Proofs of God

quote:

---

I'm sorry John, but your tenth post provided no evidence

---

hmmm... C.S. Lewis presents an argument and doesn't bother to provide any evidence in support of it. In fact Lewis ignores facts that ought to be easily accessible. And all you can do is harp on the idea that I haven't provided evidence? Strange...Even more strange is that you have been told where such evidence can be found, and which disciplines provide that evidence.Stranger yet still, I have outlines precisely what is wrong with Lewis' logic and YOU aren't responding. You promised to defend Lewis. You aren't. Why am I starting to think you are just here to play games?

quote:

---

Even with this inclusion of 'evidence' the statement still agrees with Lewis so to say that it contradicts is to raise a straw man.

---

You printed quotie-things around 'evidence' Do you dispute that this statement is accurate?Yes, Lewis agrees with this statement up to a point and then introduces other forces -- remember the Moral Law and the thing that chooses between the herd instinct and the self preservation instinct? This is the problem. But as I went into considerable detail in my previous post concerning just this point, I can only wonder why you are presenting this short version and not commenting on my more lengthy analysis.I do not think you know what qualifies as a straw man. This isn't it. A straw-man is a fallacy whereby one willfully presents a modified/weakened version of an opponents argument, attacks and kills the modified version, and declares victory. This, of course, is a shallow victory as you haven't been fighting your opponent at all. If you wish to accuse me of presenting straw men, please show where I have misrepresented Lewis' arguments. Otherwise, withdraw the accusation.

quote:

---

My statement regarding ... in which case he does have an argument, a bad one.

---

Semantic games. We are speaking English. English isn't precise. You'll save yourself some heart ache by accepting that fact.

quote:

---

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? :-)

---

You appear to have just recently tripped over an informal logic textbook. Maybe you should give it some time to sink in before starting to preach. For one, you seem to have a very hard time distinguishing between an argument and a statement, or between argument and conversation.

quote:

---

But with this post I think it is safe to say you have raised a real contradiction.

---

Gee, thanks...!!!!

quote:

---

Are you saying that animals are concious and are deciding to protect their offspring out of some rational logic?

---

I don't actually know to which statement this is a response. I'd answer 'yes' to the question, but conditionally. We'd have to talk about consciousness and thought.

quote:

---

And isn't an argument that 'you should protect the herd, by dying, because the herd protects you' a moral argument based on 'fairness'.

---

No. It is practical. Where is the morality in that? It is no more moral than "If I want to drive my car, then I have to put gas in it."

quote:

---

You're essentially saying, because the smallest herd is two, I helped you so you ought to help me.

---

That is the idea, but I think you are looking at it in a much too contractual way. And it won't work between two people the same way it works with larger numbers because there are no real guarantees that a particular individual will help. However, if there are a great many friends who MIGHT help, your chances go up that one of them actually WILL help when you need it.

quote:

---

And this is exactly what Lewis' is saying

---

No it isn't, not really. If he were to leave things at this point I'd have no problem, but he doesn't. He takes what we've already seen to be a practical system, abstracts part of it, calls that part by a different name-- Moral Law-- and declares himself discoverer of something important. Lewis attempts to use the Moral Law to demonstrate something above or outside the physical, so it seems to me, but he abstracts this moral law from the physical. It is circular really. It would be like opening a bag of M&Ms, selecting the green ones, and then saying that the green ones are indicative of something outside the scope of M&Ms.

quote:

---

But I don't think that unselfishly dying for your herd is one of them :-)

---

I wouldn't say that any animal willfully dies but animals do put themselves in harms way. Various primates will gang up on tigers who venture too near the pack, for example. It happens. You only need to look into the literature to find out how frequent it is.

quote:

---

Even if we consider the defence of your offspring this doesn't make sense

---

Sorry, but it happens. Pack animals do in fact defend their babies.

quote:

---

(and some humans) die unselfishly before they reproduce so this can't be an instinct of 'self preservation'.

---

You appear to have gotten derailed. I am not arguing 'self-preservation' I am arguing 'behavior that promotes the survival of social species.' It is Lewis who is dividing things up into 'herd-instinct' and 'self-presevation instinct.' I think the line is falsely drawn and that the two are components of the same behavioral adaptation.

quote:

---

Remember, we're not talking about society (that's what you threw out with the herd instinct), we're talking about individuals.

