Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist
by Mike Adams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Jimmy Duke was my pitching coach in 1976, the year we won the little league championship. I first met him at Clear Lake Baptist Church in 1973. That was just a year after I met his son Jim in Mrs. Ogden’s second grade class. Thirty-one years after we were first classmates, Jim would be one of the groomsmen at my wedding. I’ve been friends with him for 34 years now.

Jimmy stopped taking his family to CLBC after a tragic car accident killed the two little girls of a good friend. For him, God just couldn’t allow such a thing and still be worthy of worship and praise. The girls’ deaths were violent and the fatal accident seemed to take Jimmy’s faith with it to the grave.

Jimmy and his wife Sandra would divorce in the late 1980s and I would seldom see him afterwards. Glimpses of Jimmy’s life in recent years would come to me in little bits and pieces via the funny stories I would hear about him from family and friends. Jimmy’s sense of humor was a foundation for his great success as a businessman.

When his daughter Gwen married in the late 1990s he struck up a friendship with Pastor Roger of the local Hope Community Church. Roger would have lunch with Jimmy several times before he asked him, “Jimmy what are your thoughts on the Lord, these days?’ Jimmy’s answer to Roger was an instant classic: “As I understand it, you have to be Mother Theresa to get into heaven, and I’m not giving up my private airplane.” Roger laughed when he later told me that story.

However, there was nothing funny last summer when his ex-wife Sandy died suddenly and painfully of lung cancer. It would remind him, probably, of that car accident that killed two little girls and drove him from the church decades earlier.

After Sandy passed, I would have some long, tough phone calls with Jimmy’s son. How does one make the argument that a tragedy – especially one like the painful death of one’s mother – may some day be revealed as a blessing? How can such an argument be anything but offensive while the wounds of a loved one’s death are still fresh?

I tried unsuccessfully to compare my friend’s loss of his mother to the loss of my grandmother forty years before. The latter brought about the conversion of others though her life was cut short after 48 years. Could Sandy’s life bring about a similar change in others, too? Thankfully, his father Jimmy kept in touch with Pastor Roger.

Because Jimmy and his second wife Linda kept in touch with Sandy, too, it was possible for him to be influenced by her passing in a real and meaningful way. After Pastor Roger led the memorial for Sandy, he would speak to Jimmy again. When asked about his thoughts on the Lord, this time Jimmy said “It seems God in the Old Testament is a whole lot different from God in the New Testament.” Roger told him he wouldn’t live long enough to get answers to all his questions. But that one death reminded him of his mortality. And that is when his spiritual journey began.

Jimmy took a day off work to roam the aisles of Barnes and Noble to search out the perfect Christian apologetic. That day turned into two weeks as he couldn’t find the right book. Jimmy was looking for a book with numbers and charts. He wanted science and logic and archeological evidence all rolled into one package.

Finally, he decided upon a book by Geisler and Turek called “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” He read that book, followed by another by Josh McDowell. Then he topped it off with a reading of the Old Testament.

Around that time, I got a note from Texas written by a reader named Bob who attended Pastor Roger’s church. He told me he just met a man who knows me, too. “Jimmy Duke and his lovely wife Linda joined my Bible class recently,” he said. Linda was a long-time Christian, Jimmy was coming around fast.

While still in the process of conversion Jimmy bought 30 copies of Geisler and Turek’s book. He passed them out to anyone who would take a copy. Jimmy’s thirty plus years as an agnostic were coming to an end. His former wife’s painful death was becoming a catalyst for his conversion to full-time believer and part-time witness.

Suddenly – just a few weeks ago - the successful businessman called a meeting of all his staff. He told them about his spiritual journey. After convincing them he would never try to push his religion on them, he also made a promise. Anything they needed for spiritual exploration - including any time they needed off, any trips they needed to take, any books they needed to buy, or classes they needed to complete – would be on him.

Just last week Frank Turek - the man who co-wrote the book that launched Jimmy’s spiritual journey and subsequent conversion – contacted me out of the blue. Over the phone, I told Frank – whom I had never spoken to before that day – the powerful story of Jimmy the agnostic turned witness. I told Frank that he and Norm Geisler should be overjoyed that they played a big role in Jimmy’s conversion.

Later that day - after I got off the phone with Turek - Jimmy Duke checked into a hospital in Clear Lake City. He died unexpectedly the next day, surrounded by his loved ones.

Today, I’m just going to sit here writing the story of Jimmy’s conversion with one hand while the other is holding a couple of painkillers I’ll have to take after I finish this column. As soon as I recover from a shoulder injury, I’m going to celebrate the last year conversion of Jimmy Duke. To carry out that celebration (literally), I’m going to need two good arms to carry 30 copies of Geisler and Turek’s book out of Barnes and Noble.

Giving those books out to anyone who will take them will be a nice way to celebrate the life of Jimmy Duke. Some people believe in a world generated by chance, governed by natural causes, and devoid of miracles. I don’t have that much faith anymore. And none of us has that much time. Sign up for the www.DrAdams.org newsletter here.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
The title doesn't make sense in context.
I don't understand how the title of this article has anything to do with not having enough faith to be an atheist?

The story makes it seem like God killed the guy for becoming a faithful Christian. How does that help the Christian cause?

God killed the guy . . .
Its more like this, God made a faithful Christian out of a guy whose appointment with destiny was sealed.

As it is appointed unto man once to die, and after this the judgment.

Or, do you think it would be more glorifing to God for him to become a comitted Christian after he died?

Makes sense
I think maybe it is better to think of the situation from a different angle. Maybe the point is NOT that "God killed the guy for becoming a faithful Christian," rather God allowed him the time he needed to reach the understanding of His sacrafice and salvation. Imaging his fate had Jimmy died before his journey back to Christianity?

non thinking bum
That was a moving article and a crass comment, sir.

Not enough faith
To start with the article is great, but some seems to have drawn the wrong conclusion.

God did not kill him. God does not take a life. we die because we live in a fallen world filled with disease and danger.

