The Necklace

Image
  “SHE WAS one of those pretty, charming young ladies, born, as if through an error of destiny, into a family of clerks. She had no dowry, no hopes, no means of becoming known, appreciated, loved, and married by a man either rich or distinguished; and she allowed herself to marry a petty clerk in the office of the Board of Education. . . .  She had neither frocks nor jewels, nothing. And she loved only those things. She felt that she was made for them. She had such a desire to please, to be sought after, to be clever, and courted.” —THE NECKLACE Guy de Maupassant    France, 1884 (pic by Grok) Read this short story here:  https://americanliterature.com/author/guy-de-maupassant/short-story/the-necklace

Does science make belief in God Obsolete?

My friend over at Church of the Kharma Futures sent me this link to A Templeton Conversation: Does science make belief in God Obsolete? Here are two immediate thoughts:

1) Since "science" means "knowledge" (thus "conscience" means "with knowledge"), God would say the answer is "no." In other words, man already knows that God IS. God contributed his article in Romans 1:18-32 in one place among many. To reject Him is to take what man already knows to be true and make for himself a god of his own understanding (thus breaking the 2nd commandment). Science assumes that man have two eyes and a brain that can think. To reject God is unscientific; that is, close the eyes, stop thinking and become a moron (that's the Greek word for "fools" used in verse 22);

2) If science (impersonal) could make obsolete God (personal), what would the results be? I firmly believe that Mary Shelley answered that question 41 years before Darwin published.

Here is Greg Koukl of Stands to Reason with some thoughts on evidence and atheism (specifically):



Popular posts from this blog

Rock Me, Epictetus!

The Smooth-flowing Life