Critical Reread of a Debate: Anscombe and Lewis Dispute in Rejection of Atheistic Naturalism

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate professor of philosophy at university of Isfahan

2 Ph.D. student of International University Imam Khomeini, Qazvin, Iran

Abstract

In 1948 a legendary debate occurred at the Oxford Socratic Club between C. S. Lewis and Elizabeth Anscombe. In this meeting, Lewis shows that atheistic naturalism is refute in meaning the strict materialism. Anscombe makes three basic criticisms against Lewis' argument:1. Lack of distinction between irrational and non-rrational causes of belief,2. The threat of skepticism,3. Lack of distinction between types of “full” explanations. Lewis and Anscombe's views can be considered in several ways: 1. Despite Anscombe's correct critique, the lack of distinction between irrational and non-rational causes does not solve the problem of naturalism which is an inference belief of other beliefs. 2. Anscombe considers that “if naturalism is correct, there is no valid human argument”, is a skeptical threat to knowledge, while this objection does not problem on Lewis' argument. 3. Contrary to Anscombe's claim, the ommisive approach to other explanations is not a consequence of Lewis's Argument, but the main idea of naturalism itself. 4. Lewis's incorrect analysis of mental states is accidental because he considers the origin of these states to be non-physical. 5. Lewis did not explain well what he meant by “did not explain well what he meant by "the impossibility of evolutionary processes in creating creatures with perception and understanding of creatures without understanding”. By an analytical, comparative and critical insightcan eliminate, correct and reconstruct the weaknesses of Anscombe and Lewis' views.
 

Keywords

References

1. Anscombe, G. E. M., (1981), Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Mind, Vol. 2 of The Collected Papers of G. E. M. Anscombe, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
 2. Aquinas, Thomas., (1956), On the Truth of the Catholic Faith: Summa Contra Gentiles, Book Two, Garden City, NY: Hanover House.
 3. Balfour, Arthur J., (1879), The Foundations of Belief, London: Macmillan.
 4. Beversluis, John., (1986), C. S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
 5. Descartes, René., (1958), Philosophical Writings, Selected and translated by Norman Kemp Smith, New York: Modern Library.
 6. Haldane, J. B. S., (1929), Possible Worlds and Other Essays, London: Chatto and Windus, Hasker, William. (1999) The Emergent Self. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
 7. Hume, David., (1978), A Treatise of Human Nature, Ed. P. H. Nidd itch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
 8. Joad, C. E. M., (1933), Guide to Modern Thought, London: Faber.
 9. Joad, C. E. M., (1993), Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Translated by James W. Ellington, Indianapolis: Hackett.
 10. Kant, Immanuel. (1961) A Critique of Pure Reason, Trans. Norman Kemp Smith. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  11. Lewis, C. S., (1947), Miracles: A Preliminary Study. London: G. Bless.
 12. Lewis, C. S., (1965), “Is Theology Poetry?” In Screwtape Proposes a Toast, London: Collins.
 13. Lewis, C. S., (1967), “De Futilitate.” In: The Seeing Eye and Other Selected Essays from Christian Reflections, Walter Hooper (ed.), New York: Ballantine Books.
 14. Lewis, C. S., (1970), “Miracles.” In God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, Walter Hooper (ed.) Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
 15. Lewis, C. S., (1970), “Religion without Dogma?” In God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, Walter Hooper (ed.), Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
 16. Lewis, C. S., (1987), “On Living in an Atomic Age.” In Present Concerns, Walter Hooper (ed.), San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
 17. Lewis, C. S., (2001), Miracles: A Preliminary Study, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
 18. Lewis, C. S., (2004), The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Volume 2, Walter Hooper (ed.), San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.
 19. Lewis, C. S., (2007), The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis. Volume 3, Walter Hooper (ed.), San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.
 20. Plantinga, Alvin, (2011), Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, New York: Oxford University Press.
 21. Plantinga, Alvin, (2008), “Can Robots Think? Reply to Tooley’s Second Statement”, in Knowledge of God, Blackwell Publishing.
 22. Reppert, Victor., (2003), C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
23. Reppert, Victor., (2009), “The Argument from Reason.” In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 344-90.
24. Wielenberg, Erik J. , (2008), God and the Reach of Reason: C. S. Lewis, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell, Cambridge University Press.
 
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics