The Filipino Group discussion
This topic is about
Miracles
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Buddy Reads
>
Miracles by C.S. Lewis (with K.D., Louize, Dante and Cary) Start: June 25
Hi Kuya D and Louize, I'd love to join! Thanks!
Im not sure kung same to sa grand miracles. pag same sali ako
ok found another copy. game na ko!
Day 1I am not sure if I believe in miracles. I'd like to say I do but if you look closer at them, you will always find some possible rational explanations. Think of the parting of the sea during Moses time or Noah's Ark, some scholars dispute them.
I have seen a ghost. My lola was dying here in Manila at around 4am and I saw her spirit while I was studying for exams on a wee hours of the morning (around 1am) in Baguio when I was still a college student. People say that her soul must have been wondering in the last hour of her life, when she was about to die.
But like Lewis friend, I still do not fully believe in miracles. Yes, the sun shining everyday is a miracle but it is there everyday so I am not really sure....
Just a thought.
Yay! thanks for joining us, Dante and Cary!KD, your initial thoughts are interesting.
I will post mine later after dinner, and giving a bath to our in-house patient. hehehe
A baby? :)Thanks for the add! :)
Dante wrote: "A baby? :)Thanks for the add! :)"
hehehe, Baby damulag!
My husband is in cast right now, due to an accident.
^ Ahhh... Very sorry to hear that. Is he alright? Will pray for him. My mother also had an accident a few weeks ago. Fortunately, it wasn't serious.
Thanks for the prayer Dante, will do likewise for your mom. :)
Day 1“I believe in the possibility of miracles, but more to the point, I believe in our need for them.” - Dean Koontz, Fear Nothing
C. S. Lewis opened his argument with “Seeing is not believing”; he suppressed to include that “believing is seeing”. I agree that miracles are man's last resort. When it was something that cannot be explained through our senses, it is easier to accept it as an illusion. But haven’t we seen and tolerated many illusions in this lifetime simply because we all need a miracle in our life at one point.
I will not say that the sun in the sky, nor the air that we breathe is a miracle; I call them provisions -things given freely for us to live. Miracles, on the other hand, are God’s tools to turn us around, and recognize Him.
“I am not a trained historian and I shall not examine the historical evidence for the Christian miracles. My effort is to put my readers in a position to do so. It is no use going to the texts until we have some idea about the possibility or probability of the miraculous.”
In the first chapter, Lewis frankly stated his purpose in writing this book. Miracles is a book that encourages us to see for ourselves if miracles are possible or probable. If someone is reading this book to determine whether miracles happened while assuming miracles cannot happen is simply begging the question.
Just to spice things up a little I will post a question for each chapter. :)1 The scope of this book
Q: What, for Lewis, is the first question we must consider when we think about miracles?
1.Do miracles happen? Have they happened in the past? Lewis says that before we answer these questions, we must first answer the philosophical question of whether miracles are even possible, and if so, whether they are probable. We must not beg the question (i.e., we must not decide beforehand that miracles are not possible), otherwise the outcome of our historical investigation on miracles will have already been settled.
I agree. Before we can investigate the claims about miracles in our historical texts, we must first find out if they can happen. We must not decide at the outset that they cannot. That only will skew our inquiry and determine the results.
I think that Lewis will argue for the possibility of miracles in this book, and then, he will look at the central events in Scripture that are claimed to be miraculous and see whether they are true: Jesus' Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension.
I think that the subject of miracles is very important to Lewis because it lies at the center of Christianity: At the heart of the Christian faith is the claim that God exists, that he became incarnate in Jesus, and that Jesus rose bodily from the dead after his crucifixion. These are miraculous events, and Christianity stands or falls with their veracity. If miracles are not possible -- if the natural world is all that exists -- then a Supreme Being or Creator cannot exist, he cannot become a human being, and he cannot rise from the dead. Christianity becomes an empty and meaningless religion.
"What, for Lewis, is the first question we must consider when we think about miracles?"The philosophical question of whether miracles or miraculous events are possible. He says that we shouldn't beg the question (or decide in advance that miracles are impossible), because that will determine the outcome of our study on miracles.
Louize wrote: "Thanks for the prayer Dante, will do likewise for your mom. :)"Thanks, Louize. :)
Day 2:2 The Naturalist and the Supernaturalist
“I have never believed in God. Not in your God anyway; the one who looks down onto his chessboard and moves the pieces according to his pleasure, occasionally glancing up at the face of his Adversary with the smile of one who already knows the outcome.” -Joanne Harris, Holy Fools
On this chapter, Lewis presented our first choice to pick, between the Naturalist and the Supernaturalist. He made elaborate definitions, which gave me a f*****n’ headache. Both definitions were technical and intellectual, and I am neither of the two.
A Naturalist believes there is nothing other than nature. It believes that a system in which every particular event happens because some other event has happened; and all events are interlocked. Nothing can get into nature from without because there is no other thing and there is no “without” to come from.
A Supernaturalist, on the other hand, believes that there is this One Thing that created nature, and causes them to be. Nature will cease to exist if he ever ceases to maintain its existence or it will be altered if he alters it.
My take, that Naturalist and Supernaturalist are two labels rubbing on the same meaning. I believe that God is in the very heart of Nature, created it and dwells from within and without; who acts to see that events interlocks according to his plans. We did learn from Mere Christianity that God is the author of the Law of Human Nature. And I cannot imagine God sitting up there and merely looking down at us, and acting all Supernatural. Do you?
The Naturalist and the SupernaturalistLewis pictures the Naturalist as having a “democratic” picture of reality, and the Supernaturalist as having a “monarchical” one. Do you think this is a good way of highlighting the differences between the two systems?
Q: “Naturalism could admit a certain kind of God.” What kind?
This book is tough to read. :DI just followed Mortimer Adler's advice to keep on reading even if I didn't understand everything that I was reading. But at least I got what Lewis was driving at.
Will post later, I need to sleep. :D
2.Miracles are only possible if Supernaturalism is true. If, on the other hand, Naturalism is true, then miracles are impossible. Lewis defined a "miracle" as an interference with Nature by a supernatural power. So, which view about the universe is true, Naturalism or Supernaturalism?
Naturalism is the view that sees the whole of reality as one system within which things and events are interlocked together as part of one great process. Supernaturalism is the view that in addition to this system, there is also a "Primary Thing" which brought this system into being and sustains it. This Primary Thing is understood by supernaturalists as God. This does not necessarily mean, though, that miracles will happen, for God may choose not to interfere with his creation.
So for the naturalist, the ultimate reality is this great system. For the supernaturalist, the ultimate reality is the Primary Thing which brought the great system into being.
Lewis provided a nice analogy: Think of the great system as a book, and the Primary Thing as the author. For the naturalist, the ultimate reality is the book: nothing else exists except the book. For the supernaturalist, the ultimate reality is the author of the book: the book exists because of the author.
Lewis also pointed out that if naturalism is true, we don't have free will. Our thoughts and actions are not our own. They are part of the processes of the great system.
"Lewis pictures the Naturalist as having a “democratic” picture of reality, and the Supernaturalist as having a “monarchical” one. Do you think this is a good way of highlighting the differences between the two systems?I don't know. I like his analogy of the book and its author better. :)
"“Naturalism could admit a certain kind of God.” What kind?"
A kind of "God" that is not independent of Nature, but is a part of it, or a product of it. I'm not sure what Lewis means exactly. Does he mean that it's possible for Nature to develop a sort of "cosmic consciousness" in the course of its evolution? Sounds weird.
Dante wrote: ""I don't know. I like his analogy of the book and its author better. :)"Yeah, I get that too. :)
3 The Cardinal Difficulty of NaturalismFinally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."
The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man." -Albert Einstein
Lewis argued that if naturalism claims that nature causes all things, so then all things are explainable in terms of the Total System of Nature; but if a thing exist which cannot be explained in terms of Nature, then Naturalism cancels itself.
Lewis said further that in this section we have to understand that there are two types of knowledge. The 1st received by our senses, and the other inferred from the senses. All possible knowledge therefore, depends on the validity of our reasoning/ inference. So unless human reasoning is valid, nothing in the universe is true. The whole idea of nature depends on our thinking, not vice-versa. Reasoning is the prime reality on which the attribution of reality to everything else rests. Naturalism can either discredits our process of reasoning, or reduce the credit of our reasoning until it can no longer support Naturalism.
