Re: Re[2]: Fw: Underlying assumptions

Murphy (
Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:27:11 -0500

Robert L. Miller wrote:

> > "It is a remarkable thing that no canonical writer ever used
> > nature as a proof of God's existence. All set out to convince
> > us of it. But David, Solomon, and the rest never said: `There
> > is no void; therefore there is a God.' They must have been
> > cleverer than the cleverest of their successors, every one of
> > whom has used this argument. The fact is worth pondering on."
> > Pascal, Pensee #6.
> >
> I guess Pascal's argument from silence is about as effective as anyone
> else's argument from silence.

Or, if we weigh opinions & don't just count them, better.
Pascal's contrast between the "God of the philosophers" and the "God of
Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob ... God of Jesus Christ" is very
much to the point. The chief problem with independent natural theology
is not just in ancient history but is quite current: People are so much
impressed with their "discoveries" of God that they rest content with
the God of the philosophers. Who needs Jesus if you've "seen the face
of God" in the microwave background (a la George Smoot)?

George Murphy