Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Everything Old Is New Again: C. S. Lewis and the Argument from Reason
BreakPoint with Charles Colson ^ | April 12, 2004 | Charles Colson

Posted on 04/12/2004 9:33:19 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback

One of the writers I quote most frequently is the great Christian apologist C. S. Lewis. Lewis’s book Mere Christianity helped bring me to Christ, and his writings have done the same for countless thousands of others. Most of Lewis’s readers come away from his books impressed by his deep faith, his brilliant mind, and the clarity and logic of his arguments.

Yet according to philosopher Victor Reppert, one of Lewis’s most successful arguments was one that many people thought a failure during his own lifetime.

In his new book, C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, Reppert examines Lewis’s attack on naturalism, which Lewis defined as “the doctrine that only Nature . . . exists” and that there is nothing beyond nature. Lewis argued against naturalism in his book Miracles and defended it in a debate with philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe. Although she also was a Christian, Anscombe thought Lewis’s argument had major philosophical weaknesses, and she went after it with both barrels. Reportedly, Lewis was shaken by the experience and so revised and strengthened his argument for the next edition of Miracles. But unfortunately, even after the revisions, the controversy has kept many people—even Christian philosophers—from taking his argument seriously.

Reppert believes this is a mistake and that it’s time to take another look at the revised “argument from reason.” Simply stated, it goes like this: Naturalism claims that everything that exists, including our own mental states, results from nonrational causes. As Lewis explained in the third chapter of Miracles, “If there is nothing but Nature . . . reason must have come into existence by an historical process. And of course, for a Naturalist, this process was not designed to produce a mental behavior that can find truth. There was no Designer; and indeed, until there were thinkers, there was no truth or falsehood.” Human beings could have learned to respond to their environment, but this does not necessarily mean the same thing as learning to think rationally.

That means that we have no way of evaluating whether our reasoning process—which comes from chance—is itself valid. But if we can’t trust that our reasoning processes are truly rational, then we can’t trust the reasoning we used to arrive at that conclusion, or any conclusion. Therefore, naturalism must be false. It is a self-refuting proposition.

The more Reppert studied this argument, the stronger it appeared to him. In fact, he ended up writing his doctoral dissertation on it, and he notes dryly, “Even though my committee was solidly opposed to the conclusion of my argument, they nevertheless passed my dissertation.”

I’m glad Reppert is calling new attention to a much neglected argument against naturalism. It’s the belief system, after all, dominant in science and philosophy today—and in the classroom. Reppert’s book isn’t an easy read, but I recommend it for serious students. As he writes in his conclusion, the argument from reason “constitutes an extremely powerful reason to reject naturalism and to accept some other worldview that makes reason fundamental to reality.” And what would that worldview be? Well, we have an answer to that, which is eminently reasonable.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: breakpoint; charlescolson; cslewis; lewis; naturalism

1 posted on 04/12/2004 9:33:20 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: agenda_express; BA63; banjo joe; Believer 1; billbears; Blood of Tyrants; ChewedGum; ...
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

2 posted on 04/12/2004 9:34:02 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Ted Kennedy has questioned Dubya's integrity. Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Thanks. I'm looking forward to this book.
3 posted on 04/12/2004 9:36:56 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; unspun
Naturalism claims that everything that exists, including our own mental states, results from nonrational causes. As Lewis explained in the third chapter of Miracles, “If there is nothing but Nature . . . reason must have come into existence by an historical process. And of course, for a Naturalist, this process was not designed to produce a mental behavior that can find truth. There was no Designer; and indeed, until there were thinkers, there was no truth or falsehood.” Human beings could have learned to respond to their environment, but this does not necessarily mean the same thing as learning to think rationally.

That means that we have no way of evaluating whether our reasoning process—which comes from chance—is itself valid. But if we can’t trust that our reasoning processes are truly rational, then we can’t trust the reasoning we used to arrive at that conclusion, or any conclusion. Therefore, naturalism must be false. It is a self-refuting proposition.

Nothing wrong with this argument, as a matter of fact, the naturalists have no answer for it. They have more supreme trust in reason then most theists have in God himself, but they have no explanation for why they trust it so, except to label it a "logical necessity," which is, of course, a circular argument: "We believe in rational thought because without it we couldn't think rationally..."

The ultimate failure of naturalism is that there's no real explanitory power in it. It's wonderful for making observations and testing theories about our natural world, but it fails miserably to explain the more significant questions of man: "Why am I here?" "Why am I a rational creature?" "What am I suppose to do?" "Why is there such tremendous biological diversity?"

Naturalism, at best, can explain some of the "hows" of life, but none of the "whys."

Excellent post...

4 posted on 04/12/2004 9:56:51 AM PDT by Ronzo (GOD alone is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Reppert is calling new attention to a much neglected argument against naturalism. It’s the belief system, after all, dominant in science and philosophy today—and in the classroom.

