rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/05/84)
> I have not analyzed my glossolalia; I don't need to. I believe this > phenomenon to be a gift from God because it has been useful many times > in helping me past psychological/spiritual roadblocks I could see no > way around Look up the words "assume" and "presume", Jeff, next time you pass by a dictionary. Then call me a liar again. (Remember what you said about those "heated denials"...) > Some of the fallacies, or at least difficulties, are > well pointed out in that book that you panned -- "Miracles", by Lewis. I > venture to point out a few sentences from "Miracles", beginning with a couple > of definitions: On to C. S. Lewis' _M_i_r_a_c_l_e_s: > "Some people believe that nothing exists except Nature; I call these people > *Naturalists*. Others think that, besides Nature, there exists something > else; I call them *Supernaturalists*." As I've said before. There are a number of ways in which one can define nature. Either "that which is, and ALL of that which is", or "that which I can perceive". Beyond all of that which "is" is an meaningless statement. Like saying "everything in the universe (and in all universes, if one defines universe not to mean "everything" but rather one of many possible systems) plus this also". If beyond that which I can perceive is called "supernatural" (using the other possible definition of nature), then I contend we are dealing in arbitrary boundaries determined at whim, based only on current limitations of human perception. > "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 every particular event...happens because > some other event has happened; in the long run, because the Total Event is > happening.... All...things and events are so completely interlocked that no > one of them can claim the slightest independence from 'the whole show'.... > Thus no thoroughgoing Naturalist believes in free will: for free will would > mean that human beings have the power of independent action, the power of > doing something more or other than what was involved by the total series of > events. And any such separate power of originating events is what the > Naturalist denies. Spontaneity, originality, action 'on its own', is a > privilege reserved for 'the whole show', which he calls *Nature*." This is typical of Lewis' emotionality and wishful thinking based rhetoric. "No thoroughgoing Naturalists believes in free will: for free will would that human beings have the power of independent action..." Since his readers clearly desire for there to be something along the lines of free will, some ability to engage in independent action, something outside of the realm of the physical universe of which they are a part, Lewis condemns the Naturalist perspective, and his readers accept this, saying: "Yes, see? In a naturalist system there could not be free will. And we want for there to be free will, right? [despite whatever evidence we've seen and ignored] Thus, the naturalists are wrong!! Boy, thanks, Mr. Lewis, for 'clearing that up' for me!" Note carefully that he does not (cannot) deny the veracity of the claims of "naturalists", thus he simply seeks to make them look "bad", or "undesirable", or "not what I'd like to hear about the universe". The gullible reader is then enticed to think "Yes, he's right, of course Naturalism is wrong!" > "By Naturalism we mean the doctrine that only Nature--the whole interlocked > system--exists." Or perhaps, there is something BEYOND the interlocking system. Do those things outside the interlocking system interlock? Interact? Are they thus a PART OF NATURE? In what way are they NOT a part of nature other than that *WE* want to think of them as being external to "our realm"? Is their exclusion from "nature" anything more than arbitrary? > "All possible knowledge...depends on the validity of reasoning.... Unless > human reasoning is valid no science can be true. It follows that no account > of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our > thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in > the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking > was valid would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have > been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of > course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. > It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound--a proof that > there are no such things as proofs--which is nonsense." What a highly anthropocentric view of the universe this is. "Science" can not be true unless human thought can be explained to follow certain rules. What does human thought have to do with the physical state of the universe? The universe exists whether or not we perceive or understand it. Our understanding (or lack thereof) of the universe does not change the method by which it operates. Lewis would have us believe that the nature of the universe is somehow contingent on human thought, that it would somehow be based on our ability to perceive and understand it! Read on, if you will: > "Each particular thought is valueless if it is the result > of irrational causes. Obviously, then, the whole process of human thought, > what we call Reason, is equally valueless if it is the result of irrational > causes. Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind a > result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that > there are no such things as proofs. Which is nonsense. "But Naturalism, as > commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort. The mind, like every > other particular thing or event, is supposed to be simply the product of the > Total System ... to have no power whatever of 'going on its own accord'. > And THE TOTAL SYSTEM IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE RATIONAL [emphasis mine]. I wish Mr. Lewis would define his terms. (He probably did in a section not quoted by Jeff.) In what way is the total system NOT RATIONAL? What does such a statement mean? Rational to whom? Rational thinking takes into account THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS. How could the way the system works NOT BE RATIONAL when "rational" is defined to take into account how the system is (perceived to be) working? Continued... It's not "rational" only to