I read a recent News article entitled "Atheists seek OK for banner at Christmas display." It appears that a national atheist foundation sought to display its own banner among the other holiday displays on the courthouse grounds. There seem to have been some objection to what seem to them only representation by those the Christian faith. The county judge said that the grounds were open to anyone who wanted to add religious symbols of their faiths to the holiday display. The atheists seemed concerned that displays were permitted to represent any religious faith and were countering with a demand for the right to display their own.
Any display of religious symbols are public expressions of the faith of those erecting the displays. But these symbols should not be interpreted as saying anything about faiths--or lack of faith--of people not represented by those symbols.
But the atheist, not only say that they believe in the "natural world"; they want to trash those who have religious beliefs. That's not what people who display religious symbols are doing, at least, I hope it's not.
These atheists want permission to display a banner which says: "All this season of the Winter Solstice, LET REASON PREVAIL. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enclaves minds." But aren't atheists often guilty of the same things?
Religion no doubt has been used by certain people at various times in history to enslave the minds and hearten the hearts of the faithful, often against their neighbors. But those were not among the basic teachings of major religions nor of their founders. It might have been sufficient for the banner to simply said: "All this season of the Winter Solstice, LET REASON PREVAIL." Or simply say: "Atheists wish everyone HAPPY HOLIDAYS." There is nothing wrong with atheists or people of faith wishing happiness for others regardless of their religious faith or lack of faith. It's evidence of not being closed-minded and "hard hearted."
But atheists call for "REASON" to prevail seems quite appropriate. So let's try it. They believe only in "our natural world" as if anybody, including them, knows exactly what that is. They believe that within a relatively few millions years (say a billion years) "our natural world" produced some forms of living single-celled organisms from non-living matter. But how did that primordial life came into being? Nevertheless, those one-celled organism went on to produce mankind, who is constantly discovering new aspects of our natural world, inventing new mathematics to describe it, and using that knowledge to invent smart telephones and technology unimaginable even by the creators of Dick Tracy.
Since we have no idea about the limits of "our natural world,"could it not be reasonable that during an eternity it could produce a supreme being that is infinitely more creative than human beings, and who could set into motion those aspects of reality with which we are familiar and others with which we are capable of becoming acquainted? And any natural world that can create superior intelligence must be enabled by someone or something possessing something that is superior to intelligence. (I'm just reasoning.)
But with everything about "our natural world" that we observe and infer but don't understand and that we don't even know about (visit "Fabric of the Cosmos" on pbs) atheists are willing to conclude that for reasons that defy reason, that God cannot not exist there.
There appear to be only two choices: Either "our natural world" with perhaps an infinite IQ always existed or a supreme being (God) with an equal or perhaps superior attribute. Both are incomprehensible. The question about who made either one is legitimate. I'd rather rather believe there be a supreme, rational being determining what our natural world will be rather or how it will behave than a randomly acting natural world whose only creative tool in trial and error, and that allows anything to happen and makes anybody and anything possible. However, I Two options are all that I can see.
So when atheists ask us to reason, just based on what we know about ourselves and what scientists are learning everyday about ourselves and "our natural world," reason leads us to conclude that we live or exist in a reality of infinite possibilities but not infinite disorderliness. As long as "our natural world has existed no one has ever found an intelligent telephone, a telescope or any such contraption that nature world built. Mankind with intelligence had to build them.
Yet, the disbelief of atheists is understandable. That any being could be so awesomely powerful and so incomprehensibly intelligent is unimaginable. But that's why God is referred to The Supreme Being; He has attributes that aren't in any dictionary.
So much for the reasoning, though, the inevitability of God hadn't worked for Christopher Hitchens, renown and thoughtful atheist whose interviews many enjoyed. At least it hadn't at the time of a interview of him after he became ill. He assured CNN's Anderson Cooper that if anybody heard that he finally found God on his death bed, not to believe it. It will have happened without his permission, to paraphrase. Another renowned atheists, however, admitted considering the possibility that, after death, he might end up somewhere he didn't expect to be.
Hitchens and William F. Buckley, Jr. were people with whom I often disagreed, but who compelled me to see the other sides of issues and look for any merits that might exist in opposing opinions.
Most atheists (in contrast to those who just choose to ignore God) are good, honest, fair-minded people who, like the Biblical Cornelius and his family, know what is right--and do it--without any apparent religious influence. Jesus has said that no man comes to the Father except by Him. I believe He will give such people permission to pass on by.
No comments:
Post a Comment