Forwarded message:
> From bpayne15@juno.com Wed May 30 23:20:32 2001
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 10:44:57 -0400 (EDT) Joel Cannon
> <jcannon@jcannon.washjeff.edu> writes:
>
> > It appears from this that you would agree with Richard Dawkins, Carl
> > Sagan, etc. that God is a hypothesis competing with science to
> > explain the natural world.
> >
> > How can a God who sent his Son to give us new life to die for us on
> > the cross be irrelevant?
>
> By setting religion up as contingent on a "God of the Gaps", showing how
> the gaps have been explained, and saying therefore God is not necessary
> to explain the cosmos.
>
> Ask me how I know. :-)
>
> Bill
The key phrase here seems to me to be "By setting up." Why accept a
fallacious "setup"?
Unfortunately Dawkins is just picking up on
Cristian William Paley's setup. The effectiveness of Dawkins and other
evolutionary naturalists arguably owes itself to Christians providing
this Jesus-free "setup." Shouldn't we learn from Christians' past
errors?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
Physics Department |
Washington and Jefferson College |
Washington, PA 15301 |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 31 2001 - 11:11:59 EDT