C.S. Lewis on materialistic thoughts

Perhaps the main cause of atheism is lack of imagination... of course I guess I can't say that since I just read Hitchiker's guide and that author certainly has an imagination. But anyway... Symbolically represented to what and by what? Another collection of random events? You don't find it the least bit mysterious that a collection of purely random events would lead to and eventually make up something unpredicted, unpredictable, and indescribable in objective scientific terms: the subjective experience of consciousness? Right, right... solipcism ruins everything... but not really because if we are going to judge the worth of a philosophy by its practicality, then this point is irrelevant because you do not walk down the street everyday continually keeping in mind the fact that everything you see might not be real, and if you did you'd soon lose your sanity. Solipcism is useful in science which is, IMO, a tool, not a philosophy or worldview which is evident by the fact that science depends on facts which solipcism destroys.So for all practical purposes everyone believes something is really real, that is: truth, and everyone believes we can be certain of at least a good deal of it. I don't know what you mean by the "ultimate real truth of the universe," but if we know even a little bit of truth, something extrordinary has happened. SOMETHING exists that is indescribable in objective scientific terms. You cannot describe anything in the realm of experience without using subjective language, which is why Kant(...I think...?) said there must be two realms of knowledge: the subjective and the objective which do not cross over.Here is the argument:
Those such as yourself say that the universe is unintended.
This includes every event that led to your existence.
This must also include every event that makes up your existence.
Therefore every thought is the result of unintended causes and effects.
Objective truth exists.
A search for truth requires intent to find the truth.
If every action in the universe from the big bang to the final neuron firing in your search for truth is unintended and therefore random, then your search for truth is also random and therefore successful only by mere chance.I can see some potential holes in this argument, but no one here has really attacked the argument so far.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 04-01-2005 04:45 PM

You completely misunderstood my statement. Let me restate it a different way.One believes in God as Creator. That person has a couple of ways to understand the Creation, including 1) a human account of the Creation (the Bible), and 2) the evidence of the Creation itself (the world/universe around us).Why is it that a believer denies the Creation itself in favor of the human account? But the opposite is true: there is an even stronger, I would argue, "quirk in human thought" that assigns intelligent creation where there is none. There have been many art studies done with falsified art shows, containing "art" produced by animals, toddlers, and computers; but attributed to experienced human artists. Essentially people cannot distinguish art done with creative intelligent intent from that done rather randomly.Recently the show 20/20 performed such an experiment by giving a bunch of toddlers canvas and paint and letting them go wild. They then took this "art" and placed it side by side with art done by adults. They then had both lay people and art historians evalute the paintings. The best work of art based on the survey was done by a toddler, if I remember correctly.More importantly, it was quite amusing to see art historians describe in great detail the style and context of the toddlers' paintings within artistic movements and history - assigning great intelligence and creative intent where there was none.Your example cuts in both directions, I'm afraid...

Wow, I always thought that the main cause of believing "Goddidit" was a lack of imagination... as in, "I can't imagine how this part of nature works, therefore some eternal supernatural dude that I was told about as a kid must be responsible."

Problems in the argument: Granted. A non sequitur and aslo clearly false. (Hint: How do we make babies ?) Not only false, but also begs the question.
I assume that the original argument means to restrict such a claim to the underlying physics and chemistry - which is still a question-begging example of the fallacy of composition. Since the premsies are false we have no need to accept this conclusion. Granted As I understand this it also commits the same fallacy of composition noted above.The question that really needs ot be addressed, is what is intent and where does it come from - and NOBODY has an answer that can be proven, rendering the whole thing an argument from ignorance.

Hi Loudmouth,I'll go ahead and reply to your post since I incorporated your word "intention" into my posts. And are you not a part of the "random" universe? Aren't the collection of events that make up you and your thoughts random? That is what Lewis is asking.If you are somehow separate from the randomness of the universe and able to act with intent in a non-random purposeful manner, what enables you to do this?

