Here are my comments on Chapter 1 based on my quick recall of the chapter. I don't have my notes with me, but this is my view of the chapter.
In this chapter, his idea is that the reason to study or research something is the knowledge of the topic but many people come to a topic with an answer already in their head and they are looking for confirmation of that answer. When I was going through my history research methods class, we discussed individuals only looking for evidence to support their views. They generally won’t look at any evidence that contradicts their worldview. CSL warned about this in the first chapter and set up the idea that an individual must look at the evidence from both sides of any question and come up with a conclusion using all the evidence both for and against.
I think he'd agree that we need to look at the evidence on both sides for sure. I think his deeper point is that we need to examine our philosophical presuppositions and make sure our worldview makes sense of the world we experience. If we have a worldview that rules out miracles but also rules out logical inference by the same token, then that's not a worldview worth holding onto. Wether or not you agree with Lewis's arguments and conclusions is a different story though for sure.
This is a great way to put it. I know that he probably sides with the supernatural side of things, but he has written both sides in a non-biased way so far.
I agree. At one point, it seemed to me that he had “switched sides” from what I expected. He did a great job steel manning the foundations of each argument.
Moop back again to update after reading the first few chapters, parker's write up, and all the comments. Firstly, I appreciate Parker and this community. As this is my first time engaging in both philosophy and a reading group, I'm getting a lot out of this experience!
Secondly, another reason I'm loving this section of comments post-reading is seeing the different perspectives everyone has on the readings. I personally am not religious at this point in my life. I quickly realized how differently I thought about the text in relation to those that are coming from a religious perspective. This really drove home the first chapter for me that talked about dangers/cautions of our own presuppositions.
As a currently non-religious person, I found CSL's definition of Super Naturalism quite enticing throughout the second chapter. One thing I had always struggled with when I was religious was how a "creator" or "super natural" being would allow such suffering and evil to occur on a daily basis. The idea that this creator was just the designer of the framework by which everything else could be derived was eye-opening. A god that allowed for the beauty of life to occur, but doesn't meddle with the day-to-day dealings of the tier two beings to me seems much more plausible to me at the moment. I liked that he also talked through the idea of free will in relation to both views. I had similar concerns when reading through the initial definitions of Naturalism on how free will and good/evil would be defined and followed.
While I understand now that CSL is a staunch defender of the Super Naturalist perspective, I was curious if any readers or if Parker knew of anyone that was a defender of the Naturalist point of view. I think CSL made some great arguments for his position already through the first few chapters, and I'm assuming will continue to make even greater points the further on we read. Just curious if anyone out there found issue with the points and framework that CSL has asserted already in this book. If so, would love to hear your thoughts :)
Finally, I am completely new to philosophy so apologies for any issues in logic or verbiage throughout these posts over time. Really looking forward to future deep dives on chapters, and the zoom sessions with subscribers! This is such a great experience.
Thanks so much this this thoughtful comment and all of your engagement on here! It sounds like the view of supernaturalism you're intrigued by is something like Deism, which is the view that God created the world or wound it up but doesn't interfere with it. Lewis will go on to argue against this view later on but he does think it's much more plausible than naturalism. I'm really stoked that you're getting so much out of it even as a non-religious person who is diving into the philosophical side of faith through this read along. That's so cool!
Wow! Didn’t know there were such distinctions. I’m excited to dive into the rest of the book to see what new additional points CSL presents. Thanks again for putting this together Parker. Looking forward to chapter 3-6 next :)
Hey Parker, looking forward to continuing the read along with you!
I thoroughly enjoyed reading and wrestling with the first two chapters. I have been thinking about this idea of God (the "One Thing") being able to make another "Nature" separate to our Nature, and that he could will these two Natures to "intermingle" and to have an effect on each other. Is this a reference to heaven? Where heaven is a separate Nature which can intermingle with ours? This would help conceive of the new heavens and the new earth becoming one. Am I missing something here?
On a similar note, this distinction of God being transcendent above the Nature he has created has helped me realize the pure wonder revealed in the incarnation! God, who is totally distinct and outside Nature became incarnate within Nature - remarkable! I am anticipating the incarnation to come up at some point in Lewis' discussion :)
I like your interpretation Reuben. As someone who isn't religious (still open minded), I'm very curious to see what more religious readers have to say. When reading the part about multiple "world's" the thought of a heaven and the incarnation never crossed my mind, but I can see how you drew that conclusion from the material.
I'm excited to keep up with your posts throughout this series. It's already opened my eyes to alternative thoughts and perspectives on this work. I appreciate you sharing!
Thanks for your responses Moop and Ruskoley! I really appreciate your thoughts.
In terms of the intermingling @Ruskoley, I am curious what Parker or others will have to say. It is fascinating to hear that Barth may have had a stream of thought. Very cool!
@Moop Awesome to hear that all of us readers come from different worldviews and presuppositions. Isn't that such a rich opportunity to collaborate and to mutually grow in our pursuit of truth? :) In terms of the incarnation, I wonder if Lewis will bring that up later?
@Parker - you're the Protestant theologian in the room - so, do you think this "intermingling of worlds" is similar to Barth's idea of Jesus' time being an instance of a point of interruption? (I cannot recall exactly how Barth phrases it.) Something about the supernatural world cutting the natural world at this intersection.
I don't think it has much to do with that, but that is a really fascinating question! I didn't anticipate so many of the readers being so intrigued by Lewis's multiverse stuff haha this is so cool, I should have addressed it more in my companion essay! I think Lewis is literally talking about other worlds, or natures, or time streams, or universes-- or what ever term you like. It's like an author who has written multiple novels who then brings his distinct storylines into contact with each other. I think in Lewisian understanding, the supernatural world would stand apart at the top and there would be (or could be) lots of natural worlds which may or may not be able to be brought into contact with eachother. What do you think about that?
