Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

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!
searchengineguy
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by searchengineguy »

searchengineguy wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:18 am
I was talking generally about Lewis's views on creationism and science. I know that by that mention of it
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:07 pm
I'll take that as a no. Not sure what the last sentence means.
I meant in context to the quote that you provided that he probably thought that the sun is a ball of flaming gas. It isn't, as earlier explained.
searchengineguy wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:01 am
Lewis didn't understand evolution, he couldn't accept that it was unguided by God.
Sure, https://books.google.com.au/books?id=wy ... 9D&f=false This is a guy who supports what Lewis said about evolution. Here is the guy I prefer to take notice of: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... denialist/
These are not primary references. In fact the second is not even a secondary reference. It consists of a few comments by a guy who admits to barelyhaving read any of Lewis's work and makes his comments based on an obviously biased video. Do you really expect me to take you seriously when this is the best youcan offer? Can you give me a primary reference, something from Lewis's writing?
From Mere Christianity:
But to be complete I ought to mention the In between view called Life-Force philosophy, or Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution. The wittiest expositions of it come in the works of Bernard Shaw, but the most profound ones in those of Bergson. 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"? This seems to me fatal to their view. One reason why many people find Creative Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences.
He clearly thinks that evolution is guided by God.
Ok let's make a huge question really simple. Do you believe evolution is guided by God?
Mu. What do you mean by guided by God? Do you mean do I believe God intervenes in the evolutionary process in some detectable manner? Or do you mean do I think God supervises the process in some way?

Both or either.
This is not the kind of thing I have beliefs about. Is it the kind of thing you have beliefs about?
Of course you do! God is involved or not, so which one is it? I say I believe no god is involved, as there is no evidence to show that is the case.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by Moonwood the Hare »

searchengineguy wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:34 am
searchengineguy wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:18 am
I was talking generally about Lewis's views on creationism and science. I know that by that mention of it
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:07 pm
I'll take that as a no. Not sure what the last sentence means.
I meant in context to the quote that you provided that he probably thought that the sun is a ball of flaming gas. It isn't, as earlier explained.
It'a made of gases (literally plasma) which burn, giving off flames. It is a ball of flaming gas. The fact that it does not burn the same way terrestrial gases does is irrelevant. The phrase in any case is spoken by a child; it is not meant to be a perfect scientific description
searchengineguy wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:01 am
Lewis didn't understand evolution, he couldn't accept that it was unguided by God.
These are not primary references. In fact the second is not even a secondary reference. It consists of a few comments by a guy who admits to barelyhaving read any of Lewis's work and makes his comments based on an obviously biased video. Do you really expect me to take you seriously when this is the best youcan offer? Can you give me a primary reference, something from Lewis's writing?
From Mere Christianity:
But to be complete I ought to mention the In between view called Life-Force philosophy, or Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution. The wittiest expositions of it come in the works of Bernard Shaw, but the most profound ones in those of Bergson. 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"? This seems to me fatal to their view. One reason why many people find Creative Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences.
He clearly thinks that evolution is guided by God.
Clearly, really clearly, Lewis is discussing the vitalist position on evolution and is dismissing it. He is not trying to explain God's relation to the evolutionary process. The problem here is a confusion you often get into because you do not understand the nature of conditional statements. Lewis is saying if there was something guiding evolution it would need to be a mind and hence a God, not there is a God guiding evolution.
Ok let's make a huge question really simple. Do you believe evolution is guided by God?
Mu. What do you mean by guided by God? Do you mean do I believe God intervenes in the evolutionary process in some detectable manner? Or do you mean do I think God supervises the process in some way?

Both or either.
If you do not know what you are asking you cannot know what evidence for it would look like and hence cannot know whether there is evidence.
This is not the kind of thing I have beliefs about. Is it the kind of thing you have beliefs about?
Of course you do! God is involved or not, so which one is it? I say I believe no god is involved, as there is no evidence to show that is the case.
Given we know either A or B must be the case it does not follow everyone must either believe A or believe B but only that everyone must believe either A or B. To give a concrete example: there must either be life on other planets or not. It does not follow that everyone must believe either that there is or that there isn't. If there are no grounds for choosing then we do not need to choose.

searchengineguy
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by searchengineguy »

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.
C.S. Lewis himself was religious, so when he wrote "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.", this means that is what his view is.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

searchengineguy
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by searchengineguy »

SEG wrote:Ok let's make a huge question really simple. Do you believe evolution is guided by God?
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:01 pm
This is not the kind of thing I have beliefs about. Is it the kind of thing you have beliefs about?
SEG wrote:Of course you do! God is involved or not, so which one is it? I say I believe no god is involved, as there is no evidence to show that is the case.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:01 pm
Given we know either A or B must be the case it does not follow everyone must either believe A or believe B but only that everyone must believe either A or B. To give a concrete example: there must either be life on other planets or not. It does not follow that everyone must believe either that there is or that there isn't. If there are no grounds for choosing then we do not need to choose.
I see what you mean.
No, if your faith isn't strong enough, then there is no need to choose.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by Moonwood the Hare »

searchengineguy wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:31 pm
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.
C.S. Lewis himself was religious, so when he wrote "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.", this means that is what his view is.
No
1. What Lewis is referring to as the religious position is the view that behind the cosmos there is a mind, or as he more subtly puts it, something more like a mind than it is like anything else.
2. Henri Bergson thinks evolution is guided but what is is guided by is not a mind but a force
3. Lewis argues that if this force is bringing life into existence and guiding it to perfection then in order to do that it would need mind-like properties, and hence would be the same kind of thing held by those holding the religious position.
4. So it is the existence of the mind-like entity that is the common ground between the two positions not the way in which evolution is guided
5. A mind-like enity could guide evolution but that is not one of its necessary properties.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by Moonwood the Hare »

searchengineguy wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 9:43 pm
[
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:01 pm
Given we know either A or B must be the case it does not follow everyone must either believe A or believe B but only that everyone must believe either A or B. To give a concrete example: there must either be life on other planets or not. It does not follow that everyone must believe either that there is or that there isn't. If there are no grounds for choosing then we do not need to choose.
I see what you mean.
No, if your faith isn't strong enough, then there is no need to choose.
I don't see what you mean. You began this thread by saying faith was not a reliable pathway to truth. Now you seem to be saying if there are no grounds for chosing between two options and you have enough faith then you can choose, which suggests faith is a reliable pathway to truth. I give it up.

I take your argument to be
1. The theory of evolution claims that evolution is unguided
2. To say evolution is guided means you have misunderstood the theory
3. Anyone who misunnderstands the theory misunderstands science
4. Anyone who misunderstands science misunderstands astronomy
5. Therefore if it is possible to interpret any statement such a person makes in a way that contains a misunderstanding of astronomy then their statement should be interpreted in that way.
6 C.S Lewis claimed evolution was guided
7. Therefore he misunderstands astronomy
8. Therefore the statment made by a charachter in one of his stories saying stars are balls of flaming gas should be interpreted as Lewis saying stars are what balls of flaming gas would be if they existed on earth
Does that sumit up? Would you like to correct any part of that because it seems to me every one of those statements can be challenged.

searchengineguy
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by searchengineguy »

So challenge them...
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

searchengineguy
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by searchengineguy »

down she goes
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

Post Reply