Path: ultra.sonic.net!miwok!news1.best.com!news.sgi.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!howland.erols.net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!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: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 00:06:38 +0000 Organization: Annexia Free Press Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <32f8f6c3.257591582@news.interlog.com> <32fbae9b.435754645@news.interlog.com> <5di9ck$jsc@btc1.up.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.01 <7c0azr3XvpMr4dZzpifF$I+pPf> Lines: 60 In article <5di9ck$jsc@btc1.up.net>, Keith Schooley writes > >***tconstan@interlog.com (Theresa Constantine) wrote: >>2. Sometimes we could think of "something else" which Lewis may have >>thought of also, and then discarded for some reason. > >I suspect that this is quite often the reason for apparent >disingenuisness or abuse of rhetoric in Lewis's apologetics. >Lewis was writing for a mass audience, not for professional >philosophers, and so he didn't plug every gap and defend against >every possible objection. Such an approach would have merely >confused his readership by defending against objections they'd >never thought of. There's a big difference between simplification and mis- representation. There are a lot of passages in "Miracles" where a philosopher could object to Lewis' imprecision, but the cost of precision would be impenetrability - and Lews was, as you say, writing for a lay audience. However, when I talk about Lewis' use of rhetoric, I'm thinking of things like the jump from Supernaturalism to Theism that (according to Lewis) "everyone will have seen". It doesn't take a philosopher (or even an atheist) to see that there's something dodgy there. > >Another reason is probably conflict of worldview. More than the >'40s - '90s divide (various skeptical worldviews existed in >Lewis's time, too, especially among the intelligensia), conflict >of worldview occurs when people are reasoning from different >presuppositions. Such presuppositions are beyond defense (they >form the basis for defenses) and are often unexamined and >inarticulate; when someone implicitly challenges them, the >reaction is that the challenger is "obviously" wrong and could >not have been serious. In fact, the challenger is simply >reasoning from different presuppositions. You could apply this to the Supernaturalism/Theism example, but it still doesn't make Lewis look very good. I've been suggesting that he was so passionate about his beliefs that he would try to persuade where he couldn't prove, but you're saying that he was so passionate about his beliefs that he could't see the difference between proof and persuasion. > >That, I think, is the reason that when people do convert to >Christianity, Lewis (and other Christian writers and the Bible) >suddenly "makes sense." The objections that seemed so >overwhelming before now appear merely sophistic and beside the >point. It's because there's been a presuppositional change. And >that is beyond rationality, which is why no one can be argued >into saving faith (cf. Reasonable vs. True thread, and Emotional >vs. Intellectual Conversion thread). > All very possible, although one could rephrase all that in much less flattering terms. You don't deny, then, that there are holes in Lewis' arguments? 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