Randy Thomas reviews a PBS program, The Question of God, about the perspectives of C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud on science and religion.
In part two of his review, Thomas says of science:
Nutshell: Scientific worldview will always be incomplete and often inaccurate. The Christian worldview is already complete and bringing all things back into harmony with the Creator.
Of Freud, the man whose theories form the core of reparative therapy, Thomas says:
Freud becomes his own god and is himself his only source of understanding.
Is that stated explicitly in the PBS program, or does Thomas say this about atheists, agnostics, or scientists in general?
Whenever a Christian attacks science because it hasn’t explained everything, I remember the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on Manicheism: “Manichæism professed to be a religion of pure reason as opposed to Christian credulity; it professed to explain the origin, the composition, and the future of the universe; it had an answer for everything and despised Christianity, which was full of mysteries.”
Somehow I don’t think that “explaining everything” is a card that Christians should try to play.
For anyone who may be interested, the NYTimes message boards/forums has a message board directed to the program:
>’The Question of God’
>Based on a Harvard course taught by Dr. Armand Nicholi Jr., the television program “The Question of God” examines the religious attitudes of Sigmund Freud, a life-long critic of religious belief, and C.S. Lewis, a popular proponent of faith based on reason. The second installment of the series airs on PBS Wednesday, Sept. 22.
>As a companion to this program, please entertain the following questions: Does God exist? How do we find meaning and purpose in our lives? How do we cope with the problem of suffering and the inevitability of death?
>This week, several panelists involved with the series will answer NYTimes.com readers’ questions. The panelists are Dr. Nicholi, who moderates the series; series producer Dominique Lasseur; Jeremy D. Fraiberg, a lawyer; and Dr. Frederick S. Lee of the Center for Immunology and Inflammatory Diseases in Charlestown, Mass., and also a former student of Dr. Nicholi’s.
It can be found at https://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/national/thequestionofgod/index.html
>Whenever a Christian attacks science because it >hasn’t explained everything, I remember the >Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on >Manicheism: “Manichæism professed to be a >religion of pure reason as opposed to Christian >credulity; it professed to explain the origin, >the composition, and the future of the universe; >it had an answer for everything and despised >Christianity, which was full of mysteries.”
>Somehow I don’t think that “explaining >everything” is a card that Christians should try >to play.
You’ll notice the first part–that Manicheism was based on pure reason. This is a HUGE difference. I agree that absolute statements are often questionable. However, I think the point is about truth–any worldview must be able to account for everything if it is indeed true. Otherwise it is not true.
This is interesting since Lewis’ position was that you should neither deify nor defy science.