Was reading the other day about C. S. Lewis's conversion from atheism (or agnosticism -- he seemed not to be sure what he didn't believe) to Christianity in a book called C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church. There's a passage from G. K. Chesterton which the author says was a real eye-opener for the skeptical Lewis. It's from The Everlasting Man, and it illustrates, according to the author of the Lewis book, "the limits of (evolution's) application to any understanding of human history":
"Nobody can imagine (Chesterton writes) how nothing could turn into something...It is really far more logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created the heaven and earth' even if you only mean 'In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.'"
Why is it far more logical to start so? If you only mean that the whole thing is unthinkable, where does logic come in?
Why is it any more "logical" to postulate a fairy-tale God who was simply "there" in the beginning, than to simply say that things came into existence?
Or why require a "creation" at all? If God could have always been there, why not the universe?
1 comment:
I WAS HAVING THIS ARGUMENT WITH MYSELF THE OTHER DAY FOR THE COUNTLESS TIME AS I WAS AMAZED BY SOME BEAUTIFUL NATURE SCENE UP HERE IN THE COUNTRY. HOW COULD IT ALL JUST HAPPEN, BUT THEN AGAIN HOW COULD THERE JUST HAPPEN TO BE A GOD. HOWEVER, I CAN USUALLY AGREE HOW UNFATHOMABLE IT WOULD BE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO FATHOM GOD, IF HE OR SHE WERE...OR WERE NOT.
Post a Comment