C. S. Lewis on Naturalism

Today in philosophy class I lectured a bit on the Naturalists or materialists in the history of philosophy. We got up to the modern naturalists (folks like Carl Sagan who claim that "the universe is all that there is, was, or ever will be"), and I was reminded of Lewis' treatment of this idea that all of reality is summed up in Nature. Simply stated, this view holds that all events, all effects, i.e., "every finite thing or event must be (in principle) explicable in terms of the Total System. . . . For by Naturalism we mean the doctrine that only Nature--the whole interlocked system--exists. . . . [and] every thing and event would, if we knew enough, be explicable without remainder as a necessary product of the system." (Lewis, Miracles, p. 12) That is, nothing can happen that is not contained in the metaphysical box of Naturalism. Lewis continues by saying, "[I]f any one thing makes good a claim to be on its own, to be something more than an expression of the character of Nature as a whole--then we have abandoned Naturalism." (Lewis, Miracles, p. 12) Lewis then argues that the very basis of thought (i.e., logic) is something that is inexplicable by the system of Nature. Here is the relevant material:

All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like "must be" and "therefore" and "since" is a real perception of how things outside our own minds really "must" be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them--if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work--then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.

It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would istelf have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound--a proof that there are no such things as proofs--which is nonsense.

Thus a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given by Professor Haldane: "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." (Possible Worlds, p. 209)

But Naturalism, even if it is not purely materialistic, seems to me to involve the same difficulty, though in a somewhat less obvious form. It discredits our processes of reasoning or at least reduces their credit to such a humble level that it can no longer support Naturalism itself. (Lewis, Miracles, pp. 14-15)

Naturalism falls prey to its own system. For it to be true, then it has to be a product of the system. but if it is a product of its system then its truth claims are determined by the system. The truth claims of Naturalism are not objective but determined. If they are determined, in what way are they true? How can they be found out to be true?

Or, to think of it in another way--how can the Naturalist conceive of truth claims as true? Aren't all truth claims in the system merely determined by the system itself? How can a knower know them to be true or not? They simply are or are not depending on the collision of atoms or on the arrangement of the system. In fact, how can we talk about the "System" as an objective thing if there is no means by which to do so?

Ouch, my brain hurts. The bottom line here is that such a deterministic system as Naturalism ends up without any way to prove itself true. The very idea of Naturalism is simply the natural outcome of the mechanical system itself, but in order to discuss it we must assume a sense of objectivity and independence as thinkers that the System will not allow. See the problem?

Ah well, enough philosophy for today. The rest of the weekend beckons. Have a good one.

Thanks for reading!