Open Letter To A “Skeptic”

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. — Romans 1: 19-20

Several words in this passage are like burrs under a horse’s saddle to atheists, agnostics and skeptics. To be described as ungodly and unrighteous jabs them at the heart of their pride — a pride that upholds their personal judgment as objective, logical, scientific and even noble. They see “truth” not as something greater than they are, to which they must be held accountable, but something that is subject to their own judgment, their own approval, their own powers of observation and measurement. Rather than considering truth to be authoritative, they consider themselves to have the authority that allows truth to be what it is.

The Biblical world view recognizes that God exists because it is clear that he has revealed himself to us.The Bible is God’s revelation of himself to man. But also, all of God’s creation reveals himself to man and affords us the opportunity to perceive his eternal power and divine nature. The passage above cites the creation of the world. But Psalm 19:1 includes the whole universe in which we live: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.”

God reveals himself to us, and what can be known about God is plain to everyone, because he shows it to us. In John 18:37 Jesus tells Pontius Pilate, “…For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Jesus also said in John 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” So those of us who are of the truth bear witness to the truth. It is easy for us to see God’s invisible attributes in the things that he has made. So, the more we learn about his creation, the more our faith is confirmed.

The only reason a person would not be able to see the truth of God revealed throughout creation is that they are covering their own eyes. They don’t see God because they won’t see God. And when you cover your eyes, it’s just as if you are saying, “I don’t care what’s out there. I only care for what goes on in my own mind.”

That is why they are without excuse. God has plainly shown us what can be known about him. Those who can’t see it are refusing to see it, as a matter of their own will. That is why words like ungodly and unrighteous are used to describe them. And that is why God is also revealing his wrath against them. They are without excuse because they willfully block God from their view, substituting themselves for God as the final arbiter of reality.

Logic and imagination are wonderful gifts, and often lead to great creativity and achievement. But when your logic and imagination are held captive by self-centered pride, the reality you create in your mind becomes a maze and a prison. Such a reality is limited, small and marked by sin and selfishness. God isn’t there in your world because you won’t allow him any space.

But the truth is greater than your tiny reality. God is bigger than you — something you lack the courage to admit. Faith takes courage because you will only know God when you are willing to humble yourself before him. And to do that, you must first come to the end of yourself.

Jesus said, “If anyone wants to come with Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me.” That is the total opposite to what the world teaches. But read the book of Ecclesiastes. It says that everything about human life is meaningless — “vanity and chasing after wind”. But the book ends by saying “fear God and keep his commandments” because he is going to judge everything we do.

You can only hide your eyes for so long. Eventually God’s judgment will come, and at that time, if you are still trying to hide your eyes it will be too late for you. You will have made your bed and now you will have to lie in it.

There can be no lasting meaning to life, nothing of permanent value, without God. Thus, it is the fool who says there is no God (Psalm 14:1).

“Make your ear attentive to wisdom,
Incline your heart to understanding;
For if you cry for discernment,
Lift your voice for understanding;
If you seek her as silver
And search for her as for hidden treasures;
Then you will discern the fear of the LORD
And discover the knowledge of God.” — Proverbs 2:2-5

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.” — Proverbs 9:10

[UPDATE]  No snarky, irate, argumentative, challenges to debate or endless repetitions of demands for evidence that already is apparent, but denied by so-called “skeptics” are welcome here.  I will not publish such comments.  This site is not a place for free-for-alls.

Advertisements

About retiredday

I am Michael D. Day, a regular, everyday guy -- retired. I stand for God-given freedom, which means I think for myself. I believe in being civil, because the Bible teaches that we should love our enemies. But I also believe in saying it how I see it, and explaining just why I see it that way, sort of like 2 Timothy 4:2.
This entry was posted in Atheism, God, Skepticism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Open Letter To A “Skeptic”

  1. makagutu says:

    Do you know Arjuna?

    Like

    • retiredday says:

      Please think about this. Your life, your eternal soul, depends on it.