Thanks for your reply. You assume that the copulating couple is copulating because somewhere along the line they gained a free-will in a universe where everything is absent of will or "intent." You assume that intent has already entered the cause/effect chain. First you have to explain how intent enters a random series of events (which I see from the end of your post that you don't know).That's what C.S. Lewis was saying: we don't know how the intent gets in the cause/effect chain. And you're right, this is an argument from ignorance, but a very powerful one that even causes some people to believe in God. Well, that sounds smart, but I never took debate... You can just flat out tell me it's false, but if you want me to believe you, you have to give me a reason.What question is it begging again?And yes, I spose you're right to assume that the original argument is restricted to the "underlying physics and chemistry" as that's all the scientist assumes there really is at work. No metaphysics is assumed.I understand your "fallacy of composition" argument. You are saying that though every physical action that makes up a thought is random, this doesn't mean the thought is random? I think this is true, but why is it true? If we can't explain why it's true, then all we have to go on is our subjective experience and that's not scientific. But that's what makes it fun: it's a question without an answer. Questions that have already been answered aren't much fun to wonder about.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 04-01-2005 05:21 PM

I think this is called "backfiring". Or has Phatboy been "pissing into the wind"?Anyway, well done, Pink.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Then how can people distinguish things such as flowers, animals, and galaxies produced through creative intent from random activity.Based on the logic of probability, a toddler could eventually splatter out a Mona Lisa given enough paint, time, and the impossible situation of remaining a patient toddler for umpteen billion years.Great spans of time produce random selection. Odd how we can critically speculate and muse about such subjects so purposefully and intelligently. Although it is windier than I would have liked, I must remind you that we are not concluding either side as correct are we? I could just as well say that one day, Richard Dawkins will bow to the one whom he mocked.
While I disagree with you often, I respect that you have intelligence. Can't C.S. Lewis be given some measure of respect as well?

You tell me. You were the one who made the assertion that we need to consider the creator of the universe when considering the universe. So, how do you distinguish? That doesn't really make any sense; care to rephrase?

I doubt it, as I find that its the believers who are the least imaginative people I know. By symbols. What did you think I meant? Do I find it mysterious that a random process would lead to something you describe as unpredictable? No, why would I?Look, we don't really know what human consciousness is. In fact it appears to be very little more than basic instinctual responses combined with language, and language is just another way of modeling the world, something that just about every living thing, and a bunch of non-living machines of our own design, is capable of doing.So, no, there's nothing about human consciousness that I find so mysterious that it can't simply be one result of the laws of physics operating in a certain way. Solipcism isn't really a "philosophy", its a statement about the epistomological condition of human knowledge. Solipcism doesn't destroy facts. It simply means that what we think of as facts might not be, even if they continue to for a basis for accurate predictions about the phenomena we observe.Science and solipcism are entirely compatible; in fact, science is the only method of knowledge-gathering that is even worthwhile in the presence of solipcism. I mean that which solipcism means we can never know. Maybe. Given solipcism I don't see how we can know that. Strong solipcism proposes that that SOMETHING doesn't actually exist, but I don't agree that we can know that. The flaw in your argument is that you don't seem to realize that the random, intentless laws of physics in the universe have given rise to humans who have intent. Or maybe that's something you don't see as possible. I don't see why it would be.

C.S. Lewis was an intellectual before he became a Christian. The way that we a s believers distinguish is that we have met the Creator. That is why we consider Him. The natural man (without the Spirit)cannot even fathom God on a personal level.

Thanks for your reply. I was just kiddin Because random processes are predictable with some degree of accuracy. Like Loudmouth's example of the dice.If even a small part of the universe loses its randomness, then either the whole of the universe loses its randomness or something must distinguish the random from the non-random. As yet we have not defined what if anything can be said to make this distinction. Agreed. But there is no way that the laws of physics can predict "consciousness" and there is no way to objectively describe it therefore it must not exist, but for some reason, we know not what, it does.That IS mysterious, IMO, and I can't wait until we have the technology to create a human-like AI and see what kind of consciousness if any it will have and what kind of free-will if any it will have. But anway... I know... I didn't mean "philosophy" as in literally the love of wisdom, but in the broader sense of an accepted doctrine of a particular worldview. If my understanding of solipsism is correct it means that it is entirely possible that even what we observe is not real. So if you are going to actually apply solipsism your facts are worthless. Instead we must choose NOT to apply solipsism and say, "we will go ahead and accept this information as true." If we do this then solipsism is merely a philosophical abstraction held in reserve rather than an applied doctrine. In fact it seems to only get applied in philosophical conversations where the nature of science is being discussed rather than in the actual practice of science. Furthermore, solipsism is only itself a theory. Why are you now using solipsism? You don't use it at any other time. And why are you arguing against consciousness since it seems that a scientific explanation for the existence of consciousness would defeat Lewis's argument? It's not my argument. I think that a scientific explanation for consciousness would defeat the argument and I truly don't know whether a scientific explanation exists. If no such scientific explanation exists, then this is a perfectly valid argument for the existence of metaphysics. I do not know whether a scientific explanation ever will be found, however, it seems odd that we cannot unlock the secrets that are so close to us, even a part of us.You admit that science cannot now explain consciousness and you admit that consciousness exists. That is a hole in our understanding. Both myself and C.S. Lewis would agree that one can never base faith in God on holes in human understanding, however, if the metaphysical exists and is to interact with the physical then this must surely create a hole that science cannot fill. In fact a hole will be the only kind of evidence that could ever be found for the metaphysical. By pointing out the hole Lewis is saying, this MIGHT be an evidence of the metaphysical.

