Category: What do you think?

A well-known scientist, one often claimed by atheists as one of their own, had some scolding words for those who try to frame his work as anti-religious.

“There are the fanatical atheists,” he said, “…whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.”

Albert Einstein spoke these words in an address delivered in 1941.

Einstein understood something that is misunderstood at best, ignored at worst, by those who promote the idea that one has to choose between God or Science: Understanding how the universe works tells us nothing about whether or not it was designed.

Oxford Professor John Lennox often notes that many of the founders of modern day science including Nicolaus Copernicus (a monk), Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle and others; all believed in God; and because of their belief, they strove to understand His creation.  

The question one should ask when confronted with the call of God isn’t, “Should I choose God or Science.”  That question presents a false dilemma.  The real question is, “will you receive His offer of eternal fellowship with Him.”

(Ref: Einstein to an unidentified addressee dated 7th August 1941. Einstein archive reel 54-927; Jammer p.97.)

It’s common for some anti-theists to claim that believers would be anti-moral without the Bible because Christians get their morality from the Bible. It’s a clever misrepresentation that fails to acknowledge the difference from having a moral guide with being anti-moral. When a Christian says the Bible qualifies his or her morality, they are not saying they have no belief about what is or is not moral, they are saying morality cannot be objective without God.  Too be clear, the difference is that the Bible gives us a guide beyond personal desire to say what is good, and what is evil. The anti-theist argument here is bad logic.

Some cite scripture as they attempt to prove their false idea that Christians would always choose immorality over morality without the Bible. One such social media post quoted the book of 1 John which tells us, “We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not.”  This scripture clearly speaks to the desire of Christians to do right in the sight of God, and to the forgiveness we have when we fail.  But this scripture does not say what decision a Christian would make without God’s guidance, that’s an anti-theist assumption that leads to circular logic.  There’s nothing in this snippet from 1^st John that speaks to the decisions any individual would make.  The anti-theist’s conclusion can only be reached from this scripture if they pre-suppose that Christians would ALWAYS choose the immoral act without a guide. In short, if you strip their claim about 1^st John to its bare essence, they are saying we know Christians would be immoral without a book because they are immoral without a book. That’s gibberish.  The book of 1 John is just one of many scriptures miss-used by those who are fundamentalist in their approach to “prove” an anti-God ideology.

A gage does not change the thing it is measuring; it defines it.  For example, I would consider myself slightly overweight.  That’s my opinion. But when I step on a scale it confirms it; I’m fat.  Would it be logical at all for me to say I wouldn’t be fat at all if I didn’t step on that scale? The scale gives me a way to justify the statement, “I’m overweight.”

Can you objectively qualify something as moral or immoral without a higher authority (like a government, or agreed-upon moral code) or without appealing to something like, “you just know,” or “I just believe?” And if you appeal to a higher authority, wouldn’t your appeal be nullified if an even higher authority contradicted your original authority’s decision?  At some point, you have to appeal to the highest authority, or there is no justification at all beyond personal opinion.

Does the false claim that Christians would be anti-moral without the Bible spring from an intentional act by those who are fundamentalist in their anti-theist belief, or from something else?  What are your thoughts?

Show me just one person killed in the name of atheism. Can’t do it, can you?  This is a complaint often lobbed by atheists who use a filtered version of history to form a worldview.  How would you answer their complaint?

Respectfully, when an officially atheist country kills someone for his or her religion, this IS an example of a person killed in the name of atheism.  The NAZIs were no friend of religion; they murdered prominent catholic lay leaders, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others because of their religion. You can get the death penalty for possessing a Bible in North Korea today; North Korea is no theocracy.  I could add many more to this list, but  examples such as these are rejected by fundamentalist atheists who claim atrocities may be committed by atheist leaders, but the murders were not done in the name of atheism.  Forgive me for disagreeing, but if you kill someone in an effort to cleanse your country of religion, you are killing in the name of atheism.

It would be wrong for me to say atheism made the leaders of the aforementioned countries become murderers.  They killed for power in an atheist state. It is equally wrong for non-believers to claim that religion makes religious leaders become murderers.  It is their desire for power in a theocracy or country made up of religious people that led them to kill.  Both ideologies can be abused.  Killing can be done in the name of anything, but it is the individual who makes the decision to pick up a weapon or to order others to do so.

Atheist and religious leaders have been responsible for atrocities throughout history.  Blaming religion, atheism, or something other than the leaders themselves is to remove their guilt.  Since the homicide rate doesn’t shoot through the roof near all churches with large congregations, there must be something other than religion to blame for the flaw in the human condition.

What are your thoughts?

I wish I had a nickel for every time one of my atheist friends posted something implying you cannot be a scientist and a Christian.  This ridiculous claim is repeated so often that some just assume it to be true.  This came  to mind when I found out this morning that 2017 Nobel Prize winner in Physics Kip Thorne will lecture at my alma mater, Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas.  He will speak on ideas and research from his book, “The Science of Interstellar.”

Thorne is an atheist and a scientist, and he apparently does not share the belief that one has to abandon faith to be successful in science.  He told The Guardian, “There is no fundamental incompatibility between science and religion. I happen to not believe in God.”

Again, he’s no shrub. Thorne is a co-founder of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory.  Thorne and his team at LIGO made history by making the first direct detection and measurement of gravitational waves, something only theorized by Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

I should address related false belief that is spread through social media posts. It’s not true that while scientists tolerate religion, the top guys are atheists.  Francis S. Collins, whose team mapped the human genome, and who was appointed by U.S. President Barack Obama to head up the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, is a Christian.  He has also written books about his beliefs.  One of my favorite is The Language of God.

For those in Texas who would like to hear Thorne’s lecture, it is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 16,  at the Lamar University Theater.

I had a Facebook discussion with a woman who said she believes there is no God.  Her reason: Lack of evidence.  She said thinking people only believe that which can be proven. Are the premises on which her belief is based sound, or is she describing an alternate faith?

I disagree that most things are accepted as true because of proof. People couldn’t function in daily life if this were true.  For example: I believe the bridge near my house is strong enough to support the weight of my car without collapsing, but I have never proven it.  I have past experience with the bridge and faith in those who built it on which to base my belief that the bridge will not fall.  Even my atheist and agnostic friends share this belief, and for the same reasons. Each individual has thousands of such beliefs that they have not proven. Not all beliefs are the result of proof.

Let’s talk briefly about evidence?  Do a Google search for The Kalam Argument or Fine Tuned Universe.  These are two of  many evidences of God.  They are not proof; but they remain evidence until proven true or false.  Too, there is evidence that is of importance only to individuals.  For example, some things can only be known a posteriori.  This is to say, something things must be experienced to know them. You can tell me a broken bone hurts, even teach me how the nervous system allows me to experience pain, but I will not KNOW the pain until I have a broken bone.  A posteriori evidence is rational for the individual’s personal beliefs, but not for that of others, and it is not the only type of evidence for God. This brief paragraph describes only a fraction of the evidence that He exists.

Belief in God, or belief there is no God, both are the result of faith.  The Bible tells us Christian faith is a gift from God. The Bible also tells us we should ask God if we lack wisdom. The Bible tells us we are drawn to God because His word is written on our heart.  If we willfully resist Him, the Bible tells us God will not force His gift on us.  He will allow us to be blinded, and this is our choice.

What are your thoughts?