Man is Supernatural

C.S. Lewis, in his book “Miracles” makes a very convincing case against Naturalism, in favor of the Christian idea of miracles! I would eventually like to get around to writing a review of this outstanding book, but until then…I’d like to share a unique insight (one of many) that I’ve learned from it.

Lewis, working on the assumption that our wills are “free,” makes the claim that ALL men are supernatural!

To understand this; and to understand how it savages a naturalist worldview; it is important to understand the overall Christian view of reality…or… more philosophically correct…the Christian “meta-physic.” What follows will be my best attempt at paraphrasing the Christian view of reality (that…has actually been around for quite awhile now) giving special attention to the insights of Lewis.

First, it’s important to ask: “Do you believe that something exists…rather than nothing?”

Of course, we all do. Who doesn’t? Not even the Hindu who says, “All is illusion” will admit that, at the very least, the ultimate “one” exists, and encompasses all the distinctions “we” observe.

This “something” that exists, is distinct from nothingness.

Meta-physics, in this case, would be the overall “system” or…"reality" that contains all the particular “something’s” along with all the “nothingness.”

It is important to note here, that if something does exist (in a metaphysical sense) then it must necessarily have at least two properties.

It must exist in and of itself.

It also, must be eternal or incessant! It can never cease.

For something to be created, means, that it is relying on something that existed prior to it, and therefore, cannot be said to exist “in and of itself.” If it doesn’t exist in and of itself, then it cannot be that overarching metaphysical reality that “contains” all other things that exist.

If this “something” was ever non-existent at some point…then it had to be caused to come into existence by something else (meaning that it is not the ultimate “thing” but rather, just a particular caused by the other.) If it could possibly cease, then it isn’t an eternal “thing” and therefore would have ceased at some finite point in its infinite past. If it has the ability to “not-be” then it does not exist in and of itself, but is itself the member of a higher “thing.”

So, whatever this “thing” is that exists; it must have at least three qualities.

1: It must be eternal.
2: It must exist “in and of itself.”
3: It must contain (in some way) all the particulars (and all possible particulars) of our experience.

If you’re a Christian reading this, then you’ll start to see what I’m driving at.
Unfortunately, the early Christian “fathers” or “apologists” didn’t have such an understanding! They were influenced far too much by Plato, and Greek philosophy. They understood the Christian God, to merely be the most powerful particular “thing” inside of this “metaphysical thing” that contained all things.

It wasn’t until Augustine came along in the 300’s that the idea of the Christian God, containing all things, began to flourish. Augustine articulated a doctrine of creation Ex Nihilio, as well as a doctrine of man and his relation to God.
In this sense, “nature” would be something incredibly different for the Christian, than for the unbeliever, (specifically the naturalist.)

I forget exactly how Lewis defines it, but, for the Christian, “nature” would be that system in which man finds himself temporally bound. It is a reality, created within God, out of nothing. For Lewis, there is no particular reason why God couldn’t have created many such spheres of “realities,” as well as cause some of them to touch from time to time! (This is how Peter Edmund Lucy and Susan can get from England to Narnia!)

The Naturalist, however, has quite a different view. They believe that this particular temporal reality IS the overarching system which contains all things.

How is Man Supernatural then Shotgun?

For free will to exist in this particular system of reality, our thoughts must be uncaused (in any direct way) by the surrounding environment. For this to be the case, our thoughts must necessarily, manifest themselves from some point outside of this system.

This is why no naturalist, can ever talk about free will in his or her system of reality. They cannot remain a naturalist, and believe that thoughts arrive within this nature, from outside of it…without positing an “outside” from which these thoughts could originate!

They MUST necessarily posit a causal system for thoughts; (if they wish to remain a naturalist) a system which totally denies them any free will at all.

So what?

In essence then, mans conscious self, his “will,” must be supernatural.
It may be all well and good, but then the question arises…"if our thoughts arise from outside of this particular natural system, then from whence do they come?"

The Christian can approach the question, just as Paul did, when he was confronted by the philosophers in Athens:

“For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said. For we are also His offspring.” (Acts 17:28)

The nature of reality had been discussed for years before Paul ever came to Athens. Indeed many of the Greek poets, and philosophers, had written on the subject, and supposed that some sort of nebulous, eternal, and rotating “thing” existed, that they called “god.”

I suppose Paul was only appealing to that one particular similarity in Greek thought, because that is where the similarities end! (I’ll not get into that further here!)

We are all supernatural creatures, having part of our essence in direct contact with our Creator.

How wonderful of a thing is that???

So then why aren’t our actions completely random? We’d be continually outputting without any inputs. And we’d die.

‘Supernatural’ doesn’t mean ‘existing outside reality’, it just means ‘unexplainable’. Free will could exist in a naturalist weltenschauung, but it would be unpredictable and unprovable, just like it would be impossible for you to describe god’s existence.

Your attempts to re-define the terms I’ve used…however interesting… will not prove to be much of a help for you.

How do you distinguish between those things that are “outside” this particular reality (as you’ve defined it) and those particular things which are within it? (What I mean here … is that… certain particulars…are clearly beyond the realm of our current temporal senses…and as such… have to be relegated to a different “reality.” How do you distinguish between these particulars… and the particulars of your own temporal experience?)

In such a case, you have to at least admit… that there are distinctions within the levels of reality. There are realms that are “higher” or “lower” contained within the overarching “reality.” How do you distinguish between them?

Given this…

You still must suppose that whatever your “overarching” reality is… it must adhere to the three principals I listed.

It must be eternal

It must be unchanging

It must contain all the particulars of our experience…(plus all those that we have yet to experience… or cannot experience…etc.)

Therefore…

If our thoughts are to be free… (arising completely arbitrarily…or… beyond the control of this “level” of nature as we know it…) then… they must still be contained within the overarcing “reality” that you speak of… but… must come from outside this current “level” or system that we reside in…(which itself resides within the overall “reality.”)

Your critique here is interesting…and I’ll have to consider some other aspects that it caused me to think of…

but overall… I would say that the overall conclusion of Lewis is still valid…namely… that… for our thoughts to be free… they must arise from outside this level of reality, and in that sense… they are supernatural.

I’m gonna bypass the quote-by-quote refutation of your last post, but rest assured, most of it is incorrect.

I’m instead going to focus on a more interesting point I thought about when I read this part of it:

Clearly? How do you know, they’re beyond our observation!

The introduction of another ‘plane of reality’ doesn’t allow free will, it just introduces randomness. Instead of ‘choosing’ an inevitability, we are ‘choosing’ a random course. That is, unless there are rules in this higher plane. Clearly, for a christian, there are. Otherwise, how would god both know what we’re going to do and allow us to choose? There is some rule that allows god to know the choices beforehand. So a christian knows the rule exists, just not the how of it, i.e., how does god both let us choose and know our choice before it happens? Well…he’s god, so he can do whatever he wants.

Does that sound like a cop-out to anyone else?

Why defer to god? Why must naturalists know the ‘how’ of everything? They could very easily beleive that their choices are at once theirs and inevitable.

Both systems, the naturalist and the christian, can only believe free will exists. The christian system requires one to believe free will as either an axiom or by first believing in god, from which free will follows. The naturalist would just have to accept the axiom and that he can’t explain something. Both beliefs are unexplainable and unprovable.

Maybe there’s another way, though…

You are misusing the term ‘free will’. Free Will doesn’t mean uncaused. No thing is uncaused in a deterministic universe. Free will is such that you could have acted otherwise if you chose to.

Mr. Hume…

That seems on the surface to be a more consistent definition of the term given a “deterministic” meta-physic.

Unfortunately it also reduces itself to absurdity…since, you beg the question essentially.

The mere fact that options exist, says nothing about the process which goes into choosing between the options.

It’s like the Rock… in that horrible movie “The Rundown” who would give his victims a few options. Either way, they were “going with him.” Their fate was still pre-determined (by the Rock in this case.) To say that they had options…while true…doesn’t speak to freedom on their part.

However, like I say…given a deterministic world, you would have to re-define “free will” somehow, and your attempt to do so, while interesting…misses the mark of consistency.

To Anthem:

Your critique of my position here seems a little unfair.

You ask me how I can “know” certain particulars to be the case, given that I cannot empirically see them.

