Conversing with Atheists about God is Difficult at Best

I must admit that I have little interest in debates between atheists and those who adhere to a belief in God. Primarily it is because in my limited exposure to atheists or agnostics (which I profess was a position held in my youth) I find most of them to be almost gleeful in their disparagement of those who believe. For most the sole adherence to science, as if it was an indisputable truth to be believed without question, is an axiom written in stone. Most harbor an equal disdain for anyone who has the nerve to question the validity of some scientific ‘fact’ to which they find absolute. Believers are usually belittled as unenlightened, superstitious Cretans that undermine and inhibit their utopian vision for life. I’m sorry that we make your life so miserable. But believe it or not we do not wish to destroy science and reason. In fact faith and reason are inextricably linked to faiths such as mine: Catholic. By the way, did you know that it was a Catholic, Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, who first came up with the big bang theory?

The atheist’s unhappiness and almost frenzied defense of a meaningless existence leads me to have some sympathy for them primarily because they seem to have developed into an anti-religion of sorts: peopled by  1) arrogant and rebellious youth who want to think themselves smarter than anyone else 2) those who have suffered loss or pain and cannot accept that a loving God could allow evil to exist or 3) embittered people who disdain the lives of those who seem so much more happy and fulfilled than are they.

I am not as smart as any of the atheists because I am one of those who believe in God, so bear with my unintelligent remarks or humor me: it might be a good laugh for those of the enlightened class who hold the highest ranking positions of intelligent thought. After all an oaf like me will never see the inside of an ivory walled institution of higher learning which should disqualify me from even voicing an opinion at all: though I will for humor’s sake.

The following are questions, observations and ponderings of one of the regular schleps that don’t know any better:

However, isn’t it true that science itself has no basis as a discipline unless it is founded upon the mysterious foundation of intelligence? If the universe has no intelligibility then our beloved science could not even exist: it would be an unintelligible hodgepodge of chaotic happenings without any hope of replicating an event in a lab or even within a mathematical model. Does an intelligent universe with mathematical rules point toward an intelligent creation or can intelligence be simply a random circumstance that we were fortunate enough to be privy to?

Is it also not true that in every age scientists felt that they had divined the secrets of some previously unknown phenomena just to see those theories overturned and replaced by their descendants? Am I to postulate that in this age things are different?  Or, have we reached the final truths? Or are we at the very brink of ultimate knowledge? If we are so much smarter than everyone who ever lived before us, can we foresee with any certainty that a glorious day will dawn when science will finally understand all things perfectly and no mysteries remain unsolved? For the atheists I have known had no taste for mystery, unless it was in the context of a completely intelligible event (in their estimation) that science will one day uncover.

Will we understand how the bombardier beetle came into existence (the scientific postulation for this is pretty weak from the answers I have read) or more fundamentally how does an organism develop sex organs with egg cells and sperm cells from a mass of single cell amoeba who might have banded together in a body of sorts? When these first sexual organisms evolved there must have been many billions of them morphed all in unison or how else could they find one another and create new little mutants of the sexual order? Had the first male organisms develop in the Pacific and the first female organisms develop in the Atlantic would they be able to find one another? I guess they are smarter than we give them credit. And since life is evolving by the law of the survival of the fittest, why didn’t all the lower forms evolve into the higher forms? Even the first 1 cell life forms still exist. How can that be? Further, if it is all about survival, why don’t some of the higher life forms devolve back into simpler forms of life when under stress instead of adding more complicated solutions to their quest for survival? Wouldn’t that make more sense to climb back into the ocean rather than evolve wings and take to the air? Maybe we will devolve back into apes someday if the banana trees start overpopulating the planet. Evolution is an accepted principle but devolution does not seem to be: I wonder why not.

