Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

[lelinator]

No, they’re not incapable of reason, they just have an error in their reasoning.

If it’ll make you happy I’ll rephrase it…everyone in the world who disagrees with you is using flawed reasoning, and you alone, and those who agree with you, are the only ones capable of correct reasoning.

There is that better?

Also, you mentioned above that you disagree with the assumptions of Thomism, or with anyone’s assumptions. What assumptions might those be?

That’s a discussion that I don’t have any interest in, because we’re no more likely to agree on that, then we are to agree on objective morality. Suffice it to say that I don’t agree with Aquinas, and I don’t believe that there’s any argument that I could ever make that would cause you to agree with me.

 

[SPBlitz]

…everyone in the world who disagrees with you is using flawed reasoning, and you alone, and those who agree with you, are the only ones capable of correct reasoning.

Ah, the standard boilerplate. “So you think everyone in the world I wrong, and only those agreed with you are smart enough to be right!” Again, I’m not saying I’m the only capable of correct reasoning, only that, at least in this case, those who disagree would have an error in reasoning. If Aquinas’ premises are true, and his conclusion follows logically from his premises, than you can you can dismiss it only on pain of irrationality.

Suffice it to say that I don’t agree with Aquinas, and I don’t believe that there’s any argument that I could ever make that would cause you to agree with me.

No, there’s probably not. Although I do find it curious - your argument that you’d make to sway me, would you be using reason to make it? If so, that undermines your own argument that reason cannot be a valid way to gain truth. If you don’t use reason, than your argument is inherently non-rational, and why should I - why should you - believe it?

 

[lelinator]

If Aquinas’ premises are true, and his conclusion follows logically from his premises, than you can you can dismiss it only on pain of irrationality.

The problem is that too many people forget that there’s an “if” at the beginning of that statement.

• your argument that you’d make to sway me, would you be using reason to make it? If so, that undermines your own argument that reason cannot be a valid way to gain truth.

Ah, but even if my argument could convince you, would that necessarily make it true?

A great many people, are convinced through reason, of a great many things, but that doesn’t make them true.

Perhaps, just perhaps, when it comes right down to it, what they’re really relying upon isn’t reason, but faith.

 

[IWantGod]

If we look at small children, who are not “polluted” yet with society, who simply express their “nature”, we shall see that they are “mean, little brutes”, who need a lot of “chiseling down” to change them into acceptable kids. We don’t teach them. we train them, just like any other animal. They don’t share, their main word is “MINE!!” when it comes to their possessions. They are jealous, vicious, they see nothing inherently wrong with torturing animals.

If that is true, then where did the moral sense of right or wrong come from. If something is only taught to be wrong, what came first? The chicken or the egg. And if there really is no such thing as wrong objectively, then why does the human nature have the capacity to feel guilt?

It seems to me that the only reason we come to have moral sensibilities in the first place is because we have the capacity to realise that human behaviour has a moral meaning and is meaningful in general.

 

[IWantGod]

But the other side refuses to understand it.

Because we experience things as being right and wrong. It’s not just a theory that we are taught, but rather it’s an actual experience, in that we realise that there is something fundamentally wrong with certain types of behaviour; otherwise we would have no meaningful comprehension of it at all beyond a pragmatic need to survive. Psychopaths on the other hand do not, because they don’t have a capacity for a conscience.

 

[IWantGod]

and I don’t believe that there’s any argument that I could ever make that would cause you to agree with me.

That’s only because you don’t actually have an argument that respects the principle of non-contradiction.

 

[SPBlitz]

The problem is that too many people forget that there’s an “if” at the beginning of that statement.

I said if because I wouldn’t be able to provide an adequate proof of Thomism on a forum .The point is, unless someone can show that the premises of Thomism are false, or that the conclusion doesn’t follow logically from the premises, than Thomism’s proof is successful.

Ah, but even if my argument could convince you, would that necessarily make it true?

Out of curiousity, if logical argumentation doesn’t convince you that something is true, what will?

Perhaps, just perhaps, when it comes right down to it, what they’re really relying upon isn’t reason, but faith.

Again, this is standard boilerplate. Whenever a theist provides logical reasons to believe in God, the atheist will counter that, despite what it appears on the surface, the real reason the theist believes is because of faith. Of course, it would be impossible to prove you wrong, since no matter how well constructed a logical argument we provide, you could always counter that, below that, our belief is based upon nothing but faith. For starters, you aren’t proving that my belief is based on faith and not reason, you are only asserting it. Second, this subtly undermines your own argument, since you are suggesting that the reason our beliefs are invalid is because they are built on faith, and not reason. But I thought your whole point was that even reason can’t lead us to truth. Again, if you won’'t trust reason to lead to truth, what will you trust?

