Posts Tagged ‘CS Lewis’

Biological Naturalism states that consciousnes...

Biological Naturalism states that consciousness is a higher level function of the human brain’s physical capabilities. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Naturalism…you can’t get there from here.

“Naturalism doesn’t contain such ingredients as minds, propositions, perceptions and logical relations. It contains elementary particles and attractive forces, chemical reactions, quantum fields, and the like, in a closed and impersonal system of cause and effect. And all of those causes are material and non-rational. Naturalism doesn’t countenance immaterial entities such as persons, with thoughts and beliefs, persons that can infer from the proper ground of a propositional belief to a valid conclusion, which can then guide behavior and so cause things to happen in the world. If naturalism is true, then all these “things” either don’t exist or must have some non-rational physical cause. And we have no reason to think that such causes would provide us with a way of inferring correctly from a ground to a consequent (as Lewis puts it).

But naturalists normally trust the conclusions of natural science and typically believe they have arrived at their naturalist convictions by following evidence and sweet reason to their inevitable conclusion. If Lewis is right, however, then naturalism as a belief refutes itself. Consider any argument for naturalism. If it is sincerely offered, it will presuppose that people have beliefs and rational faculties that can affect their action because they can perceive the validity of the argument, or lack thereof, and act accordingly.”

via C.S. Lewis and the Argument from Reason – Evolution News & Views.

simul iustus et peccator,


C. S. Lewis

C. S. Lewis (Photo credit: sfjalar)

“The other big reversal which I spoke about is addressed by Lewis in this fashion: “The ancient man approached God or even the gods as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God’s acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock.”

Yes, instead of God sitting in judgment over mere man, we have thought it fit to make him accountable to us. It is all a part of man’s rebellion against God, but it has become more pronounced of late. Just consider the issue of theodicy as an example. Even the term itself is quite recent.

It has to do with why God allows suffering and evil, and it speaks about justifying the ways of God to man. It seems that the German philosopher Leibniz 1646-1716 first used this term, and it has since come to mean making God answerable to charges of

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (July 1, 1646 – Nove...

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (July 1, 1646 – November 14, 1716) (Photo credit: 1way2rock)

complicity in evil.

But prior to the Enlightenment, suffering was normally viewed as a problem for man, not as a problem for God. That is, God was not put in the dock, forced to give an account of himself. But all that has changed in the past few centuries, and whenever some disaster strikes, we demand of God an immediate and satisfying explanation.”

via God, Man, and the Great Reversal » Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch.


“As C.S. Lewis put it in Mere Christianity, “Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.”

So even those who scream that there is no God also have the need to discover something more than a life of mere materialism. Even they seek to transcend the mundane world they find themselves in. While shaking their fists at God, they give the game away by imitating religion.”

via Our Atheist Churches » Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch.