One Hundred Million Americans and a Toad

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:37:03 -0800, J.S.T. wrote:
/snip/

> I may be understanding you incorrectly, but you seem to imply by your
> original post that the only people who can be concerned about values
> and meaning in life are theists. Or that such concerns can only lead
> to, or be supported by, a belief in God.
> To me as an atheist, I see God being irrelevant to that concern.


Lewis's view on that is in ABOLITION OF MAN, Ch 5 of MIRACLES, and the Intro
of PROBLEM OF PAIN. (And some late essay I've only seen in quotes from
AJA.


Mary
 >> Stay informed about: One Hundred Million Americans and a Toad 

J.S.T. <spamfree RemoveThis @spamfree.com> wrote in message news:<9fp2q05rsa0plob7lbbj2u4ip9ilk21k2t RemoveThis @4ax.com>...
 > On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:58:31 GMT, "AJA" <ahnemann RemoveThis @optonline.net>
 > wrote:
 >
  > >And a dangerous idea against agnosticism is the naturalist's contention that
 >
 > Not sure what agnosticism has to do with this. Did you mean atheism
 > here?
 >
 >
  > >her mind and reason are the result of "a fundamentally non-purposive system,
  > >[which would] end up describing something that cannot be genuinely called
  > >reasoning." (Reppert, _C. S. Lewis' Dangerous Idea_)
 >
 > And here is a nice example of Reppert practicing 'greedy
 > reductionism.' Mind and reason occur within biological systems. And
 > those systems cannot accurately be described as 'non-purposive'.

Is the following greedy reductionism?

"So if there is to be any original intentionality--original just in
the sense of being derived from no other, ulterior source--the
intentionality of natural selection deserves the honor. What is
particularly satisfying about this is that we end the threatened
regress of derivation with something of the right metaphysical sort: a
blind and unrepresenting source of our own sightful and insightful
powers of representation."

Because this comes from Daniel Dennett's essay "Evolution, Error and
Intentionality."

 >
 > Of course, you could make the argument that all biological processes
 > depend upon the atomic and subatomic non-purposive realm and so
 > one must postulate that God is continually performing miracles to
 > maintain that purposive biological behavior. Guess one would then
 > have to change its name to the Argument From Biology rather than the
 > Argument From Reason.
 >
 > In any case, I understand that you are one who believes that
 > everything had to arise from some kind of supernatural mind in order
 > for there to be meaning in the world. At one time I also held that
 > position. I've since come to believe that mind and reason arise from
 > the natural world we live in. I can't prove that position, but the
 > evidence for it is too persuasive for me to be able to ignore it.
 >
  > >Though, as CSL knew,
  > >no one argument changes a person's view.
 >
 > True. And I doubt that we really control what we believe. I mean
 > that in the sense that we cannot just will-nilly adopt a belief
 > because we might find it pleasing. One also needs to be convinced.
 >
 > In any case, it is good to be able to share our different views on
 > this and other topics.
 > James
 > ---
 > Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't
 > believe impossible things."
 > "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.
 > "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day.
 > Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things
 > before breakfast."
 > Through the Looking Glass
Victor Reppert<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: One Hundred Million Americans and a Toad 

"Dan Drake" <dd.RemoveThis@dandrake.com> wrote in message news:<vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-ejyeQ2XhySje@localhost>...

  > > The debate here, for instance: Was C. S. Lewis an atheist? Of course he
  > > was, he _says_ he was. What is a _real_ atheist anyway? A God hater, a God
  > > judge?
 >
 > You're certainly on target here as to the constant arguments about what
 > true atheism is. I detect a grin in "he _says_ he was", and I share it;
 > but I'm happy to take Lewis's word for it: he was not lying about it, or
 > failing to remember what he truly had thought.

Perhaps some have read more into the "debate" than there was in it.
In a nutshell, it just implied that most of the evidence cited (from
Oct 12, 1916 to his conversion) for Lewis being an atheist really
wasn't such. There still remains the period of time before Oct 12
1916, although some will say there are problems with that also.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: One Hundred Million Americans and a Toad