---

How could I not be talking about society? We are talking about the behavior of social animals.

quote:

---

I don't see how society's problems could influence individuals morals without altruism (which you also threw out).

---

Forget about morals. If you get beat up walking to school, you start walking to school with a couple of friends. Do you really not understand how that works?

quote:

---

Yes, animals do fight like animals, by definition.

---

LOL... Which definition? That is exactly the point. Opinions about what a animal is vary over time. There is one, once popular, school of thought which portrays animals as nothing but savage chaotic monsters. The North American Indians tended to have a differing opinion. The blood thirsty savage beast of 150 years ago has now been replaced with a much more complicated critter. That is the point.

quote:

---

Animals fight because they're bigger, stronger, and tougher and they can get away with it.

---

BS. Animals fight for the same reasons we do-- because they sometimes must fight for food, shelter, mates or position.

quote:

---

Humans fight because they feel someone has wronged them

---

You really really really ought to study primates besides the humans you mention.

quote:

---

I think this shows us that human fights are 'ritualized' and that they depend on fairness (unlike animal fights).

---

So one kid smacks another on and takes his candy bar. The kid who lost the candy yells "No Fair!" and this makes the whole fight-- no, the whole of human fighting-- depend on fairness? Why couldn't we chose the other kid and say "The whole of human fighting depends upon theft?" A position which would probably be more accurate anyway.Suppose now that a baboon chases down another baboon and steals a piece of fruit. The other baboon protests. Seems that this fight could just as easily depend on "Fairness." Or, for that matter, on theft. Yet in the one case you choose the moralistic stance and in the other case you choose to focus on the violence. You seem to be using different criteria for humans and animals.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 02-28-2003]

Hi guys.John -- If you want to argue the merits of C.S. Lewis, you really ought to read and take some time to think over his arguments through the entirety of Mere Christianity, which has a number of insightful passages dealing with human nature, even if you are not a Christian (!). To dismiss him out of hand is premature on your part.It is okay to say you aren't familiar with his writing and move on to avoid besmirching someone whose ideas you have not evaluated fully. It is hard to believe however, that you have posted so many hundreds of times on this site with a decidedly anti-Christian perspective and still have not read this 100-odd page book that is one of the most widely read works of Christian apologetics! (It is a short, easy, and interesting read even if you may not agree with parts of it.)PaulK -- You need to take a look at that witch burning passage again in the context of the actual book. That is, read the book. You will see that it is just an introduction explaining how moral codes in society really haven't changed all that much in 300 years, even though on the surface society's morals may seem to have changed drastically. Like Funkmaster said, it has nothing to do with Lewis' beliefs concerning what one ought to do with witches, or even with Christianity. Just a portion of a simple, well-thought-out progression of a logical argument.Funkmaster and Bamboo -- Hi there guys, you are an encouragement. But I fear you will not get far with this until John and others have actually read MC and have taken the time to understand it. It is easy to get wrapped up and discouraged in pointless argument that is weighted down in ignorance of the topic being discussed. Even then it is a difficult proposition. One problem is that MC is written for the fence-sitter, the person who thinks there is probably a God but doesn't know how to go about believing in him (to paraphrase CSL). CSL is not addressing those such as John who are in a completely different camp...John and others on this site (like Schrafinator) implicitly claim to be apostate -- that is having had knowledge of the truth but denying it utterly, and teaching others to do so as well. This I think is why they have such a fundamental disagreement with any position you happen to take, almost as if they are playing the Devil's Advocate, which in fact they are (literally).

quote:

---

If you want to argue the merits of C.S. Lewis

---

I don't especially want to argue the merits of C.S. Lewis, but BambooGuy promised to provide a proof of God and the best I can get from him are references to Lewis.

quote:

---

It is okay to say you aren't familiar with his writing and move on to avoid besmirching someone whose ideas you have not evaluated fully.

