Creationist Wisdom #839: Keep the Faith

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Register-Mail of Galesburg, Illinois. The letter is titled It’s a matter of faith, and the newspaper has a comments feature.

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 Thomas. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

The humanist-atheists who believe the Bible to be a book of myths, and what exists was created from a “big bang,” may not realize it but their theory takes a certain amount of “faith.”

Oh boy! We’ve got a deep thinker here. This should be fun! He says:

The real myth could be their belief that there is no eternally existent creator and that evidence shows that life arose, over billions of years, from elements and components of exploding stars.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, maybe science is the real myth. Thomas tells us:

Perhaps they should research what many scholarly historians and archaeologists say about the reliability of Biblical accounts. They might also read and study the Bible thoroughly, paying particular attention to how many Biblical prophecies have already come to pass, including the 1948 re-establishment of a Jewish homeland.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] Bible history and prophecies are all true! Thomas continues:

These individuals [the humanist-atheists] rely heavily on the wisdom of science, biology, and physics. What if they are wrong? Where did these elements and components come from?

Yes, dear reader — what if you’re wrong? Ever think of that? Huh? Huh? Let’s read on, as Thomas discusses some false political prophecies:

Now let’s consider some political myths. The pollsters said that Donald Trump had zero chance of winning the nomination for president as he contended with 16 politically savvy opponents. He took the nomination! Pollsters then said he had less than 2 percent chance of of beating Hillary. How did that turn out? [Etc., etc.] I would propose that the pollster’s arbitrary political whims and fancies are reflected in these questionable polls rather than reality.

He’s right, of course. Political predictions based on polls are sometimes wrong. Only a lunatic would insist on the alternate reality predicted by discredited polls. But that’s also true of some things in the bible — see Wikipedia’s article on Historicity of the Bible, which questions a number of biblical tales, such as the the Bible’s exodus story and the rapid conquest of Canaanite cities by Joshua.

Then Thomas asks a profound question:

Could the dubious political polls, that individuals have faith in, be analogous to the refutable myth contentions of the humanist-atheists?

What is Thomas suggesting — that we should always go with verifiable reality? Not quite. See if you can make sense out of what he says next:

Faith comes to the fore when we do not fully understand but have trust. I have little trust in the mainstream media’s reporting of unreliable poll reports. I trust in a surgeon’s ability to perform complicated and very delicate operations even though I do not fully comprehend all of the elements and components of the task. I do not understand all of what God has performed, but I trust and have faith that he is capable.

[*Groan*] We observe that physicians are good at what they do, and know how to get results, so even if we ourselves haven’t studied medicine, we have confidence — not faith — in their work. But does that justify faith in Oogity Boogity? Thomas says it does. And now we come to the end:

The humanist-atheists may have faith in worldly wisdom, but as for me and my house, we will serve and trust in the wisdom of the Lord God, the creator of the the universe. Now, let those amongst you who are without faith, those who are self-assured and contemptuous of the Bible, cast vilifying, derogatory, and mythical aspersions at we [sic] who have true faith.

Your Curmudgeon would never cast aspersions at those who have the true faith. Great letter, Thomas!

Copyright © 2018. 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

11 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #839: Keep the Faith

  1. Not all people who accept the findings of science are atheists. Not all humanists are atheists.

  2. “I trust in a surgeon’s ability to perform complicated and very delicate operations even though I do not fully comprehend all of the elements and components of the task”
    Translation: “I have not the foggiest idea of what’s going on”. Same applies to his science “knowledge” and he has no desire to change that.

  3. Michael Fugate

    These are the same people who don’t want to believe we die – spending an enormous amount of time denying reality. I still can’t figure out how understanding our shared ancestry has made the world worse. Maybe that is their take-home message from Genesis 2 – ignorance is bliss?

  4. “See if you can make sense out of what he says next”
    No problem. Just another salto mortale from our concrete world to a divine one (thanks, Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis, Dutch theologian and apostate).

    “we will serve and trust in the wisdom of the Lord God, the creator of the the universe.”
    As soon as Thomas turns on his computer he serves and trust in the wisdom in worldly wisdom as well.

    @TomS: not all atheists are humanists either. One (in)famous example was Martin Bormann.

  5. And not all humanists have a respect for science:
    When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
    When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
    When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide,
    and measure them,
    When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with
    much applause in the lecture-room,
    How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
    Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
    In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
    Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

    Walt Whitman

  6. Why in the world would Thomas be so afraid of accepting evidence-based explanations of reality — i.e., science? Could it be because he fears the Lake of Fire, for which there is absolutely no evidence — just words written thousands of years ago for the purpose of controlling the masses?

    It’s fine that he wants to follow the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule in his interactions with others — makes for an orderly society. But when he uses the Bible to deny science, his views become dangerous for the rest of us inhabiting this one and only planet that supports us. I don’t know where it got started, or who started it, but there are a bunch of fundamentalist preachers out there saying that only God has the power to change our climate, etc., etc. Goes hand-in-hand with denying evolution as well.

  7. Interesting that he mentions the”…wisdom of science…” and then biology and physics as if these are included in science. And then he praises medicine which is essentially the application of everything he questions. I wonder how these things relate in his mind.

  8. “I wonder how these things relate in his mind.”

    They obviously don’t relate. In fact very little “relates” in his mind because he starts with the conclusion.

  9. Ross Cameron

    ‘Now, let those amongst you who are without faith, those who are self-assured and contemptuous of the Bible, cast vilifying, derogatory, and mythical aspersions at we [sic] who have true faith.’

    Eat these, humanists/atheists.
    Trump won-therefore the bible is true
    See the rocks around us-thus the bible does not lie mentioning them
    There are unicorns–so the bible is right–oops, better scrub that one.

  10. Dave Luckett

    The reference to Biblical prophecy predicting the establishment of modern Israel is to Ezekiel 4:4 ff, where the prophet is instructed by God to lie down on his left, then his right side, the number of days being the number of years of the punishment of Israel and Judah respectively. Israel gets three hundred and ninety years, Judah only forty.

    Now all that is required is to assume that the “punishment of Israel and Judah” is the same as their loss of sovereignty although that is not said, add the days together even though the text separates them, multiply that by seven, that being a significant number, make the “prophetic year” equal three hundred days except for “jubilee of jubilee” years, except where it doesn’t, posit some worldly adjustment of the calendar over the centuries, assume the exact date of the prophecy because we say so, and neglect the trifling detail that under even the altered terms of the prophecy, Judah should have been re-established some centuries BCE, and voila! The date of the re-establishment of modern Israel!

    How strange, that in the face of so obvious and straightforward a prophecy, nobody made this plainly stated calculation and predicted the date well in advance. Ah, the Lord moves in mysterious ways. Except when He doesn’t.

  11. @TomS “When I heard the learn’d astronomer …”
    I like Asimov’s take on this,

    (Except for his remaining belief, even in 1979, that most (all?) mutations are caused by ionising radiation, some of which comes from astronomical events. With current knowledge of DNA replication and repair mechanisms, we know that only a very small proportion of mutations can be blamed on radiation.)