{"id":81272,"date":"2021-06-24T00:15:00","date_gmt":"2021-06-24T07:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/?p=81272"},"modified":"2021-06-23T22:02:15","modified_gmt":"2021-06-24T05:02:15","slug":"pwj-s4e75","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/2021\/06\/24\/pwj-s4e75\/","title":{"rendered":"PWJ: S4E75 &#8211; Bonus &#8211; &#8220;The Argument From Reason&#8221; with Trent Horn"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><a href=\"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/S4E75-Bonus-YouTube.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"860\" height=\"484\" src=\"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/S4E75-Bonus-YouTube.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-81310\" srcset=\"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/S4E75-Bonus-YouTube.png 860w, https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/S4E75-Bonus-YouTube-300x169.png 300w, https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/S4E75-Bonus-YouTube-768x432.png 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 860px) 100vw, 860px\" \/><\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">David was invited onto <a href=\"https:\/\/www.catholic.com\/audio\/cot\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>The Counsel of Trent<\/em> podcast<\/a> to talk about &#8220;The Argument From Reason&#8221;, which is an argument against Naturalism which Lewis presents in Chapter 3 of his book, <em>Miracles<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>S4E75: &#8220;The Argument From Reason&#8221; with Trent Horn<\/strong> (<a href=\"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/PWJ-S4E75.mp3\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Download<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-audio\"><audio controls src=\"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/PWJ-S4E75.mp3\"><\/audio><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\" id=\"block-51396fab-e50d-4cf5-92e3-e840026c934b\">If you enjoy this episode, you can subscribe&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"http:\/\/feeds.feedburner.com\/TheEagleAndChildPodcast\" target=\"_blank\">manually<\/a>, or&nbsp;any place where good podcasts can be found&nbsp;(<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/itunes.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/the-eagle-and-child-podcast-restless-pilgrim\/id1289456381\" target=\"_blank\">iTunes<\/a>,&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/play.google.com\/music\/m\/Ixvobfgi2wk4rkdegdnbdqjjh44?t=The_Eagle_and_Child\" target=\"_blank\">Google Play<\/a>, <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Pints-with-Jack\/dp\/B08K57WLYB\/\" target=\"_blank\">Amazon<\/a>,&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.podbean.com\/podcast-detail\/wqkqe-5e798\/The+Eagle+and+Child\" target=\"_blank\">Podbean<\/a>,&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"http:\/\/www.stitcher.com\/s?fid=159766&amp;refid=stpr\" target=\"_blank\">Stitcher<\/a>,&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/tunein.com\/radio\/The-Eagle-and-Child-p1079872\/\" target=\"_blank\">TuneIn<\/a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/overcast.fm\/itunes1289456381\/pints-with-jack\" target=\"_blank\">Overcast<\/a>), as well as on&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCcYFlFuyOmYL6LcuicqzULw\" target=\"_blank\">YouTube<\/a>. The roadmap for Season 4 is&nbsp;<a href=\"http:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/pints-with-jack-season-4\/\">available here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\" id=\"block-a56ad4a8-f43a-4986-8d5f-09ffa487daa4\">More information about us can be found on our website,&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.pintswithjack.com\/\" target=\"_blank\">PintsWithJack.com<\/a>. If you\u2019d like to support us and get fantastic gifts,&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.patreon.com\/pintswithjack\">please join us on Patreon<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<!--more-->\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"block-2882b493-f1aa-48ab-8db6-3c40f02265fc\">Timestamps<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">00:08 \u2013 <em>Entering \u201cThe Eagle &amp; Child\u201d\u2026 <\/em><br>00:13 \u2013 <em>Welcome <\/em><br>00:50 \u2013 <em>The Counsel of Trent<\/em><br>39:42 \u2013 <em>\u201cLast Call\u201d Bell and Closing Thoughts<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"block-256e7e4a-897b-43e2-a2ed-609bf087c84b\">YouTube Version (Audio)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-embed-handler wp-block-embed-embed-handler wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<span class=\"embed-youtube\" style=\"text-align:center; display: block;\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" class=\"youtube-player\" width=\"860\" height=\"484\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/H0inE7Utdlo?version=3&#038;rel=1&#038;showsearch=0&#038;showinfo=1&#038;iv_load_policy=1&#038;fs=1&#038;hl=en-US&#038;autohide=2&#038;wmode=transparent\" allowfullscreen=\"true\" style=\"border:0;\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-popups