Path: ultra.sonic.net!miwok!news1.best.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!pumpkin.pangea.ca!news.mira.net.au!news.netspace.net.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!cheese.pcug.org.au!supreme!denrog From: Roger Denholm Newsgroups: alt.books.cs-lewis Subject: Re: Difficulties with "Miracles" - no quantum mechanics Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 22:14:58 +1100 Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 107 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: cheese.pcug.org.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: denrog@supreme In-Reply-To: On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Sam Dodsworth wrote: > Subject: Difficulties with "Miracles" - no quantum mechanics > > When I started the "Limitations of Lewis' Apologetics" thread I > said that I often found Lewis' arguments faulty but, rather unfairly, > > From chapter two: > > "What the Naturalist believes is that the ultimate Fact, the > thing you can't go behind, is a vast process in space and time > which is going on of its own accord. Inside that total system > > "[The Supenaturalist] thinks that things fall into two classes. > in the first class we find either things or (more probably) One > Thing which is basic and original, which exists on its own. In > the second we find things which are merely derivative from that > One Thing. The one basic Thing has caused all the other things > to be. It exists on its own; they exist because it exists." > > "Everyone will have seen that the One Self-existent Thing - or > the small class of self-existent things - in which Super- > naturalists believe, is what we call God or the gods." > > There are two difficulties here: the definition of Naturalism > and the jump from Supernaturalism to Theism. To understand the first, > think of the scientific worldview. Scientists believe that the things > and events we observe are the result of physical laws, but also that the > universe is a consequence of these laws and not vice-versa. The > scientific worldview, then, is a Supernaturalist one by the terms of much snipping 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 ? I therefore agree that the modern scientific world view is Supernaturalistic, altho not theistic. It is a leap of faith Kierrkegard (spell?) would admire. 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. > The second difficulty is Lewis' assertion that "everyone will > have seen" that Supernaturalism is the same thing as Theism. Lewis makes > no attempt to demonstrate this and it is, in fact, not true. Platonism I have to agree there > > 2) "The Cardinal Difficulty Of Naturalism" > > My problem here is separating quibbles from substantial points, > since Lewis is cutting out a lot of periferal issues in an attempt to > make his arguments more accessable. Let's begin with his grounds for > believing in the significance of rational thought: > much snippage again See Penrose Shadows of the Mind. for a detailed discussion on the validity of thought. Ultimately, it seems to be an act of trust. more cutting > "Once... our thoughts were not rational. That is, all our > thoughts once were, as many of our thoughts still are, merely > subjective events, not apprehensions of objective truth. Those > which had a cause external to ourselves at all were (like our > response and stimulus is utterly different from that between > knowledge and the truth known." > > 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 Please , next time, try one thing at a time. I do not multiprocess apologetics very well. It is also hell to edit until I can find the funds for my PPP account. cheers Roger D Micro$loth ruling the worlds desktop is a good reason to terraform Mars.