Not in my classroom. I love it when I get audio-visual materials from the naturalist/humanist viewpoints (which is mostly always). When they are at their most blatant, that is when I use the "pause" button, stop the fool in mid-sentence, mouth agape until I've had my say: "Nature decided...blah, blah, blah..." That's when I can really go off and show that there is another valid viewpoint. "Nature DECIDED?!!!", I ask, with my jaw nearly on the floor? "How can mindless matter "decide" anything?"

Point is, materialist has his say; I have my say -- and that, by the way, is how it should be. The educative process should be one of DI-alogue. "DI-" means there are two conversing in the Great Conversation. The only thing unfair about it is that he can't pause ME in mid-sentence and make ME look like a fool; but I'll get over it (heh, heh).

I, too, struggle with some of the things CS Lewis wrote (while mostly being in awe of him); so I must pick up this new commentary on him. Thanks for the post.

5 posted on 04/12/2004 9:57:52 AM PDT by Migraine (my grain is pretty straight today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Very interesting! I wish I could get the link to work.
6 posted on 04/12/2004 10:03:29 AM PDT by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
bump for later
7 posted on 04/12/2004 10:07:14 AM PDT by goodnesswins (Tagging you.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ronzo
Kinda like saying "Everything is relative, there are no absolutes" which cannot be taken seriously since it is an absolute statement.
8 posted on 04/12/2004 10:34:41 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds, a pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
C. S. Lewis bump!
9 posted on 04/12/2004 10:35:56 AM PDT by k2blader (Some folks should worry less about how conservatives vote and more about how to advance conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
Try here.

Their server might be slowing up, though. I'm not sure if it's me or them.

10 posted on 04/12/2004 11:02:12 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Ted Kennedy has questioned Dubya's integrity. Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
Kinda like saying "Everything is relative, there are no absolutes" which cannot be taken seriously since it is an absolute statement.

If you ever want to have some fun, have a relativist try to defend the "everything is relative" thesis. All of a sudden, a whole series of absolute statements comes spewing forth out of their mouths like Niagra Falls...the thesis is refuted before it's even defended.

Life would be unlivable if there were not at least some absolutes.

11 posted on 04/12/2004 3:04:14 PM PDT by Ronzo (GOD alone is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ronzo
If there is nothing but Nature . . . reason must have come into existence by an historical process. And of course, for a Naturalist, this process was not designed to produce a mental behavior that can find truth. There was no Designer; and indeed, until there were thinkers, there was no truth or falsehood.

I'm not a naturalist, and a great admirer of C S Lewis, but alas I find this argument a crock.

Let's take a simple truth: fire burns.

Even for a naturalist, that was true long before there were thinkers. Unreasoning animals have been fleeing forest fires since the first animals inhabited the first forests. And today, reasoning men try to avoid starting forest fires.

No designer is needed to explain this. The animals that ran, survived; the animals that stayed, ended up crispy critters. Good old Darwinian selection explains that quite well enough.

And it can also explain reason. We have evolved ways to find out truths about the natural world because knowing those truths gives us a better chance of survival. And hence reason tells us not to drop lighted matches in forests, because lighted matches start fires, and fire burns. A "reason" that could not find such truths could not evolve, because it would confer no survival value. Therefore, no designer is needed to explain why reason works, any more than one is needed to explain why birds' wings work. Impersonal Nature simply says, try it: if it works, you live; if it doesn't work, you die.

What naturalism cannot explain, of course, is how we can reason our way to truths that have no survival value, such as the truth that there is no largest prime number. Over to you, Plato.

12 posted on 04/13/2004 12:40:21 AM PDT by John Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: John Locke
Even for a naturalist, that [fire burns] was true long before there were thinkers. Unreasoning animals have been fleeing forest fires since the first animals inhabited the first forests.

Why do you think the argument is a crock? The article agrees with you: "Human beings could have learned to respond to their environment, but this does not necessarily mean the same thing as learning to think rationally."

What naturalism cannot explain, of course, is how we can reason our way to truths that have no survival value, such as the truth that there is no largest prime number.

Agreed, and that is the subject of the article, not whether animals fleeing forest fires are exhibiting truth or falsehood in the rational sense of the terms.

And today, reasoning men try to avoid starting forest fires.

Then what is the explanation for the the fact that some reasoning human beings start forest fires deliberately?

Cordially,

13 posted on 04/13/2004 7:37:43 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: John Locke
If there is nothing but Nature . . . reason must have come into existence by an historical process. And of course, for a Naturalist, this process was not designed to produce a mental behavior that can find truth. There was no Designer; and indeed, until there were thinkers, there was no truth or falsehood.

I'm not a naturalist, and a great admirer of C S Lewis, but alas I find this argument a crock.

