Proofs of God

The witchburning reference is in the sample pages on Amazon.The page numbers are 25-6 by Amazon's numbering, and 14-15 by the displayed page numbers.And perhaps you cna explain why pointing out the flaws in Lewis' arguments consitutes "hiding behind" millions of years ?[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-26-2003]

The witch burning reference you refer to is on page 14 of the book Mere Christianity.First off at this point C.S Lewis is not even close to getting into Christianity, this comes much later in the book. So Christianity has no bearing on this section of the book, as he is trying to establish the fact that humans have some sort of moral code/or scale by which we measure right and wrong. A scale that is similar to all humans.Someone Lewis talked to had tried to use the argument that morals had changed because 300 years ago people in England were burning witches.Now Lewis is not condoning the burning of witches, rather trying to explain how if we lived in that period of time, believing that there were witches. People who sold themselves to the devil for supernatural powers, which they used to kill their neighbours, drive them mad and bring bad weather. That we would probably agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty then these people did.Because we have advanced in knowledge, no longer believing in witches there is no moral advance in not executing witches when you do not think they are there.Lewis also says "You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house."------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

CS Lewis just says what you want to hear. That doesn't make it incredible-- unless you opt for a strict definition based on the word's roots. That is, "not believable".Sorry, funk, but Lewis is extraordinarily superficial. Maybe that is why he is so popular. He's a cheer leader.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Yeah kind of like Darwin ------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

Hold on, my point in raising the witch burning reference was - explicitly given - as an example of the poor quality of Lewis' argument. Lewis argues that it would be morally acceptable to execute witches but he also implicitly admits that those executed were NOT witches. So was it right to execute them or not ? Lewis does not deal with the issue. And you likewise have not dealt with my point.Oh, and if you want to argue that Darwin was equally superficial I suggest that you produce an example - an actual example.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-26-2003]

He's saying that the people of the time believed they were witches so it seemed to them that these people should be executed.We today still believe that if someone kills their neighbour they should be punished. The standard hasn't changed.It's an illustration, not a judgement on the witchburnings.The darwin comment was a joke, hence the smiley face.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

Lewis is discussing the execution of "witches". He argues that it would be acceptable to execute actual witches however he also admits that those executed were innocent of being witches. So he has not justified the actual executions - but the question asked was ABOUT the actual executions.
To deal with the actual question he would have to explain when it is acceptable to execute people who are innocent of the crime they are accused of, and show that those circumstances actually did apply. Since the real situation frequently involved confessions extracted under torture I think most people now - AND WHEN LEWIS WROTE - would disagree with Lewis judgement - for reasons Lewis' ignores altogether.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-26-2003]

LOL.... yes, funk, when your team has nothing on the score board it is always wise to throw mud at the other side. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

John,
What are you talking about? Your team is the one without the score. You have not provided any evidence, and instead have attacked the author of the ideas (Lewis). All you have said is, and I quote, "Humans live in groups and have lived in groups since long before we were human", and "Lewis doesn't really refute anything. He just says it ain't so. He doesn't really have an argument", "Lewis is extraordinarily superficial. Maybe that is why he is so popular. He's a cheer leader.", which are a straw man, a misstatement, and a perfect example of logical fallacy (attacking the speaker instead of the argument), respectively. The only statement that is even remotely reasonable is the first, which at best does not contradict Lewis' book or his arguments and at worst is irrelevant to the issue (see Amazon.com pages 20-26 and 'Mere Christianity' pages 9-15). Unfortunately, you have not seen fit to provide any other evidence for your arguments. Until you do so I must assume that you don't have any and that this propaganda you have published is all you have. I am not attacking you personally (so please don't take it personally), but merely the fallacies you have supported. Let's try to keep this thread civil and only debate the arguments, not the people. Thank you.Evan

quote:

---

You have not provided any evidence, and instead have attacked the author of the ideas (Lewis).

