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" (Reposting) Message-ID: <4288@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7-Dec-84 10:27:00 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.4288 Posted: Fri Dec 7 10:27:00 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Dec-84 05:38:53 EST References: <231@pyuxd.UUCP> <1469@pucc-h>, <265@pyuxd.UUCP> <1522@pucc-h>, <314@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 44 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