So is human behavior. It's called "psychology." I know what you meant; that's not what it is. Solipcism isn't a worldview, it's a statement about the epistomological condition of human knowledge. Why? Why would they have to be real to be useful? If I use the "facts", and I develop a theory that allows me to construct a VCR and I have a good time watching movies, does it matter that the VCR isn't real? I'm having the same experience either way, so there's certainly usefulness to facts that accurately describe my experiences, even if my experiences don't reflect an actual reality. Solipcism isn't a choice; no more than gravity is a choice. It's an unrefutable statement about what we can know. We can't just choose to ignore it and pretend like we know more than we do. We have to gather what knowledge we do, while recognizing that solipcism means our knowledge might be totally wrong.Which is why the conclusions of science are tentative, and why the goal of science is not the truth, which cannot be known, but the development of models that make accurate predicitions about what we will observe. Well, it doesn't really matter to the practice of science. We do science the same way whether or not solipcism is true. It's not a statement about how we get knowledge, but rather, a statement about what our knowledge is. No matter if we're in reality or in the Matrix, a good scientific model makes valid predictions about what we're going to experience in the future. No, it's not a theory. It's an unrefutable statement about the nature of our knowledge. I guess you still don't understand. I do use it at every time. It's not something you "use", it's an inescapable condition of our knowledge. And I am indeed aware of that condition all the time.But it doesn't matter to the practice of science, because a useful scientific model makes the same predicitions about what you'll experience, no matter if its based on "real reality" or the fictions of a Matrix. "If the brain were simple enough for us to understand, we wouldn't be able to."

Thanks for your reply. Of course some of our behavior is predictable as would be expected from any random thing in nature, but some may not be. Psychology has never to my knowledge explained consciousness nor determined whether we have free-will or not, so I don't think bringing it in can add to this argument. You are running around the issue and I can't figure out why. I mean heck solipsism hasn't even been brought into this discusion of C.S. Lewis's argument in any meaningful way. In your previous post you claimed that solipsism does not destroy facts, yet when I stated for the sake of argument that we have a thing called consciousness, you attacked this statement based solely on solipsism thereby proving my point that the use of solipsism destroys facts, which makes no sense since you already admitted that humans are conscious. You cannot use solipsism to undermine whatever argument you choose unless you want a stalemate in which case there's no point in even arguing. I said that the application of the theory of solipsism is a choice, and you have not refuted that nor is there any reason too since this is obviously true (unless you want to refute this again based on solipsism).Gravity effects us physically no matter what. Solipsism can effect you only if you have knowledge of it and can only be used in argument if you wish to destroy all presuppositions except the one that you exist. It is like the nuke of philosophical debate and you are applying it very inconsistently in an argument that doesn't yet concern it. Perhaps this is true, but Dictionary.com said it was a theory. And, with the given definition, I spose it must be a theory since proving it as true goes against it's own definition. But whatever... I'm sick of debating solipsism which has nothing to do with anything in the argument. I understand perfectly well what solipsism is and we needn't discuss it anymore.

And you're responding to arguments that I don't remember making. We're clearly talking past each other. What exactly are you on about? The assertion was made, or at least implied, that its unreasonable to suggest that naturalistic processes would lead to an organism capable of perceiving truth.I'm refuting that claim by pointing out that we, as humans, are not capable of perceiving the truth. That's why I brought up solipcism, to make that point. That's not why I brought up solipcism, and I never used it to attack the assertion that we have a thing called consciousness.But I dispute that we know that we have consciousness, because we don't know what consciousness is, so how can we know we have it? That's not solipcism, that's pointing out that you can hardly expect to be taken seriously when you say that "we have a thing called consciousness", and then the only definition of consciousness is "that thing we have as humans." Unfortunately it destroys that one too; we percieve that we have experiences, or at least I do, but that's about it. I have experiences; everybody else around me says they do and it behooves me to play along with them, and often what they say they experience and what I do experience seems to line up. So we see what we can all agree we're experiencing, and then we try to guess what we're going to experience next.It's called "science." It has everything to do with the argument; there's no need for ludicrous recourse to supernatural creators to explain how the result of a random process can see the truth of the world, if we know that we aren't necessarily seeing the truth of the world.That's the argument I'm making, and that's why I brought up solipcism.