---

An argument is an argument, zip. You don't have to read the whole collection of Hulk comics to realize that gamma rays ain't gonna turn Bruce Banner into a grean giant. Lewis may have some fine things to say but those good things don't correct the bad arguments. He may, perhaps have better arguments somewhere, but we aren't talking about those. We are talking about the segment of Mere Christianity presented by BamboGuy. You don't have to read the whole collection of Hulk comics to realize that gamma rays ain't gonna turn Bruce Banner into a grean giant.

quote:

---

It is hard to believe however, that you have posted so many hundreds of times on this site with a decidedly anti-Christian perspective and still have not read this 100-odd page book that is one of the most widely read works of Christian apologetics!

---

It is funny that you focus on a wee little book like this, yet don't consider what I have read and studied instead. City of God? The Dark Night of the Soul? Meister Eckhart? Bishop Berkeley? Saint Teresa of Avila? Why do I care that it is widely read? I haven't read most of the most widely read books in print. Widely read does not mean 'quality.'

quote:

---

John and others on this site (like Schrafinator) implicitly claim to be apostate -- that is having had knowledge of the truth but denying it utterly, and teaching others to do so as well.

---

This is absurd. If I had knowledge of the truth, I'd not deny it. It just happens that there is no good reason to think your religion is true.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

It seems to me that you have not read my posts sufficiently to even know what my point is. I am criticising a specific argument. That argument fails to address an important point. Even *if* that point were addressed later in the book - which you have given me no reason to believe - it would still be necessary for Lewis to refer to that in the section under discussion. And there is no such reference. Indeed unless there is such an argument in the book your claim about the context is a clear falsehood - so if you wish to claim otherwise, what IS Lewis' argument on this point ?My point is that Lewis is claiming that the execution of "witches" was morally justified. However he also claims that those executed were NOT witches and therefore innocent of the charges which are the only justification for their execution. Lewis therefore has failed to justify the executions since his only argument implicitly assumes the guilt of those executed. This also undermines the claim that moral codes have not changed, since there are clearly moral issues involved in the issue of wrongful convictions and executions - the more so when the use of torture to secure confessions is considered.If Lewis' argument is so well thought out then why is this particular example so appallingly superficial ? Lewis does not even address the issues of capital punishment in general nor the means of execution - both moral issues directly involved in the very point under discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BambooGuy:
you can't prove God's existence using science, because science strictly deals with the tangible, physical world.

---

very true, but what other way is there?

quote:

---

But as we think about this problem we must try to find something in the universe that might have a non-physical aspect to it. And we find that Christian theology claims that humans have souls

---

stresses the word 'might'

quote:

---

Now we have to find some evidence of this soul, if it truly exists.

---

but ofcourse, but by which method will you prove the existence of the soul??? surely not empirical!!! -fails to state method.

quote:

---

Have you ever seen two people quarreling? They say things like, "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?" or "That's my seat, I was there first" or "Give me some of your orange, I gave you some of mine--Come on, you promised!"

---

and your point is?

quote:

---

Now what is useful about this illustration, is that the man making these statements is not appealing to his own displeasure at having lost his seat. He is appealing to an external standard of conduct

---

quote:

---

But this is very contrary to what we see in nature.

---

So, we have big brains, we are smarter and more socially intelligent. nothing 'supernatural' about that.

quote:

---

It's as if both people were playing under a law or standard of fairness morality about which they both really agreed.

---

what's so special or supernatural about that?

quote:

---

They may differ on specifics, Judaism requires monogamy while Islam allows polygamy, but they agree on the basics,

---

why don't they agree on everythingWhere do you prove the existence of a 'soul'??? I must have missed it somewhere.