---

I took care of what there is of Lewis' arguments back in my post # 10, not to mention that at least one other responded as well. I have been waiting for a substantial response from you and joking with funk in the meantime.As for attacking the author, an attack would be "Lewis is a lilly-livered weenie." Saying that his arguments are insubstantive is not an personal attack. Nor is saying that he doesn't refute anything. Nor is saying that he doesn't have an argument. I said HE was superficial and that could be interpretted as a personal attack, but context ought to have told you that the real subject was the argument in Mere Christianity. That you don't like my take on Lewis' book does not make it a personal attack. He strikes me as perhaps a pretty nice guy, but that doesn't make superficial arguments/observations any less superficial.

quote:

---

which are a straw man

---

I am not the only one who has noticed how flawed the argument is.

quote:

---

a misstatement

---

That is your take. I don't have to care.

quote:

---

and a perfect example of logical fallacy (attacking the speaker instead of the argument)

---

And... if that qualifies as an ad hominem your skin is much too thin. Besides, to qualify as a logical fallacy, the statement must be used in an argument. This wasn't so used. I was just trading ideas with funk.

quote:

---

The only statement that is even remotely reasonable is the first

---

That is the only one meant in utter seriousness, but it funny that you quote only the tag-line and not the real substance. From my post #10 For evidence, try anthropology-- I recommend Marvin Harris. Even non-human social structures function on the same principles ours do. The only difference is complexity. Lewis admits as much but then throws in 'a third thing that tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help and suppress the impulse to run away.' This third thing he uses to lift us out of the muck. The problem is that this third thing is already incorporated into what Lewis calls the 'herd instinct' and the 'instinct for self preservation' though I don't really like the duality. The two are more the same than different. Herd animals don't protect the herd out of some abstract desire to protect the herd. Herd animals protect the herd because the herd protects them, the herd helps them and their offspring survive. It isn't about selfish vs. altruistic, it is always selfish though it sometimes looks altruistic. Anyway, back to the third thing, this third thing that decides between the 'herd' and the 'self' is the brain churning through observation and experience, it isn't a Moral Law speaking to humanity. It is number crunching-- well, more like fuzzy logic. All reasonably complicated organisms must go through some decision making processes. Lewis just calls it by a different name and seems to think he's proven something.

quote:

---

Until you do so I must assume that you don't have any and that this propaganda you have published is all you have.

---

Shall we ask that of Lewis? I didn't see any citations. I saw no evidence. I just saw Lewis saying it ain't so and making a mess of what we do know of animal behavior.This propaganda is pretty uncontroversial cultural ecology, cultural anthropology, sociology, primatology, behavioral science...Back in post #8 you stated: That standard is survival. Certain behaviors optimize one's chances for survival while others do not. Some apparently detrimental behaviors actually increase one's chances over time. These behaviors can be passed generation to generation. And since they are so fundamental it is no suprise that cultures share the same basic rules. There is no need, or even reason, to make this into an ACTUAL meta-physical thing.Consider a society in which it is acceptable for anyone to kill anyone else and suffer no consequences. Pretty soon people will become paranoid and start to cut deals, make alliances, and in no time there will be de facto restrictions on murder. If this doesn't happen, the culture will crumble. This is all very practical, no divinity necessary. Animals don't fight like animals. Conflict is very ritualized and follows the same basic rules across many genera, though the outward forms vary. I think that failing to notice this is one of Lewis' most fatal mistakes, since he uses a comparison with animals to differentiate them from us and lay a foundation for his arguments. It seems that he'd have to apply his Moral Law reasoning to the whole of the animal Kingdom.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

But this is very contrary to what we see in nature. When two animals 'disagree' the strongest always 'proves' his
point through strength. There is no discussion of fairness or right and wrong, it's "I get this rotting corpse
because I've beat you up before and I'll do it again if you don't back off. Grrrr."

​

And what is even more astounding is that all cultures have similar rules of fair play. They may differ on specifics,
Judaism requires monogamy while Islam allows polygamy, but they agree on the basics, i.e. you can't have any
woman you want. And the similarity doesn't end here, they all prohibit murder, theft, dishonesty, and many other
similar vices that contradict the law of the jungle, might makes right.

---

Take a trip to Cannock in the UK on a saturday night and
I think you will radically change your mind on this issue!!!