I think it can make sense of the new heavens and the new earth coming into contact but it actually looks to me like he's describing Narnia, where kids from one nature, ours, come into contact with other natures, Narnia and even other worlds or natures, and cause events to happen there which wouldn't have happened otherwise. I think Lewis is opening our minds to that kind of thing being possible here. We think of time travelers often but less frequently do we think of alternate worlds or universes dropping into ours, stumbling over something, and causing something wild to happen in our world or nature.
thanks for this breakdown. I will confess to finding Miracles daunting, along the lines of Abolition of Man. But my book is filled with notes in the margins to try and notate where I'm losing the thread. The first place is still the introduction of The Ultimate Fact and Total Event, and their relationship to Free Will. What does Free Will doctine have to do with the plausibility of miracles? On the side of things I did understand, toward the end CSL's explication of different Natures that might be like books on the shelf of a Great Author. He comes back to concepts adjacent to the Multiverse quite often across his work. Something I've noticed. And we're to understand that Miracles might just be normal-everyday events from one Nature bleeding into our own?
I like the way Ruskoley and Steven are expounding on Lewis's views here. I think they're right. Lewis is still setting the stage between the naturalist and the supernaturalist but he just can't help slipping in an argument against naturalism really quick. They have this Ultimate Fact (this language is a result of Lewis's time as an Idealist (British Idealism, Absolute Idealism, probably personal idealist too!) which is the bedrock of explanation, you cannot go beyond the ultimate fact, and theirs is 'Nature'. The Theist's Ultimate Fact is God, He is the bedrock foundation for explanation. Naturalism, according to Lewis, posits a series of interlocking events which can be explained by the laws of physics, and that's it. Everything grounds down in physics. So this whole series of events, as a causal and interlocking chain, can really be seen as a big event going on, a big Total Event, which doesn't let anything in from the outside. Thus no miracles. But while this giant chainlink physical universe doesn't have room for miracles, it looks like (for Lewis) it also doesn't have room for free will. Instead of free action, we're forced to make the choices we make based on the laws of physics and the chain of events that led to our 'actions'. Does that make sense?
Lewis' comment on free will has more to do with the metaphysical contingencies than with miracles - at this point in the text. Free will (in this instance) presumes an independence and a self-autonomy that Lewis says contradicts the understanding of the Naturalist.
Yes, what ruskoley said. To put it another way, all of Nature operates off of cause and effect. As the effect can be predicted by known variables and thus said to “cause” the particular effect, it and everything else by extension is determined by something else already present in nature. If effects are known by their causes they couldn’t have been otherwise and are determined. Thus, determinism is true and a common/compatible belief to the naturalist.
I have seen the argument against free will in favor of determinism quite common these past few years with the likes of Robert Sapolsky doing the rounds. Seems Lewis saw this thinking in his time too.
I haven't read enough philosophy to be at ease with the time spent on definitions. CSL argues definitions of "nature" like the kind of lawyer that makes people hate lawyers.
I got distracted in the argument that seems to say if God is natural then he is part of nature. Reminds me of an episode of "Dilbert" when it had a couple of seasons as a cartoon, the evil comedic relief character says something like "don't forget, I'm part of nature" before starting a house fire. As if the house fires is a natural act because he is part of nature.
I did not understand why CSL said that one God is more probable than more than one God, and immediately after that he assumes that God is a creator, not simply a supernatural entity that found nature. I don't know why that bothers me, maybe something I read and didn't understand from the simulation theory?
And I really didn't understand the argument that a naturalist could "admit a certain kind of God" , as long as that God was an emergent property of Nature. Reminds me of the Godkiller and Iron Druid fantasy books, that belief makes the god.
I appreciate how right at the end of chapter 2 he admits that even if the universe has supernatural God or gods, they may be hands off and what we think are miracles are just our lack of understanding about nature, something something deism something something Thomas Jefferson.
Lewis is arguing that naturalist may be able to posit a kind of emergent god, a god like philosophy Philip Goff has posited in his Cosmopsychism theory (the view that the whole universe is conscious and smaller consciousnesses like ours get our consciousness in virture of participating in the universal consciousness), but that wouldn't really count as a god in the supernaturalist sense. A supernaturalist God is one that stands outside of nature and has created it.
On pages 10-11 Lewis gives his reasonings for why one God is more plausible, I think his main argument is based on self-existence. Most supernatualist theists argue that God is self-existent and as such he fits what Lewis calls the Ultimate Fact, the explanatory bed rock. If not, then we need an explanation for God and we might get an infinite regress of explanations. He says most of his readers will not be open to polytheism and that most polytheists don't think of their gods as self-existent, so their existence still needs explanations, so they can't fit that Ultimate Fact category. So because of practicality and because polytheisms don't posit their gods as ultimate explanations in and of themselves, Lewis proposes to focus on monotheistic supernaturalism vs. naturalism, which both posit an ultimate fact as the bedrock of their worldviews. Does that make sense?
I am excited to participate in this well timed read along (I was in chapter 4 or 5 already when I saw the announcement). Fortunately, I had already decided to mark up the margins as I have 2 copies for some reason already. Also, I just finished reading David Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. An interesting juxtaposition considering his famous skepticism to claims of miracles.
So my thoughts will be in comparing Hume to Lewis, and in this I think it may be likely that my commentary will be the most likely to be of value, but not of course more valuable, to all of you.
Chapter 1 of Miracles sees Lewis discuss the need to be sure we haven’t started this by begging the question. Do our philosophical pre suppositions prevent an honest seeking after truth? In Hume he writes of why he does not believe in miracles. In my reading it felt as though he began the question of miracles already firmly against them. So, how does a Christian or Lewis for that matter, avoid a symmetrical argument against this book? All we can do is lay out our reasoning.
An early argument Hume finds persuasive and presents in the book is from a Dr Tilliston.
1. Christianity is founded merely on the testimony of the Apostles.
2. Testimony is less valuable than evidence direct from our senses.
3. The value or strength of testimony must diminish in its transmission to others.
4. A weaker evidence cannot destroy a strong evidence.
5. Therefore Christianity or accounts of the miracles are false as they are founded on inferior evidence which is contrary to sense facts.
Reading this brings to mind a moment from Sir Gibbie by George MacDonald where Donal Grant says to Ginevra “It would be a vex to hear a girl such as you speaking like one of the fools of the world, that believes in nothing but what comes in at the holes in their head.”
Back to Hume/Tilliston, as for point 4 I see no reason to disagree.
For 1, I think it is obvious that a portion of the faith is dependent on testimony and transmission of the Apostles. But also a significant portion of the New Testament is from St Paul, who though he certainly knew some surviving Apostles had his own unique conversion experience and also teachings and comparisons founded in the Old Testament. Thus, one is false.
2 also seems false. Testimony that is consistent with many witnesses or from a trustworthy witness would or could be more trustworthy than an individual’s direct sense experience. The individual’s interpretation of sense experience may be wrong, or their faculties may be untrustworthy due to disease or mental status (e.g. drunkenness). Though I’m sure I am running against a presumed normal and accurate interpretation from the argument of Hume/Tilliston.
3 again seems to be blatantly false. If a wise man must portion his belief to the evidence, as Hume says, then one should place greater weight in the quantity of testimony which consistent versus a smaller number of testimony which is consistent but contrary to the greater. Additionally, once an individual has had a direct sense experience and then interprets and discusses it he is then also presenting testimony and this brings statement 3 and 2 into contradiction.
Thus it is I believe Hume settles easily for a bad argument against the Christianity he finds to be nought but delusional superstition.
I love that Lewis is so easily able to pinpoint and explicate modern problems. I’m no expert in philosophy, but it’s seems a lot of these issues are “post-Enlightenment” as he seems to allude to. There is a comprehensive Naturalism that is assumed by your average person now that was not assumed, “four hundred year ago” (p. 10). I also find his approach interesting. He uses a middle ground perspective when introducing Supernaturalism and Naturalism. I couldn’t help but think about Van Til (even though I’m sure he would hate the comparison) while he was discussing how we approach ideas, skepticism, etc. with presuppositions. It seems like his is setting up a challenge for both believers and skeptics to think more deeply about what is behind their “belief”.
I was also surprised by how easily he transitioned from talking about something like the multi-verse into the possibility of miracles coming about through the intersection of two realities. I know there are a number of people interested in the “unseen” who consider things like apparitions or UFOs to be some type of overlapping realities coming into contact. Not sure what to think about that. I know he also mentions a direct miracle performed by God. Curious to see where he takes those two ideas next.
Question for you Parker- what do you think of his definition of a miracle? He notes that scholars would have varying opinions about the definition (and I know what some alternatives are) but I’m curious to know more in-depth about how this has been viewed in scholarship over time.
Such a great comment! I too think of Van Til in these chapters and actually in 3-6 as well, especially ch. 4. I wrote a whole paper for Kevin Vanhoozer when I was earning my Systematic Theology Master's as a comparison between Lewis and CVT based on the first 6 chapters of Miracles. I think that most scholars don't like the term 'interference' because it kind of buys into the idea that nature is an interlocking system that God would have to break into in order to perform a miracle instead of an open system He's either actively upholding or an open system that He can easily inject new information into without a hitch, Vanhoozer likes that second idea more and calls his view Divine Interjection, God speaks new information into the system of nature to bring about the miraculous. So I kind of agree with the theologians but I get why Lewis used the definition he did and I think it's admirable to take the idea that most of his audience would have and run with that, because if he can explain that one, then he can also give a more nuanced definition later which avoids pitfalls as well. I think Lewis picked the harder route and that's awesome.
I have a book called “Miracles and the Medieval Mind” by Benedicta Ward. Maybe this read along will finally get me to circle back and read it… I’m guessing it would be illuminating concerning how Lewis conceived of things.
That makes sense. I know a number of years ago I had a more in-depth conversation about the distinctions between views on miracles in a systematics class. Those categories make sense to me. I just haven’t dug much deeper into it. Thanks! Looking forward to seeing how Lewis develops these ideas.
I have a hard time breaking the habit of jumping to conclusions. This first chapter about asking the right preliminary question(s) was enlightening for me in that way, I took it for more than what CSL intended. CSL gives an example of a writer who leaves out a simple (but important) question from his work, and uses his own opinions. Oppositely, CSL asks the questions and puts the reader in the position to find answers based on their own judgment and their own questions. Chapter 2, CSL defines a Miracle, and I agree (for now) with the definition. Now, onto the supernaturalist and the naturalist. CSL defines them and describes them in detail, while putting it simply. After he is done talking about the two, he starts on these concepts: the plurality of worlds, spatio and temporal, I would say pages 13 and 14 are the most difficult to understand. I have never heard of these concepts and I’m excited for more insight during the rest of the book.
Great comment, thanks Ashley! His 'plurality of worlds' is another way of saying 'multiverse' but multiverse almost presupposes multiple physical universes and not necessarily the extra stuff. So I think both words are picking out the same idea for us and for Lewis but Lewis's phrase is a bit more accurate since 'world' in the philosophical sense picks out everything that exists in that reality, where as 'universe' usually picks out the physical things in that reality. That may be a pedantic distinction but it's cool still haha.
This is my first read along and the first philosophical deep dive into a book. I am excited to be attempting it with you all, and I look forward to seeing how everyone else approaches this. I am going to take some small steps as I dip my toe in this philosophical world as to not overthink my own capabilities.
In chapter 1, CSL first approaches the question of if miracles are even possible. The complexity of this question alone could be its own book. I defer to CSL's explanation as to how our philosophical beliefs can decide if further analyzing miracles is even practical. Taking an approach as a Christian, I hadn't even considered the view of a naturalist and how the idea of miracles would just be written off as a naturally occurring event. I also believe in science and enjoy figuring out how or why something works a certain way. Maybe I'm stumbling onto my own first philosophical question here to say why can't a miracle be a naturally occurring event? I'm sure I will revisit this question as the read along goes on.
