Deprecating

[Glenn]

"In The Abolition of Man, Lewis deprecates “unscientific followers of science”: those who overvalue the scientific method or accept scientific pronouncements without question. He argues that these people may suppose themselves to be devotees of the discipline, when in fact, they are undermining it from within."

https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/c-s-lewis-and-the-limits-of-science/

Continue.

[RonO]

Isn't this a description of how you use science? This seems to be like
kicking yourself in the butt. How does that keep feeling? Isn't it sad
that the ID perps only pretended to do science, and you only pretend to
support that effort? Your running from the Top Six is a pretty sad
acknowledgement of what the IDiotic science actually is to IDiots like you.

Ron Okimoto

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

What qualifications did C S Lewis have to pontificate about evolution?
As far as I can see he had none.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[RonO]

Lewis' statements were about science in general, and not biological
evolution. That is why it applies to IDiocy and not the science that
IDiots don't like. Lewis was talking about how badly off "science"
advocates like IDiots are.

QUOTE:
As an intellectual historian and an interested observer of scientific
developments, Lewis often took aim at this error.
END QUOTE:

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

Lewis carried out this idea to its logical conclusion in That Hideous
Strength, where "science" (i.e. scientism) was used as a cover for the
invocation of evil spirits. IMO that book, more than either 1984 or
Brave New World, accurately predicts the scientistic/mystical dystopia
which we are beginning to experience at present.

[RonO]

Isn't this what the ID perps are doing when they claim that their
designer is responsible for designing things like sickle cell anemia,
the flagellum and relatied secretory system that makes bacteria more
pathogenic?

It is obvious that Lewis was talking about IDiotic type science. The
type of pseudo science that only claims to be scientific. There never
was any real intelligent design science. The IDiots may have wanted to
put on the mantle of real science because they understood that it
worked, but it turned out that none of them wanted to understand what
science would tell them about the creation.

Just think of why you had to run from the Top Six. IDiots really do not
want to understand what real science can tell them.

Ron Okimoto

[broger...@gmail.com]

I'm not sure I'd call "The Abolition of Man" a pontification about evolution. I think it was one of Lewis' worst books, though, exemplifying two of his worst tendencies (1) vigorous attacks on strawmen and (2) eschewing real argument in favor of a sort of insider's self-congratulatory "Well, well, we know better than that, don't we."

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I hadn't previously tried to read The Abolition of Man, but it's
readily available on the web, so why not? The relevant part is at

https://readfrom.net/c-s-lewis/page,6,603281-the_abolition_of_man.html

Notice that Lewis completely ignores the only important points: 1. Is
evolution a fact? 2. If it is, is it adequately explained by natural
selection and neutral drift?

He seems to confine his discussion scientists' attitudes to evolution,
as if that's all there is to discuss. I venture to suggest that Conrad
Waddington knew a great deal more about it than C. S. Lewis did.

[Abner]

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> He seems to confine his discussion scientists' attitudes to evolution,
> as if that's all there is to discuss. I venture to suggest that Conrad
> Waddington knew a great deal more about it than C. S. Lewis did.

A lot of creationist arguments end up being from a utilitarian viewpoint, being argued based on whether creationism is useful (usually from a moral standpoint) rather than from whether it is true in any objective sense. This is rather ironic, since creationist moral theory is rarely utilitarian ... they are attempting an argument they feel would be appealing to us, and usually quite poorly.

I suspect the main reason is that many of them realize they are unqualified to argue the theory of evolution from a scientific standpoint, and are too likely to make fools of themselves (and their religion by proxy) if they try; they thus try a moral argument, which they feel more qualified to speak on, but muff it because they are trying a moral argument they don't believe in themselves since their own morality is more theological than utilitarian in nature.

[Burkhard]

Its been some time that I looked at it, but wasn't that book merely a
reply to a book on how to teach English composition skills in the
early 20th century? The only relevance it seems to have to TO is that
the authors of the "Green Book", King and Ketley, pretty much embrace
Nando's view on emotive and similarly evaluative statements, while Lewis
exposes an objective reading (what Nando would call depraved
evolutionist Nazism): According to King and Ketley, a statement like
"This picture is beautiful" or "this action is depraved" tell us nothing
about the image or the action, they merely report a subjective mental
state of the person uttering that sentence. Lewis by contrast argues
that both are "about" their respective objects, and thus have truth values.

