tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post9156553505336906302..comments2024-03-23T07:33:30.972+00:00Comments on Quodlibeta: C.S. Lewis's Argument against Naturalism, part 2Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01594220073836613367noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-82762005228397653852013-08-22T14:24:54.669+01:002013-08-22T14:24:54.669+01:00Jim, thanks for replying. I've just noticed yo...Jim, thanks for replying. I've just noticed you've posted part 3. So I'll read that first before asking any further questions....<br />Keep up the good work!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-15656104140052838672013-08-22T06:01:20.135+01:002013-08-22T06:01:20.135+01:00Thanks for the comment. This will be addressed to ...Thanks for the comment. This will be addressed to some extent in future posts. For now I'll just say that you're suggesting we'd notice if our cognitive faculties were not reliable. But our ability to notice such things, on naturalism, is just one more function of our cognitive faculties. The argument alleges to show that our cognitive faculties' reliability is incompatible with naturalism. If it succeeds, it would apply to our ability to notice whether or not they are reliable, since such an ability is a cognitive function. We don't get to assume some cognitive function is reliable, since the argument calls all cognitive functions into question.Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-39145312646988891642013-08-21T15:33:29.883+01:002013-08-21T15:33:29.883+01:00Just wanted to say that I have read parts 1 and 2 ...Just wanted to say that I have read parts 1 and 2 with and interest.<br /><br />It does indeed seem strange that matter can end up producing thoughts about itself. But surely the reason we trust those thoughts, e.g. in scientific enquiry, is that they lead to verifiable results. I.e we can rely on our thoughts in a similar way that we rely on our senses. If the results of our sense of sight did not tally with those of our sense of touch for example, we would consider our senses unreliable. Similarly, if everytime we added 2 and 2 we arrived at a different result we could conclude that our reasoning was in principle unreliable.<br />So although we may not be able to explain how this ability of matter arose that does not preclude the possibility that it did arise by natural processes.<br /><br /><br />I'm probably missing something here though with my simplistic notions. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of philosophy - or who can think more clearly - could shed some light?<br /><br />There seem to be parallels to the argument against the possibility of free will in a naturalistic universe. I can't see any possibility of free will in such a universe but I've been told that I'm wrong. I've yet to be convinced though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com