It amazes me how religious atheists can really be. Especially atheists who give reason for their atheism as 'science'. Scientists call creationists superstitious and primitive because we believe God spoke and created the heavens and the earth. “This is just another silly myth,” they mock, “like the Hindus and animists and other non-modern people hold to.” Of course they don’t see the clear difference between a hyper-intelligent being speaking the cosmos into motion in Genesis and a mud-coated giant tortoise shell earth in the Hindu origin stories. They think the belief in rain spirits is evenly paired with the impersonal description of nature in the Hebrew Old Testament.
Of course, don’t mention to them their own foolishness when they talk about random, impersonal, deterministic, chaotic nature [and then try to study and assign laws to this nature]. Especially don’t mock them when they assign to nature a will, a sex (her), and super-intelligence. Don’t tell them they sound almost theistic about the whole idea of her design and her will. Is it so strange that Christians should merely acclaim an additional quality exists to nature, namely personhood, and say “God” rather than “nature”? And yet we are so scorned by those who bestow on her [Nature] such infinite honors and intelligences, only to hear them say out of the other side of their mouths that she is only our perception of what is.
Who believes in the invisible god, the Christian or the Scientist? At least we claim genuine existence is an attribute of our god, whereas Nature exists only as the predilection of the inquisitive nature of humans. Even if God does not exist, just as she [nature] doesn’t really exist, our deity is at least a product of religion whereas the scientist’s god seems the product of an agreed upon professional delusion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment