December 9, 2012
Hello dear readers. I've been reading C.S. Lewis' book, "Miracles", and so far it's made great reading. There were two arguments in there that I thought I might share:
1) Argument against Naturalism:
"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that any beliefs are ture...and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms--- [because] my beliefs have irrational causes"
-Quote taken from "Miracles" by C.S. Lewis
2) Argument against morality in Naturalism:
" Yet if the "oughts" of Mr. Wells, and, say, Franco are both equally the impulses which Nature has conditioned each to have and both tell us nothing about any objective right or wrong, whence is all the fervour? Do they remember while they writing thus that when they tell us we "ought" to make a "better world" the words "ought" and "better" must, on their own showing, refer to an irrationally conditioned impulse which cannot be true or false any more than a vomit or a yawn?"
-"Miracles" by C.S. Lewis
Reading this book has so far been worth it, even if only for those two arguments Even though I've known them in form before then, I've never seen them so eloquently put.