The Most Convincing Argument
The issue of causation is, perhaps, one of the most complicated problems in theology because of the conflict between its philosophical and scientific implications. Although in theology, the dilemma of causality typically implies referring to Thomas Aquinas’s argument, it seems that C. S. Lewis’s statement is more legitimate since it addresses the need to recognize both one’s personal agency and the power of the divine force at the same time. Therefore, the author takes all possible factors into account, thus, setting the platform for an objective argument and embracing an array of factors that may serve as a cause instead of pointing to a single one.
By building his argument on the idea that both viewpoints can be accepted yet none of them provides an exhaustive answer to the question regarding the causes and effects of people’s actions, C. S. Lewis manages to emphasize the complex nature of the subject matter. As a result, his response prompts the idea that it is not the answer to the problem that matters in the case in point but the possibility of an argument and an opportunity to validate the opponent’s opinion. As a result, C. S. Lewis outlines not only the cause-and-effect relationships between people’s actions and the factors that may have produced these actions but also the importance of keeping the argument evolving since it allows for the further progress of its participants.
The rationale for the Choice
Given the context of the time period in which each of the arguments under analysis was produced, it would be legitimate to consider each as valid and, therefore, conclude that all of them represent the most prominent ideas of their respective epochs. That being said, one must admit that the statements are scrutinized through the lens of contemporary philosophy and theology. Therefore, it is necessary to define the essay that manages to not only provide enough explanations for the link between causes of particular phenomena and the effects that they produce but also substantiate the decision.
Even though Thomas Aquinas’s paper is traditionally viewed as the source of the greatest authority concerning the issue, it is C. S. Lewis’s work that stretches the boundaries of the problem and pushes the envelope, thus, making one view the problem from a different angle.
In fact, the reasoning used by C. S. Lewis can also be analyzed from the perspective of a cause-and-effect framework. Particularly, the philosopher views different explanations of the link between people’s actions and the presence of God as causes that lead to different outcomes, neither of which is satisfying enough to accept it as the ultimate answer. For example, he argues that, by following the Scripture and dismissing the argument as pointless, people succumb to the doctrine of Pelagianism, which cannot be regarded as a positive solution. By placing emphasis on the presence of God as the ultimate answer, in turn, one is likely to go to another extreme. Therefore, by claiming that the dialogue must remain consistent, C. S. Lewis both introduces his audience to a cause-and-effect analysis and furthers the discussion.
The Least Convincing Argument
Because of the difference in time periods during which the arguments analyzed above were produced, stating that one of them has particularly little substance would imply lacking subjectivity. However, if viewing these ideas as the ones that stood the test of time and, therefore, can be regarded as universal in the theological argument about the connection between a particular cause and a certain effect that it has on people, one may see Lucretius’s scientific poem as the statement that fails to meet the requirements for a proper representation of cause-and-effect links. By failing to identify the nature of the phenomenon of a storm and, therefore, misrepresenting the connection between its factors, Lucretius makes a rather weak assumption.
For instance, by viewing the increase in the temperature of clouds as the primary factor that leads to the production of lightning, Lucretius makes a mistake at the very start of his chain of logical statements. Despite the fact that there are some grains of sensibility in his ideas, such as the endeavor to connect the increase in temperature to the change in the weather, the overall argument does not seem legitimate since it is flawed at its very foundation. As a result, while flowing naturally, the line of reasoning provided by Lucretius does not work.
The rationale for the Choice
Both the best and the least convincing arguments were selected based on their use of cause-and-effect logic as the means of substantiating their assumptions. Herein lies the rationale for choosing either. The argument that seems the most sound and sensible of all for, the statement made by C. S. Lewis allows taking into account both arguments in favor of his statement and the ones that oppose it. C. S. Lewis identifies cause-and-effect connections for both the claims made by the supporters and his viewpoint and the ones that deny it. As a result, the very nature of the problem of self and the presence of God can be studied in depth.
In addition, C. S. Lewis makes it evident that the problem scrutinized in his paper can hardly be resolved. However, it provides ample opportunities for inviting more people to join the discussion. Thus, more opinions can be voiced, and, therefore, more chances to unravel the truth are created. Thus, C. S. Lewis’s argument remains the superior one.