C.S.Lewis' Miracles - Chapter 1 - "The Scope of this book" (Part 1 of 17)

[akrifasouth]

I have always found much in CS Lewis that I disagree with; and much that I consider rather odd; but I never fail to be impressed - and I always feel embraced by him, and am almost always stunned by his simplicity and his profound ability to "sniff out" the gems in philosophy, theology, and a broad range of historical literature. Can't agree about the Screwtape Letters. I have always been more impressed by Till We have Faces.

[frogknight]

If you really weren't moved by this book, you wouldn't have made a 17 part blog about it.

[theowarner]

I quit around chapter 3, actually... although, I'll finish it eventually. I promise!

[stephenacts2220]

@theowarner there is as he says he will do you're confused about faith

[Antisyncretism]

Tell us your religion Warner, dont hide your criticism behind an apparent atheist video, if for example you are a member of the Hare Krishna movement then everything you say in this video cannot be held from a naturalist view point, and if you arent an atheist then what? It is absurd for anyone to comment on this subject without laying out some of their beliefs to be checked for CONSISTENCY.

If you still, most irritatingly so, hide your religion then at least say are you naturalist or not?

[theowarner]

Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

[Antisyncretism]

To despise consistency is to despise the truth which is always selfconsistent in contradiction to what is false which is never consistent with truth.

The fact that you cannot simply give the name of the system you adhere to (if you do) means that what you say in this video cannot be measured for CONSISTENCY against your own worldview to see if it is incoherent and thus automatically void.

You have not even stated yet if you are a naturalist or not

[theowarner]

Well... I was being flip. No, I don't despise consistency. But, I'm also not too concerned with it... I think that for most people, it's an artificial standard... something that that they've picked up in apologetics courses or something. In fact, outside of defending atheism, I've never heard it discussed.

The inconsistency of the video with my worldview should not disallow you from measuring it against your own.

The term naturalism is poorly defined. So, I can say yes and no.

[theowarner]

(con't) I can yes in that I believe that there are laws to universe. I can say there is a predictability and so on.

I can say no in that I don't believe that if we were to define the natural as material, we would be missing something. There's a category of thought, for example, and inquiry which a material or natural explanation may be sufficient ultimately, but isn't now. Love and compassion, for example, strike me as being things that aren't best understood in material terms.

Helpful?

[Antisyncretism]

"and thus automatically void."

By this i meant that by not knowing your worldiview you guard yourself from saying something that others would recognise in you as automatically internally (as in you) void.

Consistency is the paramount element of truth whenever an inconsistency arises in someones thought there a falsehood lies.

Even if your video were correct the fact that you yourself admit that its inconsistent with what you believe shows a intellectual dishonesty [cont]

[Antisyncretism]

CORRECTION OF: "recognise in you as automatically internally (as in you) void."

TO: "recognise in you as contradictory and thus as automatically internally (as in you) void."

[Antisyncretism]

that you have posted a video that you yourself dont believe.

"The inconsistency of the video with my worldview should not disallow you from measuring it against your own. "

In some sense true, but even had i found it convincing i would question it because YOU dont believe what you say, and still say it is horribly dishonest to post a video with the aim of convincing someone to leave Christianity when you yourself dont believe the video to be valid

[theowarner]

Ah... well, I don't know. I think it's far more complicated than that. But, I can see your point.

I take that you're not one to tolerate ambiguity.

[Antisyncretism]

well wouldnt you call me dishonest if i convinced you of something using an argument i myself believed to be invalid with the truth, if you want to attack a worldview on the basis of that worldview (for there is no such thing as a bottomless pit in regards to approaching a question, you must have a presupposition that provides the ground, there is no void) then you should try to attempt an INTERNAL inconsistency with the tenets of that worldview or logical necessary beliefs that follow it.

[Antisyncretism]

If however you want to approach the question from the outside while not presupposing ALL the tenets of a worldview internally then you would have to tell us by what view are you examining the question, otherwise you are simply masking a facet of the argument you give to be questioned by others, if it holds it will be more convincing, if you dont even present a coherent alternative or basis, it can never be convincing (or at least people shouldnt find it as such)

[theowarner]

It's a fine thought. A little idealistic, maybe. I'm not sure that it really works that way, though. And, I'm sure that I'm not that organized in my thinking... maybe I'm more emotional, I don't know.

[Antisyncretism]

Anyway concerning bias it is clear that one who reads the Gospels corroborating documents by Matthew (Apostle) Mark (friend of Peter) Luke (investigator and friend of Paul) John (Apostle) that testify to the fact of miracles, if this is not believed it is because someone has FORCED their philosophy onto the facts of the history instead of letting history shape their philosophy, and with the many convolusions of the mind it would be better to trust witness of the other than the removed self.

[Antisyncretism]

For does it not sound incredibly lax to approach the Gospels by saying 'miralces DONT happen therefore these documents must be unreliable therefore they cant have recorded miracles'...sound absurdly circular to you, it does to me.

