We are the scientists
We are “logic” guys
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Apologies are in order to T. S. Eliot, who wrote the outstanding poem, “The Hollow Men,” which begins similarly. Atheists and evolutionary scientists are not logical; furthermore they have no soul, they think. Their brains, while functioning well as it pertains to true science, are filled with nothing but straw when they depart from verifiable data. Many are truly hollow men because they lack heart and have numbed their souls.
Although they had a legal right to do what they did in Times Square, why would anyone put up a 40-foot by 40-foot digital billboard that asks, “Who needs Christ during Christmas?” The question is then answered when a hand appears and draws an X over Christ. The word, NOBODY, then completes the digital ad by appearing at the bottom. The three-part sequence continually repeats itself. Although many of us do not associate Jesus with Christmas, this highly-observable presentation constitutes Scrooge-like meanness. Perhaps those who sponsored it should reflect on the handwriting on the wall that God showed to Belshazzar. Certainly, they are also found wanting.
Atheism a State Religion?
In the December 20, 2013 Orlando Sentinel, a Longwood resident, Don Oehlrich, commented on some of the new tactics of atheists. They could not get a monument of the Ten Commandments removed from the Bradford County Courthouse; so they installed a monument of their own—one which contains quotations from our “founding fathers” and “punishments listed in the Bible for violating the Ten Commandments” (A21). We do not know if they bothered to explain that Israel was a theocracy or not.
According to the Associated Press, atheistic church-es are being established all over the world. One in Los Angeles already has 400 in attendance. They sing hymns such as “Lean on Me” and “Here Comes the Sun.” They might as well add “Live for Today” and “Imagine.” Oehlrich then asks if atheism doesn’t have all the marks of a religion. Quoting from a Merriam-Webster Dictionary, he provides one of the definitions: “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.” Frankly, this definition is vague and may reflect the culture more than a historical meaning. But the editorial’s next few lines are interesting:
Doesn’t the atheist religion dominate our public institutions? This clearly violates the true intention of the First Amendment, which was to prohibit the establishment of a state religion. Atheists have unfairly pushed out other religions in favor of their own.
Good point! If that were where the situation ended, most would have been left with their musings on the matter and probably let it drop. But Larry D. Davis of Oviedo decided to respond, and it was published two days later on the 22nd.
The Spirit of Times Square
Mr. Davis began with a personal attack and then grew even meaner, which is the reason that so many atheists endear themselves to the general public. Acting as though he was given vinegar instead of milk as a child, he accused Oehlrich of making assertions that were “uneducated and fear-mongering” (A19). He then stated unequivocally (without any authority to back it up) that a “gathering of a few people in the name of atheism in Los Angeles to celebrate intelligence and reason does not make a church, much less a religion.” Did he not read the whole column?
Davis ignores the fact that these are called churches and are being established all over the world; so who is the one who is uneducated? Does 400 constitute “a few people”? The average attendance for any church is a membership of 100. Davis is clearly trying to minimize facts that disagree with his viewpoint; his “spin” is rather obvious. Furthermore, he implies that only atheists believe in intelligence and reason. How demeaning! God is the one who invented logic; where does Davis think it came from—cosmic dust particles? God is the one who says to man, “Come now and let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18). He is the One Who says to prove (test, analyze) all things (1 Thess. 5:20-21).
In the spirit of the giant billboard in Times Square, Davis goes on to rail against those who believe in God.
Atheists contest the mysticism, emotional reactions, social denigrating, supernaturalism, superstition, and judgmentalism of any organized religion, especially those that seek thought control and irrational laws over others.
Killjoy. Christians have so much fun being judgmental, emotional, and controlling of others’ thoughts that we really hate to be called on it. Right! Seriously? Is this a fair characterization of Christians, or is Davis himself being judgmental? Whoops. And speaking of emotional, who of the two—Oehlrich or Davis—better fits the description? Hmm. Why are supernatural and superstition linked together? The two concepts are not at all similar. God creating us puts Him outside and above nature, which is a factual possibility. Thinking that one will have bad luck because he walked under a ladder is an illogical conclusion. Davis intended to “slam” Christians by this connection.
It is obvious from Davis’ own letter that thought control is not working. What can this acerbic letter-writer be referring to here? A few cults try to control their adherents in this way, but Christians oppose such religious groups more vigorously than atheists do because we do not want those tactics associated with us. The gospel explains about sin and encourages people to respond to God in a positive way, but that reaction depends entirely on the free will of each individual. The message may be gladly accepted or rejected. Christians do not coerce people.
Mr. Davis shot himself in the foot when he said that Christians seek to pass irrational laws over others. Who decides what constitutes a rational or an irrational law? He apparently does not see that eventually “rationality” is in the eye of the beholder. People on both sides will argue over the definitions. Prior to January 22, 1973, were the laws prohibiting abortion rational or not? The laws against homosexuality that were in effect 50 years ago—which were they? Was it saner to prohibit gambling in most states, or are people better off now? And are the people of Colorado irrational now for having legalized marijuana, or were they that way before when it was prohibited? Even atheists will not be in agreement on many of these issues.
So who determines what is rational? Do we take a majority vote? Does one country’s thinking take precedence over that of another’s? Since atheists do not believe in God, they have no absolute standards to which they can appeal. All of these moral issues have changed from era to era and from country to country. Some may bow to the thinking of the intelligentsia but never be truly enthusiastic about their positions. Perhaps wealth or political power should be the determining factor.
Whose Goals?
Our goals are rational decision-making, logic, common respect, trust in peer-acknowledged fact and science, and an understanding that fear and ignorance fuel primitive theologies. We also realize that most of today’s religions will someday become dusty theology.
