I know we skipped July, but well, try some amnesia. Here’s the Quote of the Month for August:
“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a bye-product, the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk-jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can’t believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”
- C.S. Lewis, former atheist
The Case for Christianity, 1943
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Althusius,
C.S. Lewis’ argrument can be summed up as follows:
1. To trust your own thoughts, you must believe in God.
2. Atheists do not believe in God.
3. Therefore, atheists have no basis for trusting their own thoughts.
This argument is fallacious in at least two ways:
1) Since C.S. Lewis, and you too, Althusius, are Christians, we can simply refute premise 1. (and therefore the rest of the argument) by pointing out that it specifically means the Christian god Jehovah. We then note that that this argument works equally well for gods of non-Christian description. In other words, you can simply substitute “Allah” or “Vishnu” or “The Mormon conception of God” or “The Catholic conception of God” (since I know you believe that Catholics aren’t Christians, although Lewis would have disagreed) for the word “God” in Lewis’ quote, and it remains equally valid. Therefore, it is in contradiction with itself, and you can “prove” anything from a contradiction.
Having said that, I will freely admit that I question my own thoughts frequently, if not continuously. It this is “mistrusting” my thoughts, then it is an activity in which I freely and proudly engage. To do so is the essence of skepticism and the Scientific Method. And frankly, I pity those who have no use for doubt.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Ironwolf -
1. He does not say in this quote, “To trust your own thoughts, you must believe in God.” He claims that to trust your own thought, you cannot have it based on very, very unlikely chances. To trust your own thought, there must be a Supreme Being behind the makings of the universe.
2. From what I know, atheists do not believe in God. So I’ll say, “correct.”
3. This is also correct (see whole of post)
I would say, C.S. Lewis believed (along with Althusius and I) in the Christian (denoting the “Christ”) God (denoting the capital G) Jehovah. It is this God of which he is speaking of in this selected quote.
We then note that that this argument works equally well for gods of non-Christian description.
How is that? Which other religions claim their god to be Sovreign Creator?
I would also like to note, for the sake of clarity, my personal belief: I do not believe the organization of Romam Catholicism in a larger scope is Christian, but this does not exclude all Roman Catholics from being Christians. I wouldn’t mind explaining that more, but I do not believe that is the point of the main argument, neither do I believe it is significant as you are struggling with the basic concepts of Christianity.
I do not believe it is a contradiction. Neither do I believe it would remain equally valid if you were to substitute something like “Allah,” “Vishnu,” or “The Mormon Conception of God.” Where in their beliefs do they claim their god to be Sovreign Creator over all?
Having said that, I will freely admit that I question my own thoughts frequently, if not continuously. It this is “mistrusting” my thoughts, then it is an activity in which I freely and proudly engage. To do so is the essence of skepticism and the Scientific Method. And frankly, I pity those who have no use for doubt.
Can you please go into more detail of what exactly you mean by “question my own thoughts?” Please be specific in what you mean by this.
August 4th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Flyboy,
Unfortunately for Lewis, Althusius, and you, he totally fails to make this case, instead choosing to argue from incredulity.
You are displaying your ignorance. Even if I grant that Lewis’ argument somehow rests upon a god having the attributes of “sovereign” and “creator” (even though he never explicitly says so that in the quote) I named three religions other than your own that do claim this: The Roman Catholic Church (which you and Althusius claim “worships a different God,”), Islam, which definitely claims Allah to be both creator of all and sovereign over all, and Hinduism, which also claims Vishnu as both creator of all and sovereign over all. So here are three, and I only need one for my refutation to stand.
See my previous discussion of “postsuppositions.”
August 4th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Ironwolf -
Unfortunately for Lewis, Althusius, and you, he totally fails to make this case, instead choosing to argue from incredulity.
Please explain this statement which you made - you lost me.
“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a bye-product, the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?”
“To trust your own thought, there must be a Supreme Being behind the makings of the universe.”
You are displaying your ignorance.
Thats not very nice. In fact, you are displaying your ignorance by giving low blows and insults for no reason.
the attributes of “sovereign” and “creator” (even though he never explicitly says so that in the quote)
Alright. Time to do your homework. Sure he doesn’t explicity say that. But do your research on the man.
I named three religions other than your own that do claim this: The Roman Catholic Church (which you and Althusius claim “worships a different God,”), Islam, which definitely claims Allah to be both creator of all and sovereign over all, and Hinduism, which also claims Vishnu as both creator of all and sovereign over all.