Rather it would be better to simply as with another hyperthetical case where there are four corroborating documents by worthy sources to believe what is said because it corroborates and shape your opinion off miracles BECAUSE of that.

[theowarner]

How would you know if an event is a miracle or not?

[Antisyncretism]

I would like to know why you think your personal lack of experience trumps corroborating documents of such persons as said below

[Antisyncretism]

Warner again, I would like to know why you think your personal lack of experience trumps corroborating documents that record such miracles

[Antisyncretism]

In effect to not believe such corroboration over a personal LACK of experience of miralces (and who could argue miracles do not occur because they PERSONALLY have not experienced them) is a tragically terrible mistake

[theowarner]

To be honest, antisyncretism, I think you're having a debate with someone else. I'm not entirely sure if you think I'm taking a position or not, but I'm not.

I would also say that a person cannot justify a positive belief that miracles do not occur based solely on his experience.

However, I would also that rarely does that happen.

Thanks.

[TheTruePooka]

My problem with approaching the question of; "can miracles occur?" is that it is dependent on a definition of "miracle".

If one defines a miracle as an event that is of an origin that is outside the realm of the natural... then it strikes me as an impossible to answer question.

One is left (if being reflectively honest) in the position of; "Theoretically a miracle can occur, but by it's very nature we are unable to know if a miracle is, in fact, a miracle".

[Virgil0211]

I can't say I think much of the League of Reason at the moment. Their political section has all of the intellectual veracity of encyclopedia dramatica.

That being said, I always enjoy your videos, theowarner. They give me a feeling I haven't experienced much since I was last in a class with my first (and since then, best) philosophy teacher. Thank you for continuing to make these videos, and avoiding the pitfall of maneuvering into discussing politics/economics like so many other youtubers.

[digitised]

I have not read CS Lewis, but it appears he is trying to soften his skeptics by accusing them of exclusion.

For example i do not accept miracles exist or have happened, i do not deny them but on principle i remain wary of accepting a miracle claim.

Lewis seems to want to fault this way of thinking by making it sound closed minded in effect.

[gotilk]

..and I'm looking forward to this series.

[gotilk]

We need a new word for the not yet understood. Supernatural suggests something outside of nature, which is impossible. It gives meaning to that which already possesses it, form to that which form is already ascribed and is ultimately a solution looking desperately for a problem.

[mackdan7]

I don't mean to be petty but there were many spelling errors in the manuscript...

[theowarner]

Were there? I don't doubt it.

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

2:22

Spelling mistake, at fourth line from the bottom, on the far left...

everying=everything

[Zarathustra314]

Actually, nevermind. Even the online etymological dictionaries conflict with eachother :).

[Zarathustra314]

Actually, check wiktionary, it gives you etymology. Di means 2, Dia means 'through', Dialogue does not need 2 people, although this is a common misconception.

I did 5 years of classical Greek during High School, and the etymological dictionary agrees ;-)

[NeedsEvidence]

Shrek? :-)

[NeedsEvidence]

Where is princess Fiona?

[pumkinpi2]

I like the start of this set of videos. I have not read Miracles, and will probably have to now, if I am to follow your posts.

Lewis sets an interesting challenge. Am I free enough of bias to consider miracles a possibility? Then again, is the opinion that miracles are not a realistic possibility not a reasonable perspective that can be substantiated by by their notable absence of reliable documentation? This will have me up thinking tonight. I am pleased.

[HandsupLX]

not rating any of your stuff until i know what's up between you and Keippernicus.

nah, seriously

[theowarner]

It's complicated and personal. Basically, he's a petty, jealous, stupid, stupid little man.

[PerfectionZinc]

sounds like god :O

[HandsupLX]

o rly...

this is a public forum

you are part of that forum

adress it, it wont go away

that's an advice, nothing more

like you just started to do, replying to my comment

(if that is not ad hominem (your reply,that is), i don't know what is...)

it's out there, deal with it

[theowarner]

Yeah... you're not the first to say that. I probably will have to do something.

[LanceDirk]

After watching Keippernicus's video, to me it looks like a joke.

[kommissarw]

"dialog" A conversation between 2 or more people?

Well im sure Miracles has been read by some people arguing for and against Christianity. However if its only read by some participants in the dialog, and other members of that dialog are not even aware of Miracles existance, is it a dialog?

Is this a bad application of dialog, or is my Aspergers Syndrome biting us on the arse?

[Zarathustra314]

Dialog literally means 'through'-talk, and can technically be performed by just 1 person :)

[gamutman]

I don't think that's right. A dialog is a conversation between two, thus the prefix dia for opposing. A monolog is a conversation with self - thus mono.

[8tripsaweek]

two or more

[gamutman]

Yes, I should have said, "at least two." Sorry. My point being that it cannot be just one.