 

[lelinator]

That’s only because you don’t actually have an argument that respects the principle of non-contradiction.

Do you want to know what I think, I think that if you take away your assumptions, my contradictions will disappear as well.

 

[IWantGod]

Do you want to know what I think,

You have already revealed what you think.

my contradictions will disappear as well.

…Along with the principle of non-contradiction.

Until you accept that a nature which necessarily exists is not at the same time potentially existing, i can only conclude that you have given up on reason. In other words it is your refusal to accept that the fundamental nature of necessary reality cannot change, is not something that is becoming or something that is potentially real in principle of being necessary, that is keeping you from realising the truth. The truth that physical reality is an artificial construct. It’s not something that is naturally real.

That which is necessarily a duck cannot bark like a dog.

 

[lelinator]

I said if because I wouldn’t be able to provide an adequate proof of Thomism on a forum .

That’s understandable, all the works of Aquinas couldn’t provide adequate proof of Thomism, so why should I expect you to do so. But as I’ve argued all along, such are the limitations of reason, it’s not very good for discerning the truth. Aquinas’ arguments are good for preaching to the choir, but little more than nonsense to a skeptic.

The point is, unless someone can show that the premises of Thomism are false, or that the conclusion doesn’t follow logically from the premises, than Thomism’s proof is successful.

Case in point, you’re asking for the impossible. You’re asking someone to disprove through reason, what you’ve already decided is true through reason. Once someone has made the commitment to believe in something, it’s darn near impossible to persuade them otherwise, no matter how well presented the reasoning is. Reasoning, by either side, is extremely prone to biases and assumptions.

Out of curiousity, if logical argumentation doesn’t convince you that something is true, what will?

It’s not that logical argumentation won’t convince me that something is true, it’s just that logical argumentation usually consists of a whole lot of argumentation and very little logic.

Again, this is standard boilerplate. Whenever a theist provides logical reasons to believe in God, the atheist will counter that, despite what it appears on the surface, the real reason the theist believes is because of faith.

Case in point number two, you assumed that when I mentioned faith that I was referring only to theists, but non-theists are almost as prone to basing their arguments on faith as theists are.

So all of the proceeding diatribe in your post was based upon a false assumption, that I claimed that only theists are guilty of basing their arguments on faith. Agnostics and atheists are just as prone to poor reasoning as theists are.

As much as we humans like to think that we’re reasoning beings, we’re actually not very good at it.

 

[IWantGod]

As much as we humans like to think that we’re reasoning beings, we’re actually not very good at it.

 

[lelinator]

In other words it is your refusal to accept that the fundamental nature of necessary reality cannot change…

You must have me confused with someone else, because I totally accept the premise that the fundamental nature of reality cannot change. But I also understand the concept that a random set of numbers can change, and still be a random set of numbers…however its nature never changes.

 

[SPBlitz]

That’s understandable, all the works of Aquinas couldn’t provide adequate proof of Thomism, so why should I expect you to do so. But as I’ve argued all along, such are the limitations of reason, it’s not very good for discerning the truth. Aquinas’ arguments are good for preaching to the choir, but little more than nonsense to a skeptic.

Again, you aren’t proving them wrong, you are merely asserting them to be wrong. Why are they nonsense to a skeptic? Why are they choir preaching? You have to do more then merely assert them wrong. You have to show how Aquinas is wrong. Right now, you are merely dodging the question, and I suspect it’s because you’ve argued yourself into a corner.

Case in point, you’re asking for the impossible. You’re asking someone to disprove through reason, what you’ve already decided is true through reason. Once someone has made the commitment to believe in something, it’s darn near impossible to persuade them otherwise, no matter how well presented the reasoning is.

No, I’m asking you to find fault in my reasoning. If my reasoning is correct, then Thomism would be true. If you can point out where my reasoning is incorrect, then it would be disproved. You seem to have this bizarre idea that the rules of logic are determined person to person, but that simply isn’t true. I didn’t merely decided that Thomism is true, I followed logical steps to reach that conclusion. If I made an error in those steps, you would have to point that out to me. If you are unable to, you can’t argue that’s because I set you an impossible task. That’s like getting upset I said that 2+2=4, and when asked to disprove that, you argue that you can’t. Of course you can’t, because the solution is true, no matter how much you wish it were not. The same with any logical argument.

It’s not that logical argumentation won’t convince me that something is true, it’s just that logical argumentation usually consists of a whole lot of argumentation and very little logic.

