"The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
Darwin, Charles, 1881. Letter to W. Graham. In F. Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles ... s1_08.html
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
- C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970) pp. 52-53.
Quoted from: http://filebox.vt.edu/s/sgc/Quotes.html
AMbomb wrote:You're forgetting theoretical science. Atheism is not a philosophy. ... And it's worth pointing out that Europe has already de-Christianized and the United States is in the process. 14% of British who took a survey about Jesus didn't even know who he supposedly was! The percentage of the population of the United States that is Christian dropped from 86.2 to 76.5 from 1990 to 2001. Other parts of the world that are less educated and less scientifically advanced are still clinging to religion. But, it's definitely on the decline in the developed world. ....
revrosado wrote:You use science in the form of Knowledge. But I use science in the sense of the testing of natural phenomenon for understanding - this is laboratory science. Empirical science is not always accepted as "proof" or conclusive. Empiricism is prone to personal individualistic perceptions and interpretation. Theoretical science is jsut that - theory based.
Careful handling of knowledge is essential for proper comprehension. Proper reasoning skills is essential for understanding.
JC - I would appreciate if you can amplify your statement concerning the inability of unbelievers to understand if not by faith - is that to say that man cannot come to a comprehension of truth (or/ or of God) via the created things?
revrosado wrote:It is not that the knowledge condemns but rather their own refusal to admit God, to conclude that God created all these things we call science and nature.
AMbomb wrote:If there was such a thing as God, it would be easy for him to do something that would erase all doubts of his existence. Since that hasn't happened, we can logically conclude that the Christian belief in a god who wants people to believe in him is wrong.
Users browsing this forum: KayameEntenda and 0 guests