If nature had a creator, wouldn't he/she/it be supernatural?
I think you're making the same fundamental mistake that both Richard Dawkins and many evangelical Christians. God as understood by most Christians, Muslims and Jews, isn't a phenomenon in the world which can be discovered, studied, measured. If she were, then Dawkins would clearly be right. But she is something utterly different, the source of everything in nature, and arguably the sum total of it too, but equally its complement.
I guess you *could* [re-]define the word 'nature' to include her too without making the Dawkins mistake, but people would misunderstand you, and you'd be left without a word for the other stuff.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-05-21 12:35 pm (UTC)I think you're making the same fundamental mistake that both Richard Dawkins and many evangelical Christians. God as understood by most Christians, Muslims and Jews, isn't a phenomenon in the world which can be discovered, studied, measured. If she were, then Dawkins would clearly be right. But she is something utterly different, the source of everything in nature, and arguably the sum total of it too, but equally its complement.
I guess you *could* [re-]define the word 'nature' to include her too without making the Dawkins mistake, but people would misunderstand you, and you'd be left without a word for the other stuff.