چکیده:
In 1948 a legendary debate occurred at the Oxford Socratic Club between C. S. Lewis and Elizabeth Anscombe. In this meeting, Lewis shows that atheistic naturalism is refute in meaning the strict materialism. Anscombe makes three basic criticisms against Lewis' argument:1. Lack of distinction between irrational and non-rrational causes of belief,2. The threat of skepticism,3. Lack of distinction between types of “full” explanations. Lewis and Anscombe's views can be considered in several ways: 1. Despite Anscombe's correct critique, the lack of distinction between irrational and non-rational causes does not solve the problem of naturalism which is an inference belief of other beliefs. 2. Anscombe considers that “if naturalism is correct, there is no valid human argument”, is a skeptical threat to knowledge, while this objection does not problem on Lewis' argument. 3. Contrary to Anscombe's claim, the ommisive approach to other explanations is not a consequence of Lewis's Argument, but the main idea of naturalism itself. 4. Lewis's incorrect analysis of mental states is accidental because he considers the origin of these states to be non-physical. 5. Lewis did not explain well what he meant by “did not explain well what he meant by "the impossibility of evolutionary processes in creating creatures with perception and understanding of creatures without understanding”. By an analytical, comparative and critical insightcan eliminate, correct and reconstruct the weaknesses of Anscombe and Lewis' views.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Lewis wants to show through rationality-based reasoning that naturalism—in the sense that human beliefs can be entirely explained through irrational causes—is self-defeating, false, and indefensible; because this notion is self-contradictory 31 due to creating doubt in the validity of reason, and therefore any belief or thought resulting from this path will inevitably be self-destructive 32.
Therefore, an argument is reliable (or "valid," as Lewis says) only if it includes a specific type of causality, namely a rational insight into logical implication or reasoned support.
Thus, if naturalism is correct and we consider its causal explanation of mental events to be the final explanation, there will be no longer any room for other explanations; therefore, all thoughts and results derived from reasons are irrational, because they are merely the outcome of physical cause-and-effect explanations (neurobiological processes in the brain).
At the end of this section, let us add this point: Lewis, through an argument based on rationality, rejects atheistic naturalism in order to defend another conclusion: that human reason requires a self-existent, rational, and eternal being, namely God. The expansion of this argument is as follows: 1.
Therefore, Anscombe concludes that Lewis's argument cannot be successful unless we have a reason to think that we cannot even have the concept of validity 45 in a naturalist world, and this indicates a skeptical threat against knowledge that this theory poses, and this doubt and threat only disappears when naturalism is denied.
(
, 
, 
)
