The Illusion of Self

[Shaker]

... and are predictably unlikely to 

[torridon]

Absolutely and I think the various ''non-divine explanations'' are pretty thin stuff and generally based on some kind of specific psychological incompetence on the part of theists (basically a play ground name calling argument) and a polished argumentum ad populum possibly with a misplaced Occams razor chucked in.

I think it is divine explanations that are 'thin stuff'. Where exactly is the evidential basis for gods and all the related paraphernalia such as souls, demons, heaven, angels etc ?  Last time I checked it wasn't there, but that doesn't seem to bother some people.  Just keep calm and carry on old boy 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think it is divine explanations that are 'thin stuff'. Where exactly is the evidential basis for gods and all the related paraphernalia such as souls, demons, heaven, angels etc ?  Last time I checked it wasn't there, but that doesn't seem to bother some people.  Just keep calm and carry on old boy 

Well, there is a huge preponderance of derived power/potential/change/ability in the universe and logically an infinite series of derived anything is a nonsense.

[Alan Burns]

Competence, even excellence, even genius in one specific field is not and never has been a guarantee of competence in any other. A bad argument is a bad argument whoever uses it. And Lewis can deploy bad arguments with the best - or is that the worst? - of them. Gordon's analysis, brief as it was, was quite correct. Lewis is doing no more than any business does on a daily basis; trying to tout his wares that he wants you to buy by rubbishing the competition. It has always been standard practice in especially monotheistic religions just as it has in trade and commerce.

I need to point out that Lewis was very familiar with most non theist arguments because he used them himself before he discovered God.  So he was able to use his considerable literary skills to offer detailed, in depth rebuttals of these arguments.  Yet his arguments get dismissed as fallacies without offering any constructive criticism or alternative logic.  This to me confirms the shallow thinking of the non theists he highlighted in his essay.

[Shaker]

I need to point out that Lewis was very familiar with most non theist arguments because he used them himself before he discovered God.  So he was able to use his considerable literary skills to offer detailed, in depth rebuttals of these arguments.

When did this happen?

Yet his arguments get dismissed as fallacies without offering any constructive criticism or alternative logic.  This to me confirms the shallow thinking of the non theists he highlighted in his essay.

If an argument is fallacious, it's game over. That's it - done and dusted. That's all that needs to said. Once an argument, or I should say would-be argument, has been identified as fallacious there's no further requirement to engage - the person deploying the fallacy has made no argument at all. The very fact of their having committed this or that logical fallacy, by definition, demonstrates that their reasoning is awry.

Also known as wrong.

[SusanDoris]

When did this happen?
If an argument is fallacious, it's game over. That's it - done and dusted. That's all that needs to said. Once an argument, or I should say would-be argument, has been identified as fallacious there's no further requirement to engage - the person deploying the fallacy has made no argument at all. The very fact of their having committed this or that logical fallacy, by definition, demonstrates that their reasoning is awry.

Also known as wrong.

well said, Shaker, but it will never sink in, will it?

[Shaker]

It never seems to, no, SD.

[Gordon]

I need to point out that Lewis was very familiar with most non theist arguments because he used them himself before he discovered God.  So he was able to use his considerable literary skills to offer detailed, in depth rebuttals of these arguments.

It is then a shame that 'man-or-rabbit' is such a poor essay, especially in his characterisation of 'Materialists'. Take this passage, in which we have a claim of 'facts' but without either any indication of what these 'facts' are or how they are known to be factually correct. So, this does read like special pleading, and then we have, bearing in mind his apologist stance, a veiled ad hom that not accepting Christianity would be dishonest.     

Christianity claims to give an account of facts* -to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might if it gives him no help at all.

* italics in original

Here's another beauty to be going on with: words fail me.

Honest rejection of Christ, however mistaken, will be forgiven and healed - 'Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him.'! But to evade the Son of Man, to look the other way, to pretend you haven't noticed, to become suddenly absorbed in something on the other side of the street, to leave the receiver off the telephone because it might be He who was ringing up, to leave unopened certain letters in a strange handwriting because they might be from Him - this is a different matter. You may not be certain yet whether you ought to be a Christian; but you do know you ought to be a Man, not an ostrich, hiding its head in the sand.

The only thing to you can do with fallacious arguments is dismiss them- and 'man or rabbit' is packed with them.

[Alan Burns]

If an argument is fallacious, it's game over. That's it - done and dusted. That's all that needs to said. Once an argument, or I should say would-be argument, has been identified as fallacious there's no further requirement to engage - the person deploying the fallacy has made no argument at all. The very fact of their having committed this or that logical fallacy, by definition, demonstrates that their reasoning is awry.

But just labelling an argument as fallacy is not very convincing.  You need to indicate why you think it is a fallacy in some detail, and if possible offer an alternative argument.  I have noted that many accusations of fallacy boil down to differences of opinion or misunderstanding the argument put forward.

[wigginhall]

But just labelling an argument as fallacy is not very convincing.  You need to indicate why you think it is a fallacy in some detail, and if possible offer an alternative argument.  I have noted that many accusations of fallacy boil down to differences of opinion or misunderstanding the argument put forward.

Example?