I'm disappointed!
I really wanted to know what the title of the book meant. "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist." Adams never explains. Has anyone out there read it? Could someone supply a synopsis, please?

Apology
Sorry about the typo

Was seems, should be seem.

Enough faith
Hermione,
My take was that he didn't have enough faith in the idea that all we see and live are pure accidents of chance as he would have to believe in order to be an atheist.

Oldred
In my religion, God does take life. "But rather, fear God who, after He has killed, has the power to destroy both body and soul in he_ll".

That's right. Hades and Sheol are fine as long as you don't say heyall.

Enough Faith 2
One would need a LOT of faith in the universe, gaia, (or whatever gives you strength and will to live - if you are an atheist), that somehow you will be happy, healthy, wise, or whatever floats your boat on earth and then end up in heaven, nirvana, or . . . by being kind, good, etc.

(Sorry for the run-on sentence!)

I have just enough faith (which God gave me) to take God at His Word that He keeps His promises. The best promise being that of Jesus Christ, our Savior. That promise is a free gift to take.

The people with enough faith to be atheists think that John 3:16 is just too simple to be true and never open the present.

Hope I did Mike justice. I know he doesn't explain a lot. Good teachers make their students think.


Such ignorance...
You could have saved the money wasted on that book and gotten "Mystery of the Ages" by Herbert W. Armstrong for free. So much ignorance about what the Bible actually says from people who profess to be Christian.

God's truth is a million times more wonderful than the nonsense spewed out by organized Christianity.

Spiritual journey
While I appreciate the journey Mike's friend embarked on and completed, while there are great commentaries and self-help books, while everyone must "work out his own salvation with fear and trembling", the blueprint, the map, the authority is still the only the Bible and should be the beginnig of the journey and not just one among many sources.

Not enough faith to be an atheist...
Mike: Thank you for sharing the powerful testimony of God at work. Time is too short for all of us. Certainly your friend had no truer friend than yourself. Kudos to the authors of the book.

Faith
Hermione -- the premise of the book is that to be a Christian -- or, for that matter, a Jew or a Muslim -- requires that one believe one difficult thing; that a Supreme Being created everything for purposes of His own. To be an atheist requires that one believe that matter "somehow happened" then "somehow" arranged itself into the universe, "somehow" went through the precise and specific arrangements to become living cells, "somehow" turned into all the various forms of life we see all around us, etc.. It's a very good book.

"Pascal's Wager" Redux
Any beneficiary of a classic "liberal" education would recognize the argument as a variation of the classic "Pascal's Wager" or "Pascal's Gambit" Christian apologetic. Look it up.

Awesome Article
Great message, Mike. Gave me the goose bumps.

Re: Faith

LibertarianRedneck said:

> To be an atheist requires that one believe that matter
> "somehow happened" then "somehow" arranged itself into
> the universe, "somehow" went through the precise and
> specific arrangements to become living cells, "somehow"
> turned into all the various forms of life we see all
> around us, etc...


I'm not an atheist; more of an "apathist," I'd say. I grew
up in a secular family in a secular part of the country (yes,
California), and I've never had any particular need in my life
for religion...or really understood those who did, frankly.

(I've always considered religion to be like the Reader's Digest:
a psychological and emotional crutch for those who are afraid to
face life on its own terms. "If there were no God, man would've
invented him." -- some guy)

However, having been educated in the sciences, I'm equipped to
clarify and correct the above summary of the atheistic/secular
worldview.

It isn't that things "somehow happened." It's that lots and lots
of things happened over lots and lots of time, until eventually, by
happenstance, the right things happened in the right sequences and
combinations for planets and suns to form, for life to get its start,
etc.

Of course, the same model went on to apply to what we know as
evolution. It wasn't that just the right mutations happened
spontaneously and new forms of life took over from old. Lots and
lots of mutations happened to living things over huge stretches of
time. Some were disadvantageous -- evolutionary dead ends -- and
died out along with the creatures that possessed them. Others were
advantageous, and allowed the creatures which possessed them to
prosper and eventually, to displace those that lacked them.

And now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go out and polish the
plastic Darwin fish on the back of my car.


-CB-


The Missing Link
Creighton Beryll writes
And now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go out and polish the
plastic Darwin fish on the back of my car.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Is that fish the missing link? He's still missing, right? You should share him with the scientific community.

Christian verses Atheist
I am greatful to be a Christian, to myself the very sound of the word, brings faith to my heart and soul. On the other hand the word Atheist, brings images of children against their parents, and parents against their children. In my faith as A Christian I beleive, yes truely beleive that God gives me the light to see, just to awake each day and know that God is with me, I see it as the Sun rises, the flowers bloom and the children laugh and play. It gives me a sense that Almighty God does care for his children and I in turn what the best life can offer for mine. How Grand a parent he is, As he guides me and cares about whats in my heart and soul, just as I care for my children and grandchildren. What a natural and decent way to live and think, to be grateful for my life, my family and my God. Wars would be few to none if only you would Accept the gift of life and the promises he has granted.

Not Enough Faith To Be An Atheist
To Hermione:

I have not read the book, but to me the title is self-explanatory.

For starters, whether spiritual (in communication with God), or secular (believing in an accidental universe), we each live by faith. With our consciousness of past, present, and future, there is no other way we can live.

We have faith the "sky will not fall," faith gravity will permanently continue to keep us from flying off into space, faith our beds will support our bodies nightly, the sun will rise in the morning, and ever so many other natural "laws" will remain "legally" continuing to sustain life on this little green, or is it blue(?) planet.

To believe in an accidental universe with life on this planet requires stupendous faith in a lengthy series of incredibable mathmatical improbabilies, each occuring in an fantastically mathmatically improbable essential order. It's a preposperous theory, or series of them, and if that is "science," heaven protect us!

But actual faith (in God) is an experience, first comes faith, then comes understanding via the experience of God. Others can witness, but none can share the personal experience. Once experienced, it's undeniable within, and that, I suspect, is entirely to what Jesus referred when He said, "The kingdom of heaven is within, though men do not know it." If your spirit has ever soared while viewing a sunrise, or sunset, it's a small glimmer of the feeling one feels when experiencing the Light and Love of God within.

