Charles Carrigan wrote:
> At 06:47 PM 8/24/01 -0400, you wrote:
>> And on a different topic, I can't help passing along this thought
>> for the day:
>> "Think of the difference it would have made to contemporary
>> Christianity if
>> Darwin had read Pascal instead of Paley in his days as a divinity
>> (E.T. Oakes, 2001).
>> Karl V. Evans
> I for one wouldn't mind seeing further comments on this quote, as one
> who is not at all familiar with the writings of Pascal and Paley, or
> much else that divinity students read.
Some of Pascal's notes relevant to the question of natural theology
are as follows:
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
If it is a sign of weakness to have used nature as a proof of God, do
not despise Scripture for it; if it is a sign of strength to have
recognized these contradictions, give Scripture the credit for it.
What meets our eyes denotes neither a total absence nor a manifest
presence of the divine, but the presence of a God who conceals himself.
Everything bears this stamp.
These are, respectively, #s 6 and 7 on p.32 and # 602 on p.222
of the Penguin edition of The Pensees.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 27 2001 - 13:16:25 EDT