Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Sargent on analysis and Lewis' "Miracles" (Reposting)
Message-ID: <318@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Dec-84 01:32:03 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.318
Posted: Sat Dec  8 01:32:03 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Dec-84 06:39:28 EST
References: <231@pyuxd.UUCP> <1469@pucc-h>, <265@pyuxd.UUCP> <1522@pucc-h>, <314@pyuxd.UUCP> <4288@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 61

> 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