The Roman Catholic Church. Mary. Does that click? There’s your one. As for the other two - that again is a very extended argument, of which I think is 1) off-topic, and 2) not practical for the argument at hand as you are struggling with basic concepts of Christianity.
Ironwolf -
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge and understanding. Let’s not start hurling insults at each other, especially when it comes to understanding.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:41 am
Flyboy,
Again I see you cannot be troubled to follow the link I provide. Lewis’ remarks are essentially an argument from personal incredulity. Go figure it out.
Pointing out ignorance is not an insult if it is true. There are many things of which I am ignorant, and I am not ashamed of that.
I know what C.S. Lewis believed. I know what was implicit in his argument. I merely pointed out that he did not bring that explicitly into the quote, and I did so for others that may have been following our discussion.
The Catholics believe that there is one God that is creator of all and sovereign over all— what does that have to do with their veneration of Mary?
And as for Islam and Hinduism, you may as well concede my point rather than wave your hands about how off-topic or difficult to understand your response would be— that’s just snobbery, which I suspect is a thin veil over more ignorance. But if not for my sake, then you could always explain for the benefit of others who will read this.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Ironwolf -
Pointing out ignorance is not an insult if it is true.
That is absolutely ridiculous and untrue. And since when do you get to make that decision?
The Catholics believe that there is one God that is creator of all and sovereign over all— what does that have to do with their veneration of Mary?
I can’t believe you’re calling me ignorant and saying this. They believe Mary is their “Advocate,” that she was taken body and soul up into heaven. http://www.religioustolerance.org/mary_cor.htm
And as for Islam and Hinduism, you may as well concede my point rather than wave your hands about how off-topic or difficult to understand your response would be— that’s just snobbery, which I suspect is a thin veil over more ignorance. But if not for my sake, then you could always explain for the benefit of others who will read this.
1) This does not pertain to the main argument.
2) See me later about it, make a post, do whatever, I don’t care. But stop trying to run away from the main point of the argument
Ironwolf -
With all respect, it is my belief and conviction that you are really acting childish and angry. You really are not arguing like a grown-up. Second post and you’re already calling names.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Both arguments commonly share this structure: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting evidence or proof that another view is true.
Wow. Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing?
Two common versions of the argument from personal incredulity are:
“I can’t believe this is possible, so it can’t be true.” (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is (or claims to be) unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support her or his preferred view.)
“That’s not what people say about this; people instead agree with what I am saying.” (Here the person is asserting that a proposition must be inaccurate because the opinion of “people in general” is claimed to agree with the speaker’s opinion, without offering specific evidence in support of the alternative view.)
Is there something I’m missing?
August 4th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Flyboy,
That you are ignorant? It is not a “decision,” in the sense of being an authoritative judgment; it is my provisional opinion based on the evidence that you deny the testimony of those who hold to those other religions about what they themselves believe. Frankly, I think it’s giving you the benefit of the doubt that given this behavior I (for the moment) merely consider you ignorant.
So? Where do the Catholics say that God is not creator and sovereign because of Mary’s status? I can’t seem to find that part. And as much as you like to quibble about the Catholics, my original refutation still stands based on the examples of Allah and Vishnu.
No. The burden of proof clearly rests on the apologist— that is the whole point of apologetics. Lewis, however, is arguing not from evidence, but from his inability to conceive of a universe that exists in the form it does without his particular conception of a Christian God (which differs from many other Christian conceptions of God) as its cause. This is an argument from personal incredulity— a fallacy.
Well, you’ve got the “copy-and-paste” skills down, but so far I’m not seeing any evidence of the “understanding” part of the exercise.
August 4th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Alright. You call me ignorant. And somehow you completely missed it:
Pointing out ignorance is not an insult if it is true.
That is absolutely ridiculous and untrue. And since when do you get to make that decision?
The “that” refers to the pointing. Figure it out.
That you are ignorant? It is not a “decision,” in the sense of being an authoritative judgment; it is my provisional opinion based on the evidence that you deny the testimony of those who hold to those other religions about what they themselves believe. Frankly, I think it’s giving you the benefit of the doubt that given this behavior I (for the moment) merely consider you ignorant.
So basically you’re agruing and making claims based solely on opinion? Alright, I think we’re getting somewhere….
So? Where do the Catholics say that God is not creator and sovereign because of Mary’s status? I can’t seem to find that part. And as much as you like to quibble about the Catholics, my original refutation still stands based on the examples of Allah and Vishnu.
Mary is their god. Ever heard of the Hail Mary?
Wow. Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing?
No.
So you have found evidence against the existence of God? Have you found evidence that disproves Creation too?
Is there something I’m missing?
Well, you’ve got the “copy-and-paste” skills down, but so far I’m not seeing any evidence of the “understanding” part of the exercise.
Have I missed another one of your rules now?
August 4th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
“And as much as you like to quibble about the Catholics”
Hmm. I thought you brought them up…
August 4th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Flyboy,
Sorry, but your last comments are so full of disjoint thoughts and plain non-sequiturs that I’m not going to bother to respond. Again, I urge you to not think of this as a conversation between you and I individually, but one for the benefit of the silent majority, now and in the future, who will read our exchange. In that context, I believe my points are well-made.
So, bye for now.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
In that context, I believe my points are well-made.
Congratulations. You now know how to properly make claims and completely run from defending them.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:54 am
Flyboy,
These posts have been for the most part quite entertaining, but some of your answers and remarks make the reader feel a bit frustrated. Maybe it’s your reading comprehension?
Maybe you should re-read all of your exchanges you have had with Ironwolf (not only in this post but others as well) he seems to make valid points and rebuttals. Yet you just don’t seem to grasp much of anything he says and seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:39 am
It’s not that I don’t grasp it.
I aim for clarity, and he just can’t seem to be able to make his points clear and be specific. I can’t fix that. So as soon as he starts being clear and answering questions, I think you’ll see the frustration go away.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Flyboy,
Perhaps you are asking questions that aren’t all that clear. If you ask specific, fully contextualized questions then I can give you answers. I know I have asked you for this before.
I don’t believe in stupid questions, so I don’t believe in the adage, “Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.” However, I do think that vague questions lead to vague answers, and complex questions (please look at the link) cannot be answered at all, but must instead have their premises refuted. Also, combative questions are likely to elicit responses that are also in a combative tone.
So if you have a burning question you want answered, make sure you include full context, by which I don’t mean long passages of copied text: use your own wording, and if you must quote a previous part of the conversation, do it briefly only to bring it back to mind. If you want to test whether your context is complete enough, ask yourself whether someone who randomly drops by the blog and reads your question will have a good idea of what you are asking without having to go back and read the entire prior conversation. This will help me answer your questions, and also help others who do drop into the our conversation later.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
It[informal fallacy] is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.
“So you have found evidence against the existence of God? Have you found evidence that disproves Creation too?”
Please show me where this has been committed. If it helps, I can not ask anymore questions and just make statements without backing them up too.
I know I have asked you for this before.
Oh, you mean that time when I asked all those concise questions and you wouldn’t answer any of them?
Also, combative questions are likely to elicit responses that are also in a combative tone.
Hmm. Well for one you cannot display tone in a typed message. And does calling me ignorant count as a combative tone?
use your own wording, and if you must quote a previous part of the conversation, do it briefly only to bring it back to mind.
Ironwolf, I am amazed you would say this. After all the times I have asked you to be specific, speak to the exact question asked, and use your own wording. After all that and you not doing it, you ask me to do it.
ask yourself whether someone who randomly drops by the blog and reads your question will have a good idea of what you are asking without having to go back and read the entire prior conversation.
“So you have found evidence against the existence of God? Have you found evidence that disproves Creation too?”
August 7th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
I did not answer these for several reasons. First, they appears to be off-topic, as I don’t see what it has to do with supporting or refuting C.S. Lewis’ argument. Perhaps it seems off topic because it is not fully-contextualized. They are also a complex questions, in the sense that it does not make clear what sort of thing you count as “evidence” or “disproof”, and you are using loaded terms like “Creation.” I don’t recall setting out to disprove any kind of god(s) existence nor disprove the idea that the universe as we know it was specially created— in this post I only set out to refute the specific argument made at its start. Because of these issues, I don’t feel a question so constituted demands an answer, except perhaps “Mu.”
This is an attack that completely ignores the advice I just gave on how to ask questions.
This is not fully-contextualized— I’m not sure to which “concise questions” you are referring. I believe I have answered all the questions you have posed that are reasonably concise.
Yes, you can use tone in written works. And no, calling you on ignorance is not combative. If someone calls me on ignorance, and it turns out they are right, I thank them for enlightening me. This has happened to me many times in my life, and I am the better for it.
You are referring to times, but not making clear which times you mean. In any case, the purpose of this conversation is not to deconstruct past conversations but to move it forward. Therefore, I will ask you one more time: if you have questions you want answered, pose them again, and pay attention to providing full context. I have just showed (above) why the questions you claim are concise, are not.
So, Flyboy, either start asking good questions, or I will simply ignore you.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
I really screwed up the grammar of my first paragraph above, because I was writing about a single statement consisting of two questions, and I botched my editing. Here is a corrected paragraph:
I did not answer these for several reasons. First, they appear to be off-topic, as I don’t see what they have to do with supporting or refuting C.S. Lewis’ argument. Perhaps they seem off topic because they are not fully-contextualized. They are also complex questions, in the sense that they do not make clear what sort of thing you count as “evidence” or “disproof”, and you are using loaded terms like “Creation.” I don’t recall setting out (in this post) to disprove any kind of god(s) existence, nor disprove the idea that the universe as we know it was specially created— in this post I only set out to refute the specific argument made at its start. Because of these issues, I don’t feel that questions so constituted demand an answer, except perhaps “Mu.”
August 7th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
it turns out they are right
How do you judge whether they are right or not?
Well, I’m not up for doing everything the way you want it, so maybe we both together can just do that statement thing instead of me going by every single rule you make.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
I cannot answer succinctly because you are essentially asking about the general case. So: it depends. Ask a vague question, get a vague answer.
Whatever. You engaged me in this conversation— all I did was post a refutation of Althusius’ quote of the month. Nothing in my original comment pointed a gun at you and forced you to respond. So, for future quotes of the month, feel free just to say something like, “Yay, Althusius!” Trust me, I won’t bother to respond to that.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I cannot answer succinctly because you are essentially asking about the general case. So: it depends. Ask a vague question, get a vague answer.
I think you just don’t want to answer it. But I’ll try to make it clear. Suppose I call you ignorant because you do not understand something that I explain which I think is right. Now will you take my calling you ignorant home and make it to better your life, while thanking me for enlightening you? How do you know whether I am right or not when I call you ignorant? Or will you again not answer either one of these questions, as you seem of being a fan?
Whatever. You engaged me in this conversation
Wait wait wait, I thought you commented on my post. Now tell me what I’m missing this time.
all I did was post a refutation of Althusius’ quote of the month
Um, correction. *Flyboy’s quote of the month.
Nothing in my original comment pointed a gun at you and forced you to respond.
I wouldn’t put it so harshly, but it is only right that I respond to someone making a comment on my post.
So, for future quotes of the month, feel free just to say something like, “Yay, Althusius!” Trust me, I won’t bother to respond to that.
Or not. I could respond to comments made on my post. And please do not engage and criticize when you are just going to abstain from defending.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
” ot. I could respond to comments made on my post. And please do not engage and criticize when you are just going to abstain from defending.”
I do not know why it did to my “or.” Anyways, this is the corrected version.
Or not. I could respond to comments made on my post. And please do not engage and criticize when you are just going to abstain from defending.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
See, you are being just as vague as before. Give me an example of something specific where you think 1) you are right, and 2) I am ignorant (i.e., something of which I have insufficient knowledge). Also tell me 3) the knowledge you feel I am missing. Then I will tell you by what criteria I would judge whether I have in fact become enlightened by your knowledge.
Flyboy, I had no idea this was your post. I know you asked Althusius for permission to suggest a quote of the month, but I had no idea that he took you up on it. I still don’t see a name attached to that post, but unless Althusius contradicts you I suppose I will revise my belief as to who the poster was. Thank you for enlightening me on this.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Oh, and BTW, Flyboy: You’ll notice that Comment 1 above is by me, and clearly addressed to Althusius. I hope you’ll understand from that, that from the beginning I was under the impression that Althusius had authored this post. And I notice in passing that you have done nothing before this point to disabuse me of that notion.
And, I will also add this: it doesn’t really matter who the poster is: the QOTM is what it is. This is not a personal argument: I have not been arguing with you— I dispute ideas I disagree with, not people I find disagreeable.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
You seemed to use the excuse that I didn’t post it for getting me to play by your rules. Am I wrong?
Alright. We’re getting there. But can you just tell me exactly what you mean by “the knowledge you feel I am missing.” Because wouldn’t what I say is right be the knowledge you are missing, thus the ignorance?
August 7th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I’m not sure what you’re referring to as “my rules,” and as I mention above, it doesn’t matter who posted it. I think of “my rules” in forums such as this as generally consisting of rational argument and a minimum level of courtesy to all, but also giving respect to those who earn it. This is also how I wish to be treated (Golden Rule.)
I’m not sure I understand the question. Let me try an example: you felt I was missing the knowledge that the QOTM was suggested by you. Assuming you are correct, I was indeed ignorant of that fact. In the absence of Althusius contradicting your assertion, I have little reason to doubt it. It is a minor claim, so only minor evidence of its validity need be offered in order to change my provisional beliefs. In any case, who posted it does not affect my refutation of it, nor of subsequent defenses offered for it— this is not personal.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
It is a minor claim, so only minor evidence of its validity need be offered in order to change my provisional beliefs.
So what decides how minor or major of a claim it is?
August 7th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Ah, again you are asking me to do your homework for you. You might start here. (There are four pages, so make sure you don’t miss any.)
August 7th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Flyboy,
I follow this blog regularly, having been introduced to Althusius on Ironwolf’s blog. Admittedly, I do not share the same beliefs as you or Althusius; however I have seen it to be beneficial to listen to both sides of the debate with regards to religion, or the lack thereof, mainly because Althusius tends to be a bit more coherent than most other Christians I’ve come across in my internet journeys.
I have even been willing to listen to your banter, no matter how confrontational and incoherent it becomes. I’ve read assertions and pointedly personal posts made by you that have left me feeling as if I may in fact be wasting my time when you are involved.
Get this straight, for your benefit and the benefit of every other reader that happens along this conversation, or any future debates you might become a part of in the future. I like to think of open forum discussions like this blog and many others as logical arguments.
Please do me the respect of following the link, reading it as objectively as possible and try to understand the approach that Ironwolf and Althusius most often take.
I have yet to see any hint of personally directed aggression from either individual. Why? Because both seem to understand that this is not personal! I assert this to be a fact supported with the following information with regards to ignorance.
As found in Wikipedia:
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is sometimes misinterpreted as a synonym of stupidity, and is as thus often taken as an insult.
In many cases ignorance is seen as a pleasant alternative to harsh reality.
* Willful ignorance (or evincible ignorance) is a bad faith decision to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt.
* Ignorance is bliss is a phrase that comes from Thomas Gray’s poem, “Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College” (1742): “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.”
There is no implied insult to whit, on Ironwolf’s part as I see it. Please, keep things in the spirit of logical argument, and stop wearing your emotions on your sleeve. In my eyes, everyone here can learn from each other. Instead of constantly being on the defensive from some misperceived insult, followed by an endless cycle of berating and obviously aggressive remarks, just try to see things in a more clear perspective.
As Ironwolf has already stated, we all have areas of knowledge that we are ignorant about. (Lacking factual knowledge of.) This is why it’s important that we all try to learn something from one another. Can we get back to the original quote and that discussion now?
August 7th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Elementalmuse -
to understand that this is not personal!
If none of this is personal, why do I as an individual, and as part of a larger group, “bother” Ironwolf that it so inspires him to write, comment, and debate?
Please, keep things in the spirit of logical argument, and stop wearing your emotions on your sleeve. In my eyes, everyone here can learn from each other.
Alright. Where have I completely failed in this area? Sure, I will admit to ‘chasing rabbit trails,’ as it were, but I don’t think I have avoided the main gist of the argument.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Ironwolf -
“…we can never with perfect certainty rule out the possibility that we are mistaken.”
So why are we even debating? If there is a distinct possiblity that you are wrong, why go out and try to get people from “living their lives by myths?”
So let me get this straight: Doug Shaver decides how minor or major claims are? Alright. Say you find a corpse. That is “conclusive evidence that someone has died.” But wait, there is a distinct possibility that we are wrong. So if we could be wrong, can’t that make the claim of someone’s a very major claim?
Now would you like to go back to initial arguments, or are you still going to refuse to speak on the matter?
August 7th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Flyboy,
Why does anyone debate? We have a marketplace of ideas. I am simply a participant in that marketplace. I think my ideas have value, so I like to share them with others. I also think there are seductive yet dangerous ideas out there that, if left without a rational response, pose a threat to humanity.
You continually miss the point that certainty is not what’s important. Probability is what people base their life decisions on, not certainty. As an example: you cannot be certain you will not die tomorrow, yet you behave as if you won’t, because you judge the probability of such an event to be low.
There you go again, trying to make this personal. Your statement is a form of ad hominem, and I think our conversation would be more productive without such tactics.
I find it rather sad that you undercut your own common sense to try to make a point here. Anyone who finds a dead body assumes someone died. This is the assumption with the highest probability of being true. Other possibilities are highly improbable, and thus require much higher standards of evidence to outweigh common experience. Did you read the article? You certainly show no signs of understanding it.
I have already addressed the original argument. I think you have failed to defend against my refutations of it, and thus my refutations stand. I am not aware of any point about it that I have “refused to speak on.” I’d be happy to answer any reasonable questions you may have. (And yes, I’ve spent considerable space above talking about what I mean by “reasonable,” so please review if you aren’t sure.)
August 7th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Probability is what people base their life decisions on, not certainty. As an example: you cannot be certain you will not die tomorrow, yet you behave as if you won’t, because you judge the probability of such an event to be low.
Let me tell you a little about myself: I base my largest life decisions on certainty. And my whole religious life is certain. There is no room for doubting truth. And as a matter of fact, I do behave day to day as if I were to die tomorrow. That is why I ask for forgiveness and forgive. Thats why I don’t live in regret, because I am ready to meet my Maker.
I will now go back to your first post and approach it in a different way. You say it would be valid to insert the names of other gods for “God.” Alright, so if you do that, you’re still admitting that there is indeed a Supreme Being and Intelligence behind the creating of the universe. Correct?
August 7th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
I have little doubt you are strong in your faith, but I do doubt your so-called truths. So how can there be no room for doubt?
I daresay this is an exaggeration. If you knew you would die tomorrow you would be calling or meeting loved ones and saying goodbye. I think the probability of this having happened today is quite low.
I don’t live in regret either, so I don’t see what readiness to “meet one’s maker” has to do with that.
Incorrect: I have refuted Lewis’ specific argument by showing that it contains a contradiction. I have also refuted it on the basis that it is an argument from personal incredulity. As I said, the argument is fallacious in at least two different ways.
Frankly, I think your strongest position consistent with the certainty of your faith is fideism, because no argument or evidence can counter that. That you think you need house-of-cards arguments such as Lewis’ as an additional crutch seems to indicate that you are not actually all that strong in your unreasoning, presuppositionalist faith.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
So how can there be no room for doubt?
Perhaps that was not clear. I have no doubts, and I have no room for doubts, personally. You doubt, sure. You’re whole religious life is centered around a doubt.
I daresay this is an exaggeration. If you knew you would die tomorrow you would be calling or meeting loved ones and saying goodbye.
Maybe that was a little bit exaggerated. Point in case, I would be completely content were I to pass tomorrow. I would even be content not having called my loved ones, knowing we have forgiven each other and are not holding grudges. That is of more undescribable worth than merely calling them and saying good-bye. And mind you, living a life of forgiveness is living a life of love in and of itself.
I don’t live in regret either, so I don’t see what readiness to “meet one’s maker” has to do with that.
You may not have regret quite yet…. So were you to die tomorrow, you think you’d be on happy terms with all your loved ones, no grudges, having no regrets of ANY acts you have committed in the past?
Incorrect: I have refuted Lewis’ specific argument by showing that it contains a contradiction.
Alright. Let’s then address the point at hand. Supposing it were equally valid were you to subsitute those other gods in. Does not his point stand? Or are you not going to talk about it anymore becuase you think you have fully refuted the entire point without even reading the book and seeing the context of which it is in?
August 7th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Oh, and a third way Lewis’ argument is fallacious (that I also pointed out in my first post) is that he presupposes that belief in God is prior to trusting thoughts— and I pointed out that whether it is necessary to trust thoughts is in itself a questionable assertion.
A fourth fallacy I haven’t brought up yet is that Lewis asserts that thought cannot happen without belief, when in fact the opposite is true: one must first think to be able to evaluate issues such as belief. Therefore he commits the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept, a simple example of which would be for someone to assert, “I have two good reasons not to believe in numbers.” Lewis says, “Unless I believe in God, I can’t believe in thought,” and in doing so, he places “belief” logically prior to “thought.”
August 7th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
No, because if his argument fails on any single count, it fails.
I think you are on the verge of giving a Courtier’s Reply, by now insisting that I must become deeply familiar with the corpus of C.S. Lewis in order to appreciate the vast subtlety inherent in the argument with which you opened this post. If the context was so bloody important to the truth of his argument, then why didn’t you provide it? Sorry, but Lewis scholarship is entirely unnecessary to point out that the argument fails.
August 26th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
i has pie
August 26th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
i has cake