allow-presentation allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox\"><\/iframe><\/span>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"block-256e7e4a-897b-43e2-a2ed-609bf087c84b\">YouTube Version (Video)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From Trent&#8217;s channel:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<span class=\"embed-youtube\" style=\"text-align:center; display: block;\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" class=\"youtube-player\" width=\"860\" height=\"484\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/ik_z96CUnRE?version=3&#038;rel=1&#038;showsearch=0&#038;showinfo=1&#038;iv_load_policy=1&#038;fs=1&#038;hl=en-US&#038;autohide=2&#038;wmode=transparent\" allowfullscreen=\"true\" style=\"border:0;\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-popups allow-presentation allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox\"><\/iframe><\/span>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From the Pints With Jack channel:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-embed-handler wp-block-embed-embed-handler wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<span class=\"embed-youtube\" style=\"text-align:center; display: block;\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" class=\"youtube-player\" width=\"860\" height=\"484\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/PZOfGszC1lE?version=3&#038;rel=1&#038;showsearch=0&#038;showinfo=1&#038;iv_load_policy=1&#038;fs=1&#038;hl=en-US&#038;autohide=2&#038;wmode=transparent\" allowfullscreen=\"true\" style=\"border:0;\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-popups allow-presentation allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox\"><\/iframe><\/span>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"block-a885e324-ccf9-42f2-9e03-3f3eb5dc7d6b\">After Show Skype Session<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>No Skype Session today!<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"block-27508392-5bf9-4ea7-9a6d-34a4e3476c70\">Show Notes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>What is the main thesis of Lewis\u2019s book Miracles?&nbsp;<\/strong><ul><li>The full title of the book is <strong><em>Miracles: A Preliminary Study<\/em><\/strong> and it was published first in <strong>1947<\/strong> and then revised in <strong>1960<\/strong>.&nbsp;<\/li><li>Jack begins by explaining that, <strong>before<\/strong> we can study <strong>miracle claims<\/strong>, we\u2019ve <strong>first<\/strong> got to decide whether or not miracles can actually happen <strong>in principle<\/strong>!&nbsp; Whether or not you think miracles are <strong>possible<\/strong> will change how you <strong>respond<\/strong> to miracles <strong>claims<\/strong>!&nbsp;<ul><li>For example, if you start with the <strong>presupposition<\/strong> that miracles are <strong>impossible<\/strong>, when you read accounts of miracles in the <strong>Bible<\/strong> (or even the <strong>newspaper<\/strong>), you will <strong>necessarily assume <\/strong>that there is an <strong>alternative explanation<\/strong>.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li>As a result, Lewis spends a good deal of time in <em>Miracles<\/em> evaluating the <strong>competing claims<\/strong> of <strong>naturalists<\/strong> and <strong>supernaturalists<\/strong>.&nbsp;<ul><li>The former believe that nature is a <strong>closed, interlocking system<\/strong> and that nature is <strong>all there is<\/strong>.&nbsp;<\/li><li>Supernaturalists, on the other hand, believe that there can be <strong>outside interference<\/strong> by a <strong>supernatural entity<\/strong> and, as a <strong>Christian<\/strong>, Lewis argues that miracles are <strong>interventions<\/strong> by a supernatural entity (<strong>God<\/strong>) which goes <strong>beyond natural laws<\/strong>.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li>He then considers the <strong>major miracles<\/strong> of the New Testament, particularly the <strong>Incarnation<\/strong>.&nbsp;<\/li><li>And at the back of the book, there\u2019s also an interesting <strong>appendix<\/strong>, where he looks at<strong> free will<\/strong> and the <strong>value of prayer<\/strong>.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Some of our favourite quotations from the book:<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>\u201cNothing can seem extraordinary until you have discovered what is ordinary. Belief in miracles, far from depending on an ignorance of the laws of nature, is only possible in so far as those laws are known.\u201d<\/p><cite>C.S. Lewis, Miracles<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>\u201cIn Science we have been reading only the notes to a poem; in Christianity we find the poem itself.\u201d<\/p><cite>C.S. Lewis, Miracles<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>\u201cIf anything extraordinary seems to have happened, we can always say that we have been the victims of an illusion. If we hold a philosophy which excludes the supernatural, this is what we always shall say. What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience. It is therefore useless to appeal to experience before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical question.