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
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Fri May 03, 2019 11:10 am

SEG wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 8:51 pm
So the lawgiver exists because the existence of the laws and the laws exist because the lawgiver exists?
No. Read what I said again.
How can pre-human drives and desires exist before humans?
I thought you were talking about the evolutionary origins of human drives and the resulting desires. If not I don't know what ' he doesn't say where this law came from before human existence,' means. Do you mean he does not explain the process by which God created the law or something like that?

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Fri May 03, 2019 1:51 pm

SEG wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 8:51 pm
So the lawgiver exists because the existence of the laws and the laws exist because the lawgiver exists?
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 11:10 am
No. Read what I said again.
ok, here's what you said - "He is offering the existence of the law as evidence of the lawgiver's existence"
That's terribly vague evidence. What type of evidence is that? Even if you could imagine an absolute universal moral law existing, why couldn't it exist by itself? So where is the evidence of this absolute moral law existing? Please don't say it's the
existence of the lawgiver!
How can pre-human drives and desires exist before humans?
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 11:10 am
I thought you were talking about the evolutionary origins of human drives and the resulting desires. If not I don't know what ' he doesn't say where this law came from before human existence,' means. Do you mean he does not explain the process by which God created the law or something like that?
Yes, and he never explains how this moral law was delivered or when it was delivered. We evolved from monkeys, does it go back that far?
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 7:30 pm

SEG wrote:
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?
I don't know that: It is a subjunctive clause. See the "If" followed by a clause with a "then?"

So do you assert that there is such a Qualified Mathematician? Who would that be?

Or are you supposing, purely on blind faith in Carrier, that such a person must exist?
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 7:46 pm

SEG wrote:
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?
If someone does not, we say that he has a mental defect and a depraved indifference, don't we? So for all neurological typical persons, it is true.
2. That we have a natural and conflicting desire to remain safe, for whatever reason; and
All of us?
If someone does not, we say that he has a mental defect, don't we? So for all neurological typical persons, it is true.
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?
All of us who are neurological typical.
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.
I roll my eyes: The point remains.
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.
Ah. So you're saying that you never felt a desire to save someone even though it would violate current doctrine and protocol; that you never felt the desire to remain safe despite current doctrine and protocol; and that you never had to decide between those impulses as to the correct action at that moment?

I'll give you an example that we trained on in the navy: You open a scuttle and see an unconscious shipmate a deck below. Do you go down the ladder to save him?

Answer: HELL NO. Otherwise the next person will see two unconscious or dead shipmates.

You instead: 1.) Report, 2.) If you can do so safely, don an OBA and enter the space to check on the shipmate and/or remove him to safety. The most likely scenario is that he unwisely entered an un-ventilated space that was not gas-freed, lost consciousness, and fell to the lower deck. If you try to save him WITHOUT an OBA, you will only compound the issue. If you fail to report FIRST, no one will know you're down there.

So: We see the natural impulse 1 -- my shipmate is hurt. Screw protocol, I'm gonna save him -- and natural impulse 2 -- Death is afoot. He's probably already dead. I should just back away and not get involved -- And we see natural impulse three, the deciding impulse, which tells you to FOLLOW the PROTOCOL, and REPORT, then return with proper gear to save the shipmate.

So in that scenario, do you deny the existence of 1, 2, or 3?
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Fri May 03, 2019 8:18 pm

Og3 wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 7:30 pm
SEG wrote:
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?
I don't know that: It is a subjunctive clause. See the "If" followed by a clause with a "then?"

So do you assert that there is such a Qualified Mathematician? Who would that be?

Or are you supposing, purely on blind faith in Carrier, that such a person must exist?
I don't know. There may be quite a few, I'll have a look on the online forums and get back to you. "I don't know" is an appropriate and honest answer. His work seems to be groundbreaking in his field of historical research and inquiry. It has opened up valuable discussion on the topic and that was what he was hoping for. He has stated that in so many words in his book that you are reading. If you are getting bogged down on that part of it, why not skip to his main elements?
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: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Fri May 03, 2019 8:39 pm

Og3 wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 7:46 pm
Ah. So you're saying that you never felt a desire to save someone even though it would violate current doctrine and protocol; that you never felt the desire to remain safe despite current doctrine and protocol; and that you never had to decide between those impulses as to the correct action at that moment?
This is an appeal to extremes. Of course I have wanted to rush in and save someone. Your example is a good one. We had a similar circumstance in a wheat silo being fumigated in NSW a few years ago where 7 people perished, one after another.
So in that scenario, do you deny the existence of 1, 2, or 3?
It depends. You are falling into the danger of being too absolute in your thinking.
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 » Sat May 04, 2019 12:35 am

SEG wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 8:18 pm
Og3 wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 7:30 pm
SEG wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 7:03 am
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?
I don't know that: It is a subjunctive clause. See the "If" followed by a clause with a "then?"