You didn’t answer my question…

 

[IWantGod]

You must have me confused with someone else, because I totally accept the premise that the fundamental nature of reality cannot change.

I was talking about necessary-reality.

But I also understand the concept that a random set of numbers can change, and still be a random set of numbers…its nature never changes.

Except the concept of a random set of numbers doesn’t involve existence. So that rebuttal doesn’t work, and only suceeds in confusing the issue, but since reason is your goal, i’m sure confusion is not your intent.

The actualization of potential necessarily involves the actualization of something that was not actual and therefore not naturally-actual or naturally-existing, or necessarily real.

You have failed to give a logical reason to reject this fact. Like @SPBlitz said, it’s like your getting upset about people saying that 2 + 2 = 4 and failing to give a comprehensible reason for rejecting it. All you seem to do is assert that we are making assumptions and how you are above such a failing.

I hate to say it, but it seems like you are trolling.

 

[SaberBob]

I know I’m jumping into this late, but since my original handle on CA was Lion of Narnia I couldn’t resist to say if the OP dislikes Mere Christianity he should NEVER read The Abolition of Man.

 

[lelinator]

…it seems like you are trolling.

I would think that you and I have been at this long enough that you’d understand that our disagreements stem from the fact that you’re stuck in a box, one defined, among other things, by the law of non-contradiction. While I on the other hand, practically live outside the box. We see things differently, because I think that it’s all about perspectives, and that there are perspectives in which your rules don’t apply as neatly as you want them to. It’s as if you’re trying to take the rules that apply to the physical world, and apply them to a spiritual world in which they quite often aren’t appropriate.

I think that you should stop doing that. You’d see things a whole lot differently. You should also keep in mind, that I don’t speak in absolutes like you do. I’m not as certain as you seem to be, about what absolutely must be true. For me, the question is, what’s logically possible, and I think that you restrict what’s possible more than you logically should.

I was talking about necessary -reality.

The actualization of potential necessarily involves the actualization of something that was not actual and therefore not naturally-actual or naturally-existing, or necessarily real.

This is one of the areas in which we disagree. What things are “necessary”, and what things aren’t. I realize that you’re putting a metaphysical spin on that word, but I believe that it may well be, that all things are necessary, and that it may actually be impossible for them not to exist.

I think that that which exists outside of time would by necessity have a completely different set of rules than that which exists inside of time. Such that outside of time, rules like the law of non-contradiction don’t apply. Because outside of time you need to take everything that ever exists…ever, and have them all exist at the same time. Which in itself would seem contradictory and therefore impossible. But if the first cause, is also the cause of time, then the rules that apply to the things inside of time, don’t apply to the first cause. So I believe that you need to rethink your rules, with an eye toward when they apply, and when they don’t.

…it’s like your getting upset about people saying that 2 + 2 = 4 and failing to give a comprehensible reason for rejecting it.

If something upsets me, it’s that you fail to recognize that you’ve taken what’s true from your puny human perspective and applied it where it’s not appropriate. You believe that your rules are the logical equivalent to 2 + 2 = 4, when they’re not. From your perspective, contradictory things are impossible, and from your perspective some things are necessary and some things aren’t. But your indisputable logic may not always be right.

I believe that you need to learn to think outside of the box, and realize that what’s true for you inside of time, isn’t true for something that exists outside of time. And that you’re letting your rules supersede your logic.

 

[whatistrue]

First, I wasn’t arguing that there’s no such thing as objective morality.

And yet you appear to be trying to put so many roadblocks up to stop anyone being able to actually get to it. IMHO, disingenuous at best. I am out; no desire to debate with someone not doing so in good faith.

 

[IWantGod]

you’d understand that our disagreements stem from the fact that you’re stuck in a box, one defined, among other things, by the law of non-contradiction.

Well if being stuck in a box is the same thing as being logically consistent, then i think i will stay in the box.

 

[IWantGod]

If something upsets me, it’s that you fail to recognize that you’ve taken what’s true from your puny human perspective and applied it where it’s not appropriate. You believe that your rules are the logical equivalent to 2 + 2 = 4, when they’re not. From your perspective, contradictory things are impossible, and from your perspective some things are necessary and some things aren’t. But your indisputable logic may not always be right.

Like i said, if i have to give up the fundamental principles of reasoning in order to agree with you, then we are never going to agree; and you have made it clear that you have absolutely no reason to reject my argument.

 

[BlueMaxx]

Interesting thread…

Unfortunately now I gotta go feed the Schrodinger’s cat…