The Logic of C.S. Lewis

[Received]

Question:

"Materialists and some astronomers suggest that the solar planetary system and life as we know it was brought about by an accidental stellar collision.  What is the Christian view of this theory?"

Lewis:

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too.  If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents -- the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms.  And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's.  But if their thoughts -- i.e. of Materialism and Astronomy -- are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true?  I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.  It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."

thoughts?

 

[seebs]

I don't buy it, in this case. Or rather, "accidental" has many potentially distinct shadings in this context. I can easily say that God made this solar system in some way other than "poof, there's a solar system", without thinking that *EVERYTHING* is an accident.

 

[Received]

This post was an answer to a question regarding an atheistically designed universe - a universe without a will. This is the claim of naturalism, and this post was Lewis' response to it. It is along the lines of the eternity without a beginning and without divinity reasoning that naturalists claim is the alternative to creationism.

blessings,

John

 

[WinAce]

Other than the fact it belongs in Apologetics (or preferably, the junkyard):

Lewis painfully doesn't understand why the 'designs' that evolution would produce, while technically crap on a stick if attributed to an intelligence, are efficient and powerful solutions to the problems at hand. In our case, it's intelligence.

Look at our intelligence--we have pattern recognition, confirmation bias, selective thinking, wishful thinking, and other factors are at best quirks resulting from the way our mind was programmed by natural selection and which give us a propensity to believe silly things like Christianity and UFO visitation.

Then again, another side effect of such evolutionary development was abstract thought. And since most everything else in our body *pretty much* works, there's no reason to suspect our mind is any exception.

We did recognize that our mind alone is insufficient at drawing reasonable conclusions and developed the scientific method to make up for it, similar to what a person who can't walk very well by himself might do--get a cane.

Moreover, the only reasonable assumption is that our minds are capable of finding the truth, no matter their origin. The simplest rebuttal to Lewis' claptrap is turning it right around:

Since our minds display so many weird quirks that make them easily susceptible to belief in everything from charlatan psychics to cults, can they be design by a perfect God?

Basically, Lewis' entire case revolves around an argument from incredulity ("I can't imagine how the mind could evolve") and a series of non-sequiturs ("the mind should suck if it evolved"). Bad news for him--evolution produces efficient designs that get the job done, even if they do ultimately suck.

 

[Received]

The argument still holds.  Stereotypes towards religion will not help null it. 

You are posting a question outside of my question.  If this universe came about without supernatural occurance - which is impossible anyways - then you cannot have a will.  If you cannot have a will, then events that mysteriously come about without it (illogical as well) have no intentions.  If you have no intentions - and going against logic again - then every event that does happen was not meant to happen, thus it is defined as accident.  Even posting this reply is illogial to me.  I feel dirty. 

Also, the junkyard, as you call it, is where all the real arguments are.  This forum is near-sighted.  Focusing on science and using scientific evidence to deny the supernatural is a fallacy - nature cannot explain supernature.  God likes science. 

blessings,

John

 

[Freodin]

I don´t get it.

A basic assumtion of the creationits seems to be "x cannot come from non-x", as in "Life cannot come from non-life", "you wouldn´t have a will, if there was no will to begin with" and similar.

I don´t get it. I don´t get it at all.

For some things that may be true, because we know the way the come into existance. (You cannot have a watch without a watchmaker) - but to conclude from the special to the general is invalid here.

We have examples of "stuff" comming from "non-stuff". I can take a brush and a lot of chemicals and paper, and create a picture.

But, hey, pictures cannot come from non-pictures!

Perhaps I will even do a beautifull picture.

But, hey, beauty cannot come from non-beauty!

So why can´t life come from non-life?

I don´t get it.

 

[Received]

This actually has little to do with life coming from non-life, but the problem as it stands with naturalist-based evolution. I am past the fallacy of logic on this part, and have gone to the accident without a will - "what would happen if this happened anyways". The supernatual is only special to those who cannot grasp the supernatural. It is by all means general to those who accept it. Go back and back and back, past all the energy and the claims of eternity and you must have a beginning. Eternity is certainly supernatural from the perspective of one who views this world as natural and ruled by time. Also, is it the difficulty of grasping deity from this argument, or the difficulty of grasping deity on behalf of your current views as it stands in the present? I would wager my empty wallet on the latter.

blessings,

John

 

[Freodin]

It is a little bit more difficult.