I appreciate the definitions in chapter 2. Is this what is considered "presuppositions"? Meaning as we continue the discussion, we accept CSL's definitions as presuppositions? I am a little unsure of the meaning of that word, or rather the correct use of the word. The examples he makes defining God as he relates to naturalist vs supernaturalist were easy to understand. I found myself considering artificial intelligence (to an extreme degree) as a "god" that arises from "the process."
I am excited to continue through this book and improve the way I break down and question the material. I really enjoyed the first week. I was happy to find that I could make sense of the companion essay. Learning the "isms" will be helpful throughout the read. Thank you for putting together, Parker!
Ooo that's an interesting thought about AI being an emergent god! I've thought about that idea a lot because lots of AI theorist posit that, but I hadn't been thinking about that in this context for some reason. Thanks for that! I think miracles are acts of God for supporting particular messages. I think God could bring about an event naturally that could nonetheless count as a miracle based on timing and how it functions in his plan, but usually it looks like something spectacular to get peoples attention and really bolster a prophet's authority and message right? Jonah and the great fish could be a great example of a natural miracle. Big ole fish comes along and eats a guy. Nothing too crazy about that, God just directed the fish through natural providence. But then keeping Jonah alive or resuscitating him in the belly of the fish would be a supernatural 'interference' with the normal processes of digestion in giant fish.
Thanks for doing this read-along, CSL is a rather glaring lacuna in my philosophical & literary knowledge.
Chapter 2 has a couple interesting points I noted & developed some thoughts on:
1) The Greek gods as being part of Nature in their time is something that I've kind of wrestled with for a long time but especially in reading the Iliad last year and at least one of Socrates' dialogues regarding the gods. They do tend to straddle that line but, according to CSL's definition they are part of the Total Event, rather than comprising a One Thing (By Committee). The Greek relationship with their gods is also transactional - you give sacrifice/adulation to these overly vain and/or insecure beings and in return they'll have your back in some way. It's just kind of a given that someone can fly or appear somewhere in a different form as part of the Total Event.
2) The author analogy, he gives Dickens as an example of how each work is an isolate, which is perfectly sound. I think a great modern analogy of a Supernatural author would be Stephen King, in that there are small references sprinkled throughout his works that reference the others - aka the bringing together of two otherwise distinct Natures. It's always fun to find those little nuggets the more of his oeuvre you've read, but of course they are not essential to one another as books in a series might be. I also don't necessarily know yet if a deliberately constructed "multiverse" like the Marvel one can be considered in the same way, but rather it is a Total Event which must all be consumed and understood together. Looking forward to how this might be explored further, both in regards to Miracles and to non-theological applications like literary world-building.
Ooo I hadn't thought about King in light of the Author Analogy! That's a cool insight! And another great insight about the Marvelverse. I think the DC multiverse started because they kept telling contradictory stories and then as a way to remedy that, they'd just assign them to different 'worlds', e.g. earth1 or earth2 etc. Then they cut them all down to one earth with the Crisis on infinite earths series but couldn't help themselves and brought back 52 of the worlds, then brought back the originals again too and now Idk what's going on haha. I'm not sure if Marvel did something similar or not but if they had intended a multiverse from the start then you're right that looks like it may be their 'nature', I wonder if you feel that way about CSL's Chronicles of Narnia as well though. Thanks for these thoughts!
When I sad glaring lacuna I meant it!! My aunt did get me the Lion Witch & Wardrobe for Christmas in the early 90s and I just never finished it. It’ll happen soon…30 years later.
Thanks for doing this read-along. I've been reading Lewis for forty years and never grow tired of engaging with him; there is always something new to learn.
His discussion on pp. 12-14 (Harper One edition) also reminded me of what is today called the multiverse.
In his comments on p. 11 beginning "The difference between Naturalism and Supernaturalism.." "
He seems to be referring to what is called Panpsychism. Would you agree? I learned most of what I know about Panpsychism from reading Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos."
Could you give us a brief explanation of the differences between materialism and naturalism? Lewis seems to acknowledge they are different without explaining why. I understand naturalism to be a kind of materialism, but materialism is broader in scope.
Thanks again for this opportunity to engage with you on Lewis, looking forward to next week's essay.
I totally agree that he has something like panpsychism in mind, great catch and great reference to Nagel! I think Lewis anticipated what modern panpsychist philosopher Philip Goff has termed 'Cosmopsychism' which is incorporates a priority monism mereology, meaning that priority is given to the whole instead of the parts, and when it comes to panpsychism it means that the whole universe is conscious instead of the tiny bee bees at the subatomic quantum level or whatever. So if the whole universe were conscious, that could seem like it'd be a God, it would presumably know everything, since it is everything and its conscious, but it wouldn't be self-existent and wouldn't have most or any of the traditional attributes we recognize God as having, but it would be a kind of 'natural' god in that it's all of nature and it's a universal consciousness.
I wondered if by different Natures, Lewis might have been thinking of Earth and Heaven or the physical world and the spiritual realm or something like that? That might explain why he talks about potential connections between the Natures, in addition to potential “direct intervention” on God's part. Like when an angel comes down, maybe that’s an interaction between two Natures? But your multiverse interpretation is fun
I’m a little late to the party, but I’m excited to read along with this. The schedule seems doable for me at this time. My assessment of the first two chapters noted many of the things shared here. Parker, I appreciate the new language you bring to what I am processing in CSL setup to the book. It will be really neat for me to be able to grow in philosophical vocabulary of the ideas put forth by CSL. Thanks so much for doing this!
Here are my comments on Chapter 1 based on my quick recall of the chapter. I don't have my notes with me, but this is my view of the chapter.
In this chapter, his idea is that the reason to study or research something is the knowledge of the topic but many people come to a topic with an answer already in their head and they are looking for confirmation of that answer. When I was going through my history research methods class, we discussed individuals only looking for evidence to support their views. They generally won’t look at any evidence that contradicts their worldview. CSL warned about this in the first chapter and set up the idea that an individual must look at the evidence from both sides of any question and come up with a conclusion using all the evidence both for and against.