      “You shall have no other gods before (or besides) me. Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7

      “I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God” Isaiah 45:5

      “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
      He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” John 1:1-5

      “What fellowship has light with darkness?” 2 Corinthians 6:14b

      I know the One True God. All others are false gods, demons, idols, enemies of God. I, along with all other true believers take that very seriously.

      “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” Ephesians 6:12

      “I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” 1 Corinthians 2:2

      And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Matthew 28:18

      Therefore Jesus has authority over your false god. You have free will. You are free to follow any demon (like a lemming) to your death, or you can follow Jesus.

      “All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” John 10:8-11

      “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6

      Like

      • makagutu says:

        I asked you a simple question and you post bible verses.
        My life depends on whether my brain will still be functioning when I stop typing this response

        Like

      • retiredday says:

        I answered your question. If Bible verses offend you, then move along. There’s nothing for you here. Comments from mockers, liars, or hawkers of agendas are not welcome. In the name of Jesus I ask that God sets you free.

        Like

  2. retiredday says:

    “makagutu” sent a response comment which I have chosen not to publish. This person did not comment on any point that I made in my post. Rather, they sought to use my blog as a platform for their own agenda. I am not obliged to permit anyone else to commandeer my site. My blog and this latest post are clearly based on a Scriptural perspective. I have made every effort to openly declare that my faith, my opinions and my convictions are all Biblically based. One look at my website header makes that totally obvious.

    And yet this person apparently takes offense at my posting Bible verses. They are free to hold their own opinions, but why would anyone engage the author of Biblically-based articles if they are offended by the use of Biblical arguments and Biblical citations? That response is a non-sequitur. It’s senseless.

    I do not apologize for stating the gospel of Jesus Christ. makagutu’s god, like all false gods, redeems no one. It only leads people to their deaths.

    “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

    Like

  3. Hello there!

    “The only reason a person would not be able to see the truth of God revealed throughout creation is that they are covering their own eyes.”

    Actually, there are many different reasons why atheists do not believe in the Christian deity. Most of it can be expressed by saying there is no objective, testable, non-testimonial evidence for deities. In fact, that also goes to your point expressed here:

    “Rather than considering truth to be authoritative, they consider themselves to have the authority that allows truth to be what it is.”

    If you ask an atheist what he or she would consider true, you’d end up getting talk about verifiable evidence. For example, when I drop a ball, I expect it to fall down instead of fly away. That’s going to be true whether I like it or not. Anyone can verify it. Nobody has to take my word for it.

    I invite you to consider that asking atheists what they believe ahead of time is a fairly decent way of figuring out who we are. Not all of us bite. Thanks for your time!

    Like

    • retiredday says:

      Thank you for your straightforward response. Over the years I have dialogued with many atheists, who have made it clear to me what they believe. I have learned that it’s possible for me to disagree with anyone without hating or mocking them. However, in most of my experiences in speaking with Atheists on the subject of faith I have been verbally abused and attacked, laughed at, threatened and been the target of their hateful diatribes and self-rationalizing screeds, the purpose of which is to attempt to obliterate any expression of my view. And since my view is that I believe the Bible teaches the truth, I consider that the suppression of truth.

      Like

  4. Most, if not all religions, claims that the god/gods of that religion have shown their existence to all humans, using the universe aka “creation” as the supposed evidence. They also claim that those who disbelieve their claims are “without excuse”.

    I have three questions:

    Can you show me that your god created the universe?

    Can you show me that no other god has?

    Can you show me that a god is necessary for reality to exist?

    Like

    • retiredday says:

      Thank you for your comment. I do not honestly believe you are open to be “shown” anything you don’t already believe about reality. If you are asking these questions sincerely, you can find the answers on your own, as I am sure you already have.

      Like

  5. ubi dubium says:

    I’m finding it odd that you would publish an “open letter to a skeptic”, but when an actual skeptic responds you are not engaging with him, but deleting his posts. Well, it’s your blog and you can moderate it how you see fit.