John,
First of all, I would ask that you read my entire posts before you reply to them. Some of the questions you have asked would have been answered if you had continued to read.No, I have not even begun my proofs of God, because we can't get past these logical fallacies. As an example, why must you insist on using 'ad hominem' arguments? I can count four in this post alone, all that were specifically aimed at myself (you can probably find them). Why not say 'whoops, you're right' and give it up? I'm not going beat you over the head because you messed up, your 'ad hominem's have nothing to do with your current arguments.To defend myself, I do understand informal logic and some of formal logic. But from your letter it appears that you don't understand informal logic. One of the fundamental tasks of informal logic is to demonstrate that all conversation can be reduced to one of four types of speech, Nonsense, Questions, Commands, and Statements. The posts I've referred to do not fall under Nonsense, for you meant to be understood (I assume). They do not fall under Questions or Commands because you're trying to say something, they're not merely asking me a question and or commanding me to do something. So I must conclude that they are Statements, therefore they fall under the rule of logic, both formal and informal.The reason why I have used informal in this debate is so that I am easier to understand. You and I may understand M.P. (Modus Pollens) or A.C. (Asserting the Consequent), but others probably do not. I wish that more people understood formal logic, but most do not.Speaking of logic, I do not understand how your statements regarding Lewis' lack of arguments can be tenable. First, you say that English is not precise. I agree, but logic must be. If you do not find an English word that means exactly what you're trying to say, then make one up or define an existing word precise enough so that it can only have one meaning. Many English words have multiple meanings, so your usage of them has to be defined in debates like these.Secondly, on the issue of these arguments. You yourself have disproven your own argument! First you said that Lewis doesn't have an argument. Now you say he has a bad one. This kind of confusion only exists because you have not precisely defined your own terms.On another note, a straw man does not necessarily mean someone used the straw man intentionally, it could be a mere misunderstanding.>hmmm... C.S. Lewis presents an argument and doesn't bother to
>provide any evidence in support of it. In fact Lewis ignores facts
>that ought to be easily accessible. And all you can do is harp on
>the idea that I haven't provided evidence? Strange...
>
>Even more strange is that you have been told where such evidence
>can be found, and which disciplines provide that evidence.
>
>Stranger yet still, I have outlines precisely what is wrong with
>Lewis' logic and YOU aren't responding. You promised to defend
>Lewis. You aren't. Why am I starting to think you are just here to >play games?This discussion of my quote that's at the beginning of your message is a straw man, even though you've misunderstood me. I did not say you didn't provide evidence -at all-, I said that message #10 didn't.Your other comments at the beginning of your message are an example of another logical fallacy, 'Tu quoque' which means 'you too'. This is a logical fallacy because Lewis' alleged lack of evidence does not influence your own (though you do, in fact, have some now). For the rest, I don't think you want a reply to them because they appear to be mostly pejorative instead of being real questions or statements.Now to the main part of your argument. When you say that animals depend on the herd, it appears that you are meaning that they are calculating their odds of survival within the herd. It's not very clear though, please clarify your statement. This is very important, because if this is what you're saying then you're view of 'herd instinct' is very different from Lewis'.Also, please clarify the stuff about practical system. Lewis is not saying that morality is physical. He's saying that it is metaphysical and influences and directs our physical actions.The statements regarding mother-child observations, or teams of monkeys fighting tigers don't contradict Lewis' argument. These observations could be used to prove either side. In these cases, merely asserting what we observe to happen does not really prove anything.So to clarify, when I (and I think Lewis as well) say 'herd instinct' I mean essentially 'herd-preservation' without consideration of 'self-preservation'. The only way I can make sense of your non-dichotomy, is if you see 'herd instinct' as one and the same as 'self preservation'. Is this what you're trying to say?Also, I should not have used the word 'fight' in my discussion of human quarrels. What I meant was quarrel. A quarrel is a disagreement about fairness. The examples I used were based around quarrels not fights. If you'll notice I used only one example of fighting, but all of them were quarrels.My own experience with animals is that they do not quarrel, they fight. The animal species (plural) I'm referring to includes dogs, cats, ducks, geese, chickens, cattle, goats, and a horse (I live on a 65 acre farm in E.Texas). I've always observed that the strongest gets whatever he wants, whether or not it's fair, but the others don't complain. Again, a quarrel is a disagreement about fairness. These animals do not consider fairness to be an issue in their confrontations, so they don't quarrel.EvanP.S. Expect a complete outline of my 'proofs of God', somewhat shortly. I started with morality, because I thought it would be the most easily understood argument. Unfortunately, this has not turned out to be the case. So instead of the outline, I have had to defend morality by itself.P.S.S. When I said you had a 'real contradiction' I meant that you had an argument that opposed what Lewis said. But I do not consider your contradictions of Lewis' arguments to be reasonable, hence the debate. We can only have this debate if you really oppose Lewis' arguments (and therby mine). Does this clarify?

quote:

---

Also, please clarify the stuff about practical system. Lewis is not saying that morality is physical. He's saying that it is metaphysical and influences and directs our physical actions.

