Victor Reppert

Last updated

Victor Reppert (born 1953) is an American philosopher best known for his development of the "argument from reason". He is the author of C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea (2003) and numerous academic papers in journals such as Christian Scholars' Review, International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, Philo , and Philosophia Christi . He is also a philosophy blogger, with two blogs. [1]

Contents

He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy (1989) from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. [2]

The argument from reason

Reppert first became interested in the argument from reason after a conversion experience at the age of 18. He became aware that while unbelievers like Bertrand Russell claimed to be more rational than believers, Christians like C. S. Lewis claimed not only that their belief is more rational than unbelief, but that the argument from reason shows that the very capacity to reason is itself a reason to think that the naturalism espoused by unbelievers is false. When he read G. E. M. Anscombe's critique of Lewis's argument, Reppert became persuaded that the argument could be formulated in such a way as to overcome Anscombe's objections. His paper "The Lewis-Anscombe Controversy: A Discussion of the Issues" [3] was the result. [4]

In 1998, Reppert posted his paper "The Argument from Reason" [5] to the Secular Web. In 1999 a slightly revised version of the same paper [6] appeared, with a response by Jim Lippard, [7] in the humanist journal Philo. In the same issue, Keith M. Parsons, the then editor of Philo, presented some arguments against Reppert's conclusions in the course of a review of Thomas Nagel's The Last Word, so in 2000 Reppert wrote a "Reply to Parsons and Lippard", [8] to which Parsons responded by writing the first full-dress attempt to refute Reppert's argument. [9] Reppert's reply to Parsons was the paper "Causal Closure, Mechanism, and Rational Inference", [10] which, since he felt it was time that more Christian philosophers were familiarized with the argument and related issues, [4] appeared in 2001 in Philosophia Christi. In 2003 Philosophia Christi featured a "Symposium on the Argument from Reason", consisting of a paper by Reppert, [11] responses by Theodore M. Drange, William Hasker and Keith Parsons, and a second paper by Reppert replying to these three critics. [12]

Also in 2003, Reppert published his book C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea. The title alludes to Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea , in which Dennett contrasted two types of explanation: one type is "mind-first" (that is to say, "in the last analysis ... purposeful and intentional"), whereas the other type "makes the explanation a feature of the system that in the last analysis is a product of the mindless system of physics and chemistry." For Dennett, Reppert observes, Darwin's dangerous idea is that the latter "are the only acceptable types of explanation", a position that "has become orthodoxy in such varied disciplines as evolutionary biology, cognitive science and artificial intelligence", as well as "in Anglo-American philosophy in general". C. S. Lewis's dangerous idea, by contrast, is that the attempt entirely to account for the world in such terms "overlooks something very important: the world thus analyzed has to have scientists in it. And scientists draw their conclusions from evidence, and in so doing they engage in rational inference.... Lewis's contention was that ... if you tried to account for the activity of reasoning as a byproduct of a fundamentally nonpurposive system, you end up describing something that cannot genuinely be called reasoning." [13] In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Dennett calls Darwin's idea "wonderful", "magnificent", and "the single best idea anyone has ever had", and says that his (Dennett's) admiration for it is "unbounded". [14] Reppert observes that "If Darwin's dangerous idea is a true explanation of how Darwin got his dangerous idea, then the idea cannot possibly be the intellectual monument that Dennett supposes it to be." [13]

C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea attracted a lot of response, including some comments by critics, most notably Richard C. Carrier, who on Internet Infidels called the book "surely the most extensive defense of the so-called 'Argument from Reason' yet to appear in print." [15] Carrier's review "is about as long as the book itself", Reppert noted only half-jokingly, before going on to respond to some of Carrier's criticisms. [16] Another response to Carrier's review came from Darek Barefoot, who, while he did not "find all of Reppert's arguments to be persuasive and all of Carrier's criticisms to be off-target", believed that the core of the argument from reason "is sound and that Reppert's book is a landmark contribution to the subject." [17] Barefoot argued that Reppert had made a strong case for Lewis's claim "that the process of inference by which consideration of premises causes us to adopt a conclusion cannot be coherently conceived of in terms of physical cause-and-effect alone." Furthermore, if Reppert's version of the Argument from Reason "is successful, it reveals that rationality is fundamental to the universe, not simply a by-product of physical cause-and-effect; and this, in turn, is readily explicable on theism, but problematic for naturalism." [18]

Jim Lippard, reporting a lecture by Daniel Dennett at Arizona State University in 2009, recounted that Dennett had coined the disparaging term "mind-creationists" for those who argue that original intentionality is an irreducible feature of the world. Lippard noted that the "mind-creationists" whom Dennett had in his sights included atheists like Thomas Nagel, John Searle and Jerry Fodor as well as believers like Victor Reppert. [19]

