Creationist Wisdom #689: Seeing Is Believing

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Sun Herald of Gulfport, Mississippi. It’s titled Science and religion aren’t independent of one another. The newspaper has a comments section, but there aren’t any yet.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. We found a lawyer with his name in his city, but that doesn’t qualify for full name treatment, so we’ll use only his first name, which is Harry. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

In the May 29 Sound Off column, one of your readers, an atheist, referring to an earlier expressed biblical view that the universe was only 6,000 years old and not the billions of years maintained by science, stated there is “no proof of a god but plenty to prove science is correct.”

Wow — that atheist’s letter was very provocative! Harry had to respond. He says:

In my religion, faith and reason are not deemed to be in opposition but complementary. The notion that our universe is billions of years old is not a problem. In fact, from what I have read, the concept of the Big Bang is actually attributable to a Catholic priest!

Amazing. Harry has heard of Georges Lemaître. Let’s read on:

The allegation that there is no proof of a god is a bit myopic.

Oooops! All right, let’s see Harry’s proof. He tells us:

One of the basic tools of science is the principle of causality. So, too, with the philosopher and the theologian. Thomas Aquinas, a fan of the eminent Greek philosopher Aristotle, offered five proofs for the existence of God.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He thinks the Five Proofs of Thomas Aquinas are so powerful they can’t be questioned. Harry continues:

Many a thinker has looked at our amazing universe and concluded someone had to cause it all, to paint the marvelous picture.

Ah yes, the “many a thinker” argument. That’s a good one! Here’s more:

As finite humans, we may never have absolute certitude about anything, but clearly we can have that type of certitude we use in matters of importance, e.g., the standard of reasonable doubt in criminal cases and that of preponderance in civil cases.

Harry doesn’t think there’s even a reasonable doubt? Well, that’s what he thinks. And now we come to the end, and that’s where Harry gives us his best argument:

As we view our universe, are not most of us over-whelmed by what we see, and led to a conviction that this had to be the work of someone of immense power and intelligence?

Very powerful! Harry is convinced. Are you, dear reader?

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

7 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #689: Seeing Is Believing

  1. Eric Lipps

    As we view our universe, are not most of us overwhelmed by what we see, and led to a conviction that this had to be the work of someone of immense power and intelligence?

    Well, actually, no. “Most of us” are led in that direction by people we trust—our favorite preachers, for example—rather than by actual evidence.

  2. michaelfugate

    The intuition argument is catching on!

  3. What? Aliens created the Universe?

  4. michaelfugate beat me to it.

  5. The idea that something created the universe seems to be an adequate explanation only for those who think that is the end of the argument; they never have an explanation of the origin of the “creator”. When challenged they always say that “god is, was, and always will be” or some variation on that theme. If it is illogical for the universe to come into existence without god, it is even more illogical for a god to pop into existence and than create all this. An application of Occam’s Razor cuts away that silliness. Why can’t these people accept the fact that we just don’t know as yet. As Sherlock Holmes famously said “It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence”. An iron age book of hearsay myth is certainly not evidence!

  6. @Cynic
    Rather, I would point out that something created the universe does not explain anything about the universe.
    To explain something is to offer an account for what happens (and when, where, why and how) so that things happen as they do (rather than any of the other possibilities).
    If I wonder why the Mona Lisa has a smile, it does not help me to hear that Leonardo painted her. He could have painted her with a blank look, or pensive or bored.
    If I wonder why the human body has its place in the “tree of life” of taxonomy, closest to chimps and other apes, rather than more like a kangaroo, or totally unlike any other living thing: It does not explain that to say that an agency which is capable of determining the laws of physics and chemistry, and of creating universes, is responsible.
    BTW, every explanation has to stop somewhere. It is not a flaw that theism has a stopping point. (Unless one is making a stronger claim for theism than is acceptable for other explanations.)

  7. So he finally gets to WLC’s basic ‘it feels good in my tummy so it is true’ argument got gawd…well I’m convinced!