4 Nature and Supernature“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” -1Ti. 1:17
Lewis argued that there is an existing area of activity which is independent of, and above Nature- Rational thought. Rational thought enable us to alter the course of Nature. And although Nature does not have the power to produce rational thoughts, it can destroy it (natural disasters, plague, etc.)
Man’s rationality is that fissure in Nature which indicates that there is something beyond or behind Nature. This area of activity, is not independent, it has an eternal source -something that never ceases, nor sleeps. Something beyond nature operates whenever we reason. This something, this Reason must be self-existent, a Rational-Being who works itself through us –which is GOD. It’s not accurate to say that God simply thinks “through” us once in a while. Reasoning doesn’t happen to us; we do it. Human thought is not God’s but “God-kindled.”
To believe therefore that nature created God is absurd. And to think that Nature and God existed side by side is impossible. God intercedes through man and nature, therefore God created both man and nature.
(I won’t be surprised if my brain is already bleeding from all of these arguments. hahahaha)
4 Nature and SupernatureQ: Lewis made his arguments on Dualism, what is yours?
5 A Further Difficulty in Naturalism“You know how confusing the whole good-evil concept is for me.” ― Jim Butcher, Proven Guilty
Besides reasoning, men also make moral judgments. Moral judgments raise the same sort of difficulty for naturalism as rational thoughts. If we (men) are making moral judgments, then we must believe that the conscience of man is not a product of nature.
As the 4th chapter led us to acknowledge a supernatural source of rational thought, this chapter leads us to acknowledge a supernatural source of our understanding of good from evil.
5 A Further Difficulty in Naturalism“A moment after they [the Naturalists] have admitted that good and evil are illusions, you will find them exhorting us to work for posterity, to educate, revolutionize,liquidate, live and die for the sake of the human race.”
Q: Do you think these contradictions are valid without moral judgment? Please explain.
I resumed reading this last night. I just finished my two books (Ishiguro and Doyle). No excuses but our maid left to get married and I had to do household chores during weekends and even sometimes after office hours hak hak.I can see that Louize is on Chapter 5. I'll catch up tonight and will post tomorrow.
Sorry, I also got busy. Will catch up. :-)
No problem guys. Join in as soon as you are able.I stopped at chapter 11, but unable to write down all my thoughts accordingly. I got busy too; Mardy had a therapy yesterday, and I have to play the good wife of course. :D
6 Answers to Misgivings“A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.” -Karl Marx
In this chapter, Lewis was trying to answer the questions countering his arguments. But before that he pointed out that we cannot deny certain proofs of naturalism. Admittedly, Rational Thinking is conditioned in its exercise by a natural object, which is the brain. He added that the rational and moral element in each human mind is a point of force from the supernatural working its way into nature.
• Misgiving One: Rational thinking is affected by the state of the brain. It’s true, but so what? That fact in no way counters Lewis’s notion that reason originated from outside the brain, not inside it. Similarly, just because some communities have more morals (by their history, economics, geography, etc.) does nothing to counter the notion that morality and conscience originated outside of Nature.
• Misgiving Two: If an astounding thing truly exists, wouldn’t it be so obvious? We wouldn’t be arguing about it. Lewis says that just as we don’t notice the glass in a window when we look outdoors; don’t notice our eyes when we read; don’t notice the grammatical structure of our language, so we don’t notice the Supernatural, even though it’s there. The fact that something so obvious and primary, and through which we have access to all other facts, may be precisely the one that is most easily neglected because it is so near and so obvious. Second, the Naturalists think about Nature, but they forget that they’re thinking. If you think about thinking, it becomes obvious that it’s not a natural event and must come from somewhere else.
6 Answers to MisgivingsQ: What is the popular understanding of the Supernatural?
7 A Chapter of Red Herrings"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” –Jn 3:16
By admitting that God exist and the author of nature, it follows that miracles do occur; and miracles by being the intercession of God into Nature.