[Enki]

You seem to find it very easy to dismiss the works of one of the greatest literary scholars of the 20th century.  Do you seriously think that Lewis did not realise what a non sequitur is?
(And I assume you will be labelling this as the fallacy of arguing from authority) 

I agree wholeheartedly with Gordon on this. I have read several of C.S.Lewis's books, and I, too, have read twice this particular essay. Typically he builds up his own strawman edifice which he then proceeds to knock down with a fair amount of prosletysing thrown in for good measure. As his description of the 'dishonest' unbeliever bears no relation to me at all, this essay holds no significance for me at all.

[Gordon]

But just labelling an argument as fallacy is not very convincing.

It is if what is argued is being argued fallaciously.

You need to indicate why you think it is a fallacy in some detail, and if possible offer an alternative argument.  I have noted that many accusations of fallacy boil down to differences of opinion or misunderstanding the argument put forward.

If an argument offered is fallacious then all that the other party need do is call the fallacy: end of, since there is nothing reasonable then to engage with. Fallacies may well contain misunderstandings on the part of the arguer, and the arguer may well form an opinion based on misunderstandings, but they key point is that the argument contains reasoning errors, so it fails on that basis. 

[Alan Burns]

It is then a shame that 'man-or-rabbit' is such a poor essay, especially in his characterisation of 'Materialists'. Take this passage, in which we have a claim of 'facts' but without either any indication of what these 'facts' are or how they are known to be factually correct. So, this does read like special pleading, and then we have, bearing in mind his apologist stance, a veiled ad hom that not accepting Christianity would be dishonest.     

    Christianity claims to give an account of facts* -to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might if it gives him no help at all.

You obviously have not understood or fully read what Lewis is saying.  He uses the word "claims" in the context of facts, and concedes that you may or may not believe them to be true.  If you read this passage in context, you would realise that Lewis is simply pointing out that you should not believe in something like Christianity just because it is helpful.

[wigginhall]

It's when Lewis talks about 'mere animals'  that my blood pressure rises dangerously.   What the hell does this mean?   I suppose that humans have special faculties, OK, but he is close to anticipating his conclusion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Having read it as a non believer. I recall both resenting it and resembling the case study. Thus when Gordon comes away with the almost incontinent announced resentment of his post I for one would recommend he explores what might be going on.

Two tricks are being missed here though. One is Lewis doesn't talk about honest disbelief here except to discount it from his study but evasive disbelief and fence sitting. Secondly Lewis poses this as an existential question which we ask of ourselves and therefore Gordon's statement that he doesn't recognise this in any of his colleagues misses the point.

Lewis leaves us with one of his trilemma......are we an honest disbeliever, a believer or a dogmatic fence sitter?

[wigginhall]

I will give it to Lewis, he is the master of the false dichotomy.  Example: behind this door, is either the secret of the universe, or the greatest fraud.   Well, no, those are not the only alternatives, this is the cousin of his trilemma, lunatic, liar or Lord.

[Gordon]

Two tricks are being missed here though. One is Lewis doesn't talk about honest disbelief here except to discount it from his study but evasive disbelief and fence sitting.

Then he is proposing a false dilemma.

Secondly Lewis poses this as an existential question which we ask of ourselves and therefore Gordon's statement that he doesn't recognise this in any of his colleagues misses the point.

I suspect Lewis, being an apologist, is simply caricaturing 'Materialists'. 

Lewis leaves us with one of his trilemma......are we an honest disbeliever, a believer or a dogmatic fence sitter?

Then he misses those of us who have no beliefs regarding the divine.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then he misses those of us who have no beliefs regarding the divine.

I think he proposes that that position is both honestly and dishonestly held.

[Gordon]

I think he proposes that that position is both honestly and dishonestly held.

Then he is wrong: if I hold no beliefs then they can't have attributes like honestly or dishonestly assigned.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then he is wrong: if I hold no beliefs then they can't have attributes like honestly or dishonestly assigned.

I'm afraid you are wrong because having heard of Christ and the Gospel one moves to a view of it and I think yours is clear. If one doesn't one is evading and is therefore the subject of the essay. Lewis makes this clear in his essay.

[Gordon]

I'm afraid you are wrong because having heard of Christ and the Gospel one moves to a view of it and I think yours is clear. If one doesn't one is evading and is therefore the subject of the essay. Lewis makes this clear in his essay.

Then, as I said, Lewis is wrong in his presumption of evasion and, therefore, his presumption of people like me: there are no good reasons to think there is anything meaningful to evade.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then, as I said, Lewis is wrong in his presumption of evasion and, therefore, his presumption of people like me: there are no good reasons to think there is anything meaningful to evade.

So what decision have you made regarding Christ?

[Shaker]

But just labelling an argument as fallacy is not very convincing.  You need to indicate why you think it is a fallacy in some detail, and if possible offer an alternative argument.

That's why I said: "... when a would-be argument has been identified as fallacious." 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How do you know he is guessing?...... answer? Hillside doesn't......he's guessing.

Yes Hillside does because, when someone asserts something as true with no argument or evidence to support the claim, that's what the term "guess" means. 

[Gordon]

So what decision have you made regarding Christ?

I have suspended judgment: I think all the arguments I've encountered in favour of 'Christ' fail for a variety of reasons that are mostly covered by the various fallacies. In addition I've yet to have an answer to my oft-asked question regarding how the risk of lies or mistakes have been meaningfully excluded from the anecdotal accounts of 'Christ'.

So, as it stands, I see no reason to take 'Christ' any more seriously than I take 'Zeus'.