To know Him and conceive of ever again living without Him, back to the myth of accidental universe, would require more faith than many of us can conceive as sane.


Science and faith

Science can never explain faith. Thats why its afraid of it.

Faith goes beyond science.

Such ignorance...from mystic7
Your post is nonsensical.

The book Mike referred is brilliantly written and very effective. The money spent on copies of it were not 'wasted'. The man came to saving faith because of the book (as have many others), and yet you call it a 'waste', just because he didn't choose to buy your favorite book instead. Here you are recommending a book you like by trashing one you haven't even read. That, sir, is true ignorance.

You claim that God's truth is 'a million times more wonderful'... Ok, no argument there. But God's truth is not contained in the pages of the
the Geisler book, nor in the book you recommended. It's contained in the Bible. But people who write books on apologetics, such as Norm Geisler, are doing a great service to the Kingdom of God, and to humanity in general. Apologetics, FYI, is the intellectual defense of the Christian faith. Those who defend Christianity with intellectual arguments are not 'spewing nonsense'.

Great books written by Christian thinkers ultimately lead people back to the Bible, as it did with the man in Mike's story.

As to the book you recommend, based on the rude and sarcastic tone of your post, I would not bother reading it, even if it is free.


I think many are missing a key point...
What many are failing to see, or have overlooked, is that Jimmy for decades had every reason to doubt a good God. It wasn't as if God had spared his wife with a miraculous healing; He did not. Jimmy, however, was honestly seeking answers, and God is patient with those who are truly seeking. He will never force His love on those who do not want Him. Why? Simply because love cannot be compelled.

But love can woo, and that is what God did patiently over decades of time in Jimmy's life. And, because Jimmy was honestly seeking truth, Truth met him.


Exactly So!
I like the way Mike tells the truth, and the truth often confounds the wise and the foolish.
For those of you that have no understanding of the truth of God and His Son Jesus Christ the Savior of all who come to Him in faith, read on!
God has said:
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen!"
"The just shall live by faith!"
"Without faith it is impossible to please God!"
About Mike's friend, Jimmy, God was not unaware of the many things that 'happened' around and in Jimmy's life. It is important to God that every one who wants to know who He is, is able to search out and find that Almighty God wants a personal relationship with everyone who wants to have one with Him.
Some of the other comments on this article are from those with a closed mind and, there is evidence that others are searching.
I appreciate Mike's reference to the Geisler book which could benefit all of us, if we took the time to read it, and with the desire to find the truth in it.
Thank you Mike!
CDB

atheism
In response to Creighton Beryll; if you think your post does a good job of defending Darwin and the evolutionary theory that he proposed, think again. It was as weak a defense as I've ever read on the subject. Then again, there isn't much to defend, given that Darwin's theory is not valid and is being abandoned by all but the true diehards.

Rather than polishing the fish on your car, you should take Mike's challenge and get a copy of the book he recommended. But I doubt you'll do that, because you know instinctively that there is a God (as all men have since the beginning of time), and as long as you avoid books and people that challenge your worldview, you can be comfortable in your ignorance.

Another book you won't read, but should, is "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson, which scientifically details just exactly what is known about Darwin's theory, without referring to religion once.

God is good
Christians are not guaranteed an easy life. If we were, we could charge dues for membership. And there would be a line out the door to join. Fortunately for us Christ paid our dues at Calvary.
What is guaranteed is eternal fellowship with God, here and when we are called home. Going through trials here is eased by God's Peace and Comfort and Hope. That's not the hope of the secular world where we want to win the lottery, but who knows if we will. Christian Hope is certain. It is the everlasting joy of eternity with God.
Prayer on earth is our relationship and communication with God. God's Will be done and we don't understand His purposes but prayer calms us and restores us. And it brings Glory and Honor to God.

Great Article!
Thank you for a reminder of the things that are truly important.

I will be praying for a speedy recovery.

Creighton's faith
There you go! That's as bold a statement of faith as any, since none of that can be proven.

However history shows "lots of time" was not given evolution to do its thing by chance. The Cambrian explosion 540 million years ago ( by scientist's reckoning ) resulted in virtually all modern plant and animal body plans that we see today in a span of years "difficult to study" (check out wikipedia entry). Scientists guess this to be less than 50 million years, but in truth it was less than our resolution to measure; it could have been a day for all we know. Darwin himself said this event was the biggest thorn in his theory, which states life started with few variations and evolved into many. Since the Cambrian, what the record shows is we started with many and have been "evolving" to fewer. The fossil record does not support Darwin's theory.

Staunch Darwinists have patched Darwins's theory by introducing the idea of "dynamic equilibrium" to explain how evolution can occur really fast and then pretty much stop. And why not? A similar patch was made to the Big Bang theory to say the universe expanded really really fast at first, and then pretty much stopped. No explanations are given for how/what laws of nature had to temporarily change for these things to happen (pretty much the definition of a miracle). Atheists have no problem believing in miracles, as long as doing so does not require anything from them, which believing in a God most certainly does.

Re: atheism

annfan writes:

> In response to Creighton Beryll; if you think your post does
> a good job of defending Darwin and the evolutionary theory
> that he proposed, think again. It was as weak a defense as
> I've ever read on the subject.

It wasn't a "defense," or anything close to that. It was a
brief summary and paraphrase, provided for the edification of
those who are unclear on the concept.


> Then again, there isn't much to defend, given that Darwin's
> theory is not valid and is being abandoned by all but the
> true diehards.

Er, not to put too fine a point on it, but...what planet are
you from? Abandoned by whom? Fundamentalists? People who
handle snakes and attend church in their best, Sunday-go-to-
meetin' bib overalls?


> Rather than polishing the fish on your car, you should take
> Mike's challenge and get a copy of the book he recommended.
> But I doubt you'll do that, because you know instinctively
> that there is a God (as all men have since the beginning of
> time), and as long as you avoid books and people that chal-
> lenge your worldview, you can be comfortable in your ignorance.

