The Dangerous Idea of C.S. Lewis [01/30/2011]
Dr. Victor Reppert joins us in critiquing philosophical materialistic naturalism (held by modern-day atheists), showing why it is wrong. He is helped by C.S. Lewis. Here is a link to Reppert's book C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument From Reason.
Special Guest: Dr. Victor Reppert, adjunct philosophy professor at Glendale Community College
Listen Now:
Standard Podcasts [42:55m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (290)
Doc Vic Keeps his Pimp hand strong in case he needs to deal with any suckas
Let’s say evolution is a fact and let’s go back in time to the point when human beings have not yet evolved. At that point in time could Reppert have argued based upon how animals hunt to kill to eat to stay alive that such behavior demands the same conclusion he makes in his argument? Could he still argue that pre-human animals could not conclude that by their behavior they would catch some prey?…that they have no basis for hunting to kill to eat to stay alive without transcendence? That such behavior requires a mind a soul a god?
I think not.
John W. Loftus,
I actually couldn’t continue focusing on what you wrote based off of your first sentence (although I did read it all). That’s quite a giant assumption. And all your argument entailed of was “Let’s say evolution is fact…”
Sure, maybe based off of uncritically held assumptions you could make some ideas work in that context, but ultimately it would just be a waste of time playing “pretend this is true.”
I could say “Let’s say evolution is false.”
This is for the sake of good, thoughtful conversation on the internet. Nothing personal!
Be sure to Check out the Debunking John Loftus Blog.
http://debunkingloftus.blogspot.com/
“animals hunt to kill to eat to stay alive that such behavior demands the same conclusion he makes in his argument”
It depends. If such animals can hunt without forming intentional states that are causally relevant to their behavior, then they don’t need to reason, and thus the argument from reason doesn’t apply to them. But that some animals don’t employ reasoning doesn’t mean that no animals do, and doesn’t invalidate the argument from reason.