Creationist Wisdom #811: Why Does the Sun Rise?

Today’s letter-to-the-editor is a companion to yesterday’s — see #810: Evolution Is Immoral. It also appears in the Herald Journal of Logan, Utah. This one is titled Atheist’s letter full of nonsense.

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 Ken. He may be in the construction business, but that doesn’t qualify for full name treatment. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

I am writing this letter in response to Ms. Mason’s letter printed 11/4/2017 and entitled, “No God is needed for good behavior.”

This is the letter he’s talking about: No god is needed for good behavior. But the newspaper won’t let you read more than one thing without signing in. Anyway, like Robert yesterday, Ken also disagrees with Cathy Mason’s letter. He tells us:

It is really hard to know where to start with this. She starts off by saying, “There is no evidence for any sort of God — feelings don’t constitute evidence.” Ah, yea, the old “there has to be evidence before anything can be proven nonsense.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Then he says:

First, there is plenty of evidence there is a God. Look at this earth and its planetary system; how the earth rotates around the sun perfectly. I would like Ms. Mason to explain to me what the sun, moon, and all those billions of stars in the galaxy evolved from? And I wonder if she can explain through her brilliant atheism why the sun ascends from the east and descends in the west every single day without fail, and never the other way around?

That’s a new argument! After that he tells us:

Next she bloviates, “Evolution has been proven repeatedly, but I’ve never seen anyone attempt to link being the product of an accident and having no understanding of good.” [Closing quote supplied.]

Ken responds vigorously:

Wow — being the product of an accident some 500 billion years ago. Now that’s a fairytale! Obviously Ms. Mason has never reasoned or thought about all the millions of people who’ve died in infancy or at very young ages. That is not a life of interest; or community, health, peace, or happiness. But apparently Ms. Mason doesn’t care about those souls, because atheism teaches that it is “only the strong that survives.” Now what kind of life is that? Does Ms. Mason have any idea what will happen to her when she dies (and she will die). Aw, maybe she will turn into a door-nob or a corn field.

What a great letter! Ken continues:

All good that people do and every evil thing a person does is through the power of choice, or agency. There are people who choose to do good (like Ms. Mason) and others who choose to do evil like this recent shooter in Texas. Could God prevent all evil for happening in this world? Yes, but he won’t because he allows all humans their freedom of choice — even evil choices. He won’t even interfere with Ms. Mason’s freedom of choice!

What did he say — God is irrelevant? Anyway, let’s read on:

Next she says that codes of behavior have been around longer than the Ten Commandments, but she conveniently doesn’t mention what they are.

What about the Code of Hammurabi, and several others in Wikipedia’s List of ancient legal codes? Anyway, here’s another excerpt:

What has atheism ever done for the good of mankind? Absolutely nothing.

Interesting question. While you’re pondering that, here’s the end of Ken’s letter:

Next she says “we aren’t beholden to ancient books written by people who didn’t know where the sun went at night,” [close quote supplied] but yet she doesn’t know where the sun comes from. And I am not even going to bother addressing the remainder of her bloviating nonsense. How very sad.

So there you are, dear reader. The people of Logan Utah seem to have a lot of time on their hands.

Copyright © 2017. 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

14 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #811: Why Does the Sun Rise?

  1. Ken wonders whether “…brilliant atheism…” can explain “…why the sun ascends from the east and descends in the west every single day without fail, and never the other way around?” Well, it doesn’t ascend or descend, and its apparent movement has to do with conservation of angular momentum, not atheism. Read some elementary physics, Ken.

  2. Dave Luckett

    I’d be glad to explain to Ken the things he says he wants explained. Explanations do exist for all of them, and the explanations, strangely enough, do actually have evidence for them, if only you know what it is.

    But of course Ken is lying in his teeth when he says he wants orbital mechanics, or stellar or planetary formation explained to him. He doesn’t. If he did, he would have trotted down to the nearest public library and checked out a few books, or maybe even have attended a basic general science course. What Ken wants is his pristine ignorance, untouched, unsullied, and untroubled by facts.

    Ken is so ignorant that he doesn’t know he is ignorant. If he were capable of thinking about it, he would probably think that his opinions are as good as anybody else’s. But can he come to even so facile a conclusion as that? I rather doubt it, on the evidence of his discourse. What I’m afraid Ken actually thinks is that his opinions are better than anybody else’s, simply because they are his opinions.

    So he is not merely ignorant – catastrophically so – he is blissfully ignorant. He is so ignorant that he can indulge himself in the blissful fantasy that he knows better. Why shouldn’t he? What does he know to the contrary?

    But perhaps there is the least little worm of doubt gnawing at what passes for Ken’s mind. That might have inspired him to specifically reject evidence as a method of determining what is true. (One hopes, most fervently, that he is never allowed to serve on a jury.) He thus insulates his mind from any consideration of reality at all, and puts it beyond the scope of rational discourse entirely.

    And here’s the truly horrifying thing: if he were able to reflect on that fact, Ken would probably conclude that it is very right that it should be so.

  3. “What did he say — God is irrelevant?”
    No, that his good god doesn’t want to turn human beings into robots and hence allows them to make the wrong choices. Also – but the free will defenders never mention it – it means that his good god doesn’t give a [ping – edited out] for the choices the victims don’t have.

  4. Ross Cameron

    ‘What has atheism ever done for the good of mankind? Absolutely nothing.’ Hang on, credit where credit is due. We are trying to show you a way out of your delusion. That should count for something.

  5. Ken seems to know more than we do. What accident is he talking about that happened 500 billion years ago?

  6. Let me defend Ken. The sun always rises in the east because of the constancy of the laws of nature; that much we can all agree on. But why are the laws of nature constant? For the believer, that is because they reflect the will of God, and will of God is constant. The rest of us have no explanation to offer.

    I think this argument is called “occasionalism”, because the Divine Will is manifest on every occasion, and dates back to al Ghazali

  7. Why are there laws of nature? Because of God.
    Why are there miracles? Because of God.

  8. Of course. God can suspend the laws of nature at will. But he only does this for really important things, like helping a friend whose party ran out of wine.

    Seriously, you are completely correct; invoking the Divine Will can explain anything whatsoever, and moves us no further forward, although invoking agency is a psychologically satisfying pseudo-explanation

  9. Holding The Line In Florida

    Poster boy for Dunning-Kruger if there ever was one. Ether that or what a Poe!!!

  10. Yes, divine omnipotence can explain anything – except contradictions.
    And omnipotent design is a contradiction.

  11. TomS says: “Yes, divine omnipotence can explain anything – except contradictions. And omnipotent design is a contradiction.

    Contradictions are commonplace in social quantum mechanics.

  12. Michael Fugate

    The God of Genesis doesn’t appear as omni-anything. It is not even the only God, just the one favored by a tribelet. It is not much different than the gods portrayed in the Odyssey and nothing at all like “modern” views of the elites, but not in line with the hoi polloi – even today

  13. Atheists do have an explanation for the constant behavior of the universe: the absence of gods or other entities which could change them.

  14. @H.R.G.