Interplanner
Well-known member
In responding to ID arguments about genetics in TIME several years back, I think Dawkins made his most egregious error. But I only mention it to whet your appetite for a quote from Lewis.
What Dawkins said was that "if there is a god, he is infinitely more powerful and intelligent than anything any theologian has ever thought of."
Is it just me, or do I hear quite a strain, a chain of superlatives being demanded or exacted? The people in awe of the degree of design on the cellular level are the ones in awe of God. But this is spited by Dawkins. Puny god. If there really was a god, he'd have been so much more complex and it would show in creations.
The Christian effort really is to try to help people like Dawkins see that God is as powerful and intelligent as theologians have been saying. It would be sufficient if that could be accomplished!
In "Religion and Science" Lewis recorded a dialogue in which a friend indicated that the scientific world had made religion completely pointless.
"Modern science has shown that there's no such thing (as beyond Nature)."
"Really," said I. "Which of the sciences?"
"Oh, well, that's a matter of detail," said my friend. "I can't give you chapter and verse from memory."
"But don't you see," said I, "that science never could show anything of the sort?"
"Why on earth not?"
"Because science studies Nature. And the question is whether anything besides Nature exists--anything 'outside.' How could you find that out by studying simply Nature?"
The reason Dawkins forced out all those superlatives, put down many eloquent prophets and teachers, and spoke of a super-infinity is because the amazing miracle of cellular design etc. shows that there is something outside. And it can slip in and out of nature at will. Naturalism pretends it has a corner on knowledge. But does not.
As the old professor remarked at the end of THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE, "What are they teaching in schools these days?"
What Dawkins said was that "if there is a god, he is infinitely more powerful and intelligent than anything any theologian has ever thought of."
Is it just me, or do I hear quite a strain, a chain of superlatives being demanded or exacted? The people in awe of the degree of design on the cellular level are the ones in awe of God. But this is spited by Dawkins. Puny god. If there really was a god, he'd have been so much more complex and it would show in creations.
The Christian effort really is to try to help people like Dawkins see that God is as powerful and intelligent as theologians have been saying. It would be sufficient if that could be accomplished!
In "Religion and Science" Lewis recorded a dialogue in which a friend indicated that the scientific world had made religion completely pointless.
"Modern science has shown that there's no such thing (as beyond Nature)."
"Really," said I. "Which of the sciences?"
"Oh, well, that's a matter of detail," said my friend. "I can't give you chapter and verse from memory."
"But don't you see," said I, "that science never could show anything of the sort?"
"Why on earth not?"
"Because science studies Nature. And the question is whether anything besides Nature exists--anything 'outside.' How could you find that out by studying simply Nature?"
The reason Dawkins forced out all those superlatives, put down many eloquent prophets and teachers, and spoke of a super-infinity is because the amazing miracle of cellular design etc. shows that there is something outside. And it can slip in and out of nature at will. Naturalism pretends it has a corner on knowledge. But does not.
As the old professor remarked at the end of THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE, "What are they teaching in schools these days?"