I think he'd agree that we need to look at the evidence on both sides for sure. I think his deeper point is that we need to examine our philosophical presuppositions and make sure our worldview makes sense of the world we experience. If we have a worldview that rules out miracles but also rules out logical inference by the same token, then that's not a worldview worth holding onto. Wether or not you agree with Lewis's arguments and conclusions is a different story though for sure.
This is a great way to put it. I know that he probably sides with the supernatural side of things, but he has written both sides in a non-biased way so far.
I agree. At one point, it seemed to me that he had “switched sides” from what I expected. He did a great job steel manning the foundations of each argument.
I’ve never done a read along before. I’m excited to dive into this with you and the other subscribers!
Moop back again to update after reading the first few chapters, parker's write up, and all the comments. Firstly, I appreciate Parker and this community. As this is my first time engaging in both philosophy and a reading group, I'm getting a lot out of this experience!
Secondly, another reason I'm loving this section of comments post-reading is seeing the different perspectives everyone has on the readings. I personally am not religious at this point in my life. I quickly realized how differently I thought about the text in relation to those that are coming from a religious perspective. This really drove home the first chapter for me that talked about dangers/cautions of our own presuppositions.
As a currently non-religious person, I found CSL's definition of Super Naturalism quite enticing throughout the second chapter. One thing I had always struggled with when I was religious was how a "creator" or "super natural" being would allow such suffering and evil to occur on a daily basis. The idea that this creator was just the designer of the framework by which everything else could be derived was eye-opening. A god that allowed for the beauty of life to occur, but doesn't meddle with the day-to-day dealings of the tier two beings to me seems much more plausible to me at the moment. I liked that he also talked through the idea of free will in relation to both views. I had similar concerns when reading through the initial definitions of Naturalism on how free will and good/evil would be defined and followed.
While I understand now that CSL is a staunch defender of the Super Naturalist perspective, I was curious if any readers or if Parker knew of anyone that was a defender of the Naturalist point of view. I think CSL made some great arguments for his position already through the first few chapters, and I'm assuming will continue to make even greater points the further on we read. Just curious if anyone out there found issue with the points and framework that CSL has asserted already in this book. If so, would love to hear your thoughts :)
Finally, I am completely new to philosophy so apologies for any issues in logic or verbiage throughout these posts over time. Really looking forward to future deep dives on chapters, and the zoom sessions with subscribers! This is such a great experience.
Peace out,
Moop
Thanks so much this this thoughtful comment and all of your engagement on here! It sounds like the view of supernaturalism you're intrigued by is something like Deism, which is the view that God created the world or wound it up but doesn't interfere with it. Lewis will go on to argue against this view later on but he does think it's much more plausible than naturalism. I'm really stoked that you're getting so much out of it even as a non-religious person who is diving into the philosophical side of faith through this read along. That's so cool!
Wow! Didn’t know there were such distinctions. I’m excited to dive into the rest of the book to see what new additional points CSL presents. Thanks again for putting this together Parker. Looking forward to chapter 3-6 next :)
Let's go!
Hey Parker, looking forward to continuing the read along with you!
I thoroughly enjoyed reading and wrestling with the first two chapters. I have been thinking about this idea of God (the "One Thing") being able to make another "Nature" separate to our Nature, and that he could will these two Natures to "intermingle" and to have an effect on each other. Is this a reference to heaven? Where heaven is a separate Nature which can intermingle with ours? This would help conceive of the new heavens and the new earth becoming one. Am I missing something here?
On a similar note, this distinction of God being transcendent above the Nature he has created has helped me realize the pure wonder revealed in the incarnation! God, who is totally distinct and outside Nature became incarnate within Nature - remarkable! I am anticipating the incarnation to come up at some point in Lewis' discussion :)
I like your interpretation Reuben. As someone who isn't religious (still open minded), I'm very curious to see what more religious readers have to say. When reading the part about multiple "world's" the thought of a heaven and the incarnation never crossed my mind, but I can see how you drew that conclusion from the material.
I'm excited to keep up with your posts throughout this series. It's already opened my eyes to alternative thoughts and perspectives on this work. I appreciate you sharing!
Thanks for your responses Moop and Ruskoley! I really appreciate your thoughts.
In terms of the intermingling @Ruskoley, I am curious what Parker or others will have to say. It is fascinating to hear that Barth may have had a stream of thought. Very cool!
@Moop Awesome to hear that all of us readers come from different worldviews and presuppositions. Isn't that such a rich opportunity to collaborate and to mutually grow in our pursuit of truth? :) In terms of the incarnation, I wonder if Lewis will bring that up later?
@Parker - you're the Protestant theologian in the room - so, do you think this "intermingling of worlds" is similar to Barth's idea of Jesus' time being an instance of a point of interruption? (I cannot recall exactly how Barth phrases it.) Something about the supernatural world cutting the natural world at this intersection.
I don't think it has much to do with that, but that is a really fascinating question! I didn't anticipate so many of the readers being so intrigued by Lewis's multiverse stuff haha this is so cool, I should have addressed it more in my companion essay! I think Lewis is literally talking about other worlds, or natures, or time streams, or universes-- or what ever term you like. It's like an author who has written multiple novels who then brings his distinct storylines into contact with each other. I think in Lewisian understanding, the supernatural world would stand apart at the top and there would be (or could be) lots of natural worlds which may or may not be able to be brought into contact with eachother. What do you think about that?
I think it can make sense of the new heavens and the new earth coming into contact but it actually looks to me like he's describing Narnia, where kids from one nature, ours, come into contact with other natures, Narnia and even other worlds or natures, and cause events to happen there which wouldn't have happened otherwise. I think Lewis is opening our minds to that kind of thing being possible here. We think of time travelers often but less frequently do we think of alternate worlds or universes dropping into ours, stumbling over something, and causing something wild to happen in our world or nature.
thanks for this breakdown. I will confess to finding Miracles daunting, along the lines of Abolition of Man. But my book is filled with notes in the margins to try and notate where I'm losing the thread. The first place is still the introduction of The Ultimate Fact and Total Event, and their relationship to Free Will. What does Free Will doctine have to do with the plausibility of miracles? On the side of things I did understand, toward the end CSL's explication of different Natures that might be like books on the shelf of a Great Author. He comes back to concepts adjacent to the Multiverse quite often across his work. Something I've noticed. And we're to understand that Miracles might just be normal-everyday events from one Nature bleeding into our own?