\u201d<\/p><cite>C.S. Lewis, Miracles<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Trent alluded to his recent debate with Matt Dillahunty:<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<span class=\"embed-youtube\" style=\"text-align:center; display: block;\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" class=\"youtube-player\" width=\"860\" height=\"484\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/7V6UNSvHVDM?version=3&#038;rel=1&#038;showsearch=0&#038;showinfo=1&#038;iv_load_policy=1&#038;fs=1&#038;hl=en-US&#038;autohide=2&#038;wmode=transparent\" allowfullscreen=\"true\" style=\"border:0;\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-popups allow-presentation allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox\"><\/iframe><\/span>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>What is Lewis\u2019s argument from reason and where is it found in the book?&nbsp;<\/strong><ul><li>There are lots of arguments in favour of the <strong>existence of God<\/strong>, but the <em>Argument From Reason<\/em> is really an argument <strong>against<\/strong> Atheism.&nbsp;More specifically, it\u2019s an argument against <strong>metaphysical naturalism<\/strong> which then subsequently <strong>points<\/strong> to the existence of a <strong>supernatural being<\/strong> who is the <strong>source<\/strong> of human <strong>reason<\/strong>. So, Naturalism is the belief that <strong>nature is all there is<\/strong>. There\u2019s <strong>no God<\/strong>, no angels, no demons etc, just <strong>matter<\/strong>, <strong>energy<\/strong> and <strong>natural forces<\/strong> in a <strong>causally-closed system<\/strong>.&nbsp;The <em>Argument From Reason<\/em> claims that this worldview is <strong>incoherent<\/strong> and that the world is <strong>better explained<\/strong> by supernaturalism<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>What&#8217;s the origin of the Argument?<\/strong><ul><li>Although Lewis is <strong>well-known<\/strong> for this argument, it <strong>didn\u2019t begin with him<\/strong>.&nbsp;Even in <em>Miracles<\/em>, as Jack is making his argument, he quotes others, such as&nbsp; <strong>JBS Haldane<\/strong> (1927) and his book <strong><em>Possible Worlds<\/em><\/strong>. As with most other things, Lewis <strong>borrowed heavily<\/strong> from folks such <strong>G.K. Chesterton<\/strong>, who argues along similar lines both in <strong><em>Orthodoxy<\/em><\/strong> (in the chapter entitled &#8220;The Suicide of Thought&#8221;) and in his book on <strong><em>St. Thomas Aquinas<\/em><\/strong>.&nbsp;<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>How would you summarize the argument?<\/strong><ul><li>There are a number of <strong>variants<\/strong> of <em>The Argument From Reason<\/em>, different <strong>aspects<\/strong> of it and I\u2019ve heard it <strong>explained<\/strong> a number of different ways.  <\/li><li>Everyone has <strong>beliefs<\/strong> that we reason to.&nbsp;Under Naturalism, these <strong>must<\/strong> be <strong>reducible<\/strong> to <strong>natural processes<\/strong> in your <strong>brain<\/strong>&#8230;which, under naturalism, is just a <strong>machine<\/strong> which is itself the product of <strong>blind<\/strong> <strong>natural forces<\/strong>.&nbsp;The question then arises\u2026<strong>if worldview is true<\/strong>, why would we<strong> trust our brains <\/strong>to arrive at <strong>beliefs<\/strong> which are <strong>true<\/strong>?&nbsp;In fact, it would seem to <strong>undermine<\/strong> the idea of <strong>meaning, morality, free will,<\/strong> as well as my <strong>cognitive faculties<\/strong> and my <strong>ability<\/strong> to <strong>rationally deliberate<\/strong>.&nbsp;<\/li><li>I actually think the kernel of the argument is best summed up by someone whom Lewis <strong>quotes<\/strong> in <em>Miracles<\/em>, a chap called <strong>JBS Haldane<\/strong> (who was, incidentally, an atheist):<em> <\/em><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p><em>&#8220;If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true &#8230; and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.&#8221;<\/em><\/p><cite>JBS Haldane (quoted in <em>Miracles<\/em>)<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Lewis doesn\u2019t just address this question in <strong><em>Miracles<\/em>, <\/strong>he also neatly articulates this <strong>quandary<\/strong> in his essay <strong><em>\u201cIs theology poetry?\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview]\u2026. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears\u2026. unless Reason is an absolute &#8211; all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.<\/p><p><\/p><cite>C. S. Lewis, &#8220;Is Theology Poetry?&#8221;, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>This raises lots of questions&#8230;&nbsp;<ul><li>The validity of <strong>Modus Ponens<\/strong> (\u201cif p then q \u201d) and the <strong>laws of logic<\/strong> in general.<\/li><li>The relationship between my <strong>mind<\/strong> and the <strong>outside world<\/strong><ul><li>How can our thoughts be <strong>about<\/strong> anything?