So do you assert that there is such a Qualified Mathematician? Who would that be?

Or are you supposing, purely on blind faith in Carrier, that such a person must exist?
I don't know. There may be quite a few, I'll have a look on the online forums and get back to you. "I don't know" is an appropriate and honest answer.
Yes, it is, and that is what I would always hope for.
His work seems to be groundbreaking in his field of historical research and inquiry.
Who says that it is groundbreaking? Is it truly rational? Is it coherent? How do we know?
It has opened up valuable discussion on the topic and that was what he was hoping for.
It has opened up discussion, but it begs the question to say that it is "valuable."
He has stated that in so many words in his book that you are reading. If you are getting bogged down on that part of it, why not skip to his main elements?
I did remark that he said that he would not reach a conclusion -- you'll find that at the end of the Part 1 of many of my findings.

I am not the least bogged down. I've finished with the book and am simply taking my time putting my findings into a world-readable format.

Which gives us more time to resolve the problems instead of simply glossing over them. So, here's where we are:
1.) There seem to be problems with this method:
... A.) The prior probability of a historical event is necessarily 1.
... B.) You have found no mathematician to date who endorses Carrier's use of Bayes, especially quantitative use of Bayes vice qualitative.
... C.) The use of Bayes to find historical fact seems to be a method not yet endorsed by mainstream historians.
... D.) A small bias in an estimation of prior probability can cause a huge swing in the results.
... E.) Since the question of whether we are qualified to remark of Carrier, we must also ask whether Carrier (not being a mathematician) is qualified to remark on Bayes in this manner.
2.) Responses to people who object to Carrier's work are always addressed Ad Hominem by Carrier.
3.) Carrier is self referential.
4.) Carrier denigrates those who disagree with him as "irrational" and "unreasonable."

Don't worry, I'll post another portion of my findings tomorrow.
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 » Sat May 04, 2019 12:41 am

SEG wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 8:39 pm
Og3 wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 7:46 pm
Ah. So you're saying that you never felt a desire to save someone even though it would violate current doctrine and protocol; that you never felt the desire to remain safe despite current doctrine and protocol; and that you never had to decide between those impulses as to the correct action at that moment?
This is an appeal to extremes. Of course I have wanted to rush in and save someone.
Of course; otherwise you would be less than human, and if you never felt fear, you would be more than human. And the middle path -- the one that is not an extreme -- is to follow that "third thing" -- which in this case was training, discipline, and self-restraint.
Your example is a good one. We had a similar circumstance in a wheat silo being fumigated in NSW a few years ago where 7 people perished, one after another.
So in that scenario, do you deny the existence of 1, 2, or 3?
It depends. You are falling into the danger of being too absolute in your thinking.
Slow down there, Turbo.

You acknowledge the validity of my shipboard example -- the two conflicting impulses, and the third thing that determined the right path -- in that case, discipline, self-restraint, and training. So in spite of that, are you denying that moral decisions involve two moral impulses and a third thing that tells you which to indulge?
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by SEG » Sat May 04, 2019 6:39 am

Og3 wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 12:41 am
You acknowledge the validity of my shipboard example -- the two conflicting impulses, and the third thing that determined the right path -- in that case, discipline, self-restraint, and training. So in spite of that, are you denying that moral decisions involve two moral impulses and a third thing that tells you which to indulge?
What's "telling me" would be my own intuition or sense that comes from within. It is an evolutionary sense like our Fight or Flight response.
What is fight or flight response?
This is the body’s response to perceived threat or danger. During this reaction, certain hormones like adrenalin and cortisol are released, speeding the heart rate, slowing digestion, shunting blood flow to major muscle groups, and changing various other autonomic nervous functions, giving the body a burst of energy and strength.
Some Christians through wishful thinking or ignorance would place it in the hands of God.
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: 410
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Sat May 04, 2019 8:41 am

SEG wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 1:51 pm
SEG wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 8:51 pm
So the lawgiver exists because the existence of the laws and the laws exist because the lawgiver exists?
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 11:10 am
No. Read what I said again.
ok, here's what you said - "He is offering the existence of the law as evidence of the lawgiver's existence"
So nothing remotely like the circular argument you attributed to me.
Please don't say it's the existence of the lawgiver!
Why should I now say the thing you attributed to me and were unable to show that I said? Are you hoping that if you keep insinuating that I said this it will start to seem like I did say it.
Yes, and he never explains how this moral law was delivered or when it was delivered.
When you show that Lewis's argument depends on him explaining that it wil become worth discussing.
We evolved from monkeys, does it go back that far?
I thought that was something you wanted to make a case for; why are you asking me?

Post Reply