those for whom "rational" implies a preconceived way in which the universe MUST act. It would seem that Jeff emphasized these words precisely because they make the claim about the system not being rational. I wish he would have defined what that means. Otherwise, it's just another example of Lewis' spouting wishful-thinking words. > All thoughts whatever are therefore the results of irrational causes, and > nothing more than that. The finest piece of scientific reasoning is caused > in just the same irrational way as the thoughts a man has because a bit of > bone is pressing on his brain. If we continue to apply our Rule, both are > equally valueless. And if we stop applying our rule we are no better off." To repeat: what relevance does how we perceive the universe (in terms of our METHOD of perceiving and our resultant BELIEFS both) have on the actions of the universe itself?? Thoughts may be generated from physical processes (here he concedes this), but thoughts generated either by "reasoning" or "bone-pressing" have equal potential value: but their value is proportional to how ACCURATE they are, not how they were created. If a thought from a learned scientist is invalid and a thought from a madman happens to be true, their value comes not from the method or logic of thought creation, but from how accurate the results are. I'd like an explanation of why thoughts have "irrational causes". ALL thoughts seem to stem from the same very rational causes. Even those of wishful thinkers and presupposers. (No :-) intended!!) The rational causes? Chemical actions of the brain. Lewis himself concedes his belief that physical processes (e.g, bone pressing on the brain) induce the resulting thought. Is Lewis fabricating a problem out of wishful thinking by claiming that, because our thoughts are a part of the total system, they have no validity, that they could only have validity in a system where thoughts (and whims of god) were "external" to the system? > For then the Naturalist will have to admit that thoughts produced by lunacy > or alcohol or by the mere wish to disbelieve in Naturalism are just as valid > as his own thoughts. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. > The Naturalist cannot condemn other people's thoughts because they have > irrational causes and continue to believe his own, which have (if Naturalism > is true) equally irrational causes." The best that Lewis winds up with is: "They have no right to condemn us for our thoughts, because they can't outrightly prove their own." So? It's time to explain science once again. (Scientists, please forgive me.) Wingate (et al) makes numerous complaints about "science". He complains that I (all by myself?) have set up "science" as "the true prejudice", and that it is a hideous and heinous thing. What is this science that many religious believers both fear and despise? It is no more than attempting to rigorously apply standards to data collection and analysis such that subjective perspectives, preconceptions, etc. will NOT play a part in the final analysis, the hypothesis that explains the phenomenon being observed. When he claims that I have set up science as a god/religion, he makes it sound like science is some evil group of people, a church of sorts, a cabal of evil people with evil tenets. Fact is, when he claims that "science" shouldn't be set up as a religion, he's saying that less than the best possible analysis is OK. (Apparently) especially when such analysis might remove the underpinnings from certain belief systems. When asked "what do you have that's better than science?", they all fall silent (including Lewis). And for good reason: science is defined, not as the evil group of men with fixed hypotheses that some would describe (that actually is a better description of some other... no, I won't say it), but rather as the best possible means of analysis approaching objectivity. Whatever that "best possible (and most objective) means" might happen to be. Granted, there are scientists who fall short of (and sometimes deliberately avoid) that goal; just as there are religious believers who do the same with THEIR professed goals. Wingate makes "making a religion out of science" seem bad. When defined in the above way, perhaps leaving out the words "religion" and "science" because of the emotional baggage associated with a phrase combining the two words (baggage Wingate apparently is making use of when he derides science in that way), I doubt anyone would disagree with the aforementioned goals. Except, perhaps, those who have a vested interest in promulgating a particular, unverifiable set of beliefs. >>Does this talk of "outside the 'natural', 'physical' universe" mean >>ANYTHING????? > As per the above discussion, this talk of there being nothing but the > natural, physical universe means nothing. On the contrary, I think I've shown that talk of there being things beyond the natural, physical universe mean different things depending on which definition you use. If "physical universe" means that which I can perceive, then there can most certainly be things beyond the "physical universe". But what makes these things different is, not as some would suppose, a supernatural nature (isn't that an oxymoron?). Rather, the only thing that makes these things different from that which we know is simply that we don't know them. Any presuppositions about their nature beyond that is merely wishful thinking. On the other hand, if "physical universe" is defined to mean precisely "everything that IS, whether we know/perceive it or not", then, indeed, this talk of there being SOMETHING beyond the natural, physical universe MEANS NOTHING. Except for those who simply wish it to be so, despite the blatant holes and contra- dictions in their thinking. Lewis' flowery rhetoric may be appealing and enticing, but careful analysis shows it to be full of wishful thinking, preconception, etc., just as I had described. I thank Jeff for offering the opportunity to point this out by reproducing sections of "Miracles". I repeat my contention about Lewis: his words are there for those who already believe in his conclusion, but who perhaps have lingering doubts. The way he eradicates any lingering doubts is through the methods I've described above: wishful thinking, making things you may not want to accept look "bad", etc. -- "Come with me now to that secret place where the eyes of man have never set foot." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/07/84)
