single header

If you want to comment online, use the Reply form following this commentary.

God, Again, and Public Charity

Howell Hurst Climate, Climate & Environment, People, People Politics, Trump

FROM MY CORNER

My comments about god and natural disaster strategy were, as I have said, attacked by a couple of people. Let me try to clarify what I apparently presented inadequately.

 We are dealing with the different viewpoint about what I wanted to write about and what and how I actually did write. The counter critique to my critique is an example of the long standing opposing views about the general concept of gods or “God.”

 Long before a single “God” was considered by Jews, Christians, and Muslims as the probably reality of the universe, the Greeks and others had created a whole army of different gods.

 The concept of gods came about when certain specific people proposed and preached that such creatures existed. Whether they were first proposed as Myth or as Truth is not totally clear. After all it happened a relatively long time ago, and we had no digital device to save the first words about the subject.

 We know, however, that after time agreement was generally reached by alleged experts in the religion field of study that: only one God exists. Now, it is interesting to look closely at how this came about.

 Over 2,000 years ago in the Middle East, a very hot and inhospitable place to live, most people earned their living in the deserts herding goats and camels, and harvesting dates. (Yes, that’s a simplified generalization I make up to roughly describe my overview of the situation at the time, but accurate enough for our purposes.)

 Science, a systematic way to strive to understand the tangible world, had not yet been conceived of by the facile mind of humans. So, someone proposed that invisible gods must have made the universe and everything and everybody in it. Plop! There it was: a new theory of where all that sand came from. And us. And the camels and goats.

 Those of us who are not believers in this theory see this as a grave weakness in the thinking of believers. No God could exist if People had not existed to create and propose one. If we were not here then, we could not now have in our minds the concept of gods or God.

 It’s a matter of which came first: the chicken or the egg? God or People?

 We non-believers point out that science does not say plainly as absolute fact that gods or God do not exist. But, the tangible evidence available to us certainly shows us that the probability is that gods and God are figments of the human imagination.

It began in other words as a scientific theory that no one to this time has ever been able to prove through tangible evidence is actually true. And tangible evidence against the theory that gods or God exist is voluminous and substantially convincing.

 Believers base their conviction on “Faith,” and Thomas Jefferson’s first law of religious freedom established in Virginia made clear that Americans may believe in the concept of invisible gods or God – so long as 100% non-believers may also equally believe in their science-based probability that no gods or God exist.

 And here we are today, still battling about the two opposing concepts.  

 What I was trying to get at in my weakly-written commentary is that non-believers have every right to intellectually attack the concept of God that 90% of American people seem to believe in. And that if the believers’ God really exists, surely they could have – and still could and should – create a collaboration among 100% of all believers to institutionalize it nationally as part of our economic system.

 Non-believers’ argument is basically that if all people would focus on the tangible reality which we are all able to measure, weigh, and test in many ways, we would all accept 100% responsibility for how we assist one another. We could not allocate any of the responsibility for how we treat each other to some invisible gods or God. Or to an equally invisible Devil, who also cannot be proved to exist.

 I was obliquely proposing in my commentary that if we did all believe the more tangible scientific theory, it stands to reason we could come up with comprehensive ways to deal with all the natural disasters that befall us – such as Hurricanes and the like.

 True: I was also tangentially trying to dig a bit at Mr. Trump, who claims to believe in Christianity while discarding 10,000 years of scientific evidence. Evidence that culminates in the probability that Human-created climate change does in fact exist, and is dangerous enough to require exhaustively collaborative worldwide work upon it.

 Dropping out of the scientific work should not be an option just because one does not believe.

 These subjects are too complicated to be covered by me or anyone in a short commentary,such as “From My Corner.” I’m certain this does not end the debate. But for those on both sides of the fence, maybe it will provide another way of looking at it.

 Anybody want to pitch in here, the door is open.

 Hal

 

Return to Blog

2 thoughts on “God, Again, and Public Charity

  1. The concept of God is indeed way too complicated for one person or a blog of sorts. But when you speak of science as a way to prove or disprove that existence, I feel it to fall short in so many respects. The myriad inexplicable events that have occurred over the centuries alone are enough for one to believe in a higher existence. Although these miraculous incidents can be easy to forget, overlook or dismiss, a major failing of human nature, it does not reduce or obliterate the fact that these mysterious events have taken place. The eye witness accounts of the birth, life, death and rebirth of Jesus Christ is another. Now, I understand how time and writings can be misconstrued, slanted and misjudged; but there are too many people, too many overlapping accountings and occasions that confirm his existence to be the son of God as another reason to believe. Please don’t misunderstand, I too have had my doubts many times over the years when considering the constant flow of evil perpetrated against one another on this planet. Life here is difficult to say the least, and I am a strong believer in science and the beautiful nature of how molecules bond to create real matter. But without “faith” and knowledge of what Christians (or any believer in the notion of God for that matter) believe as real and available to us, what kind of hope do you or anyone from this messed up world have? From my corner, I find it amazing that people try hard to disprove the existence of God, instead of giving it the chance that maybe, just maybe, there is more the universe offers us than just what we can see with our two eyes plastered right in front of us. In my opinion, there is so much more enveloping our lives that cannot completely be understood by our small self-important minds.
    As for me, I choose to hold strongly to that hope of a divine existence, an immense goodness beyond what we comprehend as real matter or a physical manifestation that we can touch. God and science can and will always be intertwined as the reason for life that no man may be able to prove to the doubters’ satisfaction. As a believer in the notion that there has to be more than just our simple existence here on Earth; God the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit gives me hope and a feeling of elation that I will see my family and friends again in another dimension of pure benevolence after I perish.

    1. Rob, I suggest you read Christopher Hitcbens’s works. Seriously. The choice of hoping for a divine existence, when in any other matter you would require proof, is his argument and mine the demonstration that you are denying your own mental ability to make rational judgments: replacing that ability with the denial of your own brain’s capacity. I wonder what occurred in your life to deny you the confidence of your own mind? It is this denial,I believe, that has put mankind in the fix it is in. As I said, why should we follow the thinking of desert philosophers of 2,000 years ago, when today’s knowledge shows us the facts of what most likely produced the religion you rely on as the basis of your life rather than upon the verifiable facts? It’s your right. But I still think you belittle yourself by doing so. Hal

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *