Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Sargent on analysis and Lewis' "Miracles"
Message-ID: <4311@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 10:33:40 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4311
Posted: Mon Dec 10 10:33:40 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 04:27:03 EST
References: <231@pyuxd.UUCP> <1469@pucc-h>, <265@pyuxd.UUCP> <1522@pucc-h>, <314@pyuxd.UUCP> <4288@cbscc.UUCP> <318@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 123

}> = 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