&nbsp;Atheist philosopher <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Alexander_Rosenberg\"><strong>Alex Rosenberg<\/strong><\/a> says that they\u2019re <strong>not<\/strong> &#8211; it\u2019s just an <strong>illusion<\/strong>. Our thoughts can\u2019t be about anything anymore than a table can be about something else.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>In the <em>Handbook of Catholic Apologetics<\/em>, Dr. Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli formulate the argument like this:<br><br><em>P1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.<br><br>P2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.<br><br>P3. Not blind chance.<br><br>C. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.<\/em><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>What are some modern developments to the argument?<\/strong><ul><li>Contemporary defenders of the argument from reason include\u2026<ul><li><strong>Victor Reppert<\/strong> who wrote a book called <a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/C-S-Lewiss-Dangerous-Idea\/dp\/0830827323\">C.S. Lewis\u2019s Dangerous Idea<\/a>\u00a0<\/li><li><strong>Alvin Plantinga<\/strong> who has his own form of the argument called<br><em>\u201cThe Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism\u201d<\/em>:<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">P1. If both naturalism and evolution are true, then human cognitive faculties are the result of blind mechanisms such as natural selection<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">P2. Natural selection selects for survival-related behaviors, not necessarily true believes (except to the extent belief is \u201cappropriately related to behavior\u201d)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">P3. If evolutionary naturalism is true then the primary function of human cognitive abilities is to promote survival-related behaviors, not necessarily the production of true beliefs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">P4. Given that it is not natural selection\u2019s primary function, the probability of evolutionary naturalism producing cognitive faculties that lead to true beliefs is low to inscrutable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">P5. One of the allegedly true beliefs held by the naturalist is a belief in metaphysical naturalism itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Conclusion&#8230; Therefore \u201cthe devotee of [evolutionary naturalism] has a defeater for any belief he holds, and a stronger&nbsp; defeater for [evolutionary naturalism] itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Interestingly, <strong>Charles Darwin<\/strong> also saw something related to <em>The Argument From Reason<\/em> in his own theory of Natural Selection. In a letter to <strong>William Graham<\/strong>, he writes:<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&#8230;with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the <strong>convictions<\/strong> of man\u2019s mind, which has been <strong>developed<\/strong> from the mind of the <strong>lower<\/strong> animals, are of any <strong>value<\/strong> or <strong>at all trustworthy<\/strong>. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey\u2019s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?<br>&#8211; Letter from Charles Dawin to William Graham (3 July 1881)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Put another way, if we\u2019re just <strong>meat robots<\/strong>, programmed by <strong>evolution<\/strong>, why should we <strong>assume<\/strong> that we\u2019ve been <strong>programmed<\/strong> for <strong>truth<\/strong>? (<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Chinese_room\">Chinese Room experiment<\/a>)<ul><li>I can\u2019t <strong>step outside<\/strong> of my cognitive faculties in order to <strong>judge<\/strong> them.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>In the arguments for the existence of God, there\u2019s something known as <strong>the Argument from Common Consent<\/strong> which basically points to the fact that even today, and for the vast majority of human history <strong>people have believed in the supernatural<\/strong>&#8230;.&nbsp;<ul><li>I\u2019ve met <strong>atheists<\/strong> who argue that that <strong>belief<\/strong> in the supernatural is just a result of <strong>evolution<\/strong>, saying we developed a belief in the supernatural, <strong>not<\/strong> because it was <strong>true<\/strong>, but because (for various reasons) it contributed to our <strong>survival<\/strong>.&nbsp;<\/li><li>Richard <strong>Dawkins<\/strong> is fond of saying that humans are just <strong>machines<\/strong> for propagating <strong>DNA<\/strong>.<\/li><li>However, this is really <strong>problematic<\/strong> because it means that evolution will allow us to be <strong>deluded<\/strong> if it\u2019ll help us <strong>survive<\/strong>. So, why should we trust our brains?<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>As an <strong>aside<\/strong>, it also raises some other <strong>interesting questions<\/strong> when we look at humanity\u2026<ul><li>You and I have been talking for half an hour about <strong>metaphysics<\/strong>.&nbsp;<\/li><li>What <strong>survival value<\/strong> does that have?