King and Ketley did not come up with that idea of course, rather, they
took a the-popular theory of meaning, C. K. Ogden and
I. A. Richards "The Meaning of Meaning" from 1923, and turned what was
meant to be a descriptive theory of linguistic meaning into a normative
theory of good composition. I guess Lewis just resented that his
students started to write their essays in a prose that was tacitly build
on a highly subjectivist theory of meaning.

Again on TO terns, I'd say Lewis makes quite a number of arguments that
are more or less the same that you, I and others tried to make to Nando
- that the radical meaning relativism is ultiatly self-defeating (Ogden
and Richards are in a way even more radically mad than Nando - for them
even a word like "Tiger" does not have an external referent, just a
vague cluster of emotions, associations and ideas the speaker has with
that word)

Conversely, (and sort of funnily, Ogden and Richards really were
atheistic materialist, nominalist and Humeans - coming to the same ideas
as oor Nando

I'd agree with you Lewis attacks to a degree a strawman , King and
Ketley state they were "influenced" by Ogden and Richards, but that is
at lest a lose connection, and what they actually say is much more
sensible.

[Glenn]

> as if that's all there is to discuss. I venture to suggest that https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/c-s-lewis-four-arguments-for-intelligent-design/ knew a great deal more about it than C. S. Lewis did.
> --
Oh yes, evolution is so complicated that only the elite is able to understand it, at least the ones that agree with the current paradigm.

"On ID, for instance, Lewis argued for design in life and in nature based on inferences from beauty, morality, reason, and functional complexity."

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/c-s-lewis-four-arguments-for-intelligent-design/

[jillery]

On Sun, 8 May 2022 17:36:25 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

You're correct that anybody can understand evolution. The problem is
there are so many who willfully refuse to, because excuses.

>"On ID, for instance, Lewis argued for design in life and in nature based on inferences from beauty, morality, reason, and functional complexity."
>
>https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/c-s-lewis-four-arguments-for-intelligent-design/

Lewis assumed without basis that beauty, morality, reason, and
functional complexity can't arise from unguided natural processes. But
even if his assumptions were true, they would only be evidence of some
*additional* cause for their existence, not that evolution is
counterfactual to them.

To accept both evolution *and* Lewis' arguments remains reasonable and
coherent. Lewis didn't present evidence against evolution, and
Athel's questions remain unaddressed.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Kalkidas]

On 5/8/2022 8:07 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 9:50 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 5/7/2022 7:19 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>> "In The Abolition of Man, Lewis deprecates “unscientific followers of
>>> science”: those who overvalue the scientific method or accept
>>> scientific pronouncements without question. He argues that these
>>> people may suppose themselves to be devotees of the discipline, when
>>> in fact, they are undermining it from within."
>>>
>>> https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/c-s-lewis-and-the-limits-of-science/
>>>
>>>
>>> Continue.
>>>
>>
>> Lewis carried out this idea to its logical conclusion in That Hideous
>> Strength, where "science" (i.e. scientism) was used as a cover for the
>> invocation of evil spirits. IMO that book, more than either 1984 or
>> Brave New World, accurately predicts the scientistic/mystical dystopia
>> which we are beginning to experience at present.
>>
>
> Isn't this what the ID perps are doing when they claim that their
> designer is responsible for designing things like sickle cell anemia,
> the flagellum and relatied secretory system that makes bacteria more
> pathogenic?

Um, no, Intelligent Design advocates are not invoking evil spirits under
the guise of science. In fact, if anyone's doing that it's you, who have
obviously become infested with evil spirits. Your frequent rage-filled
outbursts, which are an indication of your hatred for your fellow men
prove that.

And you are obviously unfamiliar with C.S. Lewis's writings. I highly
recommend them, though Wormwood and Screwtape will try their best to
keep them from you. I advise not heeding them.

[snip]

[Glenn]

Athel, and you, among most others here, are examples of who Lewis criticized.
Evolution is not a "fact", and asking whether this "important point" was addressed by Lewis
is a glaring example of that. And Athel is a weasel in the same spirit as your own, in this instance by questioning whether Lewis though evolution "adequately explained" by "natural selection" and "neutral drift". Athel of course knows that not to be true even by the his own atheistic standards.

[Glenn]

It is really too much to expect evolutionists to understand Lewis' positions, even on their best days. Harder still for them would be to acknowledge accurate portrayals.
It may well be that "theistic evolutionists" have an even harder time being honest with themselves concerning Lewis' philosophy.

