Thus, with a superficial knowledge, we do not obtain to go beyond commentaries as this of Daniel Dannet: The Kind God who lovingly molded each one of us (all the great and small creatures) and it sprinkled the sky with shining stars for our enchantment? this God is as Papa Noel, a myth of infancy, nothing that an adult of mind s and without illusions, can believe literally. Little concrete is necessary to transform this God into a symbol of something or then to abandon it. On the other hand if, when adult? in the ownership of a bigger knowledge, it has the interest in going deep itself the questioning, what we find side to the frustration, as if can see, for example, in the commentary of opening of the Bible of Jerusalem. When explaining the text of the creation if says that it still uses an incipient science. It affirms that we do not have to establish agreement between it and our modern science, but that, exactly thus, it in them presents a teaching disclosed, that has permanent value, on God, only, transcendente, previous to the world, creator. ' ' guindaste' ' Dawkins Its questioning, Mr.—
Dawkins, takes in them, with the force of a derrick, to other questions. Why the Biblical text of the creation must be separated of the study of sciences, as suggests the explanation above? Because it is that we do not have to establish agreement between the plan of the creation and our modern science? One and another one are not interested in giving to know world the same? We learn that he is for the faith that if knows the only true God, disclosed for the Writing. But, as he is possible to attribute faith to a revelation that does not sound true? A science that, before being disclosed, created the sky and the land, in no hypothesis could be incipient.
Oct 1, 10:05 AMArt Planet International
Commenting is closed for this article.