tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post113443735408589140..comments2023-10-30T04:35:26.999-06:00Comments on Every Thought Captive: Book Review: C.S. Lewis's Dangerous IdeaPhil Steigerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14948892557259431751noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-1139941908155379722006-02-14T11:31:00.000-07:002006-02-14T11:31:00.000-07:00This is a good resource page for material on both ...This is a good resource page for material on both sides of the AFR controversy. <BR/><BR/>http://www.sonic.net/mary/DejaLew-dir/rants/miracles.htmlVictor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-1139895898092006592006-02-13T22:44:00.000-07:002006-02-13T22:44:00.000-07:00Rational inference cannot be explained supernatura...Rational inference cannot be explained supernaturally.<BR/><BR/>Therefore the supernatural does not exist.<BR/><BR/>Victor cannot produce a supernatural explanation of why it is logically impossible, given the rules of chess to deliver checkmate with King and Bishop against King.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-1134611001086984822005-12-14T18:43:00.000-07:002005-12-14T18:43:00.000-07:00Thanks for the clarification. But on the second o...Thanks for the clarification. <BR/><BR/>But on the second one I'd still object to the opening premise and on basically the same grounds ... <BR/><BR/>Take care & God blessWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-1134601855144662162005-12-14T16:10:00.000-07:002005-12-14T16:10:00.000-07:00Chad - an analogy that might be helpful in seeing ...Chad - an analogy that might be helpful in seeing Weekend Fisher's (and Phil's) point regarding premise 1 of your 2nd syllogism ("Nonrational causes produce only nonrational effects"):<BR/><BR/>(1): Non-biological causes produce only non-biological effects<BR/>(2): Non-living causes produce only non-living effects<BR/>(3): Non-economic causes produce only non-economic effects<BR/>(4): Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-1134595410870733412005-12-14T14:23:00.000-07:002005-12-14T14:23:00.000-07:00Chad-Your argument about determinism and the truth...Chad-<BR/><BR/>Your argument about determinism and the truth of or justification of is, I think, playing on the same idea as Lewis’s. Are you possibly throwing in a kind of Kantian assumption in the first premise (not necessarily unjustifiably) when you take physical laws to be deterministic? And thus there needs to be something else in the human experience to justify knowledge or rational Phil Steigerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14948892557259431751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-1134594812521761572005-12-14T14:13:00.000-07:002005-12-14T14:13:00.000-07:00Guys-Thanks for writing and for the insights. I a...Guys-<BR/><BR/>Thanks for writing and for the insights. I apologize for taking a couple of days to respond…life and all.<BR/><BR/>First, you should know that Brian may sound like a smart guy, but he is.<BR/><BR/>Weekend Fisher-<BR/>You wrote, “Could you give any insights on the differences between the first version of Lewis' argument and the second?”<BR/><BR/>Let me give you the versions ReppertPhil Steigerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14948892557259431751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-1134570752975587772005-12-14T07:32:00.000-07:002005-12-14T07:32:00.000-07:00Excellent! I’m ecstatic to hear of someone with si...Excellent! I’m ecstatic to hear of someone with similar habbits/interestes as my own. Hopefully that’ll serve to expedite our ability to get down to matters of fact. Unfortunately, I may have to temporarily postpone this discussion for reasons of busyness: An atheist Prof. (Yonatan Isaac Fishman of AECOM) seems to have challenged the apologetic material on a friend’s site that I occasionally Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769271734220181852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-1134540066808262192005-12-13T23:01:00.000-07:002005-12-13T23:01:00.000-07:00Hi ChadSure, I love that kind of thing. You can s...Hi Chad<BR/><BR/>Sure, I love that kind of thing. You can start off on your blog if you'd like, and then I'll either comment there or reply at my own blog and put a notice on yours. <BR/><BR/>Last time I had an on-line "exchange" like this ... just a note on saving time here ... some poor guy said he'd take the first post in the series and then spent like 3 paragraphs supporting his view that Weekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-1134535182148092622005-12-13T21:39:00.000-07:002005-12-13T21:39:00.000-07:00Yes, that's a good thought. My blog doesn't see mu...Yes, that's a good thought. My blog doesn't see much action if you want to travel over there unless you prefer it at yours. <BR/><BR/>Before we get into things, as I hope you're interested, can you tell me a bit more about yourself? Areas of particular study/specialty, basic beliefs, etc? It helps me to understand that I'm conversing with a human and not merely a machine. <BR/><BR/>Thank you for Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769271734220181852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-1134526068047754282005-12-13T19:07:00.000-07:002005-12-13T19:07:00.000-07:00Hi thereDon't get me wrong, I appreciate a lot of ...Hi there<BR/><BR/>Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a lot of Lewis' arguments. I just think this is not one of his better ones. <BR/><BR/>Chad, when it comes to the way you laid out Lewis' arguments (or a version of them), I'd "poke holes" through the first one at 2a/2b, and on the second one at point 1, and both for the same reason. We've never defined "rational"; let's define it right quick.Weekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-1134502473790458512005-12-13T12:34:00.000-07:002005-12-13T12:34:00.000-07:00Great points Phil. Many times I’ve run into critic...Great points Phil. Many times I’ve run into criticisms of Lewis’ arguments that seem to assume that his arguments have been completely refuted. Balderdash! His arguments are sound and have stood well over the years (I still find his arguments in Miracles to be compelling).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-1134492443191713202005-12-13T09:47:00.000-07:002005-12-13T09:47:00.000-07:00In the last decade or so, much attention has been ...In the last decade or so, much attention has been focused on Alvin Plantinga's argument that the belief in naturalism is "self-defeating" and (hence) irrational. His main argument seems to bear significant resemblance to Lewis' insight. Here's one rough summary/formulation of the argument:<BR/><BR/>Say that N = naturalism; E = evolution; and R = our faculties are reliable (i.e. in the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-1134484858893546892005-12-13T07:40:00.000-07:002005-12-13T07:40:00.000-07:00You think so? What do you mean by "poke holes"? Do...You think so? What do you mean by "poke holes"? Do you mean to say they're <I>unsuccessful</I>, or merely 'able to be challenged'? If unsuccessful, do you mean in terms of logical composition or in the face of challenges? If the latter, do you think those challenges cannot sufficiently be met?Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769271734220181852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-1134482078345824872005-12-13T06:54:00.000-07:002005-12-13T06:54:00.000-07:00I'll wait until I hear the blog author weigh in on...I'll wait until I hear the blog author weigh in on this but I'd like to mention that the syllogisms you put forward are fairly easy to poke holes in. I'll see if there's a stronger one forthcoming before I go poking holes though. <BR/><BR/>Take care & God blessWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-1134453376355516852005-12-12T22:56:00.000-07:002005-12-12T22:56:00.000-07:00I’ve recently been quite intrigued by this argumen...I’ve recently been quite intrigued by this argument myself and have been starved in trying to find a solid reference like this! Thanks! <BR/><BR/>Here’s what I think is a good syllogism similar to the argument Lewis proposed:<BR/>_______________________________________________<BR/><BR/><B>1. As determinism holds, all beliefs are the product of nonrational causes.</B> <BR/><BR/><B>2. If a belief Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769271734220181852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309718.post-1134449045908296782005-12-12T21:44:00.000-07:002005-12-12T21:44:00.000-07:00Could you give any insights on the differences bet...Could you give any insights on the differences between the first version of Lewis' argument and the second? I've seen a version of it (don't know which) and thought it wasn't one of Lewis' better arguments. But I wonder whether I only saw the older version, & don't know how to tell. Any comments on the difference would be appreciated.Weekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.com