Published: December 08, 2007 10:27 pm            

LETTERS: December 9, 2007

Reader: What are atheists thinking?



It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that there is an obvious anti-Christian movement taking place in our country. This is evidenced in many ways not the least of which is the writings of such authors as Sam Harris “Letter to a Christian Nation” and David Bennett “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.” It seems that Christianity is being attacked on every front.

I often wonder if non-believers ever give any thought to what their eternal future might be if they are mistaken in their beliefs. What will their response be on Judgment day — how will they defend their position in the light of what the inspired Word of God teaches and commands? Is it their opinion that the Scriptures are just some writings that some writers happen to put together centuries ago?

I have never figured out exactly what the real basis of an Atheist’s belief or non-belief really is, but it seems to give a lot of weight to science. It seems that there should be some thought given to the origin of these scientific minds.

I don’t know about Atheists but I would rather put my trust in the God that I believe in than something that seems to be primarily a theory. If I’m wrong I guess I will end up somewhere who knows where or what, but if I’m right — where will those who don’t believe in a hereafter end up?

— W. L. O’Bryan, New Albany



Reader opposed to annexation wants day in court



Why are the proponents of annexation trying so hard to keep us who are opposed from having our day in court? If they are as sure as they say they are, what are they afraid of? Could it be that they don’t want to have to justify their actions?

I can assure the court that everyone who signed the petition for me knew exactly what they were signing and that all their signatures were obtained prior to the 90 day limit for opposing.

Why did the city amend their original ordinance after it was initially passed?

Not being an attorney I don’t understand why the city could amend their ordinance and opponents were still limited to 90 days after the original ordinance was passed. That doesn’t seem fair to me but we abided by the limit.

In my last letter to the editor I said that all of us who are being annexed into the city against our will should keep our wallets under lock and key. I now believe that we should also throw away the key.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all of you who I met in soliciting support for opposing the annexation for the cordial way I was greeted even from those of you who did not sign for whatever reason.

— Dewey Jenks, Jeffersonville





Farr offers another view



This letter addresses Rev. Jeff Neal’s December 01, 2007 article titled, “Evidence for the Christian God.”

Rev. Neal states that the Christian God: “...is all knowing” (omniscience) “all-loving, personal, infinite (limitless)” (omnipotence) “moral, and necessary.” I have shown in previous letters that, using the Bible, the Biblical god is not all-loving, moral or necessary. Richard Dawkins, on pages 77-78 of his book, “The God Delusion", states: “Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.”

Although Rev. Neal never labels his argument for god or his argument for a monotheistic god, I believe he is using the theology of aseity (God is not dependent on anything outside him or her self for his or her being and nature) and the Cosmological argument (God is the ultimate cause). Paul Kurtz, on pages 298-299 of the above mentioned book, argues: “The most pointed objection raised by the skeptical naturalist is to ask, ‘What is the cause of the first cause?’ We do not advance our understanding by invoking a divine force, an uncaused, unchanging, unknowing entity to account for what is observed. Taking the universe as we find it, however, we might argue for polytheistic cosmological principles, which better explain the variety of systems found.” I read Rev Neal’s argument several times and found his theory of a monotheistic god over polytheistic gods circular in reasoning: his argument can be supported with polytheistic gods just as well as a monotheistic god.

Richard Dawkins, on pages 320-321 of the above mentioned book, gives an interesting sideline to Thomas Aquinas that Rev Neal refers to: “...that foremost among theologians, St Thomas Aquinas, in ‘Summa Theologica’: ‘That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell.’ Nice guy.”

Finally, the reader may state that both Rev Neal and I are biased because of our belief system: certainly, this is true. For an unbiased view of god’s existence, I recommend “The Teaching Company” (1-800-832-2412 or www.TEACH12.com) course, “Philosophy of Religion” by Professor James Hall. As an Agnostic, Hall gives both sides of the arguments.

— Larry E. Farr, Jeffersonville

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.