Victor Report's book on C.S. Lewis

[jwright82]

The above mentioned gentleman wrote a book on C.S. Lewis's argument from reason against naturalism. He bassically argues that evolution cannot account for our reasoning abilities. It could just be a survival instinct that pursues our survival but if that is the case than we can't trust it. Because even lies can aid in survival, never going outside so you don't get robbed for instance.

Has anyone read it and what does anyone think, regardless if you've read it or not?

 

[Joshua]

Has anyone read it . . . ?

It's highly likely.

 

[RamistThomist]

I haven't read that book, but it's basically an early form of the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. My believing a belief to be true or false is irrelevant to my neurons firing as a mechanism for survival. A belief isn't the same thing as a reaction.

In other words, I can believe something to be false, but if I am simply wired for survival, who cares whether my belief is false?

 

[jwright82]

I haven't read that book, but it's basically an early form of the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. My believing a belief to be true or false is irrelevant to my neurons firing as a mechanism for survival. A belief isn't the same thing as a reaction.

In other words, I can believe something to be false, but if I am simply wired for survival, who cares whether my belief is false?

Exactly. He also deals with Alice Anscombe's critique of it and Lewis's reworking of it in response. Very fascinating.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

There is also a shorter and a bit more technical discussion of this contained in “The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.”

 

[jwright82]

Anscombe's argument was basically Wittgensteinianin nature. She argued that reasons explanations are not the same thing as physical eplanations, two different language games. What's true of one doesn't have to be true of the other. As long as they both make sense. Lewis reworked his argument to answer her.

 

[jwright82]

I haven't read that book, but it's basically an early form of the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. My believing a belief to be true or false is irrelevant to my neurons firing as a mechanism for survival. A belief isn't the same thing as a reaction.

In other words, I can believe something to be false, but if I am simply wired for survival, who cares whether my belief is false?

How would you answer Anscombe's criticism? Basically Wittgensteinian.