Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Essay:
" (Polkinghorne, p. 4)
As with Lewis before him in our discussion, Polkinghorne supplies a reason for the certainty of God's presence in scientific affairs most simply because he believes there is no other more likely or rational explanation for certain accomplishments. Like Lewis, Polkinghorne simply places beyond the grasp of human capacity a certain loosely defined category of things that must inherently be accounted for by the unseen power of a higher being called God. This premise is a surprising one to extend from a discussion extolling the beauty of scientific accomplishments in that it satisfies itself on the basis of highly unempirical arguments. The central premise of Polkinghorne's text mirrors both in the blindness of its faith and the flaws in its presentation the central premise of Lewis' assertion. Namely, both proceed from the idea that because there are remarkable things for which explanations appear to be so unreachable, we must conclude that a divine force is accountable. This presumption is highly circular and rests on the acceptance that such an explanation itself is even possible. While it is not the province of a figure such as Lewis to even attempt to disprove the notion of a divine force as the explanation for all things too remarkable to be easily explained in human terms, it is most certainly the province of one such as Polkinghorne, proposing here to assess the belief in God in a scientific context, to attempt otherwise to disprove such an entity first and foremost, before proceeding to acceptance of said entity.
That said, there remain threads of scientific integrity strung throughout the text by Polkinghorne. And within these threads, we find Polkinghorne's relative confidence in science does challenge certain ways of posturing in religion. Accordingly, Polkinghorne indicates that at least where science is concerned, the fact that things can be disproved or that facts can be amended does not disprove the role of the divine in the process. Polkinghorne remarks that "I do not think that this realization of the necessary precariousness involved in human theorizing, condemns us to a post-modernist belief in the personal or communal construction of a variety of views from which we are free to make our a la carte selection. There is a middle way between certainty and relativism, which corresponds to the critical adherence to rationally motivated belief, held with conviction but open to the possibility of correction." (Polkinghorne, p. 15)
In this conception, Pokinghorne makes the argument that the scientific process makes certain assumptions always in a state of evolution and that this mutability does not alter the basic formula by which divine inspiration is present in scientific innovation. However, this very premise also might point to the way that our ideas relating to God, religion, nature and ourselves are always changing. And if these are always changing, even without guessing, we must inevitably find ourselves drawing, questioning and redrawing the articles of human faith 'with conviction but open to the possibility of correction.' This consideration returns us to the ideas initially expressed by C.S. Lewis. To this summary notion for the acceptance of Christianity, Lewis is compelled to argue that any connection between Christianity and other traditions of faith through history owes to their relative proximity to 'rightness.' Indeed, Lewis proposes that the world divides into a 'right' way and a wrong way of understanding the world and that while even the 'queerest' of religions may have some element of rightness held in their canons, Christians inherently understand that their faith is the closest in proximity to rightness. As Lewis observes, "the first big division of humanity is into the majority, who believe in some kind of God or gods, and the minority who do not. ON this point, Christianity lines up with the majority -- lines up with ancient Greeks and Romans, modern savages, Stoics, Platonists, Hindus, Mohammedans, etc., against the modern Western European materialist." (Lewis, p. 39-40)
From here, Lewis goes further to propose divisions within the world according to the type of God which adherents have conceptualized, and according to how adherents believe that divine influence or free will influence the universe. In each division, Lewis regards Christianity as the standard by which all other perceptions are to be judged. By doing so, the author proposes assuredness in the rightness of Christian faith that is at once characterized as the conclusion but with closer consideration reveals itself as the preemptive assumption. That is, in order for the logic of the ideas by Lewis, indeed for the logic of the ideas expressed above by Polkinghorne or the ideas dissected by McGrath to hold pertinence, one must accept in advance the specific structures and tenets that govern the Christian faith are known with certainty. One is required to possess a faith already which cannot be swayed in order to conjure any merit in the idea that Christianity could 'not have been guessed.'
As the discussion here shows, it was never necessary to 'guess' Christianity or its various rules. Quite to the contrary, the imperatives defining Christianity developed organically from other human structures that remain observable to use even this many centuries removed. From the earliest murmurings in ancient history about the probability of there being only one God to the eventual perception of God, man, morality, state and church as all being fully inseparable notions; from the first attempts at rationalizing acceptance of an unseen force to the eventual interweaving of scientific and theological faiths; from evidence in artifact to evidence in our present day culture; it is quite clear that the way that we as individual groups and as a collective attempt to define ourselves, to worship, to conceptualize an afterlife and to frame our origins have all created a certain necessity for answers. The culturally permeating implications of Christianity have consequently provided these answers at the ready, and may credit a combination of faith, ingenuity and yes, guesswork, for their perceived arrival at these answers.
Lewis, C.S. (2001). Mere Christianity. Harper San Francisco.
McGrath, A.E. (2004). Theology: The Basics. Wiley-Blackewell; 1st edition.
Polkinghorne, J. (2003). Belief in God in an Age of Science. Yale University Press.[continue]
"Lewis Christianity Lewis And Christian" (2011, December 11) Retrieved October 25, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/lewis-christianity-and-christian-48397
"Lewis Christianity Lewis And Christian" 11 December 2011. Web.25 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/lewis-christianity-and-christian-48397>
"Lewis Christianity Lewis And Christian", 11 December 2011, Accessed.25 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/lewis-christianity-and-christian-48397
McGrath's comments above suggest periods of conceptual adjustment as observers of the Christian faith worked to make explanations for the presence, even the commonality, of sin as it exists in spite of God's innate goodness. So again, to the idea that Christianity's incredible facets couldn't rationally be reached by outsiders to the faith with some guesswork does not hold up against the process by which we know Christianity came to
Generosity is the main characteristic of a Christian society. Along with that, Christians should be obedient to God and respectful toward government. The family would become a matter of great importance. Christians would not live luxurious lives while their brothers suffered. These communities would not support parasites not r would they support extravagant lifestyles. The Christian community is happy, joyful, and worry would not run rampant. Christians are courteous
Humans have a moral drive within them that attests to the existence of right and wrong. This innate standard was not "man-made," but evolved along with human society. It must come from an external superior force, or God. Yet, humans do fail and cannot always live up to such high standards. God therefore sent someone as a savior to make humans right. Christ forgave sins, "This makes sense only
Lewis Relativist said, 'The world does not exist, England does not exist, Oxford does not exist and I am confident that I do not Exist!' When Lewis was asked to reply, he stood up and said, 'How am I to talk to a man who's not there?'" (Schultz, 1998) Lewis: A Biography This quote shows how, in truly CS Lewis style, the writer took the everyday questions about religion and faith, tacking them
Lewis: The Problem of Pain According to Lewis, there is a reason that a loving, caring, compassionate, and concerned God would still allow the suffering of the human beings that he created. In his book The Problem of Pain, Lewis states that human beings believe that living a life that was pain-free would mean that God loves us. When we suffer pain we think that God is angry with us and
They used concepts with which pagans had long been familiar to construct a world in which individuals could no longer roam alone, without the benefit of priests, and be safe. Medieval theologians complicated what had once been simple, if at time frightening. One can infer from this that the medieval mind viewed the world as dangerous; magic had been one way to control it. However, it appeared that magic
It is possible that Lewis had not intended certain matters from his books to have the effects that they eventually had on the public. It had most probably been because of the fact that he did not planned for a large amount of time before deciding to write the series. In contrast, Tolkien had prepared The Lord of the Rings for several decades, studying various geographical locations and history before