    Like

    • retiredday says:

      There’s nothing odd about it at all. An open letter, by definition, is directed to a large number of persons. It is unrealistic to expect every comment to be published, particularly coarse, aggressive, abusive or mocking ones.

      Like

  6. Arkenaten says:

    What sort of person writes an Open Letter to Skeptics then refuses to publish certain comments on the grounds that they were using your blog as a platform?

    Considering this post is addressed to skeptics, most intelligent people would expect the writer would encourage any dialogue and that you would have an iron-clad argument prepared before hand.

    And maybe you would like to present the evidence you have for the divinity for your god, Yahweh?

    Like

    • retiredday says:

      What sort of a person presumes everyone else must make room for them, give them a seat of honor and lean on their every word?

      There are two types of evidence: legal and scientific. Evidence is given to prove something and is presented to those who are to decide (like a jury or a scientific authorities). I am not trying to prove anything. I am merely testifying to what I believe, which I consider the truth. As I wrote in the post, the evidence is already in. It’s already been presented. And you have already made your decision.

      Like

      • Arkenaten says:

        As Mister Twain once noted, ”Faith is believing what you know ain’t true.”
        That you are commanded to ”spread the word” and impose it, subtly or otherwise, like an unwanted virus without a ,em>shred of verifiable evidence is enough to question the motives of you and anyone else who would wish to indoctrinate others, especially small children.
        That you have to back these spurious claims with the threat of eternal torture in a some place you call Hell is utterly unpardonable, and when used against children, should be considered child abuse.
        If you wish to blog on an open forum,rather than make your blog private, with a topic specifically addressing skeptics, then surely you are intelligent enough to know you will encounter those very same skeptics you are addressing?
        Or did you honestly think you were writing in a vacuum and were merely ”thinking out loud?”

        Like

      • retiredday says:

        And your complaint is what, that you don’t like the fact that I’ve expressed my convictions, that you disagree with them, that you hate them, that you have contempt for them and for me? If you have a problem with my blog, then just don’t read it.

        The answer to the oft-repeated mantra demanding “evidence” is that it has already been shown and can be read in books that are readily available to anyone with a genuine interest in discovering (or even refuting) the truth. The problem isn’t that there is no evidence. The problem is that “skeptics” refuse to examine it. An interesting factoid is that some very famous theologians and Christian thinkers began as skeptics who attempted to disprove the truth of Scripture. Truth is powerful. That is why so many “skeptics” want it suppressed.

        Like

      • Arkenaten says:

        Oh, I have a problem with religion per se.

        Once again, you write an open letter to skeptics, so what the heck did you expect?

        The problem is that “skeptics” refuse to examine it

        Not true. Skeptics prefer to examine all evidence where it is available. It is the religious who generally refuse to accept the findings of professional scholars, scientists and archaeologists. People like Dever, Finkelstein Herzog, etc.
        This is why faith is demanded of believers.
        What truth of scripture are you referring to specifically?

        You continue to espouse about biblical evidence, yet to date have not offered any.
        Let me help you with a few suggestions.
        Offer your evidence for the following:
        Moses/Captivity/Exodus.
        Adam and Eve
        Abraham
        Noah’s Ark.

        And could you please identify which evidence you claim skeptics wish to suppress?
        Thanks.

        Like

      • retiredday says:

        Please see my comment to John Zande.

        Like

  7. john zande says:

    Why do you write an “Open Letter to Sceptics” but then not let said sceptics comment?

    If your ideas can’t stand even the mildest scrutiny then I’m afraid the scrutiny isn’t your problem.

    Like

  8. Alex Black says:

    “They see “truth” not as something greater than they are, to which they must be held accountable, but something that is subject to their own judgment, their own approval, their own powers of observation and measurement.”

