tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post116097745670426259..comments2024-03-28T08:58:27.412-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Is Scientific Thought Truncated?Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1161200601299046602006-10-18T12:43:00.000-07:002006-10-18T12:43:00.000-07:00"However, since you are insistent on playing the p..."However, since you are insistent on playing the part of Es's interepreter, I ask: What exactly did Es mean when he said, "Religious folks love to assert this"?" <BR/><BR/>Es quoted the assertion he was referring to in his post:<BR/><BR/>"it is obvious that one’s thinking cannot be a merely natural event, and that therefore something other than nature exists."<BR/><BR/>Seems clear to me that Lewis in that assertion is saying that thinking is a supernatural event. If true, then there would not be a natural explanation for thinking. However, it is not correct to assume becasue there is no natural explanation for thinking that thinking is supernatural. Lack of a natural explanation could simply be due to a limitation of our intellect: thinking could still be a natural phenomenon.<BR/><BR/>Kind of weird that we are having so much trouble coming to an understanding on this becasue I think we both disagree with Es.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1161187656018588142006-10-18T09:07:00.000-07:002006-10-18T09:07:00.000-07:00""Thinking cannot be a natural event" is not diffe...""Thinking cannot be a natural event" is not different from "thinking cannot be explained naturally." I'm not going to argue over trivialities such as that."<BR/><BR/>There is a big difference between saying there is not a natural explanation for a particular phenomenon and saying that such phenomenon is supernatural. It may very well be that we are not capable of explaining all natural phenomenon. That doesn't mean they are supernatural.<BR/>Not really arguring with you here. Simply pointing out that you misread what es was saying.<BR/><BR/>"My comment to Ed was not a defense of the arugment. I didn't even say I agreed with the argument. But you seemed to think it necessary to give a brief case against the argument. Not sure why you threw that in."<BR/><BR/>That's easy to explain. I "threw it in" in order to clarify what I think es' original claim was and why it was mistaken. He seems to think that Christians have to believe that thinking is a supernatural event. And that is simply not true. <BR/><BR/>"You say, "Es never claimed that religious people don't like to philosophize." I never claimed that Ed claimed that. So I'm not sure why you threw that in."<BR/><BR/>I "threw it in" to indicate why I was puzzled over your last remark. I'm still puzzled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1161113016397866182006-10-17T12:23:00.000-07:002006-10-17T12:23:00.000-07:00"Anonymous,Lewis wasn't anti-science. And there ar..."Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Lewis wasn't anti-science. And there are many non-religious people who believe naturalism has problems accounting for thought."<BR/>One could argue that it is a tough problem for naturalism but that is I think because naturalism is more restrictive in the sorts of explanation it allows. I don't see that as adequate grounds for rejecting naturalism or the scientific method.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Es,<BR/><BR/>I, in fact, don't know many "religious folks" who "love to assert" that thinking cannot be explained naturally. To assert that they do is, I would say, against the facts since the facts (at least in my experience) do not bear out that assertion."<BR/>I'm afraid you are being a little uncharitable in your reading of Es' remark. In fact, it looks to me as though you've completely misread it. He didn't say that religious follks love to assert that "thinking cannot be explained naturally". The assertion he was responding to was: "it is obvious that one’s thinking cannot be a merely natural event, and that therefore something other than nature exists."<BR/>Seems to me he was responding to a claim that thinking is a supernatural event and not a natural event: that thinking is only possible because of this other world that is other than nature. Of course, not all religious people believe that. As a Christian theist I think Lewis' view here is mistaken and so find myself uncomfortable with this sort of apologetical approach. Seems to me to deny God's power and knowledge in being able to truly create a world independent of Himself.<BR/><BR/> "Moreover, the claim that thinking cannot be explained naturally is tantamount to the argument from reason, which is a philosophical argument. But it is often said that "religious folks" don't like philosophizing (or using their minds). I wonder which is really the case."<BR/><BR/>Not sure why you threw this in. Es never claimed that religious people don't like to philosophize.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1161046020683985472006-10-16T17:47:00.000-07:002006-10-16T17:47:00.000-07:00Not all religous folks, es. As a theist I find th...Not all religous folks, es. As a theist I find thinking to be a purely natural activity. Nothing supernatural about it at all.<BR/>Lewis and others can assert the contrary all they wish. I think theirs is more an anti-science pov than a pro-religous one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1161044491843937572006-10-16T17:21:00.000-07:002006-10-16T17:21:00.000-07:00it is obvious that one’s thinking cannot be a mere...<I> it is obvious that one’s thinking cannot be a merely natural event, and that therefore something other than nature exists.</I><BR/><BR/>Religious folks love to assert this. But the facts do not bear out this assertion. The facts in fact refute this assertion and demonstrate that thinking is solidly based in the body.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1161019811031884762006-10-16T10:30:00.000-07:002006-10-16T10:30:00.000-07:00Vic,Lewis didn't put his thoughts in a numbered sy...Vic,<BR/>Lewis didn't put his thoughts in a numbered syllogistic format. <BR/>EdEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.com