First, I find it...interesting, shall we say, that you presume
to speak for "all men...since the beginning of time." Secondly,
it's more than a little presumptuous of you to try and psycho-
analyze a complete stranger at a distance, based on a single
piece of writing.


-CB-



I'm Disappointed
Hermione: I've read the Book. I highly recommend it. In fact I bought two copies so I could mark up one and have a clean copy to keep. It's 447 pages with an index and copious notes. Topics it deals with include truth, the beginning of the universe, natural law, how life began, evolution, moral law, evidence for the life and divinity of Jesus, why is there evil, relativism, and others. It's not a dry read either and both Geisler and Turek keep your attention. It's in trade-paper and published by Crossway. Amazon has it for $10.87. Hope this helps.

Creighton Ding-Dong
The sencond law of thermodynamics alone disputes the evolutionary "theory" and any evidence you can come up with to the contrary.

The very world itself screams out at the existence of its Creator.

Jude... well stated post.

Death and how we deal with it
St. Augustine has much to teach us in this area. In the "Confessions", (A book that is worth reading), Augustine talks about the death of a close friend. He responds to his death with great anguish and suffering. There is no place that he can go without being reminded of him and this leaves him in a constant state of depression. All of this occurs before Augustine's conversion, and the full story can be found in the fourth book of the "Confessions."

Later on in book IX of the "Confessions" Augustine is baptized and both he and his mother, St. Monica, head back to Africa. Before they can leave Italy, however, his mother becomes very ill and dies. Augustine is greived by his mothers death but unlike the death of his friend, which caused him to despair, he is sustained by the hope of the Resurrection. He knows and understands that all of us are in the hands of a just and merciful God and that he will sustain us even in the most difficult circumstances.

St. Augustine wrote some five million words in his life time. The "Confessions" is the best known and loved of all his works.

Re: Creighton's faith

DeMolay writes:

> There you go! That's as bold a statement of faith as any,
> since none of that can be proven.

You have a pretty loose concept of what constitutes faith.

You've neve studied biology or zoology, have you? Evolution
can, and has, been proven. Certain species retain character-
istics of other species, even as they developed other charac-
teristics to adapt to different environments. Example: birds
evolved from reptiles. Example: humans evolved from apes.
Example: some whales have vestigial hind legs, evidence of
terrestrial ancestors. (See the wikipedia entry on evolution
for an illustration.)

(For details, please use Google. I've neither the time nor
the inclination to explain something that we all should've
learned in high school, if not earlier. I mean, really,
people. Let's get real here.)

Christians like to say that evolution is "just a theory," which
displays an appalling ignorance of the meaning of the term
"theory" in a scientific context. In casual discourse, a theory
is a provisional, unproven idea. In science, however, it's a
_proven_ idea -- or more specifically, a model that's accepted
because it's been proved to the limits of current science. It's
interesting how molecular structure and relativity are "just
theories," also -- and yet Christians never seem to take issue
with those as they do with evolution.

(Frankly, I find it a bit disturbing that any of this has to be
explained to anyone in the 21st century, particularly anyone in
a modern Western industrialized nation.)


> However history shows "lots of time" was not given evolution
> to do its thing by chance. The Cambrian explosion 540 million
> years ago ( by scientist's reckoning ) resulted in virtually
> all modern plant and animal body plans that we see today in a
> span of years "difficult to study" (check out wikipedia entry).
> Scientists guess this to be less than 50 million years, but in
> truth it was less than our resolution to measure; it could have
> been a day for all we know.

But probably wasn't, as common sense indicates. Are you telling me
that you don't consider five hundred and forty million years to be
"lots of time?" You're grasping at straws.


> Staunch Darwinists have patched Darwins's theory by introducing
> the idea of "dynamic equilibrium" to explain how evolution can
> occur really fast and then pretty much stop. And why not? A
> similar patch was made to the Big Bang theory to say the
> universe expanded really really fast at first, and then pretty
> much stopped.

Except that it didn't "pretty much stop." The universe's rate of
expansion has slowed over the millennia, as explosions will over
time, but it hasn't stopped.

As for evolution, I've never heard anyone claim (until now) that
it "pretty much stopped." Obviously, the sorts of changes that
occurred over millions of years aren't going to be readily dis-
cernable in the interval between the time when Darwin's _Origin
Of Species_ was published (1859) and today.


> No explanations are given for how/what laws of nature had to
> temporarily change for these things to happen (pretty much the
> definition of a miracle). Atheists have no problem believing in
> miracles, as long as doing so does not require anything from
> them, which believing in a God most certainly does.

There's nothing miraculous about it. That scientists don't yet
know why the Big Bang occurred, or what preceded it, doesn't
give us license to reject the scientific consensus is on what
happened _after_ the Big Bang. Things like that are generally
figured out incrementally rather than all at once.

In the case of evolution, why would any laws of nature need to
change in order for it to be possible? Anyone who isn't in a
Seconal stupor knows that one of the current controversies is
global warming. That, like the Ice Age, is evidence that the
planet's climate does change over time. The Ice Age ended and
now there are no more mastodons or wooly mammoths; they evolved
into the animals we know as elephants.


-CB-

Creation and Faith
1.Science will never contradict faith since God, being rational and knowable, created the physical world.
2.To be a Darwinist requires a faith. Science has not a clue who the "Big Banger" is or where the matter of the "bang" came from. Faith knows. It is like coming upon a wonderful sandcastle on an empty beach and marvel at how the winds have arranged the sand. That is the faith of scientism.

My copy
Very nice article, Mike. I started reading this book a while back after you recommended it to me, but I've since laid it down for other material. After I finish How To Talk To A Liberal, I'm going to start back from the beginning of Enough Faith. Hope the shoulder gets better soon so you can get back to class.

Good article
And the title is very approriate. It takes a great deal of faith to be an atheist, as atheism is areligion unto itself IMO.

An aside: Has anyone ever noticed how much atheists, who claim to have no interest in religious belief, seemingly spend all their waking hours attacking those that have strong religious faith? Don't their constant attacks on religion, mainly Christianity, seem to have a particularly...um..religious fervor to them?

Creighton Beryll:
I wouldn't presume to psychoanalyze you, but I have to say that I do detect a whiff of hostility toward Christianity in your previous posts. I also don't presume to know your history, as you are a stranger, but going by your admissions in your first post, where you claim to have grown up in a complete secular enclave, I'm presumingforthesake of argument that you have not spent inordinate amounts of time studying either the Bible, or Christians beyond the typical stereotypes(ie, snake handlers, bib overalls-signifying bumpkins). This is a shame, as it leaves you with nothing stronger in your intellectual armory than empty platitudes and weak jabs to build your argument. The fact is that no less eminent scientists that Professor Henry Scheafer (Director,Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry:U. of Georgia), Prof. Fred Sigworth(Professor of Cellular and Molecular Physiology:Yale Grad School), Dean Kenyon(Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Fran State Univ.),William Dembski, PhD of Mathematics:U. of Chicago, to name just fourof a list of 100 distinguished scientists and scholars listed on just one website(www.reviewevolution.com)disagree or call into question the THEORY of evolution. I am no scholar, but I do seem to remember that the mathematical theory of entropy smashes the theory of evolution out of the gate. How can one theory say that everything evolves toward "perfection" and another say that everything devolves toward destruction and both theories be valid? Have you ever given that glaring contradiction any thought? I implore you to study Josh McDowell's book "More Than a Carpenter" as a quick, easy read that will at least make you think. I have never read the book discussed by Dr. Adams, but I am sure it will also be a great opportunity to strengthen your intellect in defense of your opinion, or maybe even make you think a little about why you hold the hostile views you do toward the Savior. Don't let Christians keep you from a saving knowledge of the Christ they claim to represent. He is the real deal and He can change your life, if you will let Him.

Re: Creighton's faith
The mechanism of evolution has plenty of evidence for it. However, the underlying difficulty is where did the organizing principles come from; what is the source of the information that causes particular laws to work as they do and specific processes to unfold as they do. Fundamentally, it is a 'software' problem.

Furthermore, the fact that there has been millions of years for evolution to play out is interesting, but useless, because we don't know how long it takes advantageous mutations to manifest themselves in a paramecium, or an eyeball, or an orangutan.

So, harkening back to the title of the article, it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a monotheist of any kind, because, ironically, there is less evidence for it.

what about jimmy's friend's kids?
The sentiment in Dr. Adams' story was sincere enough, but to suggest that God uses cancer and car accidents to spread his love is offensive.

Am I to understand that:

-god killed some kids in a car accident, driving Jimmy from his faith.

-god then killed Jimmy's ex-wife to bring him back.

The whole thing was a wash from this perspective. God could've left those poor kids alone, and Jimmy's wife, and Jimmy may have still been faithful when he died.

From this perspective, God really is cruel and arbitrary.

Mystic 7
mystic7 writes: Wednesday, September, 06, 2006 8:17 AM
"Such ignorance...
You could have saved the money wasted on that book and gotten "Mystery of the Ages" by Herbert W. Armstrong for free. So much ignorance about what the Bible actually says from people who profess to be Christian.

God's truth is a million times more wonderful than the nonsense spewed out by organized Christianity."



Were you aware that the church Herbert W. Armstrong founded (The Worldwide Church of God) RENOUNCED the heretical teachings of Herbert and his son, Garner Ted Armstrong? As a WHOLE, that church turned to Biblical Christianity. Interesting story -- you can watch a video titled "Called to Be Free" interviewing church leaders and members at http://lhvm.org/wcg.htm



repumocrat
God doesn't actually "kill" anyone. A car driven by a person killed those children, and a disease killed Jimmy's wife. God does allow these things to happen. This is due to free will and the ability of humans to choose their destiny. We also have to deal with the consequences of our and others free will. If a person decides to murder, he made a free choice. The person murdered didn't, but he is the consequence of that choice. This isn't "fair", but it is what it is. We brought this sorry state of affairs on ourselves by generation after generation choosing to go against God, rather than striving with Him.

Thanks Mike,
To the non thinking bum & repumocrat;

It never ceases to amaze me how people can sit down and judge God by human standards.
To the being who can create life, what is death?
What do you suppose your computer thinks of you (if it could be self-aware) every time you turn it off?
How will that compare to your own thoughts when you turn it off.
And yet, you judge an Infinite God by your own finite standards.
How genuinely arrogant.

The problem with your viewpoint is you view life as a set of random events and never see the whole. God deals with these very issues in the book of Genesis whith the story of Joseph. It is not the event that one needs to look at, it is the outcome.

To Hermione
Let me ask you a couple of questions,
1) If you leave a Volkswagen Beetle in a field, and come back years later, (100, 1,000,000, etc.) do you hold any expectation at all that what you will find in its place is a Rolls Royce?
2) If you put all of the separate parts of a Swiss watch in a mayonnaise jar, and shake them, will they assemble themselves into the finished product?

If you answered yes to both questions, then you have enough faith to be an atheist.
Because you believe that random events can bring about the advancement of the material world.
I find that it requires far less faith to believe that some form of intelligence guided the forming of the universe and crafting of the laws of physics.

Or as Albert Einstein once said, “God does not play dice with the universe.”

To Mike Adams,

I am sorry for your loss, but I am well pleased to learn of your gain and the tribute that you have given for him.
Thank you for sharing Jimmy’s story.


Mr. Beryll writes
about the "plastic Darwin fish on the back of my car." I've seen those, I think--the fishy thing with feet. Are they a symbol for something?

Re: Creighton's faith

Maypo writes:

> The mechanism of evolution has plenty of evidence for it.
> However, the underlying difficulty is where did the
> organizing principles come from; what is the source of
> the information that causes particular laws to work as
> they do and specific processes to unfold as they do.
> Fundamentally, it is a 'software' problem.

