C.S. Lewis on materialistic thoughts

The splash could give you some information about the jug and the spilling; though ole C.S. apparently didn't see this, and perhaps this is why he didn't trust "materialistic" science.For example, if the splash extends all the way across the room, one could surmise that the jug didn't tip over with a mild bump from a miscalculated reach-for-the-salt.If "milkspillogy" was a field of scientific inquiry with an extensive amount of work done on the nature of milk-spilling, there would be no reason that someone (with way too much time on their hands) couldn't predict at least a range of possible jug shapes and the velocity of spilling, which could lead to some predictions of the manufacture of jug and the reason for spilling.The recreated account(s) wouldn't be "correct" in the sense of "proven"; but that's the reason for scientific tentativity...The whole C.S. line of thought reminds me of the short argument I had with DestinyLab recently over one of their comments - there appears to exist a fairly common claim that God's creation is self-evident, but if humans happen to come across evidence that disputes some human account of God's creation, the evidence must necessarily be seen as human error rather than a part of the creation (with the human account of creation being unerring).I guess what follows is a point I've seen jar try to make: Why should we trust a human account of God's creation more than the content of the creation itself?Or, to put is to C.S. Lewis, why don't you trust the evidence produced by "materialists", when, after all, God created the "material"?

You completely misunderstood my statement. Let me restate it a different way.One believes in God as Creator. That person has a couple of ways to understand the Creation, including 1) a human account of the Creation (the Bible), and 2) the evidence of the Creation itself (the world/universe around us).Why is it that a believer denies the Creation itself in favor of the human account? But the opposite is true: there is an even stronger, I would argue, "quirk in human thought" that assigns intelligent creation where there is none. There have been many art studies done with falsified art shows, containing "art" produced by animals, toddlers, and computers; but attributed to experienced human artists. Essentially people cannot distinguish art done with creative intelligent intent from that done rather randomly.Recently the show 20/20 performed such an experiment by giving a bunch of toddlers canvas and paint and letting them go wild. They then took this "art" and placed it side by side with art done by adults. They then had both lay people and art historians evalute the paintings. The best work of art based on the survey was done by a toddler, if I remember correctly.More importantly, it was quite amusing to see art historians describe in great detail the style and context of the toddlers' paintings within artistic movements and history - assigning great intelligence and creative intent where there was none.Your example cuts in both directions, I'm afraid...

Wow, I always thought that the main cause of believing "Goddidit" was a lack of imagination... as in, "I can't imagine how this part of nature works, therefore some eternal supernatural dude that I was told about as a kid must be responsible."

You tell me. You were the one who made the assertion that we need to consider the creator of the universe when considering the universe. So, how do you distinguish? That doesn't really make any sense; care to rephrase?