ddb@mrvax.DEC (DAVID DYER-BENNET MRO1-2/L14 DTN 231-4076) (12/10/84)
I read the Lewis quote which started this as attacking the basic philosophical underpinnings of Naturalism. Lewis seems to be looking for a level of philosophical "knowledge" or "certainty" not generally used today except in formal philosophy or religion (perhaps it was the same in Lewis's time). Despite his response to my earlier posting, I see Rich's arguments for rational thought as empirical arguments, not philosophical arguments at all. They do not seem to me to address the basic argument Lewis makes; it's something like "There is no reason to trust rational thought, because it's all a result of chemical processes" "But it reliably produces good results" "How do you know they are reliable? Why do you suspect they will continue to be reliable?" The arguments seem to be on two different levels. With that out of the way, I want to emphasize that, as far as I can tell, I'm basically on the same side as Rich in all this. Lewis's deep philosophical point seems just as telling against any other human endeavor (like religion) as against rational thought; it isn't important in the context of the Miracles argument, as far as I can see. Personally, I've set aside as unresolvable (I have NOT abandoned) my search for ultimate truth, and am looking for a good working model. Rich's company seems to make a good one :-) -- David Dyer-Bennet -- ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb