When contemplating the whole creation versus evolution debate, I sometimes think a good argument in favor of creation is that faith in a creator is harmless. A person could reason, “If there is a God, I’m covered. And if there is no God, no harm, no foul.”
That’s pretty shallow reasoning, actually, but it’s also begging to be attacked: belief in God is far from harmless. As I have written in previous posts, some of the worst atrocities in human history have been perpetrated in the name of religion. Some people view “unbelievers” (defined in hundreds of contradicting ways) as infidels who deserve to die. Terrorists are often religious zealots. Christianity has no grounds for feeling superior. Its record may be the bloodiest of all religions. The Crusades come to mind, of course, but what about the two World Wars? Churches and pulpits were recruiting stations on both sides of the conflicts. Religious leaders from the Pope to country preachers blessed the troops, called them heroes, and prayed for victory, again, on both sides of the Atlantic (and Pacific).
Yes, it’s very easy to condemn religion. It’s practically asking for it. It’s easier to embrace the cold facts of science over the divisive and fragmented and contentious and hypocritical world of religion.
The question is, does God deserve it too? And are you sure about the cold, hard “facts” of science? “Facts” are eminently perishable. They have a half-life shorter than some radioactive isotopes. Samuel Arbesman wrote The Half-Life of Facts, in which he asserts convincingly that just about every so-called fact we accept as true has an expiration date. Our grandparents “facts” have been disproven decades ago.
As for God, he – or maybe He – obviously cares about humans, at least if you consider the possibility that creation is a fact. Look around you at this spectacular planet. If you consider it as the product of a creator, that creator obviously lavished his creative genius upon this planet and its flora and fauna. As far as we can tell, this place is the jewel of the universe. Then you look at people who are “religious” and well, they’re often not quite so impressive. But is that adequate grounds to reject creation, or the existence of God?
Here’s a comparison, offered as food for thought: does the abuse of a drug argue against its right and proper use? Consider morphine, for example. If you’ve had surgery, you may have been connected to a morphine pump afterward. The drug prevented pain and hastened your recovery. You were glad to have it. Does morphine abuse reflect a moral failure on the part of the drug manufacturer? Or suggest that the drug company which makes morphine does not even exist?
In a similar way, the abuse of religion and the convenient twisting of Bible principles (and those of other holy writings) should reflect poorly on the abusers, even on entire religious organizations if they support, cover up, or condone violations of the Bible’s high moral standards. But what about the (alleged) creator of the air you breathe, the designer of the blueberries and strawberries sprinkled on your natural cereal, the maker of the wheat from which your bread is made and the grapes that produce your wine, the architect of the water cycle whose clouds water your garden and the maker of the sun that shines on your smiling face? Doesn’t He deserve at least to be considered?
NEW HERE?
WANT TO READ MORE? FOR PREVIOUS POSTS JUST CLICK BELOW WHERE IT SAYS
“Categories: Church of the Infinite Chasm”