I like the way Ruskoley and Steven are expounding on Lewis's views here. I think they're right. Lewis is still setting the stage between the naturalist and the supernaturalist but he just can't help slipping in an argument against naturalism really quick. They have this Ultimate Fact (this language is a result of Lewis's time as an Idealist (British Idealism, Absolute Idealism, probably personal idealist too!) which is the bedrock of explanation, you cannot go beyond the ultimate fact, and theirs is 'Nature'. The Theist's Ultimate Fact is God, He is the bedrock foundation for explanation. Naturalism, according to Lewis, posits a series of interlocking events which can be explained by the laws of physics, and that's it. Everything grounds down in physics. So this whole series of events, as a causal and interlocking chain, can really be seen as a big event going on, a big Total Event, which doesn't let anything in from the outside. Thus no miracles. But while this giant chainlink physical universe doesn't have room for miracles, it looks like (for Lewis) it also doesn't have room for free will. Instead of free action, we're forced to make the choices we make based on the laws of physics and the chain of events that led to our 'actions'. Does that make sense?
It's making more sense. Going to do some writing on this to work it out a bit more and see if it calcifies.
Lewis' comment on free will has more to do with the metaphysical contingencies than with miracles - at this point in the text. Free will (in this instance) presumes an independence and a self-autonomy that Lewis says contradicts the understanding of the Naturalist.
Yes, what ruskoley said. To put it another way, all of Nature operates off of cause and effect. As the effect can be predicted by known variables and thus said to “cause” the particular effect, it and everything else by extension is determined by something else already present in nature. If effects are known by their causes they couldn’t have been otherwise and are determined. Thus, determinism is true and a common/compatible belief to the naturalist.
I have seen the argument against free will in favor of determinism quite common these past few years with the likes of Robert Sapolsky doing the rounds. Seems Lewis saw this thinking in his time too.
That’s actually a great question, I was a bit confused when I read about free will in that chapter.
I haven't read enough philosophy to be at ease with the time spent on definitions. CSL argues definitions of "nature" like the kind of lawyer that makes people hate lawyers.
I got distracted in the argument that seems to say if God is natural then he is part of nature. Reminds me of an episode of "Dilbert" when it had a couple of seasons as a cartoon, the evil comedic relief character says something like "don't forget, I'm part of nature" before starting a house fire. As if the house fires is a natural act because he is part of nature.
I did not understand why CSL said that one God is more probable than more than one God, and immediately after that he assumes that God is a creator, not simply a supernatural entity that found nature. I don't know why that bothers me, maybe something I read and didn't understand from the simulation theory?
And I really didn't understand the argument that a naturalist could "admit a certain kind of God" , as long as that God was an emergent property of Nature. Reminds me of the Godkiller and Iron Druid fantasy books, that belief makes the god.
I appreciate how right at the end of chapter 2 he admits that even if the universe has supernatural God or gods, they may be hands off and what we think are miracles are just our lack of understanding about nature, something something deism something something Thomas Jefferson.
Lewis is arguing that naturalist may be able to posit a kind of emergent god, a god like philosophy Philip Goff has posited in his Cosmopsychism theory (the view that the whole universe is conscious and smaller consciousnesses like ours get our consciousness in virture of participating in the universal consciousness), but that wouldn't really count as a god in the supernaturalist sense. A supernaturalist God is one that stands outside of nature and has created it.
On pages 10-11 Lewis gives his reasonings for why one God is more plausible, I think his main argument is based on self-existence. Most supernatualist theists argue that God is self-existent and as such he fits what Lewis calls the Ultimate Fact, the explanatory bed rock. If not, then we need an explanation for God and we might get an infinite regress of explanations. He says most of his readers will not be open to polytheism and that most polytheists don't think of their gods as self-existent, so their existence still needs explanations, so they can't fit that Ultimate Fact category. So because of practicality and because polytheisms don't posit their gods as ultimate explanations in and of themselves, Lewis proposes to focus on monotheistic supernaturalism vs. naturalism, which both posit an ultimate fact as the bedrock of their worldviews. Does that make sense?
It makes more sense, thank you!
So glad I decided to do this read along
Same here! Thanks for joining, this is so cool!
Thanks for putting this piece together! Further grew my interest in the topic.
🙌🙌
I really enjoyed Lewis’s approach in the first two chapters, excited for the rest of the book!
I am excited to participate in this well timed read along (I was in chapter 4 or 5 already when I saw the announcement). Fortunately, I had already decided to mark up the margins as I have 2 copies for some reason already. Also, I just finished reading David Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. An interesting juxtaposition considering his famous skepticism to claims of miracles.
So my thoughts will be in comparing Hume to Lewis, and in this I think it may be likely that my commentary will be the most likely to be of value, but not of course more valuable, to all of you.
Chapter 1 of Miracles sees Lewis discuss the need to be sure we haven’t started this by begging the question. Do our philosophical pre suppositions prevent an honest seeking after truth? In Hume he writes of why he does not believe in miracles. In my reading it felt as though he began the question of miracles already firmly against them. So, how does a Christian or Lewis for that matter, avoid a symmetrical argument against this book? All we can do is lay out our reasoning.
An early argument Hume finds persuasive and presents in the book is from a Dr Tilliston.
1. Christianity is founded merely on the testimony of the Apostles.
2. Testimony is less valuable than evidence direct from our senses.
3. The value or strength of testimony must diminish in its transmission to others.
4. A weaker evidence cannot destroy a strong evidence.
5. Therefore Christianity or accounts of the miracles are false as they are founded on inferior evidence which is contrary to sense facts.
Reading this brings to mind a moment from Sir Gibbie by George MacDonald where Donal Grant says to Ginevra “It would be a vex to hear a girl such as you speaking like one of the fools of the world, that believes in nothing but what comes in at the holes in their head.”