The Anscombe myth

In addition to explaining and expanding Lewis's theistic argument for God, Reppert has also made an important contribution to Lewis studies by deconstructing what he calls the "Anscombe myth". Roughly, the "Anscombe myth" arose, in part, from an actual encounter C. S. Lewis had at his Socratic Club with Catholic philosopher G. E. M. Anscombe over the soundness of the theistic argument he presents in his book Miracles . It has been alleged that Elizabeth Anscombe, in her presentation of the perceived problematic areas in Lewis's argument, had so thoroughly discredited his argument that Lewis sank into apologetic and theological obscurity. [20] It has also been suggested that this friendly encounter led Lewis to not only reject the Argument from Reason, but also significantly question the validity of Christianity altogether. Reppert, in his critique of the "Anscombe myth", points out that Lewis merely revised his argument for later editions of Miracles, rather than rejecting it. Furthermore, Reppert notes that Lewis continued to proactively maintain the argument, as evidenced by the publication of several post-Anscombe-debate articles, chiefly in Christian Reflections and God in the Dock . Reppert also points out that Lewis's spiritual tenor in his later writings doesn't significantly differ in tone or substance from his earlier Christian material.

Other work

Reppert has also done work criticising Hume, and, in particular the Humean theories of miracles. [21]

Selected bibliography

Further reading

Related Research Articles

C. S. Lewis British Christian apologist, writer, and medievalist

Clive Staples Lewis was a British writer and lay theologian. He held academic positions in English literature at both Oxford University and Cambridge University. He is best known for his works of fiction, especially The Screwtape Letters, The Chronicles of Narnia, and The Space Trilogy, and for his non-fiction Christian apologetics, such as Mere Christianity, Miracles, and The Problem of Pain.

Daniel Dennett American philosopher

Daniel Clement Dennett III is an American philosopher, writer, and cognitive scientist whose research centers on the philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science.

<i>Darwins Dangerous Idea</i> 1995 book by Daniel Dennett

Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life is a 1995 book by the philosopher Daniel Dennett, in which the author looks at some of the repercussions of Darwinian theory. The crux of the argument is that, whether or not Darwin's theories are overturned, there is no going back from the dangerous idea that design might not need a designer. Dennett makes this case on the basis that natural selection is a blind process, which is nevertheless sufficiently powerful to explain the evolution of life. Darwin's discovery was that the generation of life worked algorithmically, that processes behind it work in such a way that given these processes the results that they tend toward must be so.

Mind–body dualism Philosophical theory

In the philosophy of mind, mind–body dualism denotes either the view that mental phenomena are non-physical, or that the mind and body are distinct and separable. Thus, it encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, as well as between subject and object, and is contrasted with other positions, such as physicalism and enactivism, in the mind–body problem.

G. E. M. Anscombe British analytic philosopher

Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe, usually cited as G. E. M. Anscombe or Elizabeth Anscombe, was a British analytic philosopher. She wrote on the philosophy of mind, philosophy of action, philosophical logic, philosophy of language, and ethics. She was a prominent figure of analytical Thomism, a Fellow of Somerville College, Oxford and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge.

<i>Miracles</i> (book)

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 biblical 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.

A belief in the primacy of mind is an ubiquitous element in the history of ideas. In this view the mind or soul is not only primary as an explanation of reality, but is the only conceivable explanation, as nothing so subtle and sublime as reason and morality could possibly emerge from matter and motion, the primary elements of scientific explanation. In his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett states that a central aspect of Judeo-Christian and Islamic cosmogony is that, in the beginning, there was "something with Mind—'a cogitative Being,'".

Christian apologetics Branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections

Christian apologetics is a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections.

The Atheism Tapes is a 2004 BBC television documentary series presented by Jonathan Miller. The material that makes up the series was originally filmed in 2003 for another, more general series, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, but was too lengthy for inclusion. Instead, the BBC agreed to create The Atheism Tapes as a supplementary series of six programmes, each consisting of an extended interview with one contributor.

The Oxford Socratic Club was a student club that met from 1942 to 1954 dedicated to providing an open forum for the discussion of the intellectual difficulties connected with religion and with Christianity in particular.

Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences. Methodological naturalism is a philosophical basis for science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.

<i>The Journal of Philosophy</i> Academic journal

The Journal of Philosophy is a monthly peer-reviewed academic journal on philosophy, founded in 1904 at Columbia University. Its stated purpose is "To publish philosophical articles of current interest and encourage the interchange of ideas, especially the exploration of the borderline between philosophy and other disciplines." Subscriptions and online access are managed by the Philosophy Documentation Center.

