Naturalism

Miracles 3.1 "For by Naturalism we mean the doctrine that only Nature -- the whole interlocked system -- exists." Miracles 5.8 Lewis has pointed out the inconsistency of Naturalists in 5.7 and then goes on to say in 5.8 "Holding a philosophy that excludes humanity, they yet remain human. At the sight of injustice they throw all their Naturalism to the winds and speak like men and like men of genius. They know far better than they think they know." Miracles 5.9 "The Naturalists must not destroy all my reverence for conscience on Monday and expect me to be still venerating it on Tuesday" i.e. the position of the Naturalists directly undermines morality. The example of posterity in this chapter is one which Chesterton addressed [somewhere, Everlasting Man?] in which he claimed that men don't have any particular "impulse to serve posterity" -- rather they fight for home and hearth.

Similarly if thoughts are mere natural events, connected as causes and effects, the fact that a million logicians can find no logical flaw in //an// argument wd. show only that the same causal chain of events had taken place in their brains as in the original arguer’s. As the theory of vision leaves no room for a ‘real’ greenness in the grass, but only for identical responses in all optic nerves etc, so Naturalism leaves no room for a ground-consequent selection between cerebral events.

But there might, one says, be a lucky coincidence. Coincidence with //what//? What are the ‘Laws of Reasoning’ of which natural selection has made us aware? Are they events? If so when or where did they occur? Are they objects? Where in space are they located? You say they are self-existent. But if anything except ‘the whole show’ is self existent, we have abandoned Naturalism as I defined it. I doubt if the Life Force will help. Doesn’t it mean either A. As H.C.F. abstracted from all organisms, like ‘equality’ from all instances of equality, or B. A purposive, immaterial power over and above all the organisms in which it is manifested? If A, it is a mere concept, a thought-gimmick. It can’t //do// things. If B, it is simply God, or at least //a// god, but we have again deserted Naturalism. //Collected Letters//, to Kenneth R W Brewer, 9 May 1962

If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes. Therefore, all thoughts would be equally worthless. Therefore, naturalism is worthless. If it is true, then we can know no truths. It cuts its own throat. //Religion Without Dogma//, 10th paragraph from the end

"Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe." //De Futilitate//, Paragraph 15

"A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us that inference is invalid..." //De Futilitate//, Paragraph 15