God is not getting good press lately, but there doesn’t seem to be much public reaction. Perhaps believers feel that God can take care of himself. This shouldn’t mean we can’t choose to defend him, however.
God allows people to speak good and ill of him without passing out rewards and punishments. He doesn’t react with anger when an unbeliever lectures the world on his nonexistence.
In fact, atheists seem more convinced of their atheism when God fails to strike them dead. They take heart from what they perceive to be a missed opportunity by God. Obviously, they don’t have the slightest idea what God is like. I guess that’s one of the consequences of not believing in God.
Either there is or there is not a God. If there is not a God, then quarreling about his existence seems pointless. If there is a God, then atheists are going to be embarrassed by their own blindness some day.
Every day God performs two or three zillion miracles, without which we would all perish instantly. Atheists resist this notion. From what motive, I’m not clear. The created world, though a bit worse for wear, provides everything we need and much of what we want.
Over the millennia God has seen an awful lot of doubt. He must wonder what he has to do make himself known and accepted. He made the world and filled it with marvelous, unfathomably complex creatures and natural objects that no one really understands.
According to the Bible, early man forgot about God and worshiped the creation. God sent prophets who tried to explain God’s reality in the language of the people. They didn’t believe his prophets, so he sent his son. They didn’t believe him either.
Atheists doubt all of these sources of information about God—nature, the Bible, and Jesus. The amount of information is overwhelming. I wonder what other information he could have provided? I mean, there is material evidence in nature, verbal evidence in the Bible, and living, breathing evidence in Jesus.
The problem is that all of this evidence is perhaps too plain, too easy to be impressed by. Nature is so grand that it is out of our full intellectual grasp. We can observe it, describe it, copy it, and use it, but we can’t explain it. Every time we think we can explain it, new information comes along and forces a revision of our explanation.
There is no reason to believe that more information will lead to full knowledge. And without full knowledge, we can never really explain. Atheists insist that their ignorance of God provides intellectual cover. But if atheists can’t see evidence of God in nature, how can they ever believe in God, who is outside of nature?
It would be well for atheists to consider the maxim of Baloo in The Jungle Book: “’There is none like me!’” says the Cub in the pride of his earliest kill; but the jungle is large and the Cub is small. Let him think and be still.”
The Bible contains the most profound wisdom and the most admired literature in the world. It has endured for thousands of years and worn out its critics. They come and go, but the Bible remains. No other work of literature comes close to this intellectual endurance. This also cannot be explained.
Let’s say, for example, that Moby-Dick is one of the greatest works of literature of all time. Would anyone say that it is better than the best literary elements of the Bible? If someone did say that, he would have a hard time making a good case. Moby-Dick is full of Biblical imagery and themes, and the Bible is its intellectual source. Can the commentary be better than the original?
Jesus is the finest example of a human being ever to walk the earth. How can such wisdom, power, selflessness, and courage be explained, especially in light of what we know about ourselves and others and the history of the world? Can any atheist make a case for a greater personality or a wiser, more compassionate person than Jesus?
If Jesus were on the earth today, atheists would have to find a way to destroy him because he testified about the unseen God. Since he is not on earth, they do the next best thing—they attempt to destroy his influence. Atheists rarely attack the character of Jesus because it is a losing game. Instead, they deny his existence. That is easier.
So what does God think of atheists? He loves them. This is the final mystery.
Mark Sheffield
* * *
Articles like this always make me smile and shake my head.
Christians are always quick to condemn atheists as ‘wrong’ for not believing in the god that represents their set of beliefs. In fact, there is 'no' evidence that their god, or any god for that matter, is real. That’s the point of religion – blind faith.
The fact of the matter is, 'all' of us are atheists to someone – I just happen to believe in one less god than Christians do. Christians do not believe in the prophet Mohammed, or the Shinto kami (gods), or Buddhist teachings of Buddha, or the teachings of the Sikh Guru. Christians do not worship Zeus on Mt. Olympus, nor do they follow the ideology of the Flying Spaghetti Monster of the Pastafarians.
But what makes 'those' gods any less relevant or correct to follow and worship? Why not 'those' religions? What makes Christianity 'right'? Nothing, except the fact that the church defeated everyone around them a few thousand years ago, and have a good foothold in society at this very moment in history.
But look back – 30,000 years ago, Paleolithic man worshipped Mother Earth as a goddess. Hinduism has been practiced for nearly 3,500 years. Judaism has been around for nearly 4,000 years. As far as longevity goes, modern Christian beliefs are pretty young.
Look back in history – if you lived in ancient Rome, say under Emperor Diocletian, and you decided that you were a Christian, you would be persecuted and thrown to the lions. But Diocletian’s successor Constantine I decided that 'all' other religions 'except' Christianity were forbidden under 'his' government. So, if you worshipped Jupiter, Mars, and Neptune up to that point – guess what – you were now a Christian, whether you believed it or not.
Societies absorb the attributes of their conquered enemies. It makes it easier to maintain control. It was easier to get people to convert to your new state-sanctioned religion if you invented new holidays that happened to overlap existing holidays on their calendar. In the 4th century, the Roman Catholic Church chose December 25th as the day to celebrate the birth of Christ. The Church wanted to convert people without them having to give up their pagan holidays, so these pagan holidays were incorporated into the Christian church as "Christ Mass".
So, what’s my point? My point is that if someone wants to have blind faith in something that offers no proof whatsoever, and that enriches their life – good for them. But please do not take the condescending attitude that you feel pity for those who do not believe as you do. It is insulting to be spoken down to by someone because of a difference in beliefs. We atheists did not solicit your opinion, nor are we typically interested. Despite the fact that all people are born atheists and must first learn of religion, then learn to follow or not, I find that atheists do not foist their beliefs on peoples as religious folks do. Understand, religion changes with cultures, and in 2000 years, who’s to say what people will be doing or believing.
Believe what you will, as long as you do not expect the world to do the same. Treat others as you expect to be treated.
And happy holidays – whatever they may be.
Jon Lancaster