    I see truth as something which is true regardless of whether I or anyone else believes it. All I can do is try my best to figure out what that truth is and adjust my beliefs to better reflect truth. And I seek truth by acknowledging that I don’t already have it, that I will never know the truth about everything, that the best I can do is to change my beliefs to be more like the truth, while acknowledging that I will never be able to be certain that I have the whole of the truth. The truth is not subject to anything I think of it, but my own powers of judgement, observation, and critical thinking are the best tools I have with which to seek the truth.

    And if sincerely seeking the truth is “closing my eyes” because I haven’t reached the same conclusions as you, then… well. I’m not sure what I could even say to you. I certainly wouldn’t use the conclusions a person has reached as a metric for whether or not they are sincerely seeking truth. Sincerety in seeking is an entirely different thing than skill in seeking, after all. And a person could sincerely seek and reach the wrong conclusions just because they are bad at seeking. And a person who seeks insincerely could still stumble across the truth by no fault of their own.

    And if this were all just so obvious… then why do people have doubts? And why have billions of humans reached different conclusions?

    Like

    • retiredday says:

      I appreciate your honest and well-thought out comment. Reality is so much bigger than our ability to understand it. The book of Ecclesiastes was written by the wisest man who ever lived. I recommend taking your time reading it and mulling it over.

      Like

      • Arkenaten says:

        The book of Ecclesiastes was written by the wisest man who ever lived.

        Ah … so you don’t believe Jesus walked the earth then? Or perhaps you merely think he wasn’t quite as smart as old Solomon?

        Like

      • retiredday says:

        Cute. Solomon was a man, and only a man. Jesus was a man, but also he was God incarnate. Saying Solomon was the wisest man who ever lived isn’t saying a man is wiser than God. I think you are looking at understanding Biblical theology as a game — probably because you don’t take it seriously.

        Like

      • john zande says:

        Jesus was a man, but also he was God incarnate.

        That’s interesting. Could you give a reasonable answer then as to why Jesus didn’t know Moses wasn’t an actual historical character? One would assume a god would know basical regional history, correct? If so, why didn’t he?

        Like

      • retiredday says:

        I acknowledge you have made up your mind. Thank you for sharing, but I have no interest in answering your questions. We all answer our own questions. And we find truth by asking the right ones. Best wishes.

        Noble questions are invitations to a place of enlightenment. Deceptive questions lure the unsuspecting into circuitous detours.

        Like

      • Alex Black says:

        Thanks. Reality is indeed bigger than our ability to understand it.

        I am actually working on reading the entire Bible. I will get to Ecclesiastes sooner or later.

        If you want to better understand what it is like for an atheist to read materials about a religion they don’t believe in, I would suggest reading Abul A’la Maududi’s “Towards Understanding Islam”. Or the Qur’an.

        Like

  9. Mystro says:

    It is nice that you made an open letter. I certainly hope you are being sincere in that labelling.

    “Several words in this passage are like burrs under a horse’s saddle to atheists…[it] jabs them at the heart of their pride”

    I’m afraid I must interject at the very beginning, as you are very much mistaken in these assertions. This passage is no burr to me, nor would it be to most non-believers. I haven’t read it before today, and having read it now, I find myself completely unaffected. To me it is meaningless nonsense.
    To understand my position, imagine some non-christian religion had their own holy book. Now imagine in that holy book of theirs, it stated that “For the wrath of God(who is definitely NOT the false christian god) is revealed from heaven against all christians, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” Would it jab at your pride? Would it be a burr under your saddle? Of course not. The wrath of a god you don’t believe in is no cause for concern. Likewise, atheists are not concerned that the god of your holy book doesn’t like us.