Back to Hume/Tilliston, as for point 4 I see no reason to disagree.
For 1, I think it is obvious that a portion of the faith is dependent on testimony and transmission of the Apostles. But also a significant portion of the New Testament is from St Paul, who though he certainly knew some surviving Apostles had his own unique conversion experience and also teachings and comparisons founded in the Old Testament. Thus, one is false.
2 also seems false. Testimony that is consistent with many witnesses or from a trustworthy witness would or could be more trustworthy than an individual’s direct sense experience. The individual’s interpretation of sense experience may be wrong, or their faculties may be untrustworthy due to disease or mental status (e.g. drunkenness). Though I’m sure I am running against a presumed normal and accurate interpretation from the argument of Hume/Tilliston.
3 again seems to be blatantly false. If a wise man must portion his belief to the evidence, as Hume says, then one should place greater weight in the quantity of testimony which consistent versus a smaller number of testimony which is consistent but contrary to the greater. Additionally, once an individual has had a direct sense experience and then interprets and discusses it he is then also presenting testimony and this brings statement 3 and 2 into contradiction.
Thus it is I believe Hume settles easily for a bad argument against the Christianity he finds to be nought but delusional superstition.
Heh. Wait until you get to Sloterdijk. (Cp. Critique of Cynical Reason)
Had to look him up as I hadn’t heard of him. Added to my reading list. Thank you for the response and suggestion, if indeed you intended it to be.
Also, since you just said “Heh” I’m going to take that to mean you 100% agree with me and everything I said is free of error 😂.
Excited to start the read along!
I love that Lewis is so easily able to pinpoint and explicate modern problems. I’m no expert in philosophy, but it’s seems a lot of these issues are “post-Enlightenment” as he seems to allude to. There is a comprehensive Naturalism that is assumed by your average person now that was not assumed, “four hundred year ago” (p. 10). I also find his approach interesting. He uses a middle ground perspective when introducing Supernaturalism and Naturalism. I couldn’t help but think about Van Til (even though I’m sure he would hate the comparison) while he was discussing how we approach ideas, skepticism, etc. with presuppositions. It seems like his is setting up a challenge for both believers and skeptics to think more deeply about what is behind their “belief”.
I was also surprised by how easily he transitioned from talking about something like the multi-verse into the possibility of miracles coming about through the intersection of two realities. I know there are a number of people interested in the “unseen” who consider things like apparitions or UFOs to be some type of overlapping realities coming into contact. Not sure what to think about that. I know he also mentions a direct miracle performed by God. Curious to see where he takes those two ideas next.
Question for you Parker- what do you think of his definition of a miracle? He notes that scholars would have varying opinions about the definition (and I know what some alternatives are) but I’m curious to know more in-depth about how this has been viewed in scholarship over time.
Such a great comment! I too think of Van Til in these chapters and actually in 3-6 as well, especially ch. 4. I wrote a whole paper for Kevin Vanhoozer when I was earning my Systematic Theology Master's as a comparison between Lewis and CVT based on the first 6 chapters of Miracles. I think that most scholars don't like the term 'interference' because it kind of buys into the idea that nature is an interlocking system that God would have to break into in order to perform a miracle instead of an open system He's either actively upholding or an open system that He can easily inject new information into without a hitch, Vanhoozer likes that second idea more and calls his view Divine Interjection, God speaks new information into the system of nature to bring about the miraculous. So I kind of agree with the theologians but I get why Lewis used the definition he did and I think it's admirable to take the idea that most of his audience would have and run with that, because if he can explain that one, then he can also give a more nuanced definition later which avoids pitfalls as well. I think Lewis picked the harder route and that's awesome.
I have a book called “Miracles and the Medieval Mind” by Benedicta Ward. Maybe this read along will finally get me to circle back and read it… I’m guessing it would be illuminating concerning how Lewis conceived of things.
That makes sense. I know a number of years ago I had a more in-depth conversation about the distinctions between views on miracles in a systematics class. Those categories make sense to me. I just haven’t dug much deeper into it. Thanks! Looking forward to seeing how Lewis develops these ideas.
I have a hard time breaking the habit of jumping to conclusions. This first chapter about asking the right preliminary question(s) was enlightening for me in that way, I took it for more than what CSL intended. CSL gives an example of a writer who leaves out a simple (but important) question from his work, and uses his own opinions. Oppositely, CSL asks the questions and puts the reader in the position to find answers based on their own judgment and their own questions. Chapter 2, CSL defines a Miracle, and I agree (for now) with the definition. Now, onto the supernaturalist and the naturalist. CSL defines them and describes them in detail, while putting it simply. After he is done talking about the two, he starts on these concepts: the plurality of worlds, spatio and temporal, I would say pages 13 and 14 are the most difficult to understand. I have never heard of these concepts and I’m excited for more insight during the rest of the book.
Great comment, thanks Ashley! His 'plurality of worlds' is another way of saying 'multiverse' but multiverse almost presupposes multiple physical universes and not necessarily the extra stuff. So I think both words are picking out the same idea for us and for Lewis but Lewis's phrase is a bit more accurate since 'world' in the philosophical sense picks out everything that exists in that reality, where as 'universe' usually picks out the physical things in that reality. That may be a pedantic distinction but it's cool still haha.
This is my first read along and the first philosophical deep dive into a book. I am excited to be attempting it with you all, and I look forward to seeing how everyone else approaches this. I am going to take some small steps as I dip my toe in this philosophical world as to not overthink my own capabilities.
In chapter 1, CSL first approaches the question of if miracles are even possible. The complexity of this question alone could be its own book. I defer to CSL's explanation as to how our philosophical beliefs can decide if further analyzing miracles is even practical. Taking an approach as a Christian, I hadn't even considered the view of a naturalist and how the idea of miracles would just be written off as a naturally occurring event. I also believe in science and enjoy figuring out how or why something works a certain way. Maybe I'm stumbling onto my own first philosophical question here to say why can't a miracle be a naturally occurring event? I'm sure I will revisit this question as the read along goes on.