&nbsp;<\/li><li>Is an understanding of metaphysics crucial to survival? If so, why does the government subsidize <strong>farmers<\/strong> and not <strong>philosophers<\/strong>?<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\" start=\"3\"><li><strong>Criticisms of the argument?<\/strong><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>&#8220;Broad&#8221; naturalists<\/strong> don\u2019t think that Lewis\u2019 argument applies to <strong>them<\/strong>.&nbsp;<ul><li>They see consciousness as an <strong>&#8220;emergent&#8221; non-physical property<\/strong> of brains&nbsp;<\/li><li>&#8230;and therefore agree with Jack that different kinds of causation exist in nature and that rational inferences <strong>cannot be fully explainable by nonrational causes<\/strong>.&nbsp;<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li>Some critics think this argument fails because the <strong>causal origin of beliefs is irrelevant<\/strong> to whether those beliefs are <strong>justified<\/strong>.&nbsp;<ul><li>Strikes me as a bit like they\u2019re arguing it\u2019s a <strong>Genetic Fallacy<\/strong>.&nbsp;<\/li><li>But the question here is whether <strong>reasoning connects us with objective truth<\/strong>, not whether any inferred beliefs can be rational or justified in a materialistic world.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li><strong>Computationalists<\/strong>, argue by pointing to computers which are <strong>undeniably physical <\/strong>systems (your computer doesn\u2019t have a soul), but they are also <strong>rational<\/strong>.&nbsp;<ul><li>They argue that therefore <strong>the incompatibility<\/strong> between <strong>mechanism<\/strong> and <strong>reason<\/strong> must just be an <strong>illusion<\/strong> since they can come to <strong>justified conclusions<\/strong>.&nbsp;<\/li><li>It is argued that our <strong>brains<\/strong> are just <strong>computers<\/strong>.&nbsp;<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\" start=\"4\"><li><strong>Is there a myth that has grown up around Lewis\u2019 argument?&nbsp;<\/strong><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Much like <strong>Tolkien<\/strong>\u2019s supposed hatred for <em>The Chronicles of Narnia<\/em>, the story <strong>grows in the retelling<\/strong>\u2026<\/li><li>It\u2019s often <strong>portrayed<\/strong> that\u2026<ul><li>Lewis, this <strong>Christian<\/strong>\u2026 this <strong>man<\/strong>\u2026 gets <strong>destroyed<\/strong> by (gasp) a woman!<\/li><li>It\u2019s often painted as a battle of the <strong>sexes<\/strong>, a battle between Christianity and <strong>Secularism<\/strong><\/li><li>We\u2019re told that Lewis is so <strong>humiliated<\/strong> that he gives up <strong>apologetics<\/strong> and <strong>theology<\/strong> and <strong>retreats<\/strong> to writing <strong>children\u2019s fairy tales<\/strong>&#8230;<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\" start=\"5\"><li><strong>What really happened between C.S. Lewis and Elizabeth Anscombe?&nbsp;<\/strong><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>In 1948, philosopher <strong>Elizabeth Anscombe<\/strong> read a paper to the <strong>Oxford Socratic Club<\/strong> (an organization Lewis helped found).&nbsp;<\/li><li>In her paper, she criticized the argument in the <strong>3rd chapter<\/strong> of the <strong>first edition<\/strong> of <em>Miracles<\/em>.&nbsp;<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">She had three main criticisms of Lewis\u2019 argument, mostly focusing on his terminology:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>She criticised Lewis\u2019 use of the \u201cirrational\u201d, distinguishing between \u201cirrational\u201d causes belief and \u201cnonrational\u201d causes. An \u201cirrational\u201d cause might be wishful thinking, but a \u201cnonrational\u201d cause would be the firing of neurons. The former leads to faulty reasoning but the latter doesn\u2019t necessarily. Lewis amended the argument accordingly.<br><\/li><li>She also picked up Lewis\u2019 contrast between \u201cvalid\u201d and \u201cinvalid\u201d reasoning, saying this contrast is only possible for some reasoning to be valid.<br><br>Lewis conceded that his word choice wasn\u2019t good. He was trying to explain that reasoning is a reliable means of pursuing truth only if it can\u2019t be explained from end-to-end by nonrational causes.<br><\/li><li>Lastly, she also picked him on of his lack of distinction between a number of terms (\u201cwhy\u201d, \u201cbecause\u201d, and \u201cexplanation\u201d). She also said that what should be considered a \u201cfull\u201d explanation changes in context. Once again, Lewis accepted the criticism and made distinctions in the meaning of \u201cbecause\u201d, one the one hand referring to the physical causality and on the other referring to evidential support&nbsp;<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>There are some important points to note about this story\u2026<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Lewis did not give up apologetics<\/strong><ul><li>He revised <em>Miracles<\/em> and a <strong>second edition<\/strong> came out in <strong>1960<\/strong>, taking into account Anscombe\u2019s criticisms<\/li><li><strong><em>Mere Christianity<\/em><\/strong>, possibly Lewis\u2019 