This is an important objection, but not really one that I want to get into in this thread. To do your question justice, I would have to provide a critique of empiricism, as well as adequately present the Christian meta-physic (in more detailed forms than I have in this thread) in such a way that I could distinguish for you from the ideas of Plato, or other misguided “idealists” like Berkley, and the Christian position.

That would no doubt spark an entirely different discussion than the one I currently wish to pursue here.

I DO think you grasp the argument I’m making though…as evidenced by your statement:

“The introduction of another ‘plane of reality’ doesn’t allow free will, it just introduces randomness”

I’m not trying to argue for “Free will” here…this is a given for the argument already. IF our wills really are free…(not only our wills, but given our conscious state as men) we must have an element of ourselves that is “supernatural.”

You talk about this “randomness,” and then try to ascribe another “set of rules” that may perhaps govern this randomness, and admit that to the Christian, this is “God.”

Whatever, or wherever this “randomness” comes from…if it is “random” and unassociated with the current “level” of “nature” then it must be supernatural. If you reply, “No it is merely part of a “higher” metaphysic,” then you cannot remain a naturalist devoted to your own empirical observations.

You cannot be a naturalist, and also believe your will is “free” in that… it is separate from this nature in some way.

You then begin discussing Gods Sovereignty in accordance with mans free will, in such a way that you mischaracterize (in a bad way) the Christian position. The rest of your argument centers around an attack of this straw man, so I’ll not comment further on it. To do so, (properly assert my position) wouldn’t have any purpose at the moment. I’d like to keep the discussion focused on the metaphysic itself.

Oh? Do tell, explain my straw man. What is the christian position, if not that god allows us to choose our fate, yet also knows it before it happens.

Here’s a hint: try talking about how god experiences time.

I’ll still crush you.

Good day.

Yes sir, I’m sure I will be “crushed” just like I have been in all my other threads…

but…before you reduce 2000 years of orthodox Christian theology and philosophy to a crushed state…

Perhaps you could read my response in full, paying special attention to the paragraph from which you drew my quote.

Yes yes, appeal to authority, very nice.

Read the paragraph from which I quoted you? Are you going to tell me you won’t even say how it was a straw man because you said you don’t want to talk about it? Wow, that’s just like your ‘atheists are liars, and if they have a legitimate point to make, they still don’t because they’re liars’ thread.

It’s not a straw man, you’re just afraid to talk about it. You’re afraid that your logical reasons for belief in god are absurd.

My cowardice aside,

A discussion about the Christian doctrine of Gods soveriegnty, and how it is reconciled with mans responsability (and subsequently his free will) while interesting, and perhaps related to this issue, is unfortunately irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The relationship between God and man, is undoubtedly supernatural.

If you want to claim otherwise, (or if you want to deny the thesis of this paper) then you only have a few ways in which to argue.

You could perhaps argue that “God” is merely a particular thing residing within an overarching worldview. This would be a theological route. (Sort of a platonic dualism perhaps?)

You could argue that nothing exists which cannot be empirically verified, (as the logical positivists tried to do.) Therefore showing that, our wills really are determined by some factor within reality.

Or…you could just accept the argument.

Those are your options I’m afraid…and no amount of cowardice on my part will help you avoid them.

Oh…and also, as a quick note:

If you DID want to discuss such a thing (Gods sovereignty vs. Mans responsability), perhaps you would find my newest posting, “When Philosophers try to pick up women” interesting.

Finally…

Fascinating.
Well, if he said it…

Can’t wait.

Define Something. As in some…thing.
Define thing.

Do we, in the simplistic way you do?We’ll see.

Replacing one flawed religious dogma with another, does not a case make.

Define exists.
You use words as if they’re self-evident.

Does a unicorn exist?

Since you haven’t defined the terms it’s easy to make any assertion at this point.
Dualistic thinking at play here. The flaw of the everyday mind.

Huh?

Here comes another premise founded on no definition.

It MUST.

Finally we’re getting somewhere.

The case of causality.
The dualistic thinking that makes reality a contained for what exists.
And containers require container makers.
Isn’t this fun…ny.

Enters the myth.
This needs nothing prior to have caused it. The contradiction to the thesis.
Everything requires a cause, says the simpleton, therefore a first cause exist and this first cause has no cause.
Brilliant.
All undefined and perfectly wrapped up with fear and hope. A container for this mind’s things.