[theowarner]

Well, I use the term to mean a sort of global dialog or a dialog within our community. You and I are doing it right now.... the dialog, I mean.

[asianlife53]

It is interesting that you imply that miracles have similar 'stakes' for the theist and atheist alike. I agree that for the theist, the desire for there to be something of a supernatural quantification of their belief system differentiates the religious from the purely philosophical; however as an atheist I am less concerned with the contra.

If miracles did/do occur, I cannot see that this would alter my atheism; but perhaps the series will explain further.

[AapoJoki]

For a while I've had the impression that when it comes to Christianity, C.S. Lewis is bigger than Jesus.

[theowarner]

Yes... he's quite popular.

[JRBendixen]

Wel..l as the subject is quite entertaining, it is also a bit ludicrous. Philosophy has absolutely nothing to say about miracles, only physics this power.

If only for the fact that reality, as shown by the natural sciences, transcends logic. Further still, philosophy has no real descriptive power compared to math.

This is exactly why philosophy is not a natural science anymore. It says almost nothing about reality, which miracles would be a part of if they actually existed.

[robshred66]

Haha, Tennis Magazine.

[KrokrX]

I await the series with interest. The references to Craig and Strobel are unfortunate as I suspect Lewis to be more earnest, though self deluded, than intentionally deceitful.

[theowarner]

I think that there inclusion was more of a comment on their conduct than his.

[theowarner]

No, actually... Gabriel Panny.

[dackjaniels555]

Golden Shower... =D

[legodesi]

And I'd actually disagree with your point aobut Lewis being a more philosophically aware thinker, though I do feel him to be more honest, than WLC. C.S. Lewis was created by the same sort of education that created HG Wells, Bertrand Russell, and the like. They are not analytical philosophers, and don't belong on the same par as Antony Flew or WLC (then again, I don't really like WLC all that much.)

[theowarner]

I would argue that WLC has almost no ability as a philosopher or scholar. I can cite my own research into his methods. An essay on this subject appears on the League of Reason.

[legodesi]

"This book is intended as a preliminary to historical inquiry... I shall not examine the historical evidence for the Christian miracles." Your detection somehow missed this. (Please ignore my rhetoric. Once I turn it on, I can't seem to turn it off.)

C.S. Lewis does NOT turn this into a case for christianity. The whole of this book is to explore whether miracles are possible.

[Theologica37]

Miracles is an amazing book. Lewis didn't aim to prove Christianity though.

I am excited with this video series; I especially await your commentary on the argument from reason-- which so many of the "atheist intellectuals" on youtube stubbornly call presuppositionalism.

Great video.

[theowarner]

I was speaking rhetorically in that moment. No, that was not his project.

[legodesi]

yeah,

the argument from reason was the first argument that I encountered, heading into Christianity in highschool. I loved it, though I still haven't entirely understood it.

[theowarner]

I have not heard it expressed simply or in a manner which moves me and include Mr. Lewis.

[legodesi]

that's mostly because the material itself is so complex, such that any argument for free will or determinism turns out to be rather complex. if you're looking to do a critique of Lewis, I'm guessing you've already read Erik Wielenberg or John Beversluis.

[theowarner]

Yes and no. Neither are all that compelling to me.

[legodesi]

wait, you mean, Lewis' argument from reason isn't sufficiently critiqued by them?

[Theologica37]

Elizabeth Anscombe gives the strongest critique, In my honest opinion. But, needless to say, Lewis' responded accordingly and even altered the argument to account for Anscombe's critique.

What is interesting, is that after Anscombe, Lewis backed off of all philosophical discussion.

[legodesi]

It baffles me that he left philosophy after that. People generally interpret it as his belief that Anscombe crushed him, but I dont think that was it, since she accepted his revision. i generally think that God led him into a different area.

[theowarner]

Hey... do you want to try to define 'Nature' and 'Supernature'? I think it's a weakness of the book as I mention in the second video.

[HonestDiscussioner]

This should be an interesting . . . yet long . . series. I'm looking forward to it.

[legodesi]

2:49

Lewis claimed to prove the entirety of Christianity? Whoa. Hold on there, bub. He didn't even intend to prove that miracles (other than acts of thinking) at all occurred. He ends with advice to his readers of certain books and methodologies to apply when they do continue by studying Christianity. Your comment here seems quite off.

[theowarner]

I was speaking rhetorically in that moment. No, that was not his project.

[legodesi]

C.S. Lewis wrote that poem in a particular pretension that he didn't have when he wrote other books, like Narnia, so I think it's a bad sample. Though I do agree with your conclusion as applied to his poetry. It's pretty chunky. But I do appreciate his writing in general. I think he writes with great ease and has a well recognizable voice in his works.

[theowarner]

I agree... a bad sample. I don't know why, though, it appears so often in connection to this book.

[AlmightyZaitsev]

Fuckin' love that prelude.