I found it interesting on pages 20 and 21, when Lewis is talking about nature, that he basically says observing nature is good and stuff but we can't let it get in front of God. Otherwise, he says, it could turn into some kind of "nature religion". I just think its a neat thought that we can't really find anything as far as God's knowledge in nature. I mean we can look at it and praise God for it but if we meditate on it then it starts to take the place of God. I think he summarizes what he thinks pretty well at the bottom of 21, "But we need not surrender the love of nature-chastened and limited as I have suggested-to the debunkers. Nature cannot satisfy the desires she arouses nor answer theological questions, nor sanctify us."
posted by $tovetop at 9:53 PM
2 Comments:
Do you think that Lewis intends us to infer that the questions aroused by the wonder we feel in nature will lead us to quest after God? That nature itself tends to equal a question in our minds- a kind of glory independent of God, but yet vacuous and wanting? Perhaps it is because the "nature-reveals" theology is so engrained in my mindset that I cannot entirly give it up, but I do feel that nature is at least the first stage of questioning into the existance of God.
I would say that Lewis would accept that for some individuals nature may play a role in questioning the existance of God, but also sees how small and insignificant and ugly this nature can seem in comparison to other things. He says that in the vast expanse of space this earth that we see as majestic and proof of the existance of God is really some small insignificant spec in the vast cosmos. Not that I am saying that God didn't create space as well, but that we usually only use earth as the tangible proof that God exists.
Post a Comment
<< Home