greatest apologetics work came out after this incident, as well as <em>&nbsp;<\/em>and several <strong>other theological works<\/strong><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Lewis did not hide in fairy tales\u2026<\/strong><ul><li>He had been writing <strong>fiction<\/strong> for some time <strong>before<\/strong> the incident&nbsp;<\/li><li>HIs fiction is <strong>replete<\/strong> with <strong>theological<\/strong> and <strong>apologetic value<\/strong><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Elizabeth Anscombe<\/strong><ul><li>Anscombe was a prominent figure of <strong>analytical Thomism<\/strong>. She was a <strong>Catholic<\/strong> convert and a <strong>mother of seven<\/strong>. So not exactly the<strong> secular feminist <\/strong>she\u2019s often <strong>imagined<\/strong> to be.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Not only that, her <strong>own description<\/strong> of the incident doesn\u2019t conform the the <strong>sensationalist<\/strong> view:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The fact that Lewis rewrote that chapter, and rewrote it so that it now has those qualities [to address the objections], shows his honesty and seriousness. The meeting of the Socratic Club at which I read my paper has been described by several of his friends as a horrible and shocking experience which upset him very much. Neither Dr Havard (who had Lewis and me to dinner a few weeks later) nor Professor Jack Bennet remembered any such feelings on Lewis&#8217;s part &#8230; My own recollection is that it was an occasion of sober discussion of certain quite definite criticisms, which Lewis&#8217; rethinking and rewriting showed he thought was accurate. I am inclined to construe the odd accounts of the matter by some of his friends \u2013 who seem not to have been interested in the actual arguments or the subject-matter \u2013 as an interesting example of the phenomenon called &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Psychological_projection\">projection<\/a>&#8220;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u2014\u2009Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Mind: The Collected Philosophical Papers of G.E.M. Anscombe, Volume 2 (1981) p.x.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Research<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Videos<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=xKX-QtEo2fI\">David Wood on a Bridge<br><\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=S0FIGXuy3jw\">Acts 17 Apologetics Video<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=-B8n__9CEj4\">What is the Argument From Reason?<br><\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=ojIyFvX3r8c&amp;list=PLXY5_siolawqDa8tSER340aLngnHQ7AFB\">Pocket Sized Apologetics<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=VW_j16KijqU\">The Unapologetic Apologists<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=TQgeAf27nak\">Ratio Christi<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Articles<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sciencesnail.com\/philosophy\/a-response-to-c-s-lewiss-argument-from-reason\">A response to C.S. Lewis\u2019 argument from reason<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.paul-gould.com\/2015\/04\/08\/the-argument-from-reason-to-god\/\">The Argument from Reason to God<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/evolutionnews.org\/2013\/11\/cs_lewis_and_th\/\">Jay W. Richards<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/infidels.org\/library\/modern\/victor_reppert\/reason.html\">Victor Reppert article<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/infidels.org\/library\/modern\/victor_reppert\/reason.html\">Victor Reppert Paper<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/289505941_The_Argument_from_Reason_Lewis's_Fundamental_Mistakes\">Lewis\u2019 Fundamental Mistakes<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>David was invited onto The Counsel of Trent podcast to talk about &#8220;The Argument From Reason&#8221;, which is an argument against Naturalism which Lewis presents in Chapter 3 of his book, &#8220;Miracles&#8221;.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":81312,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_crdt_document":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3111],"tags":[2969,5414,4438,1922],"class_list":["post-81272","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-podcast","tag-featured","tag-the-counsel-of-trent","tag-the-eagle-and-child-podcast","tag-trent-horn"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/S4E75-Blog.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81272","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=81272"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81272\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":81845,"href":"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81272\/revisions\/81845"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/81312"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81272"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81272"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81272"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}