as materialists, are religious in the sense >that the first cause _is_not_ known by a scientific method. How many >universes have been created and studied in a lab ? Zilch last I heard. >Read Hawking or any of the rest of the popular cosmologists. >They have a quantum fluctuation in >absolute NULL. They assume the quantum foam is suddenly there for the >universe to form in some odd quantum fluctuation. This is scientific ? Yes, it's scientific. Science is not Naturalism, as I've tried to show in my original post and elsewhere in this thread. [snip] > Lewis would be correct in >asserting that Accepting a self existing object as a god is the >supernaturalistic position for a non philosopher. He was writing for the >common man, tho, not the philospher. I suspect this is the root cause of >your difficulties. He was not addressing you, but the fishmonger or >whatever. > But his arguments don't work, and his conclusions are therefore not true. Are you saying that it's alright to teach falsehoods as long as your audience isn't equipped to notice? [snip] >> This is an example of what Richard Dawkins has called the >> "Argument From Personal Incredulity", and all that's needed to refute it >> is one example, however improbable, of a way in which this >> because in this case I believe that Lewis was right. Reasoning is not >> simply developed from reflexes: it requires memory, imagination and >> (arguably) language as well, and we have possible (and sometimes even >> plausible) explanations for how all these could evolve. Note, though, > >I think Lewis has no argument here at all. If Dawkins is right, there >is no God and we have the problem of deriving whatever comfort we can from >BF Skinner in the way truth is understood. ie not much. If the first man >was made with language, then Lewis has wasted a chapter and >Dawkins and Co are wrong. How understanding is implemented is another >thing entirely. See TENM again > You've missed the point. I was referring to Dawkins' defense of neo-Darwinism, not his ill-judged polemics against religion. I'm criticising Lewis' assertions about what could or could not have arisen through natural selection. Unless I should read you as believing that evolution through natural selection automatically implies atheism. In that case...er...you're wrong. Sam Dodsworth (sam@aristos.demon.co.uk) "I think there should be more sex and violence on television, not less. Both are powerful catalysts of social change, at a time when change is desperately needed." -J.G. Ballard