To add to the points raised against Lewis, I have already pointed out that the "basic similarities" between the moralities of different societies are explicable even if morality is a intersubjective social construct as I have suggested. Nobody has bothered to offer any counter argument, at this point.To use one of Lewis' own examples driving on the left and driving on the right are basically similar but there is a clear advantage to having one rule or the other.
(To use parallels with evolution there are functional constraints similar to convergent evolution, common ancestry of cultures as with species and cultural crossovers which are like lateral transfer)Lewis' offers one other point against morality as a social convention and that is comparison of moralities - although it is notable that he does not apply this to the witch hunters (why not ?).
To look at the issue in more detail there are ways in which a moral system can be agreed to be superior even without an absolute standard.Firstly one system may be based on inaccurate beliefs - Lewis himself raises this possibility to defend the witch hunters but it could also apply at least in part even to the Nazis. I hope that nobody here would argue that the Nazi view of the Jews, for instance, was factually correct.Secondly one system may better implement the underlying values better than another. If we agree on the values and only differ on the system implementing them then it is certainly possible that one system is better than the other.The only real issue then, is where there is disagreement on moral values. Which raises two questions. If Lewis' view is true is that even possible ? And if it is then how could we show which is superior ?

You guys are just uptight because C.S. Lewis is actually a good author.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

I'm sorry John, but your tenth post provided no evidence even with the addition of "Some behaviors are more conducive to life in a group than other behaviors." Even with this inclusion of 'evidence' the statement still agrees with Lewis so to say that it contradicts is to raise a straw man.My statement regarding whether Lewis has an argument -is- my personal opinion. But if you don't think Lewis has an argument, why not be content to leave it at that? If he doesn't have an argument then you can't contradict him. Unless, on the other hand, you think he has a bad argument in which case he does have an argument, a bad one. I know that the language here can be pretty hairy, that's why you have to define your terms if you want anyone to understand you. Believe me, I know from experience.Now I understand that you didn't intend to use an 'ad hominem' argument, since you explained it; but it wasn't clear at the time or from the context (did it have any context?). Also, using an 'ad hominem' argument (i.e. I have thin skin) is very unusual when attempting to clarify that you haven't used an 'ad hominem' argument. Wouldn't you agree? :-)And when I'm asking you for evidence what I mean is that you should provide a real contradiction to Lewis' arguments. I'm not asking for citations. I'm asking for a contradiction with Lewis, up until now you have offered nothing but personal opinions that at best are not relevant to the debate. But with this post I think it is safe to say you have raised a real contradiction.But I'm unclear what your contradiction means. Are you saying that animals are concious and are deciding to protect their offspring out of some rational logic? And isn't an argument that 'you should protect the herd, by dying, because the herd protects you' a moral argument based on 'fairness'. You're essentially saying, because the smallest herd is two, I helped you so you ought to help me. And this is exactly what Lewis' is saying, only your statement is in a roundabout way. I can't make sense of this statement any other way. I don't think this is what you're meaning, so help me out.I agree completely that some behaviors increase your chances for survival. But I don't think that unselfishly dying for your herd is one of them :-) Even if we consider the defence of your offspring this doesn't make sense, some animals (and some humans) die unselfishly before they reproduce so this can't be an instinct of 'self preservation'. This should be, by now, obvious, so I won't explain myself any further.Remember, we're not talking about society (that's what you threw out with the herd instinct), we're talking about individuals. I don't see how society's problems could influence individuals morals without altruism (which you also threw out). As Lewis pointed out society is merely someone else in an individual's perspective. Concern for someone else is, by definition, altruism.Yes, animals do fight like animals, by definition. The question is why they fight. Animals fight because they're bigger, stronger, and tougher and they can get away with it. Humans fight because they feel someone has wronged them, ask any kid from the street who has been wronged, even if he himself was wrong. He will more than likely answer, 'He ain't playin' fair, Mr. Evan' (in a basketball game), 'Man, you gotta listen to Mr. Dave because he's the boss' (to somebody else who's acting up), or 'He didn't show me no respect, man' (I've actually heard this from a 13 yr old on why to punch a 6 yr old). I think this shows us that human fights are 'ritualized' and that they depend on fairness (unlike animal fights). Because even these little criminals (I say this affectionately) feel that they (or others) have been wronged and have definite ideas on how this wrong should be ammended.Evan

Sorry PaulK, for not replying to your other letters I haven't had the time (and others have been working on them). Unfortunately, I have a life, and a lot of other topics I'm on. Expect a reply shortly.EvanP.S. I'm not implying that you don't have a life! :-) Just to clarify.[This message has been edited by BambooGuy, 02-28-2003]