So... we're reading Lewis in class and I thought I'd make some comments about what he writes here, especially since the title of this journal is taken from one of his most well-known works (haha, not my favorite one, though!). Let me start out by stating that, for those of you who read this and don't know me, I am a Christian.
I will be approaching any entries I make on this piece primarily as a Christian, secondly as an author and thirdly, as a scientist... and occasionally as a devil's advocate. I just thought I would clarify that here and now. Keeping that in mind, we're reading Miracles in western civ 1. And so I have a few preliminary thoughts on this piece. My thoughts on chapters one and two are a little sporadic right now, so I'll just leave with a thought or two on the part of chapter three I've read thus far.
In the book, CS Lewis takes time to talk about Naturalism and Supernaturalism and defines Natrualism as being a system which everything is included in this system, whereas Supernaturalism says that there is something outside the system. One metaphor I thought of was that of an author and his books. In fiction, the author does not exist in the same world as his characters, but he is the giver of life to said characters. This is like Supernaturalism. Naturalism strikes me as being similar to non-fiction, where the author is simply observing and/or acting from within the same system in which the characters live and act. In fact, in non-fiction, sometimes the author is even a character. This is similar to Naturalism.
Now that I've explained a little about the two philosophies, I'll get into the point I am trying to make here. According to Lewis, Naturalism includes everything within what he calls Nature or "the Total System". He argues that Naturalism will only hold if "every single thing should be such that we see, in general, how it could be explained in terms of the Total System" (Lewis 17). He then proceeds to state that if there was one instance that couldn't be explained in these terms, that "Naturalism would be in ruins" (18). In other words, if there was an explanation for an event that required belief in the Supernatural, then Naturalism would be false.
Theoretically speaking, let's go through every possible event and think of all the explanations possible. If we can find one that requires use of the Supernatural, then Naturalism would be false. If we can't find one that requires use of Supernatural to explain, then Naturalism can be true because there could always be some event in the future that would require Supernatural explanation. This would make Naturalism quite a bit more difficult to prove.
Iff (if and only if) Naturalism could stand up to that amount of scrutiny and pass every test, then wouldn't it be a stronger argumentative position than Supernaturalism? Naturalism would then be proven true through a strong argument of many cases that proved it true. Iff we can find something that Naturalism cannot explain every known event, then Naturalism is false. Assuming that Naturalism and Supernaturalism are mutally exclusive and we must either have one or the other, if Naturalism is false, it logically follows that Supernaturalism must be true. However, this is a weak argument for Supernaturalism because we haven't actually proven its existence.
From the perspective of a scientist, experimental results and proof are everything. Given what I've said above, Naturalism has a stronger argument going for it iff it can be proven. That's just something to think about and I think I'll leave it up to you to decide whether you think I'm playing devil's advocate or not.
I will be approaching any entries I make on this piece primarily as a Christian, secondly as an author and thirdly, as a scientist... and occasionally as a devil's advocate. I just thought I would clarify that here and now. Keeping that in mind, we're reading Miracles in western civ 1. And so I have a few preliminary thoughts on this piece. My thoughts on chapters one and two are a little sporadic right now, so I'll just leave with a thought or two on the part of chapter three I've read thus far.
In the book, CS Lewis takes time to talk about Naturalism and Supernaturalism and defines Natrualism as being a system which everything is included in this system, whereas Supernaturalism says that there is something outside the system. One metaphor I thought of was that of an author and his books. In fiction, the author does not exist in the same world as his characters, but he is the giver of life to said characters. This is like Supernaturalism. Naturalism strikes me as being similar to non-fiction, where the author is simply observing and/or acting from within the same system in which the characters live and act. In fact, in non-fiction, sometimes the author is even a character. This is similar to Naturalism.
Now that I've explained a little about the two philosophies, I'll get into the point I am trying to make here. According to Lewis, Naturalism includes everything within what he calls Nature or "the Total System". He argues that Naturalism will only hold if "every single thing should be such that we see, in general, how it could be explained in terms of the Total System" (Lewis 17). He then proceeds to state that if there was one instance that couldn't be explained in these terms, that "Naturalism would be in ruins" (18). In other words, if there was an explanation for an event that required belief in the Supernatural, then Naturalism would be false.
Theoretically speaking, let's go through every possible event and think of all the explanations possible. If we can find one that requires use of the Supernatural, then Naturalism would be false. If we can't find one that requires use of Supernatural to explain, then Naturalism can be true because there could always be some event in the future that would require Supernatural explanation. This would make Naturalism quite a bit more difficult to prove.
Iff (if and only if) Naturalism could stand up to that amount of scrutiny and pass every test, then wouldn't it be a stronger argumentative position than Supernaturalism? Naturalism would then be proven true through a strong argument of many cases that proved it true. Iff we can find something that Naturalism cannot explain every known event, then Naturalism is false. Assuming that Naturalism and Supernaturalism are mutally exclusive and we must either have one or the other, if Naturalism is false, it logically follows that Supernaturalism must be true. However, this is a weak argument for Supernaturalism because we haven't actually proven its existence.
From the perspective of a scientist, experimental results and proof are everything. Given what I've said above, Naturalism has a stronger argument going for it iff it can be proven. That's just something to think about and I think I'll leave it up to you to decide whether you think I'm playing devil's advocate or not.
