Article 9 of 89

Subject:      Re: Difficulties with "Miracles" - no quantum mechanics
From:         Sam Dodsworth <sam@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Date:         1997/02/18
Message-Id:   <DhJ2UIAZJdCzEwWZ@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Distribution: world
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk
References:   <GbcXKBAxOn9yEwpf@aristos.demon.co.uk>
Organization: Annexia Free Press
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:   alt.books.cs-Lewis



In article <3307BA5C.3C00@dragontree.com>, mary@dragontree.com writes
>
>> 
>> Sam: 
>> > He's jumped from
>> >"some things are basic and original"
>
>Seems to me the series starts sooner. He's jumped from "some things aren't 
>subject to 
>Determinism" to "some things are basic and original."
>
        I think he might cover that jump implicitly. If knowledge is the
result of cause-and-effect chains then we can only have knowledge of
non-deterministic things that start such a chain - making them "basic
and original". 
>
>> > to "there is one basic thing" to
>> >"that basic thing is what we call God", and he's (explicitly or
>> >implicitly) adding attributes at each step without even admiting what
>> >he's doing. 
>
>I agree. This is important.
>
        It's also a common enough error among theists that it's
discussed in the alt.atheism FAQ. If you're passionately committed to
one particular view of God then it's easy to jump to conclusions without
meaning to: making my remarks, with hindsight, a little hard on Lewis.  

[Snip]

>   Still, I doubt that Plato would cut off the Ladder right above our
>own heads. He might say many of the gods were a long ways from the Form 
>of the Good. But why would that stop them from dealing with us in 
>matters of healings, visions, muse-singings, and whatever it was his 
>own daimon did? (Since L cited us as 'Supernatural entities'.)
>
        I think it was Socrates who had the daimon, not Plato, although
the distinction between Socrates and Plato is tricky at the best of
times :-)

        From Lewis' point of view, I think that miracles performed by
the gods in a Platonic cosmos would ultimately be caused by the Form of
the Good, inasmuch as the gods would be derived from it and not "basic
and original" in themselves. As long as there is a Ladder we need only
consider the top rung, as it were. 

>   After all, this was a book about 'miracles.' :-)
>
        Although Lewis isn't very interested in 'miracles' in the
traditional sense of water-into-wine - the whole thing is really leading
up to his explanation of the Incarnation and the relationship between
God and humanity.

[Snip]
>
>   Lewis' main point in the first section of /Miracles/ is to call us 
>as Exhibit A of 'Supernatural entities.' Lewis' /Miracles/ makes a 
>striaght jump from us to some One Basic Thing, and then jumps back down 
>straight from there to Jehovah, thus reinforcing the impression of only
>two alternatives.

        Well put. 

>   Which can result in a lot of people driving back to Lourdes to 
>reclaim their crutches the morning after.
>
        Which reminds me of a question from the medical advice page of
an underground newspaper back in the '60s:

Q: I used to suffer from allergies and a skin condition. I took LSD for 
   the first time two weeks ago and since then I haven't suffered from 
   either. My friends think I'm crazy, but it really did happen. What 
   should I do?

A: Whatever the reason, your headaches are gone and your skin's cleared 
   up. Stay where you are.

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