To superstitious persons such as me, it seems that some kind of intelligence moved creation history along in a most intelligent way. I may be foolish but it seems that completely stupid creatures can do some incredibly complex, intelligent things: building nests, keeping their nests cleared of feces etc. This in my view is what you call instinct (a change in their genetics). But to us uninformed it seems more like a stupid animal acting in an intelligent and unexplained way. It remains a mystery to me and it only magnifies the mystery that is God in His creation. Many more mysteries exist in every science one can imagine. Are all these mysteries going to unfold before our god-like minds or will they continue to persist throughout all the ages?

And no, I am not a strict creationist. I only believe that God’s hand is everywhere present in shaping it. In fact it adds greatly to His Mystery that by His grace and His will one animal species might develop into a completely different species of animal or plant. If I see a building I know that a architect built it. When I read a novel, I know that a writer penned it. If I see a computer, I know that electronic engineers designed it. But when the simplest forms of life are viewed, which no brilliant scientist can replicate, the obvious question is: who is the designer – who is the architect – who is the author? The same holds true for us little people when we behold the wonders of the cosmos. How great thou art.

I for one accept mystery as a fact of life and would not like to live in a world devoid of mystery; especially the divine mystery of God which allows me to feel awe struck every time I look upon his wonders, whether of this world or out of this world: from the subatomic to the massive quasars and black holes. It is uplifting to live in a world and a universe that creates so much awe and wonder in the human heart and mind.

The fact that we creatures of stardust, as Carl Sagan loved to call us, have the ability to think and reason, feel joy and sorrow, love and be loved is a mystery to me. To know ourselves and have cognizance of existence itself is either a fantastic dreamscape or a mystery: it’s like saying a rock can come to know itself and its surroundings and has aspirations for a better and more fulfilling life in a few million years but that it is not a mystery how this came to be. How awesome is the gift of consciousness and more so, a reasoned consciousness!

For atheists to say they have no need of answers to mysteries so deep is to live in a vacuum of numbers, theorems and postulations without truly living and experiencing the best of human life. Such a life would render me a person without hope. Mankind becomes nothing more than another animal or created object. It is a purely utilitarian view of man’s worth. Is it no wonder that Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and all the major ideological leaders who murdered 100’s of millions of people were atheists who happened to hold utilitarian views of mankind? They were going to make ‘life better’. For society should be more in keeping with their enlightened personal ideology and the rest of mankind should be forced to adhere to a life that they are just too stupid to appreciate or understand. Elitists always have a solution for the rest of us though we never asked them for one.  Abortion, euthanasia, forced work camps all come from utilitarian views of humankind and sadly it makes them more beast-like than human.

Speaking only for my unenlightened superstitious self, I would prefer to continue to live a life with purpose than to spend my time criticizing people for living good, wholesome, productive lives while fostering family values and instilling hope and love in everyone they can. Where does empathy, sympathy, and love reside? It was built into the fabric of a man’s beating heart and that is what the mystery of a firm faith in God excels in fostering. There are many reasons for faith but first you must come to desire it and seek it. I cannot give it to you like a book containing the Pythagorean Theorem so that you might analyze it. Some will find the need of God’s mystery screaming from their heart and others will not. I only pray that the emptiness of these persons might someday be filled with more than scientific models that explain how an existence that came from non existence can spontaneously happen without a creator.

That’s why I find it hard to discuss God with atheists. I’m far too shallow, happy and amazed at the wonders of this life to understand them at all.

Evil Incarnate: the Iniquity of our Political Elite

If I were to suggest to you that it is right and good that we should extend the freedom of our countrymen to include the execution of certain classes of people you would likely say to me that I should either have my head examined or be locked up for the good of society. Yet we have gone so far as to enact a law to protect the right of each and every woman to willfully murder the infant in her womb if that should be her wish.

 Supporters of such rights will argue incessantly about when this life form becomes a person but that is only a futile attempt to justify to the rest of society the immorality of their personal desires – or worse yet, a way to curry favor with others and empower themselves. We can all agree, at least, that a fetus is certainly a “life form” because it is absolutely certain that should we find such a thing on the Moon or Mars the headlines would immediately inform us that we had found life on another planet.

 Indeed if we can only find a single cell bacteria on another world it would be heralded and protected, studied and loved for all the potential good that might result from our study. Yet whatever the resulting good might be for these extra-terrestrial bacteria, the potential of a human life might certainly overshadow this scientific discovery: for each human being has at least the potential to become something wonderful or diabolic – but it is the individual’s choices that form them. They could become the next Einstein, Mother Teresa or Stalin. I dare say that bacterium from Mars will be more protected than a child in his mother’s womb.

 It is also a great wonder that we Americans spend more money and have more laws protecting the eggs of sea turtles than we do for the destruction of a child’s life. Is this to say that the potential life of a sea turtle is somehow sacred but the potential human life is of no consequence whatever? Have we lost our minds – or at least our moral sanity?

 I’m sure some naysayers would insist that this is not the same at all. After all, a rational human mother has the “right” to make these kinds of decisions and a sea turtle does not. So we conclude that we have a right (or even a moral responsibility) to protect her eggs because she can’t tell us whether she wants them to live or die. Naturally, our decision is that any mother would want her offspring to live and therefore we must do all in our power to make sure that these eggs remain safe. But if we somehow conclude that it is our proper role to protect a sea turtle’s potential offspring then why is it not acceptable to use the same logic to protect an unborn child? Any mother should want her offspring to live – natural law is proof of this fact.  So the mother that wants to abort her child must be insane.

 These same pro-abortionists are quick to pass laws to protect habitats and stop the extinction of a species as a ‘moral’ mandate. Violation of their laws can get you a hefty fine if you’re lucky or a lengthy stay in jail.

 If we as a society have a right to make decisions regarding sea turtles and other protected wildlife and we can give the right of abortion to a human mother then why can’t we as a society start making additional decisions for mothers: we could restrict the number of births to 1 child as in China. We could tell a mother that she must have an abortion if she wants to live in our quiet little upscale community or we might restrict her from giving childbirth due to her age or intelligence. Why not? After all, having a child past 30 can cause expensive medical costs, raise the chance of having a downs syndrome baby or worse. The liberal bureaucrat can simply claim that the child, in all probability, will not have a life worth living: a divine decision with eternal consequences made by a fool who bases life and death on actuarial tables and at the end of the day goes home to snug apartment and sleeps very nicely, thinking that he has done society a great good.

 The sanctity of human life and the dignity of human life have somehow been monstrously degraded. When we are too old and feeble I am sure that we will eventually follow suit and legalize euthanasia. What then: eliminate those who are handicapped, incapable of work or useless to society?

 How did we arrive at this juncture in a supposed civilized society? The news reporters and commentators have worked hand in hand with the self-proclaimed elite of this country to proclaim evil for good and to denounce good for evil. We have been given the country that we deserve by electing presidents, congressmen, senators and judges that do not respect people except as a source of power.

 They make laws for the people while exempting themselves, they establish rights that don’t exist so that they might be seen as true champions of the people. All the while they continually usurp our rights and buy our votes with entitlements to further their own selfish elitist power.

 We might apply the following scripture to our new elite taken from Matthew 23:25-33.

 “Woe to you scribes[1] and Pharisees[2], hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine[3] and uncleanness. Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchers, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness. So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchers of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just, and say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?”


[1] scribesAlso called sopher, sofer. Judaism. one of the group of Palestinian scholars and teachers of Jewish law and tradition, active from the 5th century b.c. to the 1st century a.d., who transcribed, edited, and interpreted the Bible.

[2] PhariseesA member of a Jewish sect that flourished during the 1st century b.c. and 1st century a.d. and that differed from the Sadducees chiefly in its strict observance of religious ceremonies and practices, adherence to oral laws and traditions, and belief in an afterlife and the coming of a Messiah.

[3] rapineThe violent seizure and carrying off of another’s property; plunder.