---

can you prove this link between the physical and metaphysical? if not, then why should we believe you?

quote:

---

First of all, I would ask that you read my entire posts before you reply to them. Some of the questions you have asked would have been answered if you had continued to read.

---

I typically don't reply to anything I take seriously withour first reading it several times. This falls into that category. You perhaps think your questions were answered. I do not think so, or I would not have asked. Do you seriously intend for this to go anywhere? Just curious. Perhaps you could get on with it now?

quote:

---

No, I have not even begun my proofs of God, because we can't get past these logical fallacies. As an example, why must you insist on using 'ad hominem' arguments?

---

Please, please, please learn what ad hominem means. An ad hominem attack, or argument, is an ARGUMENT wherein one dismisses an opponent's argument based on some perceived and irrelevant character flaw. The insult must be part of an argument.For example, you are a poo-poo head and so you are wrong. << ad hominemYou are a poo-poo head. << NOT ad hominem There is no ARGUMENT. This is just an insult. IF you feel that I am insulting (I'd call it banter: a light teasing repartee. ), say so, but this fallacious use of 'fallacy' is irritating.Don't like my example? Try this one.

quote:

---

But from your letter it appears that you don't understand informal logic.

---

LOL.... I know a cute little old german lady named Kalsi who'd disagree with you. I trust her more than you.

quote:

---

So I must conclude that they are Statements, therefore they fall under the rule of logic, both formal and informal.

---

Cows are green. << This is a statement. Apply logic to it. I dare you. The best you can do is translate it to "All cows are green" or "if C then G, where C=Cows and G=Green." You can do no more until you introduce more statements, and that is the point. Logic is the manipulation of several statements, two minimum, one being the conclusion. If you can formulate it as if/then, it is logic. If there is no 'if' or no 'then' it isn't logic but a bare statement. There is an analogy with mathematics. The number '1', or the number '2', is not math. "1+2=3" is math.

quote:

---

Speaking of logic, I do not understand how your statements regarding Lewis' lack of arguments can be tenable. First, you say that English is not precise. I agree, but logic must be. If you do not find an English word that means exactly what you're trying to say, then make one up or define an existing word precise enough so that it can only have one meaning. Many English words have multiple meanings, so your usage of them has to be defined in debates like these.

---

Friend: Take me to the store.You: I don't have any gas.Friend: Please, I really need to go.You: I only have enough to get to the gas station and I don't have any money.Ooooppppp..... there is a contradiction!!!!! Why did 'you' not define precisely what you meant in the first statement? Instead you led your friend to believe something that is not true. You do have gas, just not enough. Shame on you !!! Why? Because English is not precise yet people generally understand how it works and deal with it. That is, most people have a bit of common sense when it comes to using language. The danger with the study of logic is that you can lose this ability.

quote:

---

First you said that Lewis doesn't have an argument. Now you say he has a bad one. This kind of confusion only exists because you have not precisely defined your own terms.

---

Do I need to repeat myself? And do you sincerely believe that this is even remotely important? Is this the fight you want to pick? If I wrote this is Boolean algebra you'd have a case, but I wrote it in English and this is perfectly acceptable English. If I thought it were important, I'd have worded it more carefully.

quote:

---

On another note, a straw man does not necessarily mean someone used the straw man intentionally, it could be a mere misunderstanding.

---

Yes, it could be, in which case I'd call it a misunderstanding. The straw man fallacy-- any fallacy really-- carries a strong implication of intent.

quote:

---

Your other comments at the beginning of your message are an example of another logical fallacy, 'Tu quoque' which means 'you too'.

