Dawkins and super-infinity in TIME

[Interplanner]

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?"

 

[Interplanner]

Everyone in Creation v Evolution should have a comment here. It is as fundamental as being able to read. Naturalism in the philosophic sense is totalitarian.

This is why Lewis was quick to point out that Christian faith is actually closer to artistic imagination than it is to naturalism, because naturalism is unable to function or comprehend or assimilate outside of its one world. Even if it claims to have mastered function, comprehension and assimilation!

This reminds me of the American talk show host who was visiting Hungary and saw a man commanding his dog in Hungarian. 'Didn't the fellow know he should be speaking in English?' Then the talk host realized--there are other worlds out there.

 

[Interplanner]

Really? Nothing to say?

 

[CherubRam]

Atheistic Evolution is more about faith than actual science. Biblical Evolution is about the beginning of God whom created living things. Natural Evolution is not possible in this Universe. God is the beginning of life, whom began apart from this Universe that He created.

 

[alwight]

@OP
There seems to be a strange confluence between C.S.Lewis and Richard Dawkins going on here.
One a war time symbol of hope for many through theology and apologetics, while the other a latter day man of science who perhaps sees religious belief as a distraction from a true scientific understanding of the real world.
Perhaps if you could demonstrate rather than assert to Dawkins and me that your particular "God" actually does exist beyond theology and apologetics then that would be a good start?
Science has not shown that something "outside" does not exist because it can't, it can only deal with our testable physical reality, of which gods generally don't seem to be a testable feature and are irrelevant to science even if any such entities do exist.
Claiming that cellular complexity indicates design or is so wondrous to your own personal incredulities to be anything other than by design is a fallacy.