C.S. Lewis is one the ‘popular’ apologetic of Christianity in the West. My first impression of his book is that is really painful to read. It is a shame that an writer could have organized the book in such a chaotic way. That also reflect the quality of his argument to defend the omniscient attribute of Christian God. His way of explaining ‘away’ Christian God's responsibility of allowing evil to take place show how far is the (his) Christian way of thinking from the logical thinking of ordinary folks. If anyone start to covert someone to Christianity via this book, then the conversion itself really demonstrate the omnipotent attribute of the existence of Christian God, since it can override logic and rationality.
If I am going to discusses all problems in his arguments, then I may need to use up all spaces in this blog, so I just focus on what intrigue me the most. One of his main thrust is that pain is necessary for happy to exists. In order to have happiness then we must also have sadness. It made sense in psychology of human being but not necessary for an Omnipotent God: because he create not just a universe but create the physical framework(rules) which hold all physical object include the universe, and he also create the psychological framework(rules) which our mind operate. Why must Christian God devise a finite world which happiness of some of us would translate to sadness of other due to inadequacy (finite) of natural resources? Why must Christian God must create a Psychology which would require sadness to co-exist as happiness? Wasn't that Christian God omnipotent? So an omnipotent God can't create psychological framework which would respond to any physical framework which God devise in such a way pain is unnecessary for human to know God? It is not Christian God that is not omnipotent, it just demonstrate how much does this theologian lack imagination! And how the conversion of anyone into Christian would immediate damage his/her intellectual and imagining capacity!
One of lesson I learned is that conservative often see what exists as what is necessary to exist, and fails to see what necessarily doesn't exist.
(Thought History: U2)
沒有留言:
張貼留言