---

Not an argument really, it is IRRITATION. Largely, irritation that you won't just get on with it. BTW, I repeated yet again why we aren't taking Lewis seriously-- he ignores evidence that ought to be included in an argument such as he makes. I've been saying this from the get-go. It is really quite hard to be guilty of "you too" when I am the one who made the initial claim that Lewis ignores evidence -- ie. has no real argument. ( Actually, I think PaulK said it even before I did. )

quote:

---

This is a logical fallacy because Lewis' alleged lack of evidence does not influence your own (though you do, in fact, have some now).

---

Bud, my initial rejection of his argument is simply because he ain't got no evidence. This is fallacious?Friend: My car can fly.Me: Prove it.Friend: I can't. It doesn't work when people are looking.Me: Then I don't believe you.Oooppppps.... guess I just committed a fallacy.

quote:

---

When you say that animals depend on the herd, it appears that you are meaning that they are calculating their odds of survival within the herd.

---

Do consider a bear walking to the river just as the salmon arrive to be calculating? Animals do have a sometimes remarkable ability to calculate. Bats calculate the trajectory and future position of insects by analyzing echoes-- that sort of thing. But that is not really what I was getting at. There are genetic components to behavior. Import an set of individuals of, say, deer, to a region infested with crocodile. Assuming that the deer come from a region without crocodile, they will not have behavior targeted at crocodile avoidance. Some will venture too close to the water, some will stay too long at the water's edge, but some will be quick and cautious. After awhile the careless ones die. The next generation will have the DNA of the survivors and hence at least some of the tendency towards cautious behavior. Add to this that many animals learn behavior. Humans are not the only ones who do this. Bears teach there young what to hunt and how to hunt. You've heard of programs designed to re-introduce captive animals into the wild? A big hurdle is teaching these animals what to eat and how to go about it. They did not learn such things as babies. Cultural, social, herd conventions are no different. It isn't calculating in the sense of whipping out a laptop and firing up the stats package. It is using accumulated knowledge, whether learned or hard coded into DNA.

quote:

---

This is very important, because if this is what you're saying then you're view of 'herd instinct' is very different from Lewis'.

---

I have no doubt that it is.

quote:

---

Lewis is not saying that morality is physical. He's saying that it is metaphysical and influences and directs our physical actions.

---

This is exactly the part I don't like. There is no need for the meta-physical and no evidence for it either. Everything I have said has been to explain this point.

quote:

---

The statements regarding mother-child observations, or teams of monkeys fighting tigers don't contradict Lewis' argument. These observations could be used to prove either side.

---

That's nice. WHY? and HOW?

quote:

---

In these cases, merely asserting what we observe to happen does not really prove anything.

---

I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? Maybe repeat it to yourself until you realize what you just said? Observation doesn't prove anything?

quote:

---

The only way I can make sense of your non-dichotomy, is if you see 'herd instinct' as one and the same as 'self preservation'. Is this what you're trying to say?

---

I believe I states so explicitly, at least in a practical sense for social animals. For strongly social animals, you can't talk about 'self-preservation' outside the group. Outside the group, survival doesn't happen. Not living in the group is suicide. Making some sacrifices to stay in the group is the best way to survive.

quote:

---

Again, a quarrel is a disagreement about fairness.

---

Thus you define things such as to 'prove' your point, or attempt to do so. Argument by definition is not argument. And I don't have to care. It doesn't do the argument any good though. 'Fair' is no more metaphysical than 'I want my stuff' or 'I want more stuff'.added by edit--- Lewis wants to use 'fairness' to pull us into the metaphysical. It can also be understood and quite adequately described as a necessary component of stable social structure. You can see this in monkey and ape societies, even in naked mole rats if I remember correctly. You can see this in the way that group members who do not share are treated-- ie. other group members don't share with the stingy party.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, this has not turned out to be the case. So instead of the outline, I have had to defend morality by itself.

---

IF step one fails, the rest is pointless.

quote:

---

But I do not consider your contradictions of Lewis' arguments to be reasonable, hence the debate.

---

To be honest, I don't think you've quite figured out what I am saying. And I don't really care what you find unreasonable unless you can tell me why. This you haven't done. I'm not sure you've even tried.

quote:

---

Does this clarify?

