Reasoning: CS Lewis' Argument for Christianity


Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.
-C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity, p 32.

1. Argument from ignorance

We can formalise Lewis' argument like this:

  • Lewis cannot imagine how we can reason unless we were designed by God
  • We can reason
  • Therefore we were designed by God

Personally, I think his reasoning is flawed. A lack of knowledge or understanding is a very poor start to an argument. This is an argument from ignorance. We do not know, therefore I get to insert my pet theory as the default.

2. We really can trust reason

The reality is that we trust our reasoning because it is so successful. We learn to reason from a very early age. Babies reason that a ball put in a box will still be there when he looks in the box again. He has reasoned that the ball should still be there, and experience has taught him that reasoning works.

Lewis, however, has this all backwards. In Lewis' world, he starts from God existing. As God exists, says Lewis, then I can be sure my reasoning is sound.

3. Perhaps reasoning is flawed...

It could be argued that both arguments are circular. This is a fundamental problem. If you are using reasoning to prove that reasoning is sound, there is some circularity present. He is assuming his reasoning is good; perhaps it is not, and that is why he mistakenly believes in God.

4. Assumptions...

However, Lewis' argument is further flawed because it makes two assumptions. He is assuming God exists and he is assuming that if there is a God he would make us capable of reasoning. Why should we believe either is true? This quote comes from a book where Lewis is trying to show the Christian God exists, and to do that, he is obliged to assume that the Christian God exists!

5. Evolution

Evolution can explain reasoning. The ability to reason gives you a better chance at avoiding predators, finding food and charming your mate. And good reasoning is far more helpful than flawed reasoning, so we can expect it to be selected for.

What reason does God have to give us the ability to reason? None at all. All he wants are worshipers - you can arguably do that better if you cannot reason well!

6. Reasoning is not perfect

If materialism is true, then our ability to think is a product of evolution, and we would expect it to be good enough, but not perfect.

If Christianity is true, then our ability to think is a product of a perfect, all-powerful God, and we would expect it to be perfect.

Which prediction is right?

7. Why a brain?

If God can think without a brain, and do so perfectly, why did he design us such that we need to user a brain to think? Indeed, why a physical body at all? How much sin is because we have physical bodies, with all the fears, lusts and needs associated with that.

It just does not make sense.

8. God's mind

If Lewis is right, then God's brain must have been designed too! Or he cannot reason reliably.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Southern Baptist Convention Position on Abortion

Evangelical Christians in the US are very strongly anti-abortion. However, it was not always so. As recently as 1970 the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) - the largest Protestant denomination in the US - advocated for legalising abortion. A Complete Reversal The landmark law case in the US was Roe v. Wade, in 1973, and abortion has been legal since that time. Jane Roe was the pseudonym of the woman wanting the abortion; Henry Wade the district attorney who stood for the state, prohibiting it. Roe was represented by two attorneys; one was Linda Coffee, a member of the SBC. The Baptist Press interviewed her after the successful conclusion of the trial. The decision of Roe v Wade was generally regarded as a good one by the SBC. To evangelicals of that time abortion was seen as a Catholic issue. You can find a list of abortion-related resolutions made by the SBC from 1971 onwards  here . It is clear that in 1971 they saw abortion - quite reasonably - as undesirable, but it ...
Read more

Hinman's "Argument From Transcendental Signifier"

ETA (23/Jun/20): I have just heard Joe is in hospital. I wish him a speedy recovery. All the best, Joe. This is an argument for God that Joe Hinman has presented several times on various of his sites: http://www.doxa.ws/Ontological/TS2.html https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/05/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/06/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/01/premises-4-7-ts-argumet.html The argument is a seven step syllogism: 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops) 2. OP's summed up in TS 3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind. 4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe. 5. minds organize and communicate meaning 6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS 7. Concept of God unites TS with universal m...
Read more

Kent Hovind: Third wife in three years?

Kent Hovind is, perhaps the very worst of the creationists, so it is with some interest I note that he is now on this third wife in three years. For many years he was married to Jo Hovind, who ended up going to prison for a year due to her involvement in tax fraud. Once Kent got released from his rather longer prison sentence, it was not long before Jo filed for divorce (early 2016) - possibly to distance himself from any further gaol sentences. A few months later, 24th Sptember 2016, and he married Mary Tocco - not a full marriage, but a covenant before God. It looks like she got various assurances that Kent's new business was entirely honest before she got married. However, she later cam to realise that that was not really the case, and, again to avoid ending up in prison , she left him in November 2017. http://kehvrlb.com/mary-tocco-on-leaving-kent-hovind Less than a year later and he has a new wife, Cindi Lincoln, a former friend of Mary's. It is not clear if they ...
Read more