Now that the television airwaves have been reduced to little more than pure nonsensical drivel, I, like others have found the study of religious mythology to be a very interesting alternative to the mindless drudgery of “must see TV.”
Although I find many aspects of faith very stimulating, I’d like to take this moment to discuss “miracles” and the “human conscience.” However, I must preface my thoughts by stating (emphatically) that I do not believe in miracles…or Benny Henn (or any unexplained faith-based religiosity that feels the need to proclaim such miracles).
If these men of faith are indeed empowered with unworldly gifts from divinity, then why do they perform these “acts” of generosity in staged areas…instead of going out to children’s hospitals and healing sick kids?
Rather than simply disregard the Christian doctrine and its teachings altogether, I felt the need to push farther – by asking Christians simple questions like “Do you believe everything in the Bible?” or “Do you believe in miracles?” Much to my surprise, most Christians I polled felt God had worked many so-called miracles in their lives. Some felt the Almighty had provided for them during a time of great need, while others reported that a divine force had intervened, in even the most trivial matters - like avoiding traffic tickets, car accidents and other minor entanglements.
Although I found their stories fascinating, it occurred to me that, for the most part, they’d simply chosen to give the credit for their good fortunes to God instead of deducing that maybe, just maybe, their own conscience had a hand in their successes.
It’s my belief that most of us are born with a conscience – an internal moral compass. Wars have been fought for centuries over religious agendas as one group of men try and impose their will on others – in the name of the Lord. From the Inquisition to the Crusades, since the creation of the state of Israel and most recently the 9/11 attacks, man’s wars are usually fought in the name of God.
My conscience has no such agendas. It knows only kindness and righteousness.
My search for the truth has led me to the teachings of Socrates and Aristotle, from writings from Thomas Jefferson to Albert Einstein, from books of Freud and Neitzsche, to the thoughts of business leaders like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett - and all these great thinkers have one common thread – they don't believe. All these men of logic had apparently eaten from the “tree of knowledge” – after finding that the fruit (of the Bible) had failed to nourish their intellect.
Socrates spoke of his “divine thing” as a voice not loud like thunder, but soft like the wind in the trees or a bird’s chirp. He said he had always had it…and it wasn’t bestowed on him by an Oracle (or any other religious entity). Socrates was eventually labeled a heretic and ordered to death – but that’s the way it goes in a world filled with religious myths and agendas.
Eric Tucker
Chattanooga
loanprofessor@comcast.net
* * *
Mr. Tucker,
I'd like to recommend another book you might enjoy - More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell. You seem to be a seeker of the truth.
The Bible says, "Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you." Ask Him to reveal Himself to you and wait expectantly. Be open-minded.
Joyce Hague
* * *
Mr. Tucker,
I see your point about people and the way humans have done many things over the years in the name of religion. I believe that is part of the problem when people take "religious doctrines" to extremes in most any religion. I too believe we are born with an internal moral compass, which I call spirituality. How one chooses to explore that is an individual journey.
Many people like to think of God as this "Grand Fatherly Figure" who does things in our daily lives whether to reward or to discipline us. That does not explain why there are people suffering, some by the human hand and some not. I personally believe in God, but respect the beliefs of others as well. The God I believe in is a very inclusive God who sent His son to teach each of us how to treat one another with kindness and respect in all ways. I also believe God has intervened in my life at some times, but those are my personal beliefs and I am not attempting to force them on you or anyone else. I find comfort in scripture and in prayer. Sometimes I question God, but I believe God is big enough for that and does not at all mind being questioned. I think anyone who has gone through difficult experiences at times questions his/her faith.
Apparently, Einstein did believe in a God. After working on his theories, he concluded that there is a God, but did not believe God gets involved in all aspects of human life. At least that is how he is quoted.
Einstein's famous quote, "Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous," points to his belief and his continuous questions between God and science.
Many of the great thinkers contemplated the topic because they could not come up with the explanation for why we are here or how was the universe created. That does not mean they were not believers. It simply means they held their beliefs personal, especially during a time with science and religion were considered non-compatible. Some still see the two incompatible, but others do not.
Cheryl Lynn Curtis
cheryl.curtis204@yahoo.com
* * *
I find it a useless exercise to try and convince agnostics or atheists about the existence of God. All one has to do is go outside the city lights at night and look up into the sky to determine there is a God. There is order and not chaos.
Can I prove miracles exist or that the Bible records events as they actually occurred? Well, no but neither can one prove they did not. So are we doomed to sit in an impasse? I think that if you see the birth of a child you believe in miracles. No one can imagine that a single cell can develop in a highly ordered human being all by chance.
So why do people question the existence of miracles? It is because they want to believe that they are the highest order of morality and they are not subject to another. To believe in God means that you are not the final authority in this universe and it is not all about you. And if there is a God then He would be in a position to determine morality.
I find it funny that agnostics and atheists always claim that their mind or consciousness is the final moral authority. And I always want to know how they know? They have to admit it is because they feel that way. Which I reply, so how do I know my feelings are real or just caused by a piece of undigested beef? My consciousness cannot be a piece of meat can it?
Men have the luxury of believing in God or not. God on the other hand knows for sure we exist. Aren’t we glad about that?
Johnny Franks
seechatt@yahoo.com
* * *
As a person who lacks belief in a personal god or gods I feel the need the chime in on the subject at hand. First of all, there are a lot of misconceptions about atheists. The first and foremost is that we have no manifesto that binds us all. No matter how much the religious enjoy grouping us together we are not and never will be a religion. We come in all shapes and sizes, and none of us has a set of rules that we must live our lives by. Labeling non-believers is inherently frivolous because not believing in a supernatural personal god is the default position. When you are born into the world you are an Atheist. It is not until you are inculcated and indoctrinated, as a child, that you learn about dogma and tradition. We have no need to label people who reject astrology and alchemy as non-astrologist and non-alchemist. The term atheist has to be used because of constant antagonism from the religious as a way to express that we reject theism. I imagine if more people took alchemy seriously the people who reject it would have to utilize a similar kind of terminology.
To Mrs. Curtis and her comments on Einstein I think that she really meant to get her point across with good intentions but I would have to disagree. Einstein was certainly not a theist, we all know that. It seems as if in your statement you refer to Einstein as a Deist of sorts. This is the world view that a lot of our founding fathers held. Deists do believe in an actual supernatural entity that set the universe into motion but does not act as a personal god. The deist's god does not interfere with the universe, does not answer prayers or perform miracles, and has no interest in end times or sins. However, if you want to use quotes from Einstein, this is quite clear that Einstein, like a lot of "spiritual" scientists, use the term god in a clearly metaphorical way. That is often referred to as Pantheism. Take this direct quote from Einstein himself:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Clearly, Einstein's "God" is not at all like the God that most people think of when they hear the word. Neither is the "God" of the famous cosmologist and mathematician, Stephen Hawking, whose talk of "the mind of God" has given comfort to many religious believers. Hawking also is a pantheist. When asked by CNN's Larry King whether he believed in God, Hawking answered:
"Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe."
I would also like to make a few comments on what Mr. Franks had to say in his response. It is a common misunderstanding that Agnostics and Atheists are two totally different world views. The truth is, almost every rational person on this planet is agnostic to at least some degree. None of us can claim to have undeniable information about the existence or non existence of god. In saying that, everyone one of us just does not know for sure if there is a god or not. What makes us all differ is with what assumption we live our lives with. Theists live with the assumption that there is a supernatural deity who has a totalitarian rule over our universe while Atheist live with the assumption that there is no god due to a lack in evidence. However, this does NOT doom us to sit in impasse. In common philosophy we have a set of syntax that we use in having social dialog with one another. One of the most common rules of social interaction is that when a claim is made the person who makes the claim must back it up with data and evidence to support their claim, in other words the onus is on the person making the claim. People who are non-believers take the default position because the existence of a creator is based on faith, which by its very definition is belief without evidence. When theists can prove their god exists, then there will be no debate. However, using circular logic such as quoting their corresponding "holy" book does not count as evidence. I invite Mr. Franks to look beyond our planet and into the greater universe, and see just how disorderly it actually is. We are very fortunate to be sentient on a planet such as ours. Our illusion of order is most certainly a minority in our galaxy.
Nathaniel Foster
nathanielfoster@gmail.com
* * *
Mr. Tucker,
It is not wise to judge a belief system based upon its abuses. To attribute man's atrocities during the Crusades or during the Inquisition to the Christian Faith is ridiculous. It shows either ignorance of the teachings of Christ, or outright and unreasoning hostility to them. Actually, it's probably both.
Would this be similar to saying that the terrible crimes committed by men such as Pol Pot, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, et al were due to their atheist, or agnostic worldview? The obvious answer to my question is that "yes, this would be an apt comparison." But, the truth is that this comparison will not work. Because, these men were not acting in a way that could be considered an abuse of their stated belief system, in fact, they were acting in a manner very consistent with it. I do not believe that you personally can make the statement either that what they did was wrong.
I do not know upon what basis you point to the Crusades or the Inquisition as being wrong. Your worldview cannot explain the existence of such a morality. It's all chemical reactions and survival of the fittest isn't it?
Yes, I will wholeheartedly agree with you, there are hypocrites in the Christian faith. I prove myself hypocritical every day, but, this does not say anything about the Christian faith. It only says something about humans.
I know that the typical atheist probably likes to refer to some sort of secular morality as being that which is most commonly agreed upon to benefit the most or inconvenience the least or something similar to this. This is due to the logical bind that they find themselves in concerning morality. So, please don't condemn the Christian faith (that's really all I'm going to defend, not "religion" in general as you put it) because of immoral stances that Christians have taken in the past. You have no point of reference to do so. It is my belief as well that man is born with a moral compass, obviously we would disagree on the source of it, but at least we agree on something. Your moral compass as you put it though is inconsistent with your naturalistic views.
How can you cite "Men of Logic?" Logic is not something inside the realm of the natural world is it? What is a law of logic to an atheist? Can I touch it; can I put one in my pocket? If no, then it cannot exist according to your worldview. This may seem ludicrous, because we all know there are laws of logic and reason and we all have these codes written on our hearts. The problem is though that you can't account for them with your worldview.
Before you dismiss me as an angry Christian, spewing dogma, know that I'm not angry and we all have our dogma. You just told us yours.
Keep seeking for truth my brother. He'll find you.
Jon White
jon_white7000@yahoo.com