Belief in God, higher power, or neither

11/04/2008 01:04:44 PM · #126

I don't have the book handy and was trying to remember what Hitchens said about Lewis. I googled and found an apologist's blog of the apologist. It quotes Hitchens extensively, who gives reasons why Lewis needs to be dismissed as "dreary and absurd".

Message edited by author 2008-11-04 13:06:35.

11/04/2008 01:05:00 PM · #127

Oops! Timeout double-post!

Message edited by author 2008-11-04 13:05:57.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

11/04/2008 01:05:30 PM · #128

Oops! Timeout triple-post!

Message edited by author 2008-11-04 13:06:12.

Apple iPhone 5

11/04/2008 01:06:28 PM · #129

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm going to quote a bit of CS Lewis.

I find it odd that a fiction writer is so often used as a source to defend Christianity in these threads, especially an Anglican generally arguing against the scientific knowledge of the 1930's.

Ad homimen. I'd expect better from you scalvert.

Ad hominem would be if he had attacked you personally. In this case he's questioning the validity of your sources, which isn't the same thing.

11/04/2008 01:09:22 PM · #130

It could be argued to be an ad hominem against Lewis. It's not really, since it discredits his views by showing him to be suspicious of science.

11/04/2008 01:10:51 PM · #131

Originally posted by JH:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm going to quote a bit of CS Lewis.

I find it odd that a fiction writer is so often used as a source to defend Christianity in these threads, especially an Anglican generally arguing against the scientific knowledge of the 1930's.

Ad homimen. I'd expect better from you scalvert.

Ad hominem would be if he had attacked you personally. In this case he's questioning the validity of your sources, which isn't the same thing.

Perhaps. Maybe I should have simply said his questions of validity about Lewis were lame.

How about we just read the quote? Who cares who said it, it made my point to Jamie. This is where these threads go off into left field. Instead of talking about my point, I now need to mount some defense of Lewis, who is very well respected outside DPC's "big four"?

Why are atheists even getting up in arms since the quote was directed against "life-force" believers?

Message edited by author 2008-11-04 13:13:21.

11/04/2008 01:17:22 PM · #132

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This is where these threads go off into left field. Instead of talking about my point, I now need to mount some defense of Lewis, who is very well respected outside DPC's "big four"?

Big Four? The Hydra I mentioned the other day?

Lewis can be easily dismissed in my view, so wherever his name crops up, I'm likely to take that as a challenge to discredit him. I think he's a popular latter-day apologist because he claimed to be atheist, then converted to Anglicanism. :-) It's a weird world. As proof, Anne Rice of "Vampire LeStat" fame recently converted from vampiric atheism to Roman Catholicism.

11/04/2008 01:22:36 PM · #133

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

How about we just read the quote? Who cares who said it, it made my point to Jamie. This is where these threads go off into left field. Instead of talking about my point, I now need to mount some defense of Lewis...

My post was only a random observation that Lewis seems to pop up regularly in these threads, not necessarily in reference to your particular quote. Fiction or not, the guy's background is literature, period, and it struck me as odd... sort of like bringing up quotes from Shakespeare in a discussion of evolution or atomic theory. That's all.

11/04/2008 01:25:03 PM · #134

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is where these threads go off into left field. Instead of talking about my point, I now need to mount some defense of Lewis, who is very well respected outside DPC's "big four"?

Big Four? The Hydra I mentioned the other day?

Lewis can be easily dismissed in my view, so wherever his name crops up, I'm likely to take that as a challenge to discredit him. I think he's a popular latter-day apologist because he claimed to be atheist, then converted to Anglicanism. :-) It's a weird world. As proof, Anne Rice of "Vampire LeStat" fame recently converted from vampiric atheism to Roman Catholicism.

Heh. no "big four" was Louis, Gordon, Shannon and, hmmm, who's the fourth?

