Yet another instance of "Science and religion are perfectly compatible. Especially Science!"
Nice try. Nice pitch for an inconsequential deism. Nice try for "Can't atheists and theists compromise and agree that God is mostly not there?"
Link
Update: Mark Shea puts it: "On the one hand, naturalism is true and supernaturalism is false. On the other hand, supernaturalism is false, but naturalism is true."
4 comments:
As you say, nice try. The treatment of Lewis' argument from morality does not answer Lewis' argument, for one thing, but rather tries to slither around the argument. Lewis would have demolished such sophistry without batting an eye. Also, the argument from morality is not (in my opinion) Lewis' strongest argument against naturalism, anyway. That would be the argument from reason, which this article doesn't address - understandably, since the argument from reason is impregnable, as far as I can see.
I've recently been rereading "Miracles" by C.S. Lewis.
Oh, the problems that would be solved if this book were part of everyone's basic education!
I enthusiastically agree. I've long thought that "Miracles" was Lewis' best and most profound book (along with "The Abolition of Man"). It's certainly the one I re-read the most often.
If you're a fan of the argument from reason, as a follow-up to "Miracles" you might want to check out "C. S. Lewis' Dangerous Idea" by the philosopher Victor Reppert.
Already have! In fact, a few weeks ago I was regularly checking out Reppert's dangerousidea.blogspot.com blog, but had somehow forgotten all about it. Thanks for the reminder!
Post a Comment