Once again, the implication is that Christians don’t have as goals the use of logic or rational decision-making. What a poor view Davis has of anyone who is not him. They apparently cannot reason through a simple mathematical word problem or follow directions to somebody’s house. Working Sudoku puzzles or solving cryptoquotes must be out of the question for Christians. Such intricate matters should only be entrusted to atheists.
What are peer-acknowledged facts? If they are facts, should not all people agree upon them? If he is referring to evolution, not all scientists agree with the interpretation of the facts. While it is the case that some primitive theologies did employ fear and ignorance (and some still do), it is quite a leap to assume that this is always the case. Many of those who believed in mythology in the first century gave it up when they heard Jesus teach and saw His miracles. Simon the Sorcerer even recognized that his considerable skills paled in comparison to the real power of God (Acts 8). The words of Christ shall never fail (Matt. 24:35) no matter how atheists rail or mock.
The writer of this letter to the editor cites certain men as founders of atheism, such as Rousseau and Voltaire. How did Rousseau’s philosophy work out in his personal life? Perhaps Davis would like to tell us. Locke did champion rational thought, which is fine, so long as it does not exclude the existence of God. Jefferson made many statements favorable to Christianity. We do not see Davis doing so despite his alleged common respect for all.
Concerning America, Davis thinks that our founding fathers believed in freedom of thought, speech, religion, and the idea that all men are created equal. Al-though true, they also did not believe in the “natural goodness” of man. For that reason there is a balance of power and three branches of government because sooner or later one branch of government might try to assume enough authority to overpower the other two. They understood the corrupting influence of power.
Davis’ Summary
The question is not “could atheism become state religion?” The question is when will religions, with irrational prejudices, mumbo jumbo mythology and fear-based judgment rely on the reason, logic and intelligence of all equally created men and women?
Besides continuing his insulting, judgmental tone to the very end, Davis’ last line makes no sense. One would expect that he would conclude by asking, “When will people rely on the reason, logic, and intelligence that we got from _______?” After all, he has mentioned the source of religion with mumbo jumbo mythology—something invented by man. Therefore, logic should be something superior to that, and so the reader expects a higher source but finds none.
This writer would fill in the blank with God because He is the source of rational thought and truth. Davis must have realized that he does not have a source for logic. If so, he should name it. Do we get that ability from the waves of the ocean, from trees, or from mountainsides? No, it comes from the Rational Being Who created us. Logic does not come from chaos or randomness. Nothing fits that profile. So he selects a phrase that sounds good with which to end his letter—all equally created men and women. But what does that mean?
Is he saying that all men and women (except religionists) believe in logic. If so, then the vast majority of his peers do not agree with him; so is he in the wrong? If he means that all men and women possess logic, then he would have to conclude that few of them are using it. Maybe the problem is the man in the minority, then, instead of everyone else.
A Perfect Response
Chris Urban of Groveland responded in the Orlando Sentinel on December 24th by showing a huge flaw.
Larry Davis in his Sunday letter to the editor writes that we should have a government that relies on “the reason, logic and intelligence of equally created men and women.”
My question for Davis, or any other apologist for atheism, is what went so terribly wrong in the Soviet Union and Communist China?
These atheistic states slaughtered millions of their own people for not going along with the system. Does this sound like a reasoned, logical, intelligent way of dealing with a population?
Urban is right. Why didn’t people in those countries who believed in equality, logic, and reason, who had renounced mumbo jumbo mythologies, see that mass murder was wrong? Or is it acceptable to Davis, so long as no religion is involved in it?
Truth
The problem with many atheists is that they either do not believe in truth or are skeptical about it (as Pilate apparently was). Think about what that means, however. What good are logic and reasoning skills if truth does not exist? Why should a jury listen very carefully to witnesses and consider the forensic evidence if they cannot arrive at the truth and render a verdict? To be sure, testimonies can be conflicting, and sometimes evidence is subject to interpretation, but that fact does not mean that no cases can be decided. Juries search for truth.
What would be the point of solving a mathematical equation if no true solution could be found. Yes, it is the case that some equations have no solution, but the overwhelming majority of them do. Scientists especially labor under the assumption that they will discover important truths. And they continually find them.
Truth exists concerning the origin of life and the creation of the world. One important truth is that matter does not create itself. Neither does chaos produce order. Randomness does not breed logic and reasoning. If no supernatural being exists, then we have no adequate explanation for the origin of all things. We are left with guesses that do not harmonize with scientific evidence we know to be true.
The Bible tells us that we have no excuse for drawing the wrong conclusion because God provided sufficient evidence in the heavens that declare His existence (Rom. 1:18-20). Mr. Davis should learn the difference between evidence and mumbo jumbo. Someone doing mindless incantations to a rain god in the midst of a drought does not compare with someone reasoning from the evidence we have been given in the universe itself.
The evolutionist and the creationist have exactly the same evidence from which to reason. The only difference is that the former rejects the possibility of God’s existence because he does not want it to be true, while the latter has considered the interpretation of evolution and found it wanting. A true scientist considers all the possibilities and then takes the most rational explanation. Christians believe that God creating the world (Gen. 1:1) is the most logical explanation. It is obvious that the Larry Davis-types have dismissed creation from serious consideration and are quite hostile to even the thought of it.
Jesus is the truth (John 14:6), and He offered evidence to those in the first century who not only believed Him but laid down their lives for Him. Christians did not fight because engaging in physical conflict was not what Jesus taught His disciples to do. They refused to renounce their Lord, however, and allowed themselves to be put to death—just as Jesus did. Taking human life when someone disagrees with them is the way of corrupt religions and the tactic of the atheist (as seen in Communism). Christians reason with their opponents and try to persuade them with their ideas.