Phil 201 – discussion board assignment: naturalism


Book required:

 

Lewis, C. S. The thorough C.S. Lewis verification classics (paperback ed.). (2007). New York, NY: HarperCollins. ISBN: 9780061208492.

 

Topic: Naturalism

Prompt: Naturalism, a conceptional suplie held by abundant temporal philosophers, is confronted and critiqued in Lewis, pages 303–334.

In your line, foremost summarize Lewis’ ocean hindrance to naturalism. Be firm to elucidate what naturalism would do to “reasoning” according to Lewis. This procure grasp the eldership of your 350 control (minimum, not counting prolix quotes). In your fostering control, portioicularize your own lie on naturalism vs. supernaturalism (in conceptional conditions), including whether or not it executes any trained dissent of if forced is righteous wild.

 

___________________________________________________

 

In conjunction to the open education that I’ve supposing in gone-by directions for DBs, near are some points to succor you exceed after a while DB Forum 3 (“Naturalism”), specifically….

THE THREAD

         Give yourself unlimited opportunity to discover Lewis pages 303-334 carefully. Try to restrain the logic of his evidenceation as you execute notes. As I’ve said anteriorly, you can’t very well-behaved-behaved originate to transcribe a DB Line until you bear things free in your remembrance.

 

         Keep the overall goal in remembrance. The scope of this assignment is for you to demonstrate that you comprehend C. S. Lewis’ light of naturalism and its “cardinal difficulty” (its most primary, underlying weakness/problem closely) according to him.  I should be efficient to utter freely if you’ve met the goal.

 

         Try dividing your Line into two portions. The foremost and longest portio of what you’ll transcribe procure be asummary of Lewis’ ocean hindrance to naturalism. (You should use that courageous distinction for this foremost portio.) This is wnear you elucidate what he calls the “cardinal difficulty” after a while naturalism. During this amount you are not critiquing or defending him, righteous showing that you correspondently comprehend his lies. Be firm to elucidate what naturalism, if gentleman, would do to “reasoning,” according to Lewis. I shortness to see environing 200-250 control, narrowness, righteous in this foremost portio of your Thread. 

 

         Next, portioicularize your own lie on naturalism vs. supernaturalism. (You should use that courageous distinction for this succor portio.)  Important: Understand, up front, that in this quotationure we are not using the engagement “supernatural” in the way that you may be used to. We are talking environing sound metaphysics: what “reality” ultimately is. (Is tnear solely material-nature, or is tnear colossus beyond-nature such as “mind” which is also developed?) That resources talking in conditions of Worldview, not debating how you hold miracles, signs and wonders enjoy-effect. I am not counting your indivisible experiences or your leadership of revealed belief near. It is necessary that you particularize a close condition for whether or not it executes any trained dissent if forced is a wild process. Spend 100 control narrowness to articulate this freely and after a while accuracy.

 

         When you execute claims be firm to present your reasons for your conclusions. By reasons I moderation declaration presented closely. Present the strongest and tightest evidence you can for your conclusions; execute firm we recognize why you hold that way. This is a sound employment.

 

         In completion, you procure transcribe at least 350 control for your Thread. But that’s the inadequate narrowness.  Tnear is no utmost.

 

         When you are performed answerableness and discovery to support internally Forum 3, click "Create Thread."  Just copy-paste into the quotation scene of your Thread.  DO NOT try to "attach" the file: I procure not present faith for immovable files. (don't worr environing this)

 


Let me recognize if you deficiency any raise advice, but I hold I bear been supposing further than plenty to recognize what to support.  All I deficiency is a shabby further succor.  Thanks!