The only organizing principle is randomness, in the form
of mutation. Individuals with mutations that are favorable
are more likely to survive and reproduce than individuals
which lack such mutations, or which have mutations that are
actively disfavorable.


> Furthermore, the fact that there has been millions of years
> for evolution to play out is interesting, but useless, because
> we don't know how long it takes advantageous mutations to
> manifest themselves in a paramecium, or an eyeball, or an
> orangutan.

But what difference does it make how long they take? That
would be interesting to know (and may in fact depend on the
mutation, the type of organism and its environment, etc.), but
the fact that they do, in fact, manifest is the salient thing.
The phenomenon itself is what's important; anything else is
just detail.


-CB-



2nd law vs evolution
Saying the 2nd law of thermodynamics invalidates evolution out of the gate is a fals premise. The 2nd law explicitly states in a closed system. The universe as a whole is the only closed system. So, while order my assemble here on our earth over millions of years, the total entropy for the universe has indeed grown.

Yea, what are the odds?
"It isn't that things "somehow happened." It's that lots and lots of things happened over lots and lots of time, until eventually, by happenstance, the right things happened in the right sequences and combinations for planets and suns to form, for life to get its start,
etc."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yea, just like rolling eight the hard way 100 trillion times in a row with a pair of dice. You'll pardon me if I stick with God having done it all.


Re: Mr. Beryll writes

DexL writes:

[Darwin fish]

> I've seen those, I think--the fishy thing with feet.
> Are they a symbol for something?


They're a parody of the similar Christian fish, the ones
that often contain the Greek letters "IXOYE" within their
outline.

The addition of the feet, and the substitution of "DARWIN"
for "IXOYE" are a pithy secular rebuttal to the religiosity
of the Christian fish.

There are several humorous variations, such as "GEFILTE" for
Jews, "ALIEN" for flying saucer buffs, and "Cthulhu" for fans
of the works of H.P. Lovecraft. (I like that one, especially;
it has tentacles.)

There's also a Christian response: a fish labeled TRUTH devouring
a legged DARWIN fish.


-CB-


reconcile?
I've never understood why the two extreme sides of this argument never can reconcile. I am a practicing Catholic and believe in God. I also believe in the big bang and evolution. Look, if God had created the universe in a way that allowed proving his existence, that would eliminate FAITH. Without faith what do you have?

God is Good
repumocrat writes: Wednesday, September, 06, 2006 11:36 AM
what about jimmy's friend's kids?
The sentiment in Dr. Adams' story was sincere enough, but to suggest that God uses cancer and car accidents to spread his love is offensive.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since man screwed it up in the Garden, the chance of temporal death is 100%--well excluding Enoch and Elijah. So we are going to die here on earth and we don't know how. Everything that happens on earth should be for God's glory. Sometimes we have a hard time seeing it and accepting it. Sometimes it seems cruel, but God is Good! And God is! The rewards are eternal. That's why all Christians aren't rich, thin and good looking. Not here on earth anyway--it's not what we are looking for.

Darwin fish.
Mr. Beryll writes, "a parody." Really? Isn't that kind of degrading, making fun of what someone believes, however silly it may appear? Some, no doubt, might even call it intolerent.

Arrogance either way.
jaydee: "And yet, you judge an Infinite God by your own finite standards.
How genuinely arrogant."

Yet, to call God good is judging God, as well. The only difference is the conclusion that is drawn.

If you wanted to be truly non-arrogant, you'd say, "God is." And not make a moral pronouncement either way.

rjas2734 (and 100 scientists)
about Creighton Beryll:

"The fact is that no less eminent scientists that Professor Henry Scheafer (Director,Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry:U. of Georgia), Prof. Fred Sigworth(Professor of Cellular and Molecular Physiology:Yale Grad School), Dean Kenyon(Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Fran State Univ.),William Dembski, PhD of Mathematics:U. of Chicago, to name just fourof a list of 100 distinguished scientists and scholars listed on just one website(www.reviewevolution.com)disagree or call into question the THEORY of evolution."

Are you guys still touting this? Sheesh. Not only have none of these scienists, or the others on the list, made any significant contribution to the debate over evolution, but *100*?! Seriously, who is impressed by that number. If you or anyone cares for some perspective, check out Project Steve, a sarcastic rebuttal to the very notion that anyone should be knocked back by the list of evolution-naysayers: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp"

There is no significant debate in the scientific community over whether evolution happens. There is a significant, and ever-evolving (heh), debate as to how it happens. To say otherwise is to be ignorant and/or disingenuous.

"How can one theory say that everything evolves toward "perfection" and another say that everything devolves toward destruction and both theories be valid?"

Is this evolution you're referring to? Because anyone who understands evolution knows that it's not evolving "towards" anything, much less perfection. Feel free to look up the definition of the word "evolution."

"Don't let Christians keep you from a saving knowledge of the Christ they claim to represent. He is the real deal and He can change your life, if you will let Him."

So much for you charging Creighton with "empty platitudes."

Creighton is right about many things, but most of all this: it's pathetic that most people don't have a simple understanding of evolution, and downright depressing that they feel they can debate it all the same.

Creighton's presuppositions
Creighton,

I respect your intelligence and I have enjoyed your reasoned responses. I am also somewhat ashamed of the many "pat" answers that some of my Christians brothers and sisters have given you.

I am not much of a scientist, but I have had some good college courses and can reason, reasonably well. I have even changed my view of the world primarily because I think the science did not justify my position, (see anything written by Hugh Ross).

My problem with you is not your understanding of the physical evidence it is that you like many secular scientists that I have read, do not seem aware of some of your own philosophical presuppositions. Science can only take you so far, and to do science you have to "believe" a few things that science itself cannot prove.

One presupposition that is very common is the belief that the only knowledge that is true knowledge is that which can be tested. This statement is not provable using any scientific method and therefore if it is believed it must be taken on faith. If the material world is all that we can know then many other things in this world are not really knowable either. For instance, much historical science cannot really be tested either, and therefore how can we really know that something happened.