I appreciate the definitions in chapter 2. Is this what is considered "presuppositions"? Meaning as we continue the discussion, we accept CSL's definitions as presuppositions? I am a little unsure of the meaning of that word, or rather the correct use of the word. The examples he makes defining God as he relates to naturalist vs supernaturalist were easy to understand. I found myself considering artificial intelligence (to an extreme degree) as a "god" that arises from "the process."
I am excited to continue through this book and improve the way I break down and question the material. I really enjoyed the first week. I was happy to find that I could make sense of the companion essay. Learning the "isms" will be helpful throughout the read. Thank you for putting together, Parker!
Ooo that's an interesting thought about AI being an emergent god! I've thought about that idea a lot because lots of AI theorist posit that, but I hadn't been thinking about that in this context for some reason. Thanks for that! I think miracles are acts of God for supporting particular messages. I think God could bring about an event naturally that could nonetheless count as a miracle based on timing and how it functions in his plan, but usually it looks like something spectacular to get peoples attention and really bolster a prophet's authority and message right? Jonah and the great fish could be a great example of a natural miracle. Big ole fish comes along and eats a guy. Nothing too crazy about that, God just directed the fish through natural providence. But then keeping Jonah alive or resuscitating him in the belly of the fish would be a supernatural 'interference' with the normal processes of digestion in giant fish.
Really great comment, Shaun! Thanks!
Thanks for doing this read-along, CSL is a rather glaring lacuna in my philosophical & literary knowledge.
Chapter 2 has a couple interesting points I noted & developed some thoughts on:
1) The Greek gods as being part of Nature in their time is something that I've kind of wrestled with for a long time but especially in reading the Iliad last year and at least one of Socrates' dialogues regarding the gods. They do tend to straddle that line but, according to CSL's definition they are part of the Total Event, rather than comprising a One Thing (By Committee). The Greek relationship with their gods is also transactional - you give sacrifice/adulation to these overly vain and/or insecure beings and in return they'll have your back in some way. It's just kind of a given that someone can fly or appear somewhere in a different form as part of the Total Event.
2) The author analogy, he gives Dickens as an example of how each work is an isolate, which is perfectly sound. I think a great modern analogy of a Supernatural author would be Stephen King, in that there are small references sprinkled throughout his works that reference the others - aka the bringing together of two otherwise distinct Natures. It's always fun to find those little nuggets the more of his oeuvre you've read, but of course they are not essential to one another as books in a series might be. I also don't necessarily know yet if a deliberately constructed "multiverse" like the Marvel one can be considered in the same way, but rather it is a Total Event which must all be consumed and understood together. Looking forward to how this might be explored further, both in regards to Miracles and to non-theological applications like literary world-building.
Ooo I hadn't thought about King in light of the Author Analogy! That's a cool insight! And another great insight about the Marvelverse. I think the DC multiverse started because they kept telling contradictory stories and then as a way to remedy that, they'd just assign them to different 'worlds', e.g. earth1 or earth2 etc. Then they cut them all down to one earth with the Crisis on infinite earths series but couldn't help themselves and brought back 52 of the worlds, then brought back the originals again too and now Idk what's going on haha. I'm not sure if Marvel did something similar or not but if they had intended a multiverse from the start then you're right that looks like it may be their 'nature', I wonder if you feel that way about CSL's Chronicles of Narnia as well though. Thanks for these thoughts!
I’ve…never read Narnia (ducks and hides)
Haha get him!! Attack! For Narnia!
When I sad glaring lacuna I meant it!! My aunt did get me the Lion Witch & Wardrobe for Christmas in the early 90s and I just never finished it. It’ll happen soon…30 years later.
Better late than never 🦁
Thanks for doing this read-along. I've been reading Lewis for forty years and never grow tired of engaging with him; there is always something new to learn.
His discussion on pp. 12-14 (Harper One edition) also reminded me of what is today called the multiverse.
In his comments on p. 11 beginning "The difference between Naturalism and Supernaturalism.." "
He seems to be referring to what is called Panpsychism. Would you agree? I learned most of what I know about Panpsychism from reading Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos."
Could you give us a brief explanation of the differences between materialism and naturalism? Lewis seems to acknowledge they are different without explaining why. I understand naturalism to be a kind of materialism, but materialism is broader in scope.
Thanks again for this opportunity to engage with you on Lewis, looking forward to next week's essay.
I totally agree that he has something like panpsychism in mind, great catch and great reference to Nagel! I think Lewis anticipated what modern panpsychist philosopher Philip Goff has termed 'Cosmopsychism' which is incorporates a priority monism mereology, meaning that priority is given to the whole instead of the parts, and when it comes to panpsychism it means that the whole universe is conscious instead of the tiny bee bees at the subatomic quantum level or whatever. So if the whole universe were conscious, that could seem like it'd be a God, it would presumably know everything, since it is everything and its conscious, but it wouldn't be self-existent and wouldn't have most or any of the traditional attributes we recognize God as having, but it would be a kind of 'natural' god in that it's all of nature and it's a universal consciousness.
I was curious about this too. I don’t know the nuances between panpsychism, panentheism and pantheism, but he seemed to be thinking of one of those…
It looks like Goff has several books out; do you have any recommendations on where to start reading him?
By the way, thanks for rangling that 10% discount with Leuchtturm.
I wondered if by different Natures, Lewis might have been thinking of Earth and Heaven or the physical world and the spiritual realm or something like that? That might explain why he talks about potential connections between the Natures, in addition to potential “direct intervention” on God's part. Like when an angel comes down, maybe that’s an interaction between two Natures? But your multiverse interpretation is fun
I’m a little late to the party, but I’m excited to read along with this. The schedule seems doable for me at this time. My assessment of the first two chapters noted many of the things shared here. Parker, I appreciate the new language you bring to what I am processing in CSL setup to the book. It will be really neat for me to be able to grow in philosophical vocabulary of the ideas put forth by CSL. Thanks so much for doing this!