CS Lewis Quote

[Chad Mitchell]

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

[dsayers]

"How can I trust my own thinking to be true?" is a performative contradiction. The rest of his "proof" is predicated on it.

 

Not being an "X or anything else" is a logical impossibility.

 

"(paraphrased:) I cannot explain it, therefore it's God," is neither an argument nor rational.

 

"Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought," begs the question of if God exists.

 

"I can never use thought to disbelieve in God," is a falsehood. Faith is believing something without consideration and thought is consideration. The only way to disbelieve in God is by way of thought.

 

His premise makes the fundamental error that belief has any influence on reality.

[percentient]

I wonder what the context is that he makes a deistic argument in a book about Christian apologetics. What does this have to do with redeeming our sins through masochism? To me, this is enough to dismiss the argument. He appeals to skeptical use of trust, but has to trust a lot of things on bad evidence to be a Christian.

 

It is not a very good argument anyway. If creativity and intelligence don't give us reliable thought, creativity and intelligence "behind the universe" doesn't give us reliable thought.

[Lars]

An atheist who converts to religion was never a proper (principled) atheist to begin with.

[Jot]

That's basically the so called prepositional argument for the existence of God, go on YouTube and search the channels KnowNoMore and TheGlobalAtheism for in-depth rebuttals of it. 

[Chad Mitchell]

Thanks everyone for the comments. It helped out a lot.

[luxfelix]

"How can I trust my own thinking to be true?" is a performative contradiction. The rest of his "proof" is predicated on it.

 

Not being an "X or anything else" is a logical impossibility.

 

"(paraphrased:) I cannot explain it, therefore it's God," is neither an argument nor rational.

 

"Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought," begs the question of if God exists.

 

"I can never use thought to disbelieve in God," is a falsehood. Faith is believing something without consideration and thought is consideration. The only way to disbelieve in God is by way of thought.

 

His premise makes the fundamental error that belief has any influence on reality.

 

Very clear and concise. 

 

With regard to belief influencing reality: does it not have any indirect influence on reality?

 

Belief in a state may not create a state on its own, but indirectly, wouldn't people acting out there lives with the belief in a state support the experience, even if it is still an illusion?

 

Can beliefs act as catalysts for scientific and artistic developments, changing the way we perceive and interact with the world (economy)?

 

Likewise, isn't our belief in the non-aggression principle, self agency, and universally preferable behavior, etc., influencing us into leading more peaceful relationships and lives?

[dsayers]

belief in the non-aggression principle

 

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are behaviors where the assailant accepts their own self-ownership while rejecting the self-ownership of their victim. To identify this as internally inconsistent cannot be described as a belief as it is an accurate description of the real world.

 

 

Belief in a state may not create a state on its own, but indirectly, wouldn't people acting out there lives with the belief in a state support the experience, even if it is still an illusion?

 

This is precisely why it is important to understand that a belief is not a matter of fact. To the rational individual, belief is fleeting; It is motivation to test the theory that it may either be upgraded to an understood truth or discarded as disproven nonsense. Those who use the word "belief" in a long-term context are confessing that they need for it to be true even if it is not. Those who use it as a matter of fact reveal they reject their own capacity for error. It is when people allow their belief to motivate their behaviors that millions of humans get murdered in the name of State/religion. In this scenario, it is the behaviors of those responsible that influences reality, not the belief itself.

[Pepin]

The best answer to this in my mind is the theory of evolution by natural selection. It explains quite well how sensation, perception, and consciousness can be created through various arrangements of atoms.

 

This quite reminds me of Descartes in his argument for God. The idea of a soul is quite natural given much of our internal and external experiences. Considering a purely natural basis for it is very difficult to think about, which likely induces the much easier non-answer of a deity.

[luxfelix]

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are behaviors where the assailant accepts their own self-ownership while rejecting the self-ownership of their victim. To identify this as internally inconsistent cannot be described as a belief as it is an accurate description of the real world.

 

 

 

This is precisely why it is important to understand that a belief is not a matter of fact. To the rational individual, belief is fleeting; It is motivation to test the theory that it may either be upgraded to an understood truth or discarded as disproven nonsense. Those who use the word "belief" in a long-term context are confessing that they need for it to be true even if it is not. Those who use it as a matter of fact reveal they reject their own capacity for error. It is when people allow their belief to motivate their behaviors that millions of humans get murdered in the name of State/religion. In this scenario, it is the behaviors of those responsible that influences reality, not the belief itself.

 

I do not see that we disagree in this regard (paraphrasing I presume?): that a belief itself does not influence reality directly, only the behaviors of those acting on those beliefs.

 

To the rational individual, belief is hypothesis (requiring proof and certainty before meriting integration).

 

Thank you for your clarification. 

[cynicist]

I'd like to tell you what I think of that quote, but how can I trust my ability to read it when my eyes were not designed for such a thing? How can I know for sure this message will even get to you? Is this a computer? Am I real?

[Pepin]

I'd like to tell you what I think of that quote, but how can I trust my ability to read it when my eyes were not designed for such a thing? How can I know for sure this message will even get to you? Is this a computer? Am I real?

I would tell you that you aren't real and that you are only the product of my mind, but then perhaps I am only the product of my own mind. Given this fact, I may actually not even be the product if my own mind, and yet a product of a higher mind, whose mind is a product of mind itself. Granted you can never know anything for certain, yet certainty exists, there must exist a universe where knowledge its automatic, to which such properties must be appropriated to even the base process of life. Our interaction with such a universe must of occurred paradoxically at some point, but since time would be inapplicable, it must be reasoned the our conception of timeless concepts such as logic are the fundamental result of part of our supposed mental functioning existing outside the realm of time and space. Quantum mechanically, we are entangled with non existent states which only give false illusions of sensation and perception. Furthermore, though non existence might be the foundation of our ultimate existence, it is nice to know that we are not unlike the rest of the universe. /nonsense

[dsayers]

Granted you can never know anything for certain...

/nonsense

 

I know this was satire. However, I wanted to point out the internal inconsistency for those that don't see it as I've witnessed debates that got off track discussing this.

 

The quote is basically saying that it is certain that nothing can be certain. Another common form is, "the truth cannot be known," which is to say, "I know it to be true that the truth cannot be known."

[luxfelix]

I'd like to tell you what I think of that quote, but how can I trust my ability to read it when my eyes were not designed for such a thing? How can I know for sure this message will even get to you? Is this a computer? Am I real?

 

 

[TheAuger]

Its basically a riff on the Cartesian universal deceiver/cogito ergo sum argument. Higher, organizing principles = "God Almighty" to theists (Lewis had been a former atheist). The argument is completely circular wish fulfillment (and superfluous).

 

Why can they just be universal, organizing principles? To me, universal principles have a beauty and majesty all on their own, in and of themselves. To add a deity on top of it is like a third nipple.

 

The fact is that material brains do produce consciousness/thought; spilt milk doesn't produce maps of London.

[cynicist]

 

Haha, little did you know that I was inspired to write that last line by the very same video.

[luxfelix]

Haha, little did you know that I was inspired to write that last line by the very same video.

 

Cool beans! 

 

(I guess we could call that "David After Dentist" logic.)