<i>Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon</i> 2006 book by Daniel C. Dennett

Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon is a 2006 book by American philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett, in which the author argues that religion is in need of scientific analysis so that its nature and future may be better understood. The "spell" that requires "breaking" is not religious belief itself but the belief that it is off-limits to or beyond scientific inquiry.

The evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) is a philosophical argument asserting a problem with believing both evolution and philosophical naturalism simultaneously. The argument was first proposed by Alvin Plantinga in 1993 and "raises issues of interest to epistemologists, philosophers of mind, evolutionary biologists, and philosophers of religion". The EAAN argues that the combined belief in both evolutionary theory and naturalism is epistemically self-defeating. The argument for this is that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then the probability of having reliable cognitive faculties is low. This argument comes as an expansion of the argument from reason, although the two are separate philosophical arguments.

The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to modern versions of the argument from design for the existence of God. It was introduced by Richard Dawkins in chapter 4 of his 2006 book The God Delusion, "Why there almost certainly is no God".

Bulverism is a term for a rhetorical fallacy that combines circular reasoning with presumption or condescension. The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error." The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake by attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive. The term Bulverism was coined by C. S. Lewis to poke fun at a very serious error in thinking that, he alleged, recurs often in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates.

The argument from reason is an argument against metaphysical naturalism and for the existence of God. The best-known defender of the argument is C. S. Lewis. Lewis first defended the argument at length in his 1947 book, Miracles: A Preliminary Study. In the second edition of Miracles (1960), Lewis substantially revised and expanded the argument.

The term New Atheism was coined by the journalist Gary Wolf in 2006 to describe the positions promoted by some atheists of the twenty-first century. New Atheism advocates the view that superstition, religion and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated. Instead, they should be countered, criticized, challenged by rational argument, especially when they exert undue influence, such as in government, education, and politics.

This is a list of articles in analytic philosophy.

David Kyle Johnson is a Professor of Philosophy at King's College in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. He specializes in logic, metaphysics, free will, and philosophy of religion.

References

  1. ↑ Dangerous Idea and Dangerous Idea 2
  2. ↑ "Victor Reppert (Glendale Community College) - PhilPeople".
  3. ↑ Victor Reppert. "The Lewis-Anscombe Controversy: A Discussion of the Issues", Christian Scholars' Review 19, no 1 (September 1989): 32-48.
  4. 1 2 QCI Interview: Dr. Victor Reppert on the "Argument from Reason"
  5. ↑ Victor Reppert. "The Argument from Reason (1998)"
  6. ↑ Victor Reppert. "The Argument from Reason", Philo, 2, no. 1 (Spring-Summer 1999).
  7. ↑ Jim Lippard. "Historical but Indistinguishable: Some Notes on Victor Reppert's Paper", Philo 2, no. 1 (Spring-Summer 1999): 45-47.
  8. ↑ Victor Reppert. "Reply to Parsons and Lippard on the Argument from Reason", Philo, 3, no. 1 (Spring-Summer 2000): 76-89.
  9. ↑ Keith M. Parsons. "Further Reflections on the Argument from Reason", Philo, 3, no. 1 (Spring-Summer 2000): 90-102.
  10. ↑ Victor Reppert. "Causal Closure, Mechanism, and Rational Inference: A Response to Keith Parsons", Philosophia Christi, 2nd series, 3, no. 2 (2001): 473-484.
  11. ↑ Victor Reppert. "Several Formulations of the Argument from Reason", Philosophia Christi, 2nd series, 5, no. 1 (2003): 9-34.
  12. ↑ Victor Reppert. "Some Supernatural Reasons Why My Critics Are Wrong", Philosophia Christi, 2nd series, 5, no. 1 (2003): 77-89.
  13. 1 2 Victor Reppert. C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea, Downers Green, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003: 8-9.
  14. ↑ Daniel Dennett. Darwin's Dangerous Idea, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995: 21.
  15. ↑ Richard C. Carrier. "Critical Review of Victor Reppert's Defense of the Argument from Reason (2004)"
  16. ↑ Victor Reppert. "Defending the Dangerous Idea: An Update on Lewis's Argument from Reason", in David Baggett, Gary R. Habermas and Gerry L. Walls (eds), C. S. Lewis as Philosopher: Truth, Goodness and Beauty, Downers Green, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2008: 53-67.
  17. ↑ Darek Barefoot. "A Response to Richard Carrier's Review of C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea (2007)"
  18. ↑ Darek Barefoot: Abstract
  19. ↑ Jim Lippard. "Daniel Dennett at ASU"
  20. ↑ John M. Dolan. "G. E. M. Anscombe: Living the Truth". First Things , 113 (May 2001): 11-13.
  21. ↑ "Hume on Miracles, Frequencies, and Prior Probabilities".
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.