[jillery]

On Mon, 9 May 2022 08:51:05 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On 5/8/2022 8:07 AM, RonO wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 9:50 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2022 7:19 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>>> "In The Abolition of Man, Lewis deprecates “unscientific followers of
>>>> science”: those who overvalue the scientific method or accept
>>>> scientific pronouncements without question. He argues that these
>>>> people may suppose themselves to be devotees of the discipline, when
>>>> in fact, they are undermining it from within."
>>>>
>>>> https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/c-s-lewis-and-the-limits-of-science/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Continue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lewis carried out this idea to its logical conclusion in That Hideous
>>> Strength, where "science" (i.e. scientism) was used as a cover for the
>>> invocation of evil spirits. IMO that book, more than either 1984 or
>>> Brave New World, accurately predicts the scientistic/mystical dystopia
>>> which we are beginning to experience at present.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't this what the ID perps are doing when they claim that their
>> designer is responsible for designing things like sickle cell anemia,
>> the flagellum and relatied secretory system that makes bacteria more
>> pathogenic?
>
>Um, no, Intelligent Design advocates are not invoking evil spirits under
>the guise of science.

So you think sickle cell anemia and pathogenic bacteria are products
of benevolent design? Even you should be able to recognize a problem
with that claim.

>In fact, if anyone's doing that it's you, who have
>obviously become infested with evil spirits. Your frequent rage-filled
>outbursts, which are an indication of your hatred for your fellow men
>prove that.

There you go again. When logic and facts are against you, you pound
on the table.

>And you are obviously unfamiliar with C.S. Lewis's writings. I highly
>recommend them, though Wormwood and Screwtape will try their best to
>keep them from you. I advise not heeding them.

And you are obviously familiar with Lewis's evil spirits. Be sure to
say "hello" to them next time you see them.

[jillery]

On Mon, 9 May 2022 08:56:56 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

That's an odd thing for you to say, since I explicitly agreed with
Lewis' reasoning as he expressed it.

>Evolution is not a "fact",

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how many times you assert
it without basis. Once again, just saying it doesn't make it so.

>and asking whether this "important point" was addressed by Lewis
>is a glaring example of that. And Athel is a weasel in the same spirit as your own, in this instance by questioning whether Lewis though evolution "adequately explained" by "natural selection" and "neutral drift". Athel of course knows that not to be true even by the his own atheistic standards.

Athel has greater expertise about what he knows than you do.

Also, your past posts show you use a Humpty-Dumpty and conveniently
variable meaning of "adequate".

But if you think you're able, go ahead and quote anything from Lewis
where he described how evolution works, nevermind provided evidence of
how beauty, morality, reason, and functional complexity contradict it.
Failure to do so suggests you have no idea what you're talking about
and are proud of it.

[RonO]

Glenn doesn't seem to understand what he thinks.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Was there ever any IDiotic science that you would have supported if it
had become anything more than the scam that it turned out to be?

The ID perps don't want to invoke any spirits evil or not. They just
want to support their intelligent designer, and they end up making
claims about that designer doing evil things. Glenn's latest example
was about the designer being responsible for the mutation that caused
sickle cell anemia. Glenn's designer is also supposed to be responsible
for those transposons moving around in our genome that cause genetic
diseases.

The ID scam is just what it is.

>
> And you are obviously unfamiliar with C.S. Lewis's writings. I highly
> recommend them, though Wormwood and Screwtape will try their best to
> keep them from you. I advise not heeding them.
>
> [snip]
>

Was there ever any IDiotic science that you would have supported if it
had become more than what Lewis was beefing about? If there was any,
what was it?

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

I think the problem is that they haven't come to terms with their own
guilt. They are the intellectual equivalent of the street thug who says
"society made me a criminal". They say "evolution made me an asshole".

[jillery]

Neither does Kalkidas.

>Ron Okimoto
>>
>>
>>> In fact, if anyone's doing that it's you, who have
>>> obviously become infested with evil spirits. Your frequent rage-filled
>>> outbursts, which are an indication of your hatred for your fellow men
>>> prove that.
>>
>>
>> There you go again. When logic and facts are against you, you pound
>> on the table.
>>
>>
>>> And you are obviously unfamiliar with C.S. Lewis's writings. I highly
>>> recommend them, though Wormwood and Screwtape will try their best to
>>> keep them from you. I advise not heeding them.
>>
>>
>> And you are obviously familiar with Lewis's evil spirits. Be sure to
>> say "hello" to them next time you see them.
>>

[RonO]

Kalk understands how stupid it is to think the way he does. He just
can't help himself. Glenn hasn't given up lying to himself, and
requires that he doesn't understand what he has to lie to himself about.

Ron Okimoto