You are not the first, nor the last to find Lewis' argument 'a crock.' And it's always for the same reason you cite: reason has no need of thinkers.

However, that's not the point of Lewis' argument. What he's saying is that universe, from a naturalistic point of view, is perfectly capable of existing WITHOUT any creatures who have the ability to think rationally. As a matter of fact, the universe, again from a purely naturalistic point-of-view, does not require there to be any life forms, of any kind, what-so-ever.

And yet we do see here on planet Earth an array of life forms that is truly overwhelming, and one life form that is capable of understanding reason and is self-aware --man. There is nothing in the naturalisitc frame-work, Darwinism included, that can explain it. At best, all naturalism can do is take what it finds and explain a possible way of how it came into existance using what ever visible evidence it can find. That's all it can do. The 'survial advantage' mantra, no matter how loudly or incessantly chanted, has no real explanitory power what-so-ever. It is, at very best, a cop-out. For you can't have something that is able to 'survive' unless you first have a creature that, in fact, does survive. Does non-living matter have a need for survival? Of course not. The question is stupid before it's even spoken. And yet that is exactly the basis of naturalism.

Rather than excusing the need for a 'designer' or 'creator,' naturalism proves there must be one. For there is nothing in the laws of science or reason that tells us life must come into existance anywhere in the universe. And there certianly isn't anything in science that tells us that a rational thinking creature is a scientific necessity.

We can easily concieve of a universe where's there is no life at all. We can also eaisly concieve of a universe where there's no need of any life-form that is capable of rational thought.

But, in fact, we live in a universe where there are many life-forms (at least on our planet) and at least one life form that has the ability to think rationally. Naturalism is completely powerless to explain why this is so, even with all of the powers of science at it's disposal. That's is the point Lewis is trying to make.

When one takes a good hard look at naturalistic science, all ones see it explanations for how things have occured, or, where evidence is lacking, a theory of how they occured. But to make the huge leap from "how" to "why" is not possible in the scientific domain. That's where religion comes in.

Naturalism can tell us there was an event we commonly call "The Big Bang," and it can tell us a little about how it came to be. But there is nothing in the naturalistic framework that can even begin to explain why there was a Big Bang. When scientists try to make that leap, we start hearing language that is religious in terminolgy and usage, not scientific or naturalistic.

Far from proving there's no need of a God, naturalism rather shows us how very limited our power of reason really is.

As final proof of Lewis' point: explain, using nothing but purely naturalistic language and terminolgy, why their exists a creature, man, who can ask the very rational question "why am I here?"

14 posted on 04/13/2004 2:27:59 PM PDT by Ronzo (GOD alone is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: John Locke
[Naturalism] also explain reason. We have evolved ways to find out truths about the natural world because knowing those truths gives us a better chance of survival. And hence reason tells us not to drop lighted matches in forests, because lighted matches start fires, and fire burns. A "reason" that could not find such truths could not evolve, because it would confer no survival value. Therefore, no designer is needed to explain why reason works, any more than one is needed to explain why birds' wings work. Impersonal Nature simply says, try it: if it works, you live; if it doesn't work, you die.

There is a major problem with your argument. The world as it currently exists has billions, if not trillions of examples of life forms that survive without even the faintest hint of displaying any rational thought process what-so-ever.

Therefore, there is absolutely no need for a creature that has the ability to think rationally in order to survive, nature itself is proof of this. (Of course nature itself is proof there's no need for even life to exist...)

Therefore, naturalism can't even explain the "how" of rational thought, let alone the "why."

If we take a closer look at the common explanation, that rational thought is due to evolution, we see this is no help what-so-ever. Such an explanation is pure speculation, with no scientific basis. It cannot be tested in a labratory, it cannot be deduced from math. It's a fine example of a "just-so" story, nothing more.

If rational thought were so very necessary for survival, then why do we live in a world filled with creatures that survive and thrive without any recourse to rational thought? And there are, of course, many creatures that even survive and thrive without anything resembling what we would call a "brain."

And why is it necessary for nature to even go to all that trouble to create life anyway, no matter what kind it is? Mercury has not fallen out of it's orbit and crashed into the Sun for lack of life forms. The Big Bang did not need life in order to happen...

What naturalism tries to pass off as 'explanations' are nothing more than creation stories without a God, and even without logic. Life is not necessary to fulfill any observed scientific law or any mathematical equation.

15 posted on 04/13/2004 4:17:03 PM PDT by Ronzo (GOD alone is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
C. S. Lewis
Companion and Guide, A definitive one-volume reference
by Walter Hooper first published in Great Britain in 1996

It is most informative of his life, family, friends, career, beliefs. writings letters, etc. I have greatly enjoyed it for many hours and several months. Check it out, for getting to know the man himself, his teaching style, radio broadcasts, etc.

16 posted on 04/19/2004 2:11:58 PM PDT by Countyline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson