C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Thu May 02, 2019 6:06 am

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 4:09 pm
But it surely does imply that you are not the person best placed to judge if Carrier is using Bayes correctly. Are you aware of anyone with the appropriate training in Maths and statistics who has defended Carrier?
No mathematician from the top of my head, but Raphael Lataster holds a PhD (Studies in Religion) from the University of Sydney and is impressed with his work on Bayes Theorem from a historical perspective.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Thu May 02, 2019 7:21 am

Og3 wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 8:31 pm
Oh, you meant "My faith" when you said "Silly Claims."
Yes, your faith has silly claims. What is worse than your belief in silly claims that can't pony up any verifiable evidence? Your statement that a logical refutation would not break your faith because it is built in part by your logic!
The thing that I'm getting about Lewis (probably you as well) is that he starts with the assumption that the Bible is reliable and factual.
Og3 wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 8:31 pm
Really? Where did he say that? what page?
He doesn't need to say it, he waffles all the time about God and this moral"Lawgiver". He backs Christianity without once looking into whether it might be bogus and driven simply by theology. He doesn't believe that this moral law has a source in the natural world. He points to a supernatural Lawgiver. He has a good writing style and a great imagination, but presents no evidence for the reliability of the Bible or how he "knows" where this mysterious moral law came from. He even likens it to our physical laws and mathematics!
His moral law seems to be built on the foundation that Right and Wrong exists separately from humanity and drives it. But how could it exist before humans existed? Morals are built around the human conditions, without humans, what would be the point? He argued that "conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural Lawgiver." If so, why not multiple supernatural lawgivers, other gods in other religions?
Og3 wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 8:31 pm
Tell you what: why don't you sketch out the argument he presents in premises -- for example, that when someone is drowning, we have a natural desire to save them, and a natural desire to remain safe, and a third thing that tells of which desire we should follow. Go ahead, sketch that out. You understand syllogisms now, so let's see it.
Of course we have natural desire to save someone that is drowning! That doesn't automatically mean that a natural law exists or that because of this law existing a lawgiver must exist too. Regarding attempting someone drowning - altruism might not really be about being altruistic at all. It may be a built in part of our natural selection and not be all about morals and be more about spreading our genes by saving our kin.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Thu May 02, 2019 12:06 pm

SEG wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 7:21 am
Og3 wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 8:31 pm
Tell you what: why don't you sketch out the argument he presents in premises -- for example, that when someone is drowning, we have a natural desire to save them, and a natural desire to remain safe, and a third thing that tells of which desire we should follow. Go ahead, sketch that out. You understand syllogisms now, so let's see it.
Of course we have natural desire to save someone that is drowning! That doesn't automatically mean that a natural law exists or that because of this law existing a lawgiver must exist too. Regarding attempting someone drowning - altruism might not really be about being altruistic at all. It may be a built in part of our natural selection and not be all about morals and be more about spreading our genes by saving our kin.
Again I am finding it genuinely hard to believe that you do not follow the argument here, but clearly you don't. Lewis is not identifying the desire to save someone with the natural law; he is saying it is the law which enables us to choose between two conflicting desires. Lewis is suggesting that we could have desires for both altruism and self preservation and you could explain them both on the kinds of grounds you are giving but then suggesting it is the natural law that tells us to favour one of these desires against the other and call that moral. You could argue against this as a case for natural law, but as it is you are pitching against an entirely different argument that has not actually been made.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Thu May 02, 2019 2:04 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 12:06 pm
Lewis is not identifying the desire to save someone with the natural law; he is saying it is the law which enables us to choose between two conflicting desires. Lewis is suggesting that we could have desires for both altruism and self preservation and you could explain them both on the kinds of grounds you are giving but then suggesting it is the natural law that tells us to favour one of these desires against the other and call that moral. You could argue against this as a case for natural law, but as it is you are pitching against an entirely different argument that has not actually been made.
Lewis is trying to make this "natural law" into something external that commands our lives, and these instructions must come from a law giver. But he doesn't say where this law came from before human existence or give any evidence of the law giver's existence.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Thu May 02, 2019 7:37 pm