Must is the word Christians like.
No definition of the term exists yet so what can you say?

The Book?

No this bullshit was the creation of modern Christians to answer the progress of human understanding.

Plato was flawed. No ideal anywhere.

This is where you show your inability to comprehend.
“Contains”?
There is nothing that contains. This is the product of dualistic reasoning, the mark of a simple mind.

Because he’s special?

Free-will exists?
Well, we’ve come to some outstanding realizations. Free-will is proven, or assumed, and exists remains undefined and so it can be used in whatever way satisfies this desperate mind to reach its final conclusion.
Let us pose some more questions to this knower of absolute truth:

What is Will?
What is freedom?

If they originate from somewhere else how are they free?
What is this outside?
From where do you get it and how did you come to this awareness?

Still no proof of a free anything.
Necessity escapes you.

Wow, that’s the most brilliant piece of irrational reasoning I’ve ever seen.
This is your irrefutable logical argument?

I can’t wait until these others tear you another one.
Nice seeing your underwear. They have massive holes and large stains on them.
Aren’t you embarrassed to post such things?

It may be all well and good, but then the question arises…"if our thoughts arise from outside of this particular natural system, then from whence do they come?"

Huh?

Isn’t it? like getting drunk on your own imagination.

I’m going to enjoy this guy, especially since i know he’ll take every attack upon him as a test of his faith; his self-sacrifice.

Paradise awaits.
The creator, obviously, also created a special place for him.

NOTE

Do you know who I think this guy is?

It’s Ade.
Same qualities.
He changed aliases, sharpened, he thinks, his beliefs against me and now he returns to avenge his God.

Same brain…you can’t change that.
Same silly arguments.
Same absence of definitions.
Same cause/effect, with that added costradiction to make it all work.
Same dependance on a ‘beyond’.

Undoubtedly it would have to be since God is not real and so unnatural.
So there MUST be a beyond nature, a super nature. a more real reality. There MUST be, otherwise your imagination is all that’s left.

Implying that you’ve thought out all the possibilities.

Huh?

Herein lies your simplicity.
You MUST prove a beyond reality to which, in perfect dualistic thinking, this fake reality is secondary.

You claim an absolute: Where do you base this claim?
You claim a beginning and an end: Where do you base this claim?
You claim an ideal world where an ideal resides: Where do you base this claim?

Adding dimesions to explain the ones you perceive is the argument from ignorance. What can be argued is only what can be percieved, unless you have a differebnt definition of the word exists, otherwise anything can be proven by imagining another dimension and saying that if you can imagine it, it exists.
You can’t even understand what imagination is.
Please give me that: what exists is what is. That one is hilarious.

Do unicorns exist?

Did you just win?

^^ Yeah…pretty much. It appears his whole life can be explained as a lack of imagination.

You’re just not very smart, shotgun.

Shotgun,

Since you started with Lewis, you might want to note that he had to work without knowledge we have today of particle physics. You too might benefit from a wee bit of study in this field as well. I suspect that many of his “Christian” apologetics would be taken back if he knew what we now know.

To the notion of thingness and beginning/end: High energy particle physics has shown us that what appears as “thing” is only relationships that express themselves as quantum probabilities of energy/particle states in a space/time continuum. In short, whatever reality may be, it isn’t someTHING and nothing. There is nothing we know that suggests a beginning/end. What was “Big Bang” may have happened hundreds of times in an endless cycle. At this point, there is absolutely nothing to support the supposition of the fall-back position that “God did it.”
Create any explanatory construct you like, but there is no verification of any construct of mind. If Lewis were presented the latest information we have, he would agree that he was mistaken.

This is offered as a potential starting point for further study. If you want to explain the universe, it would be useful to study what we have learned about it first. To do less is intellectually dishonest.

If shotgun/Ade were born a neadertal (because his brain is), his ignorance concerning how fire was produced would make him explain it using supernatural causes.

Is anyone going to offer a valid critique of my article here?

I’m sorry Mr. Tentative, you fall short.

Perhaps I’ll explain to you exactly how, if you ask nicely.

Oh the arrogance of the God-hater.

God bless those of you that deserve it, and have grace on those of us that don’t.

Shotgun