    “The Biblical world view recognizes that God exists because it is clear that he has revealed himself to us”

    Are you familiar with what is known as ‘circular reasoning’? It is where the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premises, thereby making the whole thing meaningless.
    God is true -> Because -> The Bible is true -> Because -> God is true.
    This is why atheists are not swayed by biblical verses, just like you are unlikely to convert to islam if someone quotes the koran at you. Recognize that your arguments are identical. “My god must be the one true god, because my holy book says so. And it must be true, as it is my god’s holy book.” One could substitute in ‘god’, ‘allah’, ‘zeus’, ‘odin’, or any other of an infinite possible deities, and the argument has the exact same validity. That is, no validity whatsoever. Again, it isn’t that we’re offended by the bible, it is that the bible is as baseless and irrelevant as all other holy books.

    “I answered your question. If Bible verses offend you, then move along.”

    I think you were being quite unfair to Makagutu. He asked you a yes or no question. Instead of saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’, you gave a bunch of verses that have nothing to do with your personal knowledge of Arjuna. Makagutu merely pointed that what you responded with did not answer the yes or no question he posed. You unjustifiably took that to mean he was offended by biblical verses and/or was mocking them. There was no offence. There was no mocking. There was just an attempt to get an answer to a question.

    “why would anyone engage the author of Biblically-based articles if they are offended by the use of Biblical arguments and Biblical citations?”

    You call this an open letter and put it on a blog with a comment section. That would indicate that you are open to dialogue with whomever the open letter is addressed. The reason we’re engaging with you is because you invited us to. Personally, I take issue with people calling me prideful, arrogant, without purpose, and deserving of hellfire when they know exactly nothing about me. It is the very definition of prejudice. I have endeavoured to be honest and polite in responding to your letter and would appreciate the same in return.

    Like

    • retiredday says:

      It’s interesting that you accuse me of circular reasoning when you don’t believe in God because his existence can’t be “shown” to you by use of the scientific method. That position begins with the presumption that all reality is subject to the scientific method, therefore anything that cannot be demonstrated scientifically is not real — a perfect example of circular reasoning.

      This blog is not social media. It’s not a site for spouting off about whatever you want. I discuss issues important to me. Makagutu’s “comment” had nothing to do with what I had written. Instead, he asked me about another god, in total absence of any context to my post. I am open to dialogue. But dialogue isn’t what many commenters want. They’d rather use what I have to say as a springboard to preach about their own pet convictions. If that’s the case, let them rant elsewhere.

      Like

  10. Free at last says:

    Hello:
    Romans 9:10-23New International Version (NIV)

    10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[a] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[b]

    14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

    “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
    and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[c]

    16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[d] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

    19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[e] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

    22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

    I was an Evangelical Fundamentalist–Bible trained, served on the mission field, believed every word of scripture to be inspired, inerrant, infallible. If that is so, then verse 22 says God creates people for Hell. I have chosen to no longer associate with the Christian deity. He is a monster. Please do not send me verses that contradict this scripture. Contradictions are not viable arguments for the truth of God or the Bible–they only strengthen the position of the unbeliever.

    Like

    • retiredday says:

      If you are in fact “Bible trained” and yet have chosen a path away from God because you judge him to be a “monster” there is no Scripture I could send you that you would consider. But I will say this: it is not merely with our brains or with language skills that we understand Scripture. (And by the way, the NIV isn’t the best. Did you examine the text in its original language? Did you look at commentaries or see how scholars historically weighed these matters?) It is by the Spirit of God that the meaning of Scripture is revealed to us. If you think a God that gives you eternal life, forgives you of sin and adopts you as his own is a “monster” then you have never really known the God of the Bible. Rather, you have lifted your own head above your Creator and consider yourself his judge, based on your less than perfect human reasoning. You refuse to do the very thing Jesus calls his followers to do: deny yourself. And you have made that choice knowingly.

      Like

    • mc the blue says:

      To: Free At Last,

      Let me begin by saying that I too struggle with difficult concepts such as predestination and free will. You asked not to hear quotes of other Scriptures in response, but I will ask you to bend that rule a bit and refer to the greater context of Romans 9. (Recall that originally the Pauline epistles were letters meant to read naturally, not numbered points like we have now. In fact, Rom 8-10 are often taught/studied as a single literary unit because they are all part of the same general topic.)

      In particular, I would ask you back up just a bit to Romans 8 where Paul begins developing the ideas that then lead in to your citation. In 8:29-30 Paul gives an order of events in God’s election, and the Greek grammar gives us justification to reading it this way.

      v.29 begins with HOTI in the Greek, which introduces a new purpose clause. This is related to the prior section (same topic) but a new thought. We translate this as “because” or “since”: “since He foreknew them.” Immediately after this we have the first in a series of DE’s / KAI’s in the Greek, two words which are the simple conjunctions translated “and” / “also”. This justifies a reading with some English nuance that says the following: SINCE God foreknew them, he ALSO predestined; AND those he predestined he ALSO called; AND those he called he ALSO….. and so forth.

      This explains that God’s election and calling and justification and all of those other admittedly difficult topics come as a result of his foreknowledge. First there was foreknowledge; then the rest followed. He created people and CHOSE to save those who He foreknew would follow Him by faith in Jesus Christ. He did not create people for condemnation.

      Your response might be that therefore He knew who would reject Christ and be condemned. This is true, but He did not create them for that purpose. Knowing that someone will reject you is not the same as creating them for the purpose of rejecting you. God did not create people for Hell or Hell for people. I sometimes use a simple sports analogy: two teams go to the Superbowl. We all KNOW that the winning team will get the trophy, that does not mean we are purposefully inviting or causing or intending the other team to lose. We have elected the one to a trophy; we have not condemned the other to empty hands.

      Just my own personal thoughts that I hope you will be open to consider. I have said when teaching Sunday schools and at many other times that God’s foreknowledge is, in my view, the hardest thing of all to understand. At some point we have to acknowledge that we don’t have all the facts and leave it in God’s hands. I also believe that we will have all the answers in eternity, and am willing to set aside my need to know pending that time.

      Thank you for reading this.

      Like

  11. messiah gate says:

    Regarding the comment suggesting that (religious) indoctrination against children “should be considered child abuse” how might we classify the secular indoctrination that our children are exposed to through public education?

    Let’s consider, for example, that elementary students are encouraged to explore their gender identity. Since many of the comments here share an antagonistic bias (or faith?) in science what might we suppose to be the opinion of the American College of Pediatricians regarding this hot-button issue?

    The opposing sides of this debate will define their reality based upon either a Biblical, or secular worldview. The official statement from Pediatricians may surprise you:

    “The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.”

    “No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.”

    “A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.”

    “According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.”

    And what is the conclusion of these medical scientists?

    “Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.”

    “Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.”

    Hmm, secular indoctrination via public education is “child abuse”.

    One who holds to a Christian worldview does not need a degree in medical science to affirm the conclusions of the Pediatricians. Any other reality is a self-willed deception.

    Like

  12. messiah gate says:

    A scientist who “saw” God while studying the universe once said:

    “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”

    “I’m not an atheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”

    — Albert Einstein

    Like

    • john zande says:

      “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.”

      Albert Einstein, quoted in Dukas, Helen (ed.) and Banesh Hoffman (ed.) (1981). Albert Einstein: The Human Side. Princeton University Press.

      “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

      Albert Einstein, Gutkind Letter (3 January 1954), “Childish superstition: Einstein’s letter makes view of religion relatively clear”. The Guardian. 13 May 2008.

      Like

    • john zande says:

      Oh, and your second quote, perhaps you should include the full text:

      “Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things”

      Like

  13. messiah gate says:

    Are the contrarian arguments evidence of the neglected point, that is, Einstein’s pointed anger that atheists quote him to defend their disbelief in God?

    Let the reader ascertain.

    I can find quotes from FDR that suggest he was a card carrying fascist, and then extrapolate from those as to the reasons why he delayed America’s entry into WWII.

    But if we wish to trade citations, Einstein wrote almost two dozen personal letters speaking of his belief in God. To wit …

    “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist. … I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being …”

    “Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.” [1]

    “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” [2]

    “The divine reveals itself in the physical world.” [3]

    “My God created laws … His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.” [4]

    “I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.” [5]

    “My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.” [6]

    “A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” [7]

    Max Jammer, Professor of Physics at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, and a personal friend of Einstein wrote:

    “Einstein was neither an atheist nor an agnostic.” [8]

    “Einstein renounced atheism because he never considered his denial of a personal God as a denial of God. This subtle but decisive distinction has long been ignored.” [9]

    “Not only was Einstein not an atheist, but his writings have turned many away from atheism, although he did not set out to convert anyone”. [10]

    “Thus I came (said Einstein) – despite the fact that I was the son of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents – to a deep religiosity.” [11]

    That a Jewish man had difficulty realizing a personal God is not earth shaking — no more surprising, I think, than a Jewish person’s difficulty with Yeshua HaMashiach. It all comes down to faith — even science so said Einstein:

    “Ultimately the belief in the existence of fundamental all-embracing laws rests on a sort of faith.” [12]

    By this Einstein suggests that with an understanding of, for example, the physics of aerodynamics I can board a plane expecting that it will taxi down the runway and become airborne. But it is by faith that I hope the plane will safely arrive at its destination.

    Einstein’s conclusion? Faith cannot be inserted into a mathematical equation. It transcends all that is called science, and its source is the very spirit of creation.

    1. A. Einstein to P. Wright 24 January 1936, Einstein Archive reel 52-337; Jammer, p.93.

    2. Quoted in H. Dukas and B. Hoffman, Albert Einstein – The Human Side (USA Princeton University Press 1981); Jammer, p.144.

    3. Z. Rosenkranz, Albert through the Looking Glass (Jewish National Library Jerusalem, 1998), pp.xi, 80; Jammer, p.151.

    4. Einstein in conversation with W. Hermann in Hermann’s book Einstein and the Poet (USA Branden Press, 1983), p.132; Jammer, p.123.

    5.. E. Salaman, A Talk with Einstein The Listener 54 (1955):370-371; Jammer, p.123.

    6. Albert Einstein, The Quotable Einstein, ed. Alice Calaprice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), pp.195-6.

    7. Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, printed in A. Einstein Ideas and Opinions (Crown, New York 1954,) pp.44-49 quote on p.46; Jammer p.31.

    8. Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), p.96.

    9. Jammer, p.150.

    10. Jammer, p.151.

    11. Jammer. p.19.

    12. Einstein to P. Wright, 24 January 1936. Einstein archive reel 52-337; Jammer, p.93.

    Like

    • retiredday says:

      Thank you for the clarification. The main point I have been trying to make is, “The fool says in his heart there is no God”. Einstein, one of the great men of science, never argued either that there was no God or that those who do believe in God are “superstitious”, “unscientific”, illogical, mentally ill, etc.

      Like

    • john zande says:

      If Einstein was anything, he was a pantheist. That is why he admired Spinoza, at least in the early thirties. I’m sorry, but a pantheist is a total and complete rejection of the god presented in the Middle Eastern Yahwehist religions.

      Like

      • retiredday says:

        I think the point is that Einstein did not say, “There is no god”. Having a world view that acknowledges there is some deity is what allows a person to begin a spiritual journey of discovery of the only true God. From there, the fear of the LORD (the humility to admit we are subject to his supreme judgement) leads us into knowledge and wisdom. Thus, the book of Ecclesiastes ends with “fear God and keep his commandments…for God will bring every deed into judgment…”.

        Like

  14. messiah gate says:

    Martial Guéroult (1891-1976), a French philosopher, said that Spinoza was a panentheist — not pantheist. That is, to say, one who believes that God materially interpenetrates the universe, but also exists as, what we might understand, mind (thought) or spirit. This is, in fact, a foundational principle of both Christianity and Judaism.

    And, as was quoted earlier, Einstein did not define himself as a pantheist.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s