Buy the audiobook: www.amazon.com/C-S-Lewis-Coll... Schizo-posters will be tolerated Aggressive ath*ists will be kept on a short leash Blessed posters are welcomed
A really eye opening essay. I like C.S. Lewis, I would like to read some of his works. I don't see a problem between science and religion, I think this so called "conflict" is silly. You can have both, you can be religious and be a scientist, very simple! When it comes to science and faith, I am for the following: 1. Dialogue 2. Embracing the facts 3. Reconciling 4. Promotion of science in religious circles
In some cases I think spirituality and science are the two far ends of the same rope. When pulled taught enough, the slack disappears and you see a strong connection end-to-end.
In some cases I think spirituality and science are the two far ends of the same rope. When pulled taught enough, the slack disappears and you see a strong connection end-to-end.
EN LA CIENCIA SE HACEN PREGUNTAS, SUPLICAS SOLO EN CASO DE EXAMENES, NO A DIOS SINO A LOS PROFES. EN LA RELIGION SE HACEN PREGUNTAS EN SUPLICAS DE VIRTUD, EN TODOS LOS CASOS, EN DIVERSOS KERIGMAS.
CUANDO LA VIRTUD NO EVIDENCIA A DIOS SE LE LLAMA RELIGION, CUANDO LA VIRTUD PRETENDE O INTENTA EVIDENCIAR A DIOS SE LE LLAMA FALACIA. PERO ES IRRELEVANTE, NADIE PUEDE SER DIOS, SOLO DIOS.
Modern man has a rather vain view of his great knowledge of science and how it relates to us. He has a rather dim view of the knowledge people had in the Medieval Age and before.
Lewis' understanding of science -as presented here - is fundamentally mistaken. That he choses to put it into the mouth of a made-up "scientist" is particularly egregious.
1 min: Or, Joseph realized that Mary may be stoned to death for having a child out of wedlock. And decided that the virgin birth story would save her life. Deuteronomy 22:20 1 min: Also, "Most Christians identify the [word] almah of this prophecy with the Virgin Mary. [However] in Isaiah 7, the almah is already pregnant, and modern Jewish translators have therefore rendered almah here as "young woman" [not virgin]." (Wiki) 2 min: I know in general someone might say the philosophically sloppy phrase "science has disproved the supernatural", but that's not really the case. What should be acknowledged here to the separation between methodological naturalism (science) and Philosophical Naturalism (Materialism). And while the C.S. strawman might be too confident in his materialism, C.S. is using an argument from ignorance that miracles occur. The materialist strawman is no further able to disprove that fairies do not exist, and yet is it his burden to prove that they do not exist only when they have been ruled out absolutely? 2:20 min: If God cannot make 2+2=5 then there is limit to his nature. Suppose the truth value of the phrase "a male child cannot be born of a virgin woman" = "2+2=4". Now how would you explain the birth of Christ? 2:30 min: C.S. introduces the concept of time (the drawer) to change this from a deductive phrase, to an inductive phrase. Nothing about the laws of nature has changed, only our knowledge of the contents within the drawer over time. This is a switch and bait by swapping from an ontological claim to an epistemological claim. By this standard C.S. ought to show in what way God could "interfere" to create a male child from a virgin (where did the Y-Chromosome come from?). If C.S. cannot, then it is as good as claiming aliens stole coins from the drawer with their teleporter. 5 min: It's one thing to blow down a strawman that erroneously thinks Middle Ages Christians believed in a Flat-Earth. It's another when metaphysians do come to the wrong conclusions. Like Aristotle, that thought the stars were fixed in place in perfect spheres. Or, when left-handed people were considered weak to evil. 6 min: Oh, what "Histories of Science" do not mention the ideas of the precursors? Please be specific. 6:20: NO. It's one thing to have an dumb strawman, it quite another to suggest there is an outright conspiracy to re-write the History of Science. Please, this is an anti-educational attitude among the religious that is toxic. Metaphysical concepts are the reason that Jehova's Witnesses won't get blood transfusions. Do you see the toxic attitude of just letting a child die rather than letting a doctor treat them? close: This entire video is basically a roundabout Problem of Induction. A hint of conspiracy, a dash of argument from authority (the ancient philosophers), and served on a plate of "you-can't-prove-I'm-wrong". At no point does C.S. do the most helpful thing, which would have been to help his opponent determine how to tell which metaphysical claims are true and which are false. All he does is argue that induction cannot prove him wrong. To which we might look to the wizarding world of Harry Potter for a repsonse: 'The thing you call the Resurrection Stone? How can that be real?’ ‘Prove that it is not,’ said Xenophilius. Hermione looked outraged. ‘But that’s - I’m sorry, but that’s completely ridiculous! How can I possibly provide it doesn’t exist? Do you expect me to get hold of - of all the pebbles in the world, and test them? I mean, you could claim that anything’s real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody’s proved it doesn’t exist!’
In regards to your closing comment, you do realize Rowling is a Christian right? I find it a strange technique to use the work of someone who wouldn't agree with the point you are trying to make, the irony of doing so kinda ruins it. In general though, you seemed to completely miss the point of the essay if you think nitpicking specific points is actually achieving anything.
2, 2, and 5 are not objects in the material world Now God can and two apples to two apples to make five apples (the feeding of the five thousand) If he did make 2 + 2 = 5, we would think 5 to be four Hence, the strawmans question and your conclusion is nonsensical Also the statement that "a man cannot be born of a virgin" = "2+2=5" Is pure nonsense. Lewis femonstrated that those belong two different categories. A baby being born is an event that happens addition of numbers is not an event that happens. Hence to study miracles using those examples is nonsensical
2:30 Now you're talking nonsense To "show how" according to your standard is to provide material explanation of how God did it. But Lewis is neither God nor a materialist. Nor does he believe even the normal course of events have a material origin. The stealing of the coins is a metaphor for (in the case of virgin birth) putting a child in his mothers womb the fact that this is USUALLY done using sperm cell is PURELY statistical and historical
Again To choose not to get blood transfusions has nothing to do with being pro- or anti- science I can have perfevt knowledge and understanding of the circulatory system and the practice of blood transfer This doesn't make me any less scientific
