I had an article published in our regional newspaper in which I stirred the detail in passing that the ultimate informant of all sovereignty is God. What I assumed to be a benign, and certainly not an inflammatory remark , nonetheless inflamed a local atheist who attend fit to complete an indignant letter to me. Before opening the envelope that bore an address I did not recognize, I noticed the words: “Nothing Fails Like Prayer! ” My ponders immediately turning now to a recent seminar on cancer held in Kingston, Ontario. One of the participating scientists used to say that the only factor we can be sure about that benefits cancer cases in the recuperation of their own health is devotion. Her claim was supported by statistical data. I thought it rather curious that someone would use envelopes to beseech the world not to pray.
In reading the letter I have found that I was accused of “making irrelevant and spurious persona assaults” against all atheists. I was likewise guilty of impelling “nonsensical” and “unsubstantiated claims”. My atheist advisor tells me that if I contend that God is the ultimate source of moral power, then I implied that those who do not believe in God have no basis for their expert and consequently are immoral.
Was I accusing atheists of being immoral? An atheist may be loving, reasonable, and honorable without recognizing that these moralities ultimately come from God. A desert dweller who has never seen rain may believe that the eventual root of sea is the neighbourhood oasis. I was actually forming no accusations, exactly stating my opinion that God is the ultimate source of honesty. Not being able to see something is no reason to deny its existence. We neither identify not can conceptualize the electron. Yet, it is so well known through its effects that we implement it to crystallize our municipalities, navigate our airplanes through nighttime skies, and shape the most accurate evaluations. As astrophysicist, Wernher von Braun, has observed, “What strange rationale attains some physicists approving the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of God on the soil that they cannot conceive Him? ” An atheist may have invisible means of support even if he is unaware of them.
I have always acquired it odd that a person who neither believes in God, the superhuman, the greatnes of the person, the relief of religion, and so on, could be apostolic about such emptiness. It is as if a person discovered a formula for desperation and was most eager to share it with everyone, even at his own expenditure. The atheist is content with the relevant recommendations that we progressed from silt and slime and spurns the notion that every human being is prepared in the image of God.
My atheist apologist is a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. In keeping with his apostolic zeal, he included information about how and at what premium I could become a supporter of “freethought” and a reader to Freethought Today, allegedly “the only freethought newspaper in the United States”. Apparently my reflects are not free if they lead me to a conviction that God exists, which I freely maintain. Are the freethought people promoting freedom of thought or are they simply boosting atheism? When reflected is truly free, it could go in any guidance. Should not recall be circumscribed by truth?
I opened one of the folders that came with the word: “Nontract No. 3” as it is called. I was greeted by the phrase, “We are all born atheists”. The writers may have been familiar with the opening line of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract: “Man is born free”. The plain truth is that we come into the world neither atheists nor free. A newborn is neither an atheist nor a theist. He has not demonstrated such matters any envisage. Should atheism, therefore, be likened with innocence as well as not picturing at all? What happened to the requirement of being a free thinker?
I read further and was told that among the great artists who shown the spirit of the sceptic or the freethinker and refused to bend to doctrine is Alfred Lord Tennyson. This was not a good choice, I imagined. The most often repeated path from the pen of the great Victorian poet is a glowing testimony to prayer: “More things are make by prayer than this world dreams of”. Intellectuals have acclaimed Tennyson’s immense poem In Memoriam as the most dramatic as well as the most religious of English elegies. Queen Victoria, upon losing her husband, stated that In Memoriam was her comfort, second only to the Bible. Consider the following quatrain from its Prologue: “We have but faith: we cannot know; For knowledge is of things we read; And yet we trust it comes from thee, A beam in darkness: let it grow.” The residual of my atheist’s material was equally uneven and unconvincing.
Theism and atheism do not exclude each other entirely. The protagonist and the unbeliever share both belief and uncertainty. Even saints were allured to disbelieve. The worshiper is not entirely free of doubt; the unbeliever is not entirely free of belief. I began to think that my apologist for atheism was trying to defend himself against belief that kept tormenting him, like the Hound of Heaven. Perhaps, if he could purge others from their beliefs he would find his own creed more easy to accept. Having predicted his arguments, it seemed only too clear that he had erected a house of cards which he said that she hoped that I would estimate as a fortress of steel.
Read more: feedproxy.google.com