Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Robert. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
He begins with a bible quote:
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
That sets the tone. Then he says:
In her letter to the editor of Nov. 4, 2017, Ms. Cathy Mason makes a number of comments respecting a range of subjects including the question of the existence of God, or the lack thereof, the nature of good and the question of “ancient books,” the Book of Mormon being one.
This is probably the letter he’s talking about: No god is needed for good behavior. But if you already clicked over to Robert’s letter, the newspaper won’t let you read anything else without signing in. Anyway, Robert disagrees with Cathy Mason. He tells us:
Regarding the existence of God and the question of the origin of the universe, we are left with two distinct possibilities: Either a supreme being, God, was the author of the universe, or so called “natural selection,” mother nature, was the progenitor of the creative process. In other words, the creation is a massive series of cosmic accidents resulting in the world we know today with all its extraordinary complexity and design.
Yes, those are the two possibilities. Robert has a good grip on the situation. He continues:
If we accept Ms. Mason’s position that God does not exist, and that “Evolution has been proven repeatedly…”, then we are left with naturalism – evolution.
Gasp! That is totally unacceptable! Let’s read on:
In his book “The Battle for The Beginning,” Dr. John MacArthur quotes Harvard professor and Nobel laureate George Wald:
Whoa — hold on a minute. Wikipedia has a write-up on John F. MacArthur. About that book, Wikipedia says:
MacArthur advocates young-earth creationism in his book, The Battle For the Beginning (2001), and in his sermons. Speaking about evolutionary theory, he writes that Christians “ought to expose such lies for what they are and oppose them vigorously.” He argues that “the battle for the beginning is ultimately a battle between two mutually exclusive faiths – faith in Scripture versus faith in anti-theistic hypotheses. It is not really a battle between science and the Bible.”
Are we supposed to rely on Robert’s account of MacArthur’s description of what Wald said? No, we won’t rely on it, but here’s a bit of what Robert says. He’s sloppy with his quote marks, and it’s difficult to know if he’s quoting MacArthur the creationist or Wald the Nobel laureate. Anyway, he tells us:
“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” Then he added, “Yet here we are – as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” How did Wald believe this impossibility came about? He answered: “Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain.
In the same paragraph, Robert (or maybe MacArthur the creationist) says:
That is sheer double-talk. And it perfectly illustrates the blind faith underlies naturalistic religion.
The next paragraph is the last in the letter, and it’s presumably from Robert. He says:
In the end apart from God, all standards of morality depend on moral relativism, or subjectivism, regardless of the rationalizations that may be put forward in an attempt to impose, and justify, secularist values on others.
So, dear reader, what did we learn from this? We can’t figure it out. Perhaps you can.
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.