Instead of knee-jerking to discredit Lewis, just read the quote. It was a logical attempt to show the fallacy of some quasi-belief between "religion" (here he simply means theism) and materialism. I don't think it was a big controvertial passage and I'd think you'd rather agree with it.

I'm also not sure why you say he "claimed" to be an atheist. Are you infering he's somehow lying just to gain street cred? You sell the man quite short.

11/04/2008 01:30:40 PM · #135

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How about we just read the quote? Who cares who said it, it made my point to Jamie. This is where these threads go off into left field. Instead of talking about my point, I now need to mount some defense of Lewis...

My post was only a random observation that Lewis seems to pop up regularly in these threads, not necessarily in reference to your particular quote. Fiction or not, the guy's background is literature, period, and it struck me as odd... sort of like bringing up quotes from Shakespeare in a discussion of evolution or atomic theory. That's all.

Haven't we been through this? According to Wikipedia, Lewis had three "firsts" (highest honor of degree) at Oxford. Actually I was only aware of two (one being English Literature and the other being, drumroll, philosophy and ancient history). Having even one "first" at Oxford at that time was impressive. To deny he is qualified to speak to such things is ridiculous.

I know we've had this coversation before.

EDIT: I found the exact degrees he got: Honor Mods (Greek and Latin Texts), Greats (Classical Philosophy), and English Language and Literature (Old and Middle English)

Message edited by author 2008-11-04 13:33:06.

11/04/2008 01:33:37 PM · #136

Originally posted by SomeWriter:

People who hold this view say that the small variations by which life on this planet "evolved" from the lowest forms to Man were not due to chance but to the "striving" or "purposiveness" of a Life-Force. When people say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they mean something with a mind or not. If they do, then "a mind bringing life into existence and leading it to perfection" is really a God, and their view is thus identical with the Religious. If they do not, then what is the sense in saying that something without a mind "strives" or has "purposes"?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It was a logical attempt to show the fallacy of some quasi-belief between "religion" (here he simply means theism) and materialism. I don't think it was a big controvertial passage and I'd think you'd rather agree with it.

I certainly don't, nor do I think the idea of evolution as the result of a "striving" life-force is a remotely accurate description of the theory. Even if it were, his contention is readily dispelled... gravity and magnetism are two obvious examples of things that "strive" toward a purpose without a mind.

Message edited by author 2008-11-04 13:36:07.

11/04/2008 01:35:42 PM · #137

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I found the exact degrees he got: Honor Mods (Greek and Latin Texts), Greats (Classical Philosophy), and English Language and Literature (Old and Middle English)

Yep... Old Literature, the Meaning of Life in Old Literature, and Modern Literature. Congrats. Is there anything to suggest he understood the Darwinian theory he argues against? His arguments certainly don't.

Message edited by author 2008-11-04 13:39:00.

11/04/2008 01:38:05 PM · #138

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I found the exact degrees he got: Honor Mods (Greek and Latin Texts), Greats (Classical Philosophy), and English Language and Literature (Old and Middle English)

Yep... Old Literature, the Meaning of Life in Old Literature, and Modern Literature. Congrats.

Whatever dude. What are your qualifications to speak on behalf of atheists? This portion of the thread is silly.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/04/2008 01:39:51 PM · #139

Originally posted by scalvert:

I think you use the word "strive" differently. Which of the following dictionary.com definitions pertains to gravity?

1. to exert oneself vigorously; try hard: He strove to make himself understood.
2. to make strenuous efforts toward any goal: to strive for success.
3. to contend in opposition, battle, or any conflict; compete.
4. to struggle vigorously, as in opposition or resistance: to strive against fate.
5. to rival; vie.

You need another cup of coffee today Shannon. You are making mountains out of molehills and fighting a fight that isn't even your own.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/04/2008 01:40:20 PM · #140

Originally posted by Louis:

It's a weird world. As proof, Anne Rice of "Vampire LeStat" fame recently converted from vampiric atheism to Roman Catholicism.

