I read this a second time and then printed it out so I would have it. This is a helpful, coherent presentation of Lewis’s argument and the rational outcome of it. So much of naturalism is hopelessly illogical and outdated, but people would rather cling to it than admit there might be a rational God behind everything. Thank you!
Chris, thank you for this excellent overview of the philosophical argument against the idea that pure rationalism and determinism underlie all of reality. In fact, the “scientific” arguments you quote for this erroneous view are themselves hopelessly out of date, and can be easily refuted by reference to the vast scientific literature of the past century (and more) in physics and biology.
For example, further refinements of the famous Libet experiment, quoted by Harris to try to demolish free will, have shown that the original experimental design was flawed, and in fact there is no physiological evidence that decision making comes after any kind of automatic neural impulse. The reality of purpose and agency, not just in humans, but in all life forms is now well established. To borrow your avalanche metaphor, not only do avalanches not result in a rational message, but no mountain decides to self-destruct due to its desire to bury an obnoxious rest stop. On the other hand, humans are perfectly capable of taking such actions for such a purpose. Even bacteria and other creatures without brains or neurological systems act according to the purpose of survival, based on a primitive cognitive awareness of their environment and local conditions.
I think the naturalistic view that Lewis so effectively countered was a remnant of the late 19th century idea that physics was completed, and, with the small exception of the nature and speed of light, all mysteries were solved. It has taken quite a long time for the nature of the solution to that mystery (relativity, quantum theory, the uncertainty principle, the observer effect etc.) to filter down to the non-scientific world. But now we have non-theist scientists like physicist Roger Penrose claiming that Godel’s theory makes consciousness non-computable, and biologist Denis Noble talking about the non-centrality of genic control. One could write a book about this, (which I have just done) but the bottom line is that science itself confirms the previously forged path to truth taken by philosophers and theologians, once again.
Thanks for those interesting observations, Sy. I'm always glad to hear when notable scientists admit that materialism can't account for certain phenomena that go beyond natural explanations. I'm glad there's some new work in the field of biology that's recognizing the teleology of cells and other organisms.
From what I can tell, though, naturalism remains the reigning worldview in today's culture-forming institutions. That would include every academic discipline (maybe with the exception of theology, as studied in confessional seminaries), mass media, the entire public educational system, the legal field, government, and (most) businesses.
I think what tends to happen is that although a few notable scientists do work that seems ill-fitting with a materialistic perspective, they never then go on to say, "I suppose we were wrong about naturalism." Instead, they'll appeal to a naturalism of the gaps ("We can't figure this out naturalistically now, but someday we will"), or they'll find ways to incorporate the phenomena into naturalism, after all.
I think we've seen this with cosmic fine-tuning. Lots of physicists will say we don't understand the fine-tuning now, but these mysteries always get solved with enough time. Or they'll appeal to a multiverse, an explanation that doesn't challenge naturalism.
I think the ruling paradigm is still captured well by Richard Lewontin, who said:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
For that reason, I think Lewis's argument is still as relevant today as it was in 1947. It's hard to break naturalism's hold on Western culture.
Yes, I agree 100%. I call it the atheist ideology. But some of us are fighting back, and time will tell. At least Christian apologists need to know the actual science when this issue comes up.
I read this a second time and then printed it out so I would have it. This is a helpful, coherent presentation of Lewis’s argument and the rational outcome of it. So much of naturalism is hopelessly illogical and outdated, but people would rather cling to it than admit there might be a rational God behind everything. Thank you!
Thanks, Cassie! Lewis did a masterful job with this argument. Naturalism is a nightmarish worldview, when you think about its implications.
Chris, thank you for this excellent overview of the philosophical argument against the idea that pure rationalism and determinism underlie all of reality. In fact, the “scientific” arguments you quote for this erroneous view are themselves hopelessly out of date, and can be easily refuted by reference to the vast scientific literature of the past century (and more) in physics and biology.
For example, further refinements of the famous Libet experiment, quoted by Harris to try to demolish free will, have shown that the original experimental design was flawed, and in fact there is no physiological evidence that decision making comes after any kind of automatic neural impulse. The reality of purpose and agency, not just in humans, but in all life forms is now well established. To borrow your avalanche metaphor, not only do avalanches not result in a rational message, but no mountain decides to self-destruct due to its desire to bury an obnoxious rest stop. On the other hand, humans are perfectly capable of taking such actions for such a purpose. Even bacteria and other creatures without brains or neurological systems act according to the purpose of survival, based on a primitive cognitive awareness of their environment and local conditions.
I think the naturalistic view that Lewis so effectively countered was a remnant of the late 19th century idea that physics was completed, and, with the small exception of the nature and speed of light, all mysteries were solved. It has taken quite a long time for the nature of the solution to that mystery (relativity, quantum theory, the uncertainty principle, the observer effect etc.) to filter down to the non-scientific world. But now we have non-theist scientists like physicist Roger Penrose claiming that Godel’s theory makes consciousness non-computable, and biologist Denis Noble talking about the non-centrality of genic control. One could write a book about this, (which I have just done) but the bottom line is that science itself confirms the previously forged path to truth taken by philosophers and theologians, once again.
Thanks for those interesting observations, Sy. I'm always glad to hear when notable scientists admit that materialism can't account for certain phenomena that go beyond natural explanations. I'm glad there's some new work in the field of biology that's recognizing the teleology of cells and other organisms.
From what I can tell, though, naturalism remains the reigning worldview in today's culture-forming institutions. That would include every academic discipline (maybe with the exception of theology, as studied in confessional seminaries), mass media, the entire public educational system, the legal field, government, and (most) businesses.
I think what tends to happen is that although a few notable scientists do work that seems ill-fitting with a materialistic perspective, they never then go on to say, "I suppose we were wrong about naturalism." Instead, they'll appeal to a naturalism of the gaps ("We can't figure this out naturalistically now, but someday we will"), or they'll find ways to incorporate the phenomena into naturalism, after all.
I think we've seen this with cosmic fine-tuning. Lots of physicists will say we don't understand the fine-tuning now, but these mysteries always get solved with enough time. Or they'll appeal to a multiverse, an explanation that doesn't challenge naturalism.
I think the ruling paradigm is still captured well by Richard Lewontin, who said:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
For that reason, I think Lewis's argument is still as relevant today as it was in 1947. It's hard to break naturalism's hold on Western culture.
Yes, I agree 100%. I call it the atheist ideology. But some of us are fighting back, and time will tell. At least Christian apologists need to know the actual science when this issue comes up.
I'm glad you're fighting the good fight, Sy!