I can go back and back and back, with all my scientifc research and theories and whatever - somewhere I will reach a point where I have to stop and ask "And now?"

Then I have to resort to the "I don´t know" answer - to something I cannot know, because it is beyond experience, beyond knowledge, beyond existance. The supernatural.

And yet there are people who claim to know the unknowable. They know what the supernatural is, it´s properties, even it´s wishes.
And if I ask for more information, I find out that they base their knowledge of the supernatural on natural reasoning.
And I find out that their natural reasoning does not always lead to the same conclusions.
They don´t know - they theorize, the same as I do.

But where I see simply "something", they see God. I cannot imagine why. And I am not alone in this.

So please send your wallet (empty or not) to the following adress...

 

[Received]

I'm not suggesting Divinity at all right now. Logic is what every aspect of natural revelation is based on. It supersedes science when science cannot explain because it is given to every single person. Logic is not a theory, but is the law inscribed in every human being in history. But it is also under the free will to ignore. I still don't see how you are refuting logic. What you do not know is not an answer to support theory. It's a shame that many use a theory to support what they do not know.

 

[chickenman]

you don't know either, I don't see why there can't be a naturalistic explanation for the beginning of the universe, some strange quantum behaviour which caused the big bang

 

[Received]

But I do know. This resides in personal revelation and I will stop myself from going into a very long argument.

You cannot have a naturalistic explanation because it is anything but natural for something to come from nothing by nothing. Also, even in a gap in logistics, Lewis' statement holds.

 

[chickenman]

well, I just don't think the argument is very persuasive, quantum physics may have a naturalistic answer. Quantum physics certainly doesn't seem to behave in a manner you'd describe as "logical"

 

[Received]

All physics will tell you what problem is in a very long and expanded way (a sort of twisted procrastination) and consider itself the victor. You still cannot have logic and naturalism. It doesn't matter how you try to expand the problem, be it the claim of energy, or claims of eternity. Eternity cannot exist in a world viewed under the perspective of the natural. It must have a beginning. Ask a child, write his name in the sand and ask him who put it there - he'll give you the answer.

Everything in the natural must have a beginning. A beginning in the natural is caused on behalf of will. If you cannot grasp that then find a logician and take his word on it.

blessings,

John

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Received

Everything in the natural must have a beginning.

So? Does this beginning have to be supernatural?

 

[Received]

So? Does this beginning have to be supernatural?

I'll put it like this: everything that comes into being must have a beginning. The universe came into being, thus it has a beginning. Everything that has a beginning must have a cause. Everything that has a cause must have a will. There is not a law of science that disagrees with this slew of statements anywhere.

Why, you say, does this beginning need to be supernatural?

Because the natural is everything around us - everything material and within the range of our five senses. Saying nothing begat nothing, or nothing brought nothing into existence, is a valid presupposition. But in order for you to have something come into existence by what was once nothing, you must have what is called the supernatural - that which is beyond nature or material and within our five senses. You must have something beyond nature to fixate nothingness to something, or else you will have nothing. The laws of nature have never produced a single event. They are only the pattern by which they must conform, provided only that it can be induced to happen. Thus, the beginning act of origin had to have been supernatural.

In other words, the only reason we can call anything natural is because we have the supernatural as the kicker to begin the entire process. If it were not for the supernatural, you would not have the natural. If it were not for the matches and an act of combustion, you would not have a fire.

blessings,

John

 

[chickenman]

 

[chickenman]

Everything that has a cause must have a will.

could you explain the logic behind that one?

 

[Received]

Say we're sittin outside swiggin back on some applejuice and we hear a big noise. You ask, "where did that come from?" and I say "nowhere, it just happened". You would not accept that answer.

When you have an action you have a will.

You're thinking of what is already set in motion - this all started because of a will in action way back when.

 

[chickenman]

a will? sounds very esoteric, please describe this "will"

I'd accept it if you'd said, that the sound was caused by something

were does "will" come in

 

[choccy]

But in order for you to have something come into existence by what was once nothing, you must have what is called the supernatural - that which is beyond nature or material and within our five senses.

......what was once nothing......

I'm not even sure if that is a valid statement. At least not with our concept of time and matter.

Choccy