Lewis And The Supernaturalist Summary

1201 Words5 Pages
In the article “The Naturalist and the Supernaturalist” the author Clive Staples Lewis argues that either naturalism or supernaturalism could be right about the existence of miracle because it depends on how we define nature. The key concepts that have been used in the article by C.S. Lewis to argue his points are Supernaturalism, Naturalism, Nature, and Supernature. The main conceptual question that can be raised by the reader is that, is the existence of miracles depended on the definition of nature? In the analysis that I have conducted, I will evaluate the concepts of Nature and Supernaturalism. In addition, I will evaluate the fallacies that I diagnosed that C.S. Lewis have used within the article. There are several fallacies within the…show more content…
In his argument the author violates 2 criteria of a good argument, acceptability and sufficiency. The author violates the sufficiency criterion of a good argument by committing the fallacy of false cause. The author links, everything being interlocked as a cause to not believing in free will. However these are not relevant to each other and there naturalists that believe in free will. In the same argument the author violate the acceptiblity criterion of good argument by committing the fallacy of equivocation. The author uses the concept of thing to refer to multiple different meanings. The first use of the concept is to refer to an event when he states “Each particular thing (such as this page) is what it is because other things are what they are; and so, eventually, because the whole system is what it is.” In his second use of the concept the author states “All the things and events are so completely interlocked that no one of them can claim the slightest independence from the ‘the whole show’.” Here the author is referring to the consequences of the events. In his next use of the concept the author refers to an action by using the concept of thing. Equivocation of the concept of thing is the most serious fallacy that the author has used multiple times throughout the article. Indeed the argument may appear to satisfy the criteria of a good argument. However the conclusion of the argument is unwarranted or does not follow because the main premises are ambiguous due to the meaning of the term thing. In paragraph 10 the author argues that naturalists would not accept the idea of the god, who created the nature and controls it from the outside, which is quite convincing. Although there is slight shift in meaning of the concept of God but the rest of the argument

    More about Lewis And The Supernaturalist Summary

      Open Document