Wednesday, May 25, 2011

An essay by Avery Cardinal Dulles on Lewis as an apologist

Lewis’ second favorite proof, the argument from reason, appears in his book Miracles. A certain kind of naturalism, he observes, characterizes rational thinking as a mere product of nervous reflexes, instincts, and habits. Lewis replies that physical or psychological conditioning cannot explain our power to make judgments about truth and error. We are conscious that our judgments are determined not by subrational forces but by reality as it impinges on our minds. The power to reach understanding through rational explanations is evidence of an affinity between the mind and reality. It is explicable only if there is an aboriginal mind that accounts for both intelligence and intelligibility.

Lewis’ sketchy presentation of this argument leaves further work to be done. Having an ancestry that goes all the way back through Plato to Anaxagoras, it resembles the argument for the existence of God proposed in highly technical terms by Bernard Lonergan and popularized in several apologetical works of Hugo Meynell. For all these authors the wonderful correspondence between reason and reality implies that reality is imbued with an order that stems from a creative Mind. Lewis’ focus is not so much on the intelligibility of the world as on the mind’s capacity for truth, which in his opinion cannot be explained by natural selection but only by an intelligent Creator.


Lonergan's AFR is found in chapter 19 of his book Insight. Hugo Meynell's book The Intelligible Universe is based on Lonergan's argument.

4 comments:

Ilíon said...

John Donne *appears* to have presented an AfR:

"He must pull out his own eyes, and see no creature, before he can say, he sees no God; He must be no man, and quench his reasonable soul, before he can say to himself, there is no God." -- John Donne (c. 1572-1631), British divine, metaphysical poet. Eighty Sermons, ser. 23 (1640).

This link is the first I've seen the quote identifies as to which particular Sermon it it from. And, I said 'appears' because without reading the context, I can't be sure he meant it as a reference to an AfR.

Steven Carr said...

'For all these authors the wonderful correspondence between reason and reality implies that reality is imbued with an order that stems from a creative Mind. '

I did wonder why Chaos Theory was so important, when reality is imbued with an order that stems from a creative Mind.

If god created ordered things, does that mean that god is ordered?

If god created yellow things, does that mean that god is yellow?

'It is explicable only if there is an aboriginal mind that accounts for both intelligence and intelligibility.'

'God did it' is not an explanation.

Not until Lewis says how his god did it.

Until then it is bluster to claim that an aboriginal mind accounts for intelligence.

Ilíon said...

a terminal fool: "... 'God did it' is not an explanation.

Not until Lewis says how his god did it.

Until then it is bluster to claim that an aboriginal mind accounts for intelligence
"

Ah, yes! "It just happens!" is so superior an explanation. Either that, or, like most village 'atheists' with an ethernet cable, Mr Carr is both intellectually dishonest and not merely irrational, but anti-rational.

Ilíon said...

Lewis (paraphrased): "For these reasons [X, Y, Z], it is exceeding difficult to envision(*) minds, and mental acts, can "arise" from mere un-living matter."

Little Stevie (translated): "Look! A pony!"

an Adult: "Stevie, that's not a pony; that's just a pile of horse hocky."

Little Stevie (translated): "Well ... but there might be pony in it!"

(*) "exceeding difficult to envision" -- being a man of his time and place, Lewis didn't present his conclusion as a blunt logical inevitability; though, clearly it is, and clearly he meant the reader to understand it to be so.

==========
Lewis presented an argument, based purely upon reasoning and facts freely available and accessible to all -- no appeals to the Christian revelation -- the conclusion of which is that if atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then it would be impossible for us to know truth or to reason from known truth to unknown truth, but, that since we know that we can do these things, we therefore know that atheism is false.

Little Stevie's response (as always) is to ignore Lewis' argument and attempt to change the subject.

Lewis shows us that mind cannot be reduced to matter; Little Stevie, in a childish pique, *demands* that Lewis show him how mind can be reduced to matter.