I hope Rich's "disposal" of C.S. Lewis' critique of Naturalism doesn't prevent anyone from reading the book for themselves. Rich hasn't read it (If he had he would know if and where Lewis defines his terms) but he still feels like he knows the argument well enought to consign it all to "wishful thinking". I think this is perhaps wishful thinking on Rich's part. Perhaps Jeff is as much at fault as Rich for assuming that the quotes given are enough to represent Lewis argument adequately. The book "Miracles: A preliminary study" (or just "Miracles" as the shortened title) is certainly not the last word on the subject, but neither is it disposed of so easily. The book has to be considered as a whole. Lewis develops his argument throughout. To grasp his argument against Naturalism one would have to read at least chapters 3 thru 5. I have tried in the past to get Rich to do this in an honest attempt to gain a common basis for discussion. But it seems, Rich, that you are only making excuses for not reading it. That's fine. But why should anyone think that you know what your talking about when you haven't even read the book seriously? In the past you have criticized others for misrepresenting Humanist belief, insisting that they distort the Humanist position (*positions* would be more fair) but you speak so authoritatively here from your own ignorance of the subject? You don't speak as one who recognises his own unfamiliarity with Lewis' work. You speak as if your certain that you are correct. If Jeff wants to defend Lewis argument to someone who hasn't read him and expects to get anywhere doing it, I expect that he will end up quoting most of the book in his articles. It's hard to improve on Lewis' wording. He is concise without being overly technical. Rich's making issue of his "flowery rhetoric" only seems to be making light of the fact that Lewis was a Briton and a professor of Literature. How would you like him to have written, Rich? I, for one, would be willing to take the trouble to expound on Lewis' assessment of Naturalism, but only to those who are willing to take the trouble to read it first. And I would rather do it by mail than have many others who haven't read it jump on me in the process. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/08/84)
> I hope Rich's "disposal" of C.S. Lewis' critique of Naturalism doesn't > prevent anyone from reading the book for themselves. Rich hasn't read > it (If he had he would know if and where Lewis defines his terms) but > he still feels like he knows the argument well enought to consign it > all to "wishful thinking". I think this is perhaps wishful thinking > on Rich's part. If so, then I would expect that you would have answers to the points I made. Given that your entire article had none to speak of, I wonder who's wishfully thinking what. > I have tried in the past to get Rich to do this in an honest attempt to > gain a common basis for discussion. But it seems, Rich, that you > are only making excuses for not reading it. Like "my dog piddled on the book and stuck the pages together" or "my house burned down and the book was inside". :-) Actually, my excuses aren't quite that good: they're more along the lines of not having time to really seriously engage in real reading of any kind. (I know, excuses, excuses...) As I believe I mentioned to Paul, I still have three borrowed books that have been much higher on my reading list for a longer period of time, which should be returned (or, better, read and returned). This discussion may wind up changing the order of that list. > It's hard to improve on > Lewis' wording. He is concise without being overly technical. Rich's > making issue of his "flowery rhetoric" only seems to be making light > of the fact that Lewis was a Briton and a professor of Literature. > How would you like him to have written, Rich? By flowery rhetoric, I meant deliberately manipulative propaganda devoid of real logical content, which some claim it does have. And I think I said that rather clearly in my own article. I seem to recall more than one paragraph devoted to asking why Lewis makes statements on the order of "but you see, such a system could not have free will in it; the naturalists despise the notion of free will; therefore naturalism is wrong". How one could possibly assume I was referring to something else is beyond me. In answer to Paul's question, I am perfectly happy that he wrote just as he did. Because it does confirm what I've said in the past about him. > I, for one, would be willing to take the trouble to expound on Lewis' > assessment of Naturalism, but only to those who are willing to take > the trouble to read it first. And I would rather do it by mail than > have many others who haven't read it jump on me in the process. When two people independently mentioned the book to me in private comunication, I had a feeling the book was going to come up on a much more serious level. I'm sorry to say, even if this discussion does get deeper, bubbling the book up to the top of my reading list may not have much effect. Like Woody Allen's father (for those who know the routine) I have terrible reading habits, and having those books currently at the top of my list hasn't given me the time to make a dent in *them*. This discussion is getting interesting enough, though, that I may have to make an exception if I wish to take part seriously. Frankly, I thought I had shown some rather obvious and flagrant holes in Lewis' thinking as presented thus far, yet no one has responded to them. Why? If I'm interpreting, one could at least state that and explain why... -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/10/84)
}> = me (Paul Dubuc) } = Rich Rosen }> I hope Rich's "disposal" of C.S. Lewis' critique of Naturalism doesn't }> prevent anyone from reading the book for themselves. Rich hasn't read }> it (If he had he would know if and where Lewis defines his terms) but }> he still feels like he knows the argument well enought to consign it }> all to "wishful thinking". I think this is perhaps wishful thinking }> on Rich's part. } }If so, then I would expect that you would have answers to the points I }made. Given that your entire article had none to speak of, I wonder }who's wishfully thinking what. You expect that I would be goaded into senseless bickering with you. Sorry. My point was not to correct you Rich, only to point out that you admittedly speak from ignorance of Lewis' work. Your claim to give a "careful analysis" of it is only pretense. In this case, I think my refusal to correct you is consistent with my view that meaningful discussion on "Miracles" should take place between two people who have both read it. I see no point in reformulationg Lewis' whole argument for you if you won't even read it. Especially, when it seems you are so easily given to believing an opposing argument is wrong before even considering it. Seeing this, I don't even believe that you would attempt to give Lewis' argument an unbiased, rational consideration, even if you would read it. Mike Huybensz also seems to have jumped on your bandwagon, also giving no evidence of having read it. This only underscores my point of also prefering to discuss it one-on-one (i.e. by mail). Shouting against a crowd is no fun and can't help but give an argument an appearence of weakness no matter how strong it really is. }> I have tried in the past to get Rich to do this in an honest attempt to }> gain a common basis for discussion. But it seems, Rich, that you }> are only making excuses for not reading it. } }Like "my dog piddled on the book and stuck the pages together" or "my house }burned down and the book was inside". :-) Actually, my excuses aren't quite }that good: they're more along the lines of not having time to really seriously }engage in real reading of any kind. (I know, excuses, excuses...) As I }believe I mentioned to Paul, I still have three borrowed books that have }been much higher on my reading list for a longer period of time, which should }be returned (or, better, read and returned). This discussion may wind up }changing the order of that list. Don't let me goad *you*, Rich. I thought your excuse was reasonable. I don't put every book people recommend on the top of my reading list either. I am just saying that you are being very pretentious to dispose of Lewis whole argument without having read it seriously. I can see no other reason that you would try to do this than to convince youself (and others) that the book is not worth reading. And I disagree with that. } }> It's hard to improve on }> Lewis' wording. He is concise without being overly technical. Rich's }> making issue of his "flowery rhetoric" only seems to be making light }> of the fact that Lewis was a Briton and a professor of Literature. }> How would you like him to have written, Rich? } }By flowery rhetoric, I meant deliberately manipulative propaganda devoid of }real logical content, which some claim it does have. And I think I said that }rather clearly in my own article. I seem to recall more than one paragraph }devoted to asking why Lewis makes statements on the order of "but you see, }such a system could not have free will in it; the naturalists despise the }notion of free will; therefore naturalism is wrong". How one could possibly }assume I was referring to something else is beyond me. In answer to Paul's }question, I am perfectly happy that he wrote just as he did. Because it does }confirm what I've said in the past about him. Forgive me. That comment was mostly without warrant. But the point still is that you can't say that Lewis' argument is devoid of logic without having examined it. The paragraphs Jeff quoted are some of Lewis' conclusions that follow his argument. If you are honestly asking how Lewis could make the above statement, one good answer is to read it for yourself. You can't just assume that there is no logic behind it just because you disagree with his conclusion. } }> I, for one, would be willing to take the trouble to expound on Lewis' }> assessment of Naturalism, but only to those who are willing to take }> the trouble to read it first. And I would rather do it by mail than }> have many others who haven't read it jump on me in the process. } }When two people independently mentioned the book to me in private }comunication, I had a feeling the book was going to come up on a much }more serious level. I'm sorry to say, even if this discussion does get }deeper, bubbling the book up to the top of my reading list may not have }much effect. Like Woody Allen's father (for those who know the routine) }I have terrible reading habits, and having those books currently at the }top of my list hasn't given me the time to make a dent in *them*. This }discussion is getting interesting enough, though, that I may have to }make an exception if I wish to take part seriously. Frankly, I thought }I had shown some rather obvious and flagrant holes in Lewis' thinking as }presented thus far, yet no one has responded to them. Why? If I'm }interpreting, one could at least state that and explain why... I have given my reasons for not responding. I can't speak for any others but I think that if they have the same reasons, I wouldn't blame them. The point I am trying to make is that the depth of the discussion largely depends on whether or not all involved have read the book. I think it is a reasonable point to make. I am not even claiming that the book is the last word on the subject (even Lewis called it "preliminary" -- see the full title). I do think his critique of Naturalism in it is very sound, however, and that provides a good springboard for discussion on that topic. **** One new book on the subject of miracles that I do not hesitate to recommend to any with a serious interest in the subject is "Miracles and the Critical Mind" by Colin Brown (Eerdmans, 1984). I have only used it as a reference so far (I intend on reading it cover to cover) but the peices I have read are very well done. The book is a survey of the historical debate over miracles carried on by various apologists and skeptics. He seems to do a very good job of putting the whole debate in perspective (from an evangelical Christian viewpoint) while also drawing some reasonable conclusions of his own, providing a critical examination of both apologists and skeptics views. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd