tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20905577.post5777364905579031104..comments2024-02-22T04:58:19.083-08:00Comments on My Reflections: C. S. Lewis on “the Scientific Outlook” and its Contrast with ScienceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20905577.post-42752541813784787562011-08-01T11:07:42.325-07:002011-08-01T11:07:42.325-07:00I like that. As a writer myself, I'm aware of ...I like that. As a writer myself, I'm aware of how characters have a "life of their own." That's a pretty deep concept though, and I'll need to let it steep for a bit!M Fitzpatricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20905577.post-20026669376796950252011-07-31T07:00:14.387-07:002011-07-31T07:00:14.387-07:00I'll think about the car analogy because I sen...I'll think about the car analogy because I sense there's something there. (No other comment yet.)<br /><br />What I think is not always so evident in the writing analogy is the way authors talk about their characters' motivations and decisions once the book gets started. It's as if the characters have a life of their own. There needs to be an internal consistency with the character, but that provides for a reasonable variation of responses.My Reflectionshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06398084457749292224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20905577.post-45813430350662823932011-07-29T23:48:31.152-07:002011-07-29T23:48:31.152-07:00You know, I've actually struggled with Lewis&#...You know, I've actually struggled with Lewis' adaption of Sayers' analogy ever since I first read it in Mere Christianity. I'm honestly not sure. On the one hand, I like the analogy, because I really do see God as the grand Storyteller. And yet, there is an important and fundamental difference. Unlike Hamlet, we have real influence on the details of the story. What does this even mean? I wonder if a closer analogy might be driving a car. God has primary caused (created) the automobile, the roads, the signs, all possible routes, and has ensured what the final destination will be. But still, whether we take the interstate, the old state highway, or the surface streets, is up to us. God has set the overall narrative, but the final clarity requires our participation. <br /><br />What do you think?M Fitzpatricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20905577.post-34492878193834124892011-07-29T11:40:38.181-07:002011-07-29T11:40:38.181-07:00Somehow this comment from Monsieur Fitzpatrick did...Somehow this comment from Monsieur Fitzpatrick didn't make it through the spam filter process. My apologies. And here it is:<br /><br />Greg, I think this juxtaposition is quite interesting, but it makes some bold claims. Pinker is making the assertion that neuroscience can touch the previously unreachable areas of human thought (quite literally). Haldane raises the epistemological objection to this claim, but of course this doesn't falsify Pinker's claim. He could easily retort that we do have some reason to believe our beliefs are true - namely, that we have survived evolutionarily. If I mistake what the world means, it might cost me my life. The fact that we thrive shows we are probably getting something right. The question remains why, and it isn't obvious that Pinker's suggestion is impossible.<br /><br />Regarding Jacks' reflections, there is a sincere debate raging in philosophy of science and evolutionary psychology as to whether science, art, morality and religion can fit in the scientific worldview. We already know, from past Triad discussions, that morality probably can be given a naturalistic basis which science could study. Science itself could be the object of study if we consider sociology a science. Art? Religion? Well, anthropologists have given their best crack at these, as have philosophers. Whether these will ever merely reduce down to good neuroscience, I don't know (and hope not). But there are sincere scientists who would claim that each of these can in fact be subsumed under the scientific worldview. Pinker definitely thinks religion can, as does Daniel Dennett. As for art, you might watch this short Ted Talk by Denis Dutton on the subject of beauty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PktUzdnBqWIMy Reflectionshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06398084457749292224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20905577.post-14500681642118866982011-07-28T12:14:56.601-07:002011-07-28T12:14:56.601-07:00Yours are great comments and, as per usual, get to...Yours are great comments and, as per usual, get to significant issues. For example, on primary and secondary causation and the analogy of Shakespeare (which apparently Dorothy Sawyers made famous in "Mind of the Maker") I tried to indicate that there was a problem with the analogy: "The analogy is not perfect because once the book is written, the real interactions between Hamlet and Ophelia are fixed in a way that ours is not."<br /><br />I just wanted to demonstrate how primary and secondary causation look. How God as Primary Cause sustains our real secondary causes. <br /><br />What do you think? Is there something more I can, or should, add, or is the analogy simply flawed?My Reflectionshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06398084457749292224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20905577.post-24770431409399374052011-07-28T00:59:36.515-07:002011-07-28T00:59:36.515-07:00Overall, I thought this was a solid exposition and...Overall, I thought this was a solid exposition and expansion of Lewis' thought. "Is Theology Poetry?" is a classic of Lewis' and I hope everyone who reads your blog takes the time to read the essay itself on their own.<br /><br />One caveat: at some point I'd love to get down to the theological bedrock on freedom as it concerns first and secondary causation. I've read Ric's chapters on this subject and I simply don't by the Aristotelean argument for our freedom. The problem is this: in the analogy about Shakespeare, Shakespeare is the sole determinant of every thought and action Hamlet has. The question becomes, theologically, how God departs from Shakespeare in any significant way. How does a primary cause not also become the "wizard behind the curtain" on all the secondary causes? Don't they just "appear" to be free because, as Spinoza famously wrote, "Men are conscious of their actions and ignorant of the causes by which they are determined"?<br /><br />It is one thing to say I am here because God actualized me. In that sense, God caused me. But that is more a bottom up causation, causation that makes the difference between being and non-being. What about left-to-right causation, the series of events in reality? Does God's primary causation set the previous states of the universe before human existence? If so, how does secondary causation work as metaphysically different from the universe before there was humans? What changed metaphysically?<br /><br />A final note: Ric claims that to be free is to be determined by your reason. Interestingly, this is the exact same notion of "freedom" given by Spinoza, the most famous hard determinist in history. This correspondance makes me nervous. We should talk. :-)M Fitzpatricknoreply@blogger.com