SEG wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 2:04 pm
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 12:06 pm
Lewis is not identifying the desire to save someone with the natural law; he is saying it is the law which enables us to choose between two conflicting desires. Lewis is suggesting that we could have desires for both altruism and self preservation and you could explain them both on the kinds of grounds you are giving but then suggesting it is the natural law that tells us to favour one of these desires against the other and call that moral. You could argue against this as a case for natural law, but as it is you are pitching against an entirely different argument that has not actually been made.
Lewis is trying to make this "natural law" into something external that commands our lives, and these instructions must come from a law giver. But he doesn't say where this law came from before human existence or give any evidence of the law giver's existence.
He is offering the existence of the law as evidence of the lawgiver's existence; that is the whole purpose of his argument and he discusses drives and desires which are prehuman in origin.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Thu May 02, 2019 8:51 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 7:37 pm
SEG wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 2:04 pm
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 12:06 pm
Lewis is not identifying the desire to save someone with the natural law; he is saying it is the law which enables us to choose between two conflicting desires. Lewis is suggesting that we could have desires for both altruism and self preservation and you could explain them both on the kinds of grounds you are giving but then suggesting it is the natural law that tells us to favour one of these desires against the other and call that moral. You could argue against this as a case for natural law, but as it is you are pitching against an entirely different argument that has not actually been made.
Lewis is trying to make this "natural law" into something external that commands our lives, and these instructions must come from a law giver. But he doesn't say where this law came from before human existence or give any evidence of the law giver's existence.
He is offering the existence of the law as evidence of the lawgiver's existence; that is the whole purpose of his argument and he discusses drives and desires which are prehuman in origin.
So the lawgiver exists because the existence of the laws and the laws exist because the lawgiver exists? Whew, I'm getting dizzy! How can pre-human drives and desires exist before humans?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Og3 » Fri May 03, 2019 4:14 am

SEG wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 6:06 am
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 4:09 pm
But it surely does imply that you are not the person best placed to judge if Carrier is using Bayes correctly. Are you aware of anyone with the appropriate training in Maths and statistics who has defended Carrier?
No mathematician from the top of my head, but Raphael Lataster holds a PhD (Studies in Religion) from the University of Sydney and is impressed with his work on Bayes Theorem from a historical perspective.
The doctor who took out my appendix thinks Carrier is a complete nutjob. But since neither Lataster nor my surgeon is qualified on the mathematics, that doesn't answer the point, does it?

For that matter, Carrier's not qualified to comment on the mathematics either, but that doesn't stop him. Come now, SEG. You always rattle on about how ideas have to be scientific and falsifiable. The heart and soul of science is repeatability. If no qualified mathematician can repeat Carrier's work and come to the same conclusion, then there's no proof of the validity of his method is there?

Come on, one little mathematician... Surely that's not too much to ask....
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Og3 » Fri May 03, 2019 4:23 am

To make this easy for you, SEG:

Lewis says:
1. That we have a natural desire to save a drowning person for whatever reason, altruism, survival, whatever;
2. That we have a natural and conflicting desire to remain safe, for whatever reason; and
3. That there is a third impulse that tells us which of the other two is the right thing to do.

And it may be either one: If we jump in to save the one, we may fail in our duty to save hundreds; Or if we stay safe we may fail in our duty to the one. But at the time, in that moment, there is something within us that tells us what is right and what is wrong.

You yourself, as a fireman, have no doubt seen such a scenario:
1. That there is a natural impulse to do something daring but dangerous to save someone;
2. That there is a natural impulse to protect yourself;
3. That in the moment, one or the other may be the right thing to do, and something within you tells you which that is.

So do you disagree with 1, 2, 3? And on what logical grounds, in light of what YOU, as a fireman, know to be true?
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Fri May 03, 2019 7:03 am

SEG wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 6:06 am
No mathematician from the top of my head, but Raphael Lataster holds a PhD (Studies in Religion) from the University of Sydney and is impressed with his work on Bayes Theorem from a historical perspective.
Og3 wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 4:14 am
If no qualified mathematician can repeat Carrier's work and come to the same conclusion, then there's no proof of the validity of his method is there?
So how exactly do you know that "no qualified mathematician can repeat Carrier's work and come to the same conclusion". How did you come to YOUR conclusion of that astounding claim?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Fri May 03, 2019 7:24 am

Og3 wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 4:23 am
To make this easy for you, SEG:

Lewis says:
1. That we have a natural desire to save a drowning person for whatever reason, altruism, survival, whatever;
All of us?
2. That we have a natural and conflicting desire to remain safe, for whatever reason; and
All of us?
3. That there is a third impulse that tells us which of the other two is the right thing to do.
and again, all of us?
And it may be either one: If we jump in to save the one, we may fail in our duty to save hundreds; Or if we stay safe we may fail in our duty to the one. But at the time, in that moment, there is something within us that tells us what is right and what is wrong.
Sorry, stuff like this isn't universal, so he fails on this one too.
You yourself, as a fireman, have no doubt seen such a scenario:
Um, I haven't been called that or have called myself that for many years. The correct term is "firefighter" if you want to stay politically and ethically correct.
1. That there is a natural impulse to do something daring but dangerous to save someone;
2. That there is a natural impulse to protect yourself;
3. That in the moment, one or the other may be the right thing to do, and something within you tells you which that is.

So do you disagree with 1, 2, 3? And on what logical grounds, in light of what YOU, as a fireman, know to be true?
My years of training and experience would tell me the right thing to do. Nothing more and nothing less. I fail to see how any third party deity (if it existed) that hasn't had any training or experience would be relevant.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Post Reply