Also, things like morality, love, or any other metaphysical ideas have no objective meaning in a world where only material exists. Some secular people have considered the consequences of their beliefs (Nietschze for instance understood that a world without a belief in the supernatural would be a difficult place), but I wonder if you have.

Finally, on a philosophical level a belief that only scientific knowledge is real knowledge is self defeating. If everything is a result of randomness (as I believe you stated) then how can you trust your own thoughts which are simply the results of the random impulses in your brain. Either you are determined and must think what you think, or your thoughts come from chaos and how can chaos make order (that does not even make sense in a scientific world).

I think a secular scientific worldview is appealling because it seems to be so logical, but it ultimately fails to explain so many things, which I instinctly know to be true (for instance, it gives me an explanation for why I "know" I should love my kids instead of eat them). As a Christian, I can objectively look at the physical world, because I believe the order in the universe comes from an ordered mind, while at the same time I have workable explanation for the non-physical parts of the world that I also "know" to be real.

My question for you is simply why? From your point of view, why anything? What is the purpose of anything? Without the why, ultimately we are just "Dust in the Wind" as the group Kansas used to sing.

I hope you find the answer.

God Bless. :)

Re: Creighton Beryll:

rjas2734 writes:

> I wouldn't presume to psychoanalyze you, but I have to say
> that I do detect a whiff of hostility toward Christianity
> in your previous posts.

Exasperation would be a better word. I felt the same thing
the other evening when I was talking to a couple of Santa
Cruz liberals, so don't get me wrong: I'm an equal-opportunity
curmudgeon. It's just that this is a target-rich environment,
Christian-wise.


> I also don't presume to know your history, as you are a
> stranger, but going by your admissions in your first post,
> where you claim to have grown up in a complete secular
> enclave, I'm presuming for the sake of argument that you
> have not spent inordinate amounts of time studying either
> the Bible, or Christians beyond the typical stereotypes
> (ie, snake handlers, bib overalls-signifying bumpkins).

I think you misunderstand. grew up in a secular family and
attended public schools, but I didn't live in a hermetically
sealed enclave as far as religion (or anything else) was
concerned.

No matter what a person's religious leanings, it'd be virtually
impossible for any American with a normal lifestyle not to acquire
an awareness of Christianity, or to avoid being exposed to Christians
of various sorts. At the very least, one can read about Christians
every day in the online and print media. After years of doing that,
a certain picture of Christians in America begins to emerge.

Yes, some academics have reservations about the theory of evolution.
Given the number of scientists in the U.S., I'm sure you could find
at least a handful who professed any sort of belief one could name.
And yet, out of all those scientists, your list includes just 100
-- a number that sounds impressive at first glance, but which in
reality isn't even a drop in the proverbial bucket.


> I am no scholar, but I do seem to remember that the mathematical
> theory of entropy smashes the theory of evolution out of the gate.
> How can one theory say that everything evolves toward "perfection"
> and another say that everything devolves toward destruction and
> both theories be valid? Have you ever given that glaring contra-
> diction any thought?

No, because it isn't a contradiction at all. That idea is wrong
on at least two counts. One, entropy isn't a tendency toward
destruction; it's a tendency toward _disorder_, which is is morally
neutral. By describing it as destruction, you're putting a tenden-
tious spin on it. Entropy can be good or bad, depending on the
context. Even then, "good" or "bad" is subjective; the universe is
cold and unfeeling and doesn't care one way or another.

And two, evolution isn't about a drift toward perfection. It's
about randomness -- entropy again. It's just that where living
organisms and their environments are concerned, some changes are
beneficial while others are not. Which is which depends on the
specifics of the situation.


> I implore you to study Josh McDowell's book "More Than a Carpenter"
> as a quick, easy read that will at least make you think.

I have a copy, as a matter of fact. Somebody gave it to me years
ago, along with C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity." I haven't read
either one yet, but I certainly will sooner or later.


> I have never read the book discussed by Dr. Adams, but I am sure
> it will also be a great opportunity to strengthen your intellect
> in defense of your opinion, or maybe even make you think a little
> about why you hold the hostile views you do toward the Savior.

I hold no hostility toward the Savior. It's some of His followers
who give me the heebie-jeebies.


-CB-



I believe it!
A Thinking BUM writes: Wednesday, September, 06, 2006 1:04 PM
Yet, to call God good is judging God, as well. The only difference is the conclusion that is drawn.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is no judgment in calling God good. It is accepting the attributes He says He has in His Word. He says He is good--I believe it!

some interesting misinterpretations...
...of my post, Jaydee. I particularly liked being accused of arrogance for judging God by human standards. I'm not judging God at all, that was pretty much my point.

Dr. Adams assigned human motives to God -- Jimmy's wife dies to bring Jimmy back to the fold before he dies. If we accept that version we'll eventually have to accept that God does some pretty cruel things, too. That's why I don't accept that version.

The truth is that sometimes bad things happen for no reason at all and sometimes good things happen for no reason at all; and everywhere in between. If it didn't work that way humans would just be God's puppets. Good and evil would be meaningless, mere reflexes.

Also, thank you Monica for your thoughtful response. As an atheist I don't have an opinion one way or the other about God's goodness, but it's comforting to know that Christians like yourself have an uplifting vision of him and the world.



Dear Non Reading Bum
I'm sorry,

I've read my post three times.

I cannot find the quotation you accuse me of anywhere in there?
Perhaps you penciled it in on your own screen so you could accuse me of being arrogant.

So, not only are you arrogant, you are presumptuous and a liar as well.

DeMolay – Dynamic Equilibrium

“Dynamic equilibrium” a.k.a. punctuated equilibrium or as I like to refer to it, in the vernacular, “The Hopeful Monster.”

