Page 1 of 1

Lewis and Obama's NIH Pick

PostPosted: August 1st, 2009, 2:07 pm
by larry gilman

Re: Lewis and Obama's NIH Pick

PostPosted: August 31st, 2009, 9:38 pm
by postodave
I read your article which I thought was remarkably lucid and sound in the point made - worthy of Lewis himself. Would you go as far as to say Lewis himself was mistaken in his use of the argument from morality or can Lewis's argument compliment an explanation of morality in terms of evolutionary origins? And of course Lewis himself would not accept your view that all beliefs must be caused (Miracles chapter 3) so there is a lot of philosophical meat on this bone. If you want to argue the point out I'm not sure I will be able to follow as I abandoned an argument about this kind of thing not long ago because I simply could not keep up philosophically. But I am interested.

Re: Lewis and Obama's NIH Pick

PostPosted: September 3rd, 2009, 2:54 pm
by larry gilman

Re: Lewis and Obama's NIH Pick

PostPosted: September 3rd, 2009, 9:43 pm
by postodave

Re: Lewis and Obama's NIH Pick

PostPosted: September 9th, 2009, 7:56 pm
by larry gilman
Hey -- thanks for the thoughtful reply. Good points, I agree with lots and lots. I will reply more fully soon, but for the moment, please note that I have fixed the link to the Anscombe article given in my previous post.

Regards,

Larry

Re: Lewis and Obama's NIH Pick

PostPosted: September 12th, 2009, 10:09 am
by postodave
Thanks for restoring the link Larry. Anscombe's essay is very interesting. The missing link in all this is Lewis's original chapter 3 of miracles. Someone really should make a source book of all this with Lewis's original chapter 3 - and also the earlier knock down versions of this kind of argument from his public discussion sessions. Then Anscombe's comments and response then the revised chapter and Anscombe's brief responses to that. Perhaps Vicor Repert cound edit it. Are you reading this Lewis trustees?

I don't feel comfortable with Lewis's idea of gaps in the causal sequence where reason seeps in - but the whole issue is complex. It seems to touch on issues raised by people like Daniel Dennett and Roger Penrose about how physical processes can give rise to mind. Polkinghorne has some thoughts on it as well. Whether it will ever be resolved by the physicists I would not like to say.

Anyway thanks again for the link.

Re: Lewis and Obama's NIH Pick

PostPosted: September 20th, 2009, 8:33 pm
by larry gilman
I agree that a collection of all the relevant chapters, essays, even letters would be useful. I might just put it together and offer it up as a PDF online, and to hell with Disney-crafted copyright laws that keep us from sharing and learning freely from the writings of people who have been dead for decades.

My intent to reply more fully to your above keeps getting put off, but I do thank you for this discussion anyway.

Regards,

Larry

Re: Lewis and Obama's NIH Pick

PostPosted: March 18th, 2010, 8:22 pm
by cyranorox
Very interesting discussion. Just like to nod in on one point: 'not reliably true' is not the same as 'definitely false'. so, if we posit a source for moral value/belief that does not allow us to deem the belief reliably true, provably solid, and logically mortised and tenoned in supernatural stone, we may still find it good or beautiful, or even find that it came from a trusted witness. In those cases, we would be right to accept it.

Octopuses are remarkably intelligent- up there with the kinds of animals we domesticate.

Re: Lewis and Obama's NIH Pick

PostPosted: March 18th, 2010, 8:30 pm
by larry gilman
Cyranorox --

Affirmation.

Larry