---

No. It seems that 'really oppose' means 'say something that makes sense to you.' Or, alternatively, 'find a strict logical contradiction internal to the argument.' Well, if you haven't noticed, there are a lot of internally consistent arguments that have nothing to do with the real world. The problem with such arguments usually being the premises. If you are going to insist that the only criteria is logical consistency, we may as well stop right here. I can make up a dozen such arguments in a matter of minutes.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 03-02-2003]

I just want to issue a caution that threads won't be permitted to degrade into minute dissections of and arguments about meaning. Standard English should be sufficient for all discussion at this site.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

Have you ever seen two people quarreling? They say things like, "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?" or "That's my seat, I was there first" or "Give me some of your orange, I gave you
some of mine--Come on, you promised!"

​

Now what is useful about this illustration, is that the man making these statements is not appealing
to his own displeasure at having lost his seat. He is appealing to an external standard of conduct,
that the other fellow should know about. But it gets even stranger.

​

The other fellow doesn't say, "To h--- with your standard!" Usually, he tries to explain why what he
is doing does not really go against the standard. Or that if it does there is some special excuse. He
pretends there is a special reason why the other person who got up can't claim the chair anymore.
Or that the promised bit of orange shouldn't really count, because it was under extenuating
circumstances (if he's a verbose chap!).

---

I replied previoulsy, and somewhat flippantly, but the point I
think needs to be raised is that the above view of human conduct
is intensely niave.One can only assume that the poster has led a somewhat sheltered
life.In an argument over a seat, for example, it is unlikely that
the usurper would raise an objection based upon some standard
of behaviour ... more likely the reply would be something
uprintable. Where I come from we sometimes use the joking
euphemism 'Go forth and multiply' (if you see what I mean).The behaviour of even supposedly civilised, westerners can be
extremely base ... suggesting that morality is externally imposed
by society rather than anything inherent in the human animal.Morality stems from the need to control the masses, nothing more.Moses brought down the ten commandments because he had an unruly
mob of ex-slaves to control ... and as an Egyptian educated
individual he would likely have known a lot about political
and religious manipulations. Church imposed moral notions
most likely have similar intent.

quote:

---

And what is even more astounding is that all cultures have similar rules of fair play.

quote:

---

I don't find this astounding at all. Humans live in groups and have lived in groups since long before we were human. Some behaviors are more conducive to life in a group than other behaviors. Simple. The argument Lewis tries to make just doesn't hold. As PaulK said, he ignores or is ignorant of the facts. ( I did go to Amazon and read the sample pages of his book. ) Sorry. Wanna try again?

---

---

The list of arguments that C.S. Lewis makes are something that might be interesting to you. In the book Lewis does indeed make a compelling argument about the law of human nature and why it universal. Lewis makes another argument that the place to look for a personal God is within the person, not outside of it. Get this book and see what you think.

I will simply note that my citicisms of Lewis' argument are so far unanswered. If Lewis' argument is so compelling perhaps you can present his responses to the points I have raised ? If he does not then his argument must be judged superficial.

The question being asked was about the standard used to judge these witches. It was believed that these people were killing their neighbours. They felt that these people should be punished for their actions. We would do the same today if we thought there were people going around killing their neighbours.Now these people were not witches, however there are people in our prisons who are not murderers (or guilty of any crime), yet are still being punished. The standard has not changed.

If you don't have the book, then don;t try to defend it by guessing what it says. The question is specifically about EXECUTING witches and whether that was morally correct.Now I don't know about you but if many innocent people were being executed after being tortured into confessing - when the only grounds for suspicion is ALSO evidence extracted under torture then I would think that there is a real moral issue. No matter if people "really" beleived that they were guilty - after all we still have mniscarriages of justice and every time one is exposed people now DO raise a fuss. They don't think that it is all right to put people in jail - let alone execute them - without adequate evidence is morally correct.Apparently you believe otherwise. Indeed you seem to think that it is self-evidently morally correct to convict and even execute anyone who is believed to be guilty, regardless of the evidence. If you did not believe that you would have to concede that there are moral questions here that Lewis does not even attempt to address.

I do have the book and have read it a few different times. What is frustrating me is that this reference we are discussing is a side note at the end of the chapter. And I'm wondering if you have read the book.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.