I'm not so sure that it's that big a jump ... drinking blood is still part of the ritual.

11/04/2008 01:46:14 PM · #141

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What are your qualifications to speak on behalf of atheists?

I don't claim to speak on behalf of atheists. I have never read a single book from Dawkins, et al (though I have read the Bible). My points are made on the basis of readily available knowledge in history, geology, biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, genetics, etc. If we were discussing philosophy, then I suppose no qualifications are necessary, but the quote you posted was about evolution... a non-philosophical process that Lewis evidently didn't grasp.

11/04/2008 01:50:58 PM · #142

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The same ones that would apply to evolution in the context of the quote you posted. A fish doesn't exert itself to turn into a frog. Nice try, but you're only reinforcing my contention that Lewis didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

11/04/2008 01:52:03 PM · #143

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What are your qualifications to speak on behalf of atheists?

I don't claim to speak on behalf of atheists. I have never read a single book from Dawkins, et al (though I have read the Bible). My points are made on the basis of readily available knowledge in history, geology, biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, genetics, etc. If we were discussing philosophy, then I suppose no qualifications are necessary, but the quote you posted was about evolution... a non-philosophical process that Lewis evidently didn't grasp.

Aha, I see the whole issue. OK, I think you are misunderstanding. Lewis is not speaking about scientific evolution in his passage. Read it again. He's talking about a quasi-belief that there may not be a sentient higher being but there is still a striving of the universe to produce "perfect humans". Try the wiki stub Creative Evolution and see if you don't agree we are talking about something quite different from Darwinism.

I'm hoping this misunderstanding is why we can't see eye to eye.

11/04/2008 01:55:23 PM · #144

Originally posted by C.S. Lewis:

People who hold this view say that the small variations by which life on this planet "evolved" from the lowest forms to Man were not due to chance but to the "striving" or "purposiveness" of a Life-Force.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think you are misunderstanding. Lewis is not speaking about scientific evolution in his passage. ...I'm hoping this misunderstanding is why we can't see eye to eye.

Most likely. It looks to me like scientific evolution is exactly what he was speaking about, unless by posting that Wiki you were implying that Lewis was arguing against an outdated notion of a life-force actively driving evolution, in which case the quote is irrelevant.

Message edited by author 2008-11-04 14:01:10.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/04/2008 01:57:15 PM · #145

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by C.S. Lewis:
People who hold this view say that the small variations by which life on this planet "evolved" from the lowest forms to Man were not due to chance but to the "striving" or "purposiveness" of a Life-Force.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think you are misunderstanding. Lewis is not speaking about scientific evolution in his passage. ...I'm hoping this misunderstanding is why we can't see eye to eye.

Most likely.

If you still don't agree (I couldn't tell from your post), read the unbolded part of your quote "were not due to chance but to the "striving" or "purposiveness" of a Life-Force." That pretty well leaves out Darwinian theory, wouldn't you agree?

citymars

Nikon D700

11/04/2008 02:03:38 PM · #146

Dr.Achoo, I thought that quote by Lewis was rather brilliant and funny -- and I agree he is richly qualified to comment -- but I wonder, if modern man invented a god or godlike force that is a result of wishful thinking, how is that any less ironic than previous generations inventing one that often behaved like a spoiled potentate? (I don't mean this question to be flip, it's just what sprang to mind.)

11/04/2008 02:10:10 PM · #147

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That pretty well leaves out Darwinian theory, wouldn't you agree?

Sure, but you said he wasn't speaking about scientific evolution, not Darwinian. He was. At the time, Bergson's "creative evolution" proposal was one explanation for scientific evolution. It was displaced by the Neodarwinian synthesis in the 1940's. If you'd like to continue with Lewis' attempt to discredit an hypothesis that few people actually believe anymore, feel free.

11/04/2008 02:10:18 PM · #148

Originally posted by citymars:

Well, I think the former is logically impossible (the word "godlike" being the issue) and the later may or may not exist but is logically rational.