Talk about your leaps of faith, the belief in Darwinian Evolution, is like leaping the Grand Canyon with a pogo stick, at that, about a trillion times. All one need postulate (first and foremost) is the existence of matter. You ask, “Where did the matter come from?” What’s it matter, can’t you see I’m theorizing here? So we give them matter. Now what? Well let’s imagine a cataclysmic event! But you muse, “Aren’t there a lot of gaps, you know, not enough transitional forms, i.e., missing links.” Yeah so! We just have to imagine lots and lots of cataclysmic events; all of which impose themselves on existing life forms. “Excuse me.” You might thoughtfully inquire, “Where did the life forms come from?” How many times must I tell you not to ask questions? So we now give them life forms – not mind you that life has ever been formed from non-life, but well… there are an awful lot of people’s livelihoods at stake here – not to mention a mountain of textbooks. And what’s more teachers are having a difficult enough time as it is. What with teacher literacy tests and the like. Besides, can’t you see I’m theorizing here? Where was I? Oh yeah, so these trillions (give or take a billion) of cataclysmic events impose themselves on the existing life forms during various stages of earth’s development in such a manner as to cause them to mutate. These however are not just your plain old garden variety mutations; these are newly evolved species (male and female – in their more highly evolved forms) capable of reproduction. Eureka! Hopeful Monsters!

And there you have it, an explanation, albeit plain spoken, as to how Darwinian Evolutionary Scientists explain the lack of supporting evidence, otherwise referred to as missing links.

If there is an evolutionist out there with a better explanation of the gaps (missing links) please enlighten us?

Hopeful Monster or Creator God? In the final analysis, both are matters of faith.


Re: Darwin fish.

DexL writes:

> Isn't that kind of degrading, making fun of what someone believes,
> however silly it may appear?

On the other hand, the Christian fish could be construed as an
in-your-face denial of what NON-Christians believe, could they
not?

How come the Christians get to affix symbols of _their_ belief
to their cars, but the rest of us don't?

"I'm offended!"

"Yeah? Well, I'M offended that YOU'RE offended! So how do you
like THEM apples, buster?"


> Some, no doubt, might even call it intolerent.

The horror!

Welcome to the Marketplace Of Ideas. Paper or plastic?



-CB-


jaydee
It's simple: paste, "judge an Infinite God by your own finite" into your Find option on the page, and it first takes you to your post, and then to my quote of your post.

Unless someone else posted under your nickname above my comment?

Your best column ever
Dr. Adams -

This is your best column ever.

I knew that there was more to you than sarcastic wit (which I admire) in support of just causes (which I approve). & I believe that we have now seen into your soul.

Thanks for the view.

Re: Yea[h], what are the odds?


Yak writes:

> Yea, just like rolling eight the hard way 100 trillion times
> in a row with a pair of dice. You'll pardon me if I stick
> with God having done it all.


S'okay, Yak. Like the old, rich guy in "Caddyshack" said, the
world needs ditch-diggers, too. :-)


-CB-



--
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows
with a high-powered rifle and scope." -- P.J. O'Rourke



Dear Lying Bum
I tried and tried;

but when I put "God is Good" into the find option it never stopped in my post!

Good article
And a moving one.

Funny how God works. We cannot know why he does what he does, but to have faith that he does is really quite easy.

Atheism takes a lot of effort to work around God. So why not go straight to it all.

I am reminded, and I am sorry that I do not remember who gave the quote, of the scientist who reached the heigth of his field: "I reached the top of the mountain only to find God there waiting."

Clarification...
Ah, I think I figured out what the problem is...

Ok, so the quote that I attributed to you (jaydee), you agree, you wrote.

But that's not what you have a problem with...

You are saying that I said, that you said, that God is Good.

I think I see why, because I wrote, "Yet, to call God good is judging God, as well. The only difference is the conclusion that is drawn.

If you wanted to be truly non-arrogant, you'd say, 'God is.' And not make a moral pronouncement either way."

I can see that you think that I'm trying to say that you said something here that you didn't... I'm sorry if it came off like that, I was not meaning to put words in your mouth. This post was as much to everyone reading this as it was to you.

"To call God good is judging God, as well." -- I stand by that (and I didn't say, nor do I think, that you said that)

"The only difference is the conclusion that is drawn." -- Ditto.

"If you wanted to be truly non-arrogant, you'd say, 'God is.' And not make a pronouncement either way." -- Again, I didn't mean to imply that you said that he was Good, this was the general sense. I guess I should have written "If one wanted to be..." but it seemed so much more formal.

Also, it is true, and I stand by exactly what I wrote, that "if you wanted to be truly non-arrogant, you would say, 'God is.'" (I wrote out the contraction to emphasize that this is in the present conditional tense precisely because this is what one ought to do. Not what was said.)

"And not make a moral pronouncement either way." -- Right.

So let me try to make the point I was attempting to make earlier more clear:

Sure, I'll agree with you for the sake of argument. Saying that God is evil, or immoral, etc., is judging God according to human standards. And to do that is arrogant.

I will add that I hope that you consistently apply this reasoning to people who say that God is good. That they are both judging God and being equally arrogant.

The truly non-arrogant approach, if God is really beyond human moral reasoning, is to merely say that, "God is." No other judgement can be made.

Sam Allen
Well thought out and concise thought, very good rebuttal.

I find it interesting that you quote the group Kansas as now their lead singer is a popular christian recording artist.

Archimedes, you sound just like a professor I once knew. When questioned about how we determine the age of geological strata he intoned that we age the strata by the fossils found within. Later on while asked about how we determine the age of fossils he said by where they are found in the strata.

The Bible is what it says it is just as is our Constitution.

RE: RE:Creighton Beryll
Well. I have to say I am surprised by your even and solicitous response. I have to say I expected something more along the lines of flimflamman's slightly caustic response, presupposing my idiocy. I thank you for your restraint. I don't assume that you have never been exposed to Christians, because as you point out, you'd have to be living in a cave to have absolutely no idea of Christ or Christianity(paraphrase).

My point is that if your only exposure is popular culture, or even most churches in America, then you get a skewed view of the fullness of Christ. Many Christians are followers of Jesus in name only, and will be judged (there's that horrid word) accordingly. Only through a thoughtful and open minded reading of His scriptures can you get a true picture of His Word.

I only use the example of 100 peopl