Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

I read just the first chapter so far, and have a question. C.S. Lewis overstates cause and effect, essentially claiming that Naturalism at its core depends upon a clockwork universe, with no place for free will. Of course, we now know this not to be true, for nature at the subatomic level is itself unpredictable. There needn't be a cause even for an event such as the Big Bang. So, my question: Does Lewis build his entire argument on faulty suppositions, or is the rest of the book worth reading?

Hello Lee,

Thank you for your interesting comment. In your statement "Of course, we now know this not to be true, for nature at the subatomic level is itself unpredictable," I believe you're referring to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Lewis, although not a physicist, refers to this in Chapter 2 of Miracles and calls these subnatural events. He properly would ask (as he does in the book) what do you mean exactly by "unpredictable?" If by unpredictable you mean the events in questions are true cause-and-effect events and they are unpredictable because we can't connect the cause to the effect, then the naturalist universe is still closed. If on the other hand "unpredictable" means these subatomic events are genuine examples of effects without causes, then they are "supernatural" in Lewis' definition of the word. If you mean the latter, it seems to me you have made Lewis' case for miracles much easier to prove since you have provided a host of examples of events that regularly occur in our world without a cause.

The difficulty for the Naturalist then becomes arguing that, given the abundant and common place occurrence of these myriad of subnatural effects without causes, why would he object to a particular effect without a cause, such as water being turned into wine?

Thank you again for your message.

Good reply Peter. Good question Lee.

I'll admit that I see a godless universe as inherently deterministic. Has anyone read Sam Harris' book Free Will?

Once i get into Miracles I'll enter the discussion.

From page 23: "every event in Nature must be connected with previous events in the Cause and Effect relation."

This appears to be simply wrong. Yet if there can be effect without cause in Nature, doesn't Lewis's definition of "Miracle" lose most of its bite?

However, I love his take on Morality.

I think Lewis' point is more that naturalism, at its core, means there is nothing outside of nature. Things at the subatomic level may be unpredictable, but no naturalist is going to say what is happening there is outside the realm of nature.

I am not sure how your question would be a problem for Lewis. I think Lewis' point, which I agree with, is that if everything is nature then there is no free will and ultimately "truth" is an illusion. When I make a choice I may think it is true but my choice is caused by other natural things which ultimately care more for survival then for truth. Where would I get the ability to choose other than what various natural processes demand me to choose?

My question would be - do naturalists believe in free will?

I found this on the Center for Naturalism website, I think it is along the lines of what Lewis is saying (only he sees it as a possible defeater for naturalism, right?):

Because we are fully physical, natural creatures, this means that everything we are and everything we do is completely connected to the rest of nature, which includes our culture and society. We are products of our social and family environment and the genetics given to us at birth. The way we develop from newborns into adults is a process of cause and effect, and we can explain our character and motives as results of that process, one that has made our brains the way they are. Similarly, we can understand our feelings and behavior as being fully caused by the brain and body. This means that if we knew the whole causal story of ourselves, we could discover all the causes going back in time of what we’re doing at this very moment.

What’s special about this naturalistic view ourselves, that’s quite different from the supernatural or common sense view, is that we don’t have free will, defined as the power to do something without yourself being fully caused to do it. (Please note and remember this definition!) Now, many people think they do have this power, but to have it, you’d have to be disconnected from nature in some way, and naturalism says that there is no way in which we are disconnected from nature: we are completely included in the natural world. This means that everything we are and do is caused, which means we don’t have free will in the sense defined above, what we might call “contra-causal” free will. We aren’t “first causes” and we don’t cause ourselves - nothing in nature does this, so far as we know. We are not "causally privileged" over the rest of nature, that is, we don't get to cause without being fully caused ourselves. To think that would be to hold a supernatural view of ourselves, the opposite of naturalism. Another way of making this point is that from a naturalistic perspective, all our thoughts, feelings, experiences, and behavior happen without there being a non-physical “supervisor” in charge, making them happen. You are your experiences and behavior, not something extra that controls them. This doesn’t mean you are “out of control,” however. Your behavior is, most of the time, controlled by who and what you are: a particular person, embodied in a physical organism, that’s been taught to behave in socially acceptable ways. It also doesn’t mean that you lose your own causal powers to influence things and make things happen. All that stays intact under naturalism. What’s changed is that you see where you and your powers come from.
http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/fa...

I finished reading the book, and enjoyed it more than I thought I would! My review is here:

http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2012/1...

There are some interesting points for discussion! The science doesn't work for me, but the arguments from morality do, and the picture Lewis draws of how body & soul meld is beautiful.

So...this book discussion is weak. I'll confess, I didn't re-read it but I am set to skim it if/when a discussion gets going.

I was going to pick it up if I came across a used copy - but i'm not that interested in Miracles - or C.S. lewis.
Apparently there's some great stuff in this book though. (same goes for Mere Christianity).

:) I enjoyed reading the book, and appreciate the recommendation, whether or not it generates any discussion. But it does appear we are trending away from book discussions ... that's cool, too.

I still think its a good idea. We'll have to keep trying it.

just post some thoughts or challenges about the book Lee.

David wrote: "I think Lewis' point is more that naturalism, at its core, means there is nothing outside of nature. Things at the subatomic level may be unpredictable, but no naturalist is going to say what is h..."

David, I think you're right in this statement. From my reading and discussions, Naturalists view the world as a closed system and free will as illusion.

For his part, Lewis as an excellent logician begins by carefully defining his terms including Naturalism and he chooses what I think is the classic and most widely held definition even today. I don't think he can be faulted for that, even if some would have chosen a different definition.

Having said that, science is not always kind to naturalism and the idea of processes inaccessible to experiment as defined by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or the world not going on forever as in The Big Bang have been difficulties for this worldview. Naturally the proponents confronted with these difficulties adjust (e.g. multi-verse hypothesis), but the problem is there nonetheless.

I have read MIRACLES along with Lewis' THE ABOLITION OF MAN a couple of times and refer to sections of these books frequently. I find his arguments there compelling, but like many things "proof" is in the eye of the beholder.

I appreciate the many fine comments made on this book in this discussion.