Lewis opens by saying that the case against miracles can be argued from two different grounds. Either the character of God excludes them, or the character of Nature excludes them.
• Red Herring One: We know a miracle is contrary to the laws of Nature. People in ancient times could believe in them because they didn’t know the laws of Nature, but we now know they’re scientifically impossible. Lewis said that mere experience, even prolonged experience cannot tell us if miracles are possible or not. Yet, even with our increasing knowledge of science (nature) we can never deny that a thing professed from the very outset to be a unique invasion of nature by something from the outside. He took Joseph as an example. Joseph knew the law of nature. For Mary to be pregnant, she had to have sex with a man. But there being none, he accepted it as a miracle. Nothing is exceptional or extraordinary unless one knows what is ordinary.
• Red Herring Two: The ancients thought the Earth was the largest thing in the Universe, and so it was reasonable to suppose that the Creator was especially interested in Earth and man. Now that we know how small and insignificant we are, it makes no sense to think that God has a special interest in us. Christians have long accepted our smallness in comparison to the whole universe, and to its Creator. And no Christian ever supposed we did merit God’s concern, but the size of something tells us nothing about its value. We do believe, however, in our significance. We believe that God loves men, and became man to save us. Christ died because God is love.
7 A Chapter of Red HerringsQ: Lewis challenged the idea that belief in miracles was more predominant in the past because people were more ignorant of the Natural laws. Do you think this is still a widespread assumption today?
Q: “It is a profound mistake to imagine that Christianity ever intended to dissipate the bewilderment and even the terror, the sense of our own nothingness, which comes upon us when we think about the nature of things… without such sensations there is no religion.” Do you agree with Lewis that a sense of smallness should be a necessary part of our response to the universe around us?
8 Miracles and the Laws of Nature “A miracle is something that seems impossible but happens anyway.” -Griffin, MIB 3
Miracles don’t break the Laws of Nature; they compose intercession but not a total revelation. Miracle, from the point of view of the scientist meanwhile, is doctoring, tampering or cheating.
The Laws of Nature don’t really cause events to happen. They only state the pattern to which every event must conform. It is erroneous to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of nature. A miracle is not the cancellation of the pattern to which events align, but the feeding of new events into the pattern.
A miracle is not an event without cause or results. Its cause is the activity of God and its results follow according to natural law. The reason people find it so insupportable is that they believe nature to be the whole of reality.
8 Miracles and the Laws of NatureQ: Lewis said that miracles do not really break the Law of Nature, but they influence/affect Nature. Do you believe that Nature can do without miracles?
I am now in Chapter 5. I am not sure if I understood everything. The naturalist vs the supernaturalist. The nature vs supernature. My take is that miracles happen in the supernature. Man can only comprehend the level of nature as we are mostly naturalists. So, when something extraordinary happens, we think that it is a miracle because it it in the other level that we, at that point, cannot comprehend. It's like in the other level or dimension or realm.Either mahaba lang mag-explain si C.S. Lewis or di ko lang abot ang level of intellect nya hak hak. Pero ha, binabagalan ko na ang pagbabasa. Ninanamnam ko ang mga words, di ko pa rin maintindihan lahat. Masagap na lang ang masagap. Bahala na si Batman hak hak.
Hi KD!You are not alone; this is probably the most complicated among his books, at palagay ko dumudugo ang utak ko. May wrinkles na rin yata ako, kasi nakakunot ang noo ko. hehehe
I went to the provided study guide from Lewis' site. It's not much but it helps me focus on which subject each chapter is about. Hope it will help you too.
Thanks for the link, Louize. I'll check it when I am halfway. Try ko munang i-imbibe ang book without guides. Parang ma-appreciate ko talaga. Oxford professor kasi ito ay ako ay dito lang graduate sa Pilipinas na isang third-world country hak hak
@K.D. heheheThanks for the link and guide questions, Louize. Just finished chapter 3 at nag nosebleed ako haha... Will have to read it again.
Yan ang di ko type gawin, Dante. Nagsulat sya ng book, pinahirap nya. Problema nya yon. hak hak. Maintindihan ko ang papasok. Ang ayaw pumasok, problema nya at di ko problema. At di ako magpre-pretend na naiintindihan ko kung hindi!!!
