Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: C.S. Lewis and reason -- AARRGH!
Message-ID: <2153@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 29-Dec-84 04:07:13 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2153
Posted: Sat Dec 29 04:07:13 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Dec-84 00:14:20 EST
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 109

From: -- Jeff Sargent (quoting C.S. Lewis)
> Thus no thoroughgoing Naturalist believes in free will:  for free will 
> would mean that human beings have the power of independent action, the 
> power of doing something more or other than what was involved by the 
> total series of events.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!  I present to you a thoroughgoing
naturalist who believes in free will: myself.  FREE WILL DOES NOT, NOT
AT ALL, BY NO STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, NIL, ZIP, ZERO, NEGATION,
NEGATIVITY, NEVER, NO WAY mean the power of doing something "more or
other than" what was involved in the total causal network of events!!!
It means the power to rationally evaluate one's prospective actions and 
choose accordingly, that is all, and if this ability and one's excercise
of it have a deterministic causal explanation, THAT'S GREAT!

> ...  Hence every theory of the universe which makes the human mind a
> result of irrational causes is inadmissible, for it would be a proof that
> there are no such things as proofs.  Which is nonsense.
>   "But Naturalism, as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort.
> The mind, like every other particular thing or event, is supposed to be
> simply the product of the Total System.  It is supposed to be that and
> nothing more, to have no power whatever of 'going on its own accord'.  And
> THE TOTAL SYSTEM IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE RATIONAL [emphasis Sargent's].  

But PARTS OF IT MAY BE!!!  Get ready folks here comes the NON SEQUITUR...

> All thoughts whatever are THEREFORE the results of irrational causes, and
> nothing more than that.  The finest piece of scientific reasoning is caused
> in just the same irrational way as the thoughts a man has because a bit of
> bone is pressing on his brain.  [emphasis added - pvt]

NON SEQUITUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is plainly a good scientific explanation for the obvious fact that
the finest piece of scientific reasoning is a lot more rational than the
symptoms of bone-on-brain.  Lewis's argument fails MISERABLY.

And now, on to a Lewis critic who does EVEN WORSE!  (Aaaauuuuggghhh!)

From Rich Rosen:
> In a naturalist system there could not be free will.  And we want for there
> to be free will, right?  [despite whatever evidence we've seen and ignored]
> Thus, the naturalists are wrong!!  Boy, thanks, Mr. Lewis, for 'clearing 
> that up' for me!"  

Now you've heard the sound of one knee jerking!  Rosen, if you would put
aside your ideological blinders for a second you might see that believing
in free will is a can't-lose proposition, and disbelieving in it is can't-
win!  If you believe you have free will and you're wrong, it was out of
your power to be correct anyway so you haven't lost anything.  But if you're
right, you have gained something by exercising your power correctly.  There-
fore, anything that implies lack of free will can be dismissed right there.
Lewis was right about that much!

> What a highly anthropocentric view of the universe this is.  "Science" 
> can not be true unless human thought can be explained to follow certain 
> rules.  [but science IS part of human thought!  Aarrggh! --pvt] What 
> does human thought have to do with the physical state of the universe?  
> The universe exists whether or not we perceive or understand it.  

An imperceptible, incomprehensible universe would be completely 
uninteresting!  If the physical state of the universe had no relevance 
for human life, which should we pay attention to?  THREE CHEERS FOR
ANTHROPOCENTRISM if that's what it is to answer, "humanity"!

> ...  In what way is the total system NOT RATIONAL?  What does
> such a statement mean?  Rational to whom?  Rational thinking takes into
> account THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS.  How could the way the system works NOT
> BE RATIONAL when "rational" is defined to take into account how the system
> is (perceived to be) working?  ...
> ...ALL thoughts seem to stem from the same very rational causes.  Even 
> those of wishful thinkers and presupposers.  (No :-) intended!!)  The 
> rational causes? Chemical actions of the brain.

You're doing this just to annoy me, right?  HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THE 
DIFFERENCE?  The thoughts of wishful thinkers do NOT stem from rational
causes, that's why they're irrational!  You seem to be twisting the
word rational to mean "predictable", etc.  What it means is reasoning
validly, and learning from experience (at least these anyway).  

From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
> What Lewis's argument claims is that it is impossible to make any claim
> stronger than utility for rational argument without appeals to authority
> outside of human rationality ...

No, what the passage that was quoted by Sargent claimed (and that was
what started this debate) was exactly what Huybensz said it claimed.  I
think you have either been reading your own views into Lewis, or else
remembering a different part of Lewis's writings than the passage which
the rest of us are talking about.

From:		Kenneth Almquist
>   The problem is that it is not possible
> to argue that rational argument is valid because you can't begin to
> argue unless you *first* concede that rational argument is valid.  Thus
> you must accept as a postulate that rational argument is valid.  
> ... There is no way I can argue with someone who refuses to accept the 
> validity of reason.

To recognize an argument as rational IS to recognize it as valid; as
being normatively binding on one's own thought.  Furthermore there is
nothing viciously circular or otherwise improper about using reason to
argue for reason.  Reason is not a premise in any argument but rather
the way of getting from premises to conclusions; and only by using the
conclusion as one of the premises can the question be begged.

	That oughta make y'all think -- for once!
		--the untiring iconoclast,
		Paul V. Torek, umcp-cs!flink (until 1/11 then back to
				wucs!wucec1!pvt1047)