Hahaha... nakakainis minsan si Lewis... :D
Dante wrote: "Hahaha... nakakainis minsan si Lewis... :D"Agree!
What I do is look at the study guide and take note of the topic, then I highlight everything na may kinalaman sa topic indicated as I read. After that, a matter of deduction na lang ginagawa ko.
If I pay attention to everything Lewis said, nakakaligaw lalo e. Marami s'yang palabok.
I have a mind to compile our thoughts individually and convert them to a pdf file. As a reminder/souvenir kung gaano tayo pinahirapan ni Lewis. hehehehe
@Louize: Hehehe! And I thought Mere Christianity was challenging! Mas mahirap pala to. :D
sorry guys, haven't resumed reading this yet.. ang bagal ko magbasa ng never let me go. mahirap pala sila pagsabayin. I'll resume reading this once im done with ishiguro
I finished 1 chapter last night. Nasa Chapter 8 na ako at may mga naiintindihan akong sentences tapos biglang magshi-shift sa ibang topic within the same paragraph. Ewan ko na. OMG! OMG!
Kaya mo 'yan KD! That's why this is a buddy read, you don't have to push yourself reading. Go ahead and ask.
Sige, di ko kasi dala ang book. Bukas titipunin ko ang mga tanong ko at isusulat ko dito hak hak.
Still reading chapter 3 hehehe...A thought just occurred to me: It will take a miracle for me to finish this book.
Dante wrote: "Still reading chapter 3 hehehe...A thought just occurred to me: It will take a miracle for me to finish this book."
Hahaha, then by all means let us pray for one. :)
Chapters 3 and 4 were the hardest for me so far. After that, things got smoother naman.
I think I'm beginning to grasp Lewis' argument a little bit...3.
Lewis argues that Naturalism is self-defeating because it is question-begging: it assumes that our inferences about the world are actually insights and therefore constitute knowledge. As he explained in the previous chapter, Naturalism is the view that the universe or all of reality is just one great interlocked system of things and events. So if it is true, everything that is a part of it can be explained in terms of the whole system, and not independent of it. But the problem is, it cannot explain reason, or the act of reasoning, without begging the question that the act of thinking or inferring necessarily leads to insights and thus knowledge. In other words, if Naturalism is true that all our thoughts are just random movements of chemicals in our brain, our thinking would be non-rational. How then can we have insights? How then can we discover truths? How then can we have knowledge about reality? How then can we know that Naturalism is true? If Naturalism is true that all our thoughts are just the products of random atoms in our brain, then Naturalism is false: and that's a logical contradiction.
Therefore, it seems that we have to begin with reason before we can even try to discover truths. Naturalism does not grant us that, for it starts with the doctrine that our thoughts are just the product of random activities of chemicals inside our heads.
Another way of saying it is this: Naturalism starts with non-rational activities in the brain (In this case, what we call "thinking" is in fact just the random movement of atoms in our brain). If these activities are non-rational, they cannot be expected to arrive at insights and knowledge. So the Naturalist cannot prove that Naturalism is true unless he first begins by assuming the validity of reason. Yet if Naturalism is true, reason is invalid.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
The Filipino Group
Books mentioned in this topic
Mere Christianity (other topics)Miracles (other topics)
Miracles (other topics)
Start: June 25
End: July 15
Description:
Miracles is a book written by C. S. Lewis, originally published in 1947 and revised in 1960. Lewis argues that before one can learn from the study of history whether or not any miracles have ever occurred, one must first settle the philosophical question of whether it is logically possible that miracles can occur in principle. He accuses modern historians and scientific thinkers, particularly secular Bible scholars, of begging the question against miracles, insisting that modern disbelief in miracles is a cultural bias thrust upon the historical record and is not derivable from it.
Lewis makes a case for the reality of miracles by presenting the position that something more than nature, a supernatural world, may exist, including a benevolent creator likely to intervene in reality after creation. (Wiki)
Reading Plan: a chapter each day.
This thread is open to anyone interested to join or eavesdrop. :)
pdf copies available.