2008 Reader Responses to Vern's May 14 column and Vern's Replies

1. This is one of your best column's yet. I don't doubt  that, in the past, I have heard or read about many of the philosophies mentioned in the Wednesday, May 14, 2008, article, but you have put the information together in a very meaningful and beneficial way. I plan to save this column so I can refer to it  when the subject of atheism comes up in the future. I think that branch of faith is greatly misunderstood. It is rejected by many who don't bother to try to understand what it means.
    My thanks to you and to The Kansas City Star  for printing your enlightening thoughts which are helpful to the whole community.  -- M M

Dear M--

Thank you for your email -- please know that many of the responses I get are not as courteous or generous in their perspective! I am glad to know the column was helpful and honored that you plan to save it. (All my columns are archived at http://www.cres.org/star .)

Thanks very much for being a reader, and for taking the trouble to write!

Vern

========================

2. Mr. Barnet I read your column most of the time, and you have said you are a ordained minister.  I have to take your word but this article about what can atheists, agnostics and free thinkers add to the thinking of people of faith.

I do not know if you believe that the Bible is Gods inerrent word or not, if so I cannot understand how you can say that these unbelievers can make a contribution to believers. The Bible says if they are not of us they speak as the world speaks not as we speak.  I believe that if we know such people we should pray for them and present Christ to them, and lay awake at night praying how we can bring them to Christ.   If this is not what you believe then I can understand why you are always willing to allow these people to continue in their pagan belifs

The only interfaith conference in the Bible was Elijah and the prophets of Baal and we know what happend there

Thank you
--JP
 

Dear J--

Your thoughtful note demands a fuller response than I can make right now, so this will be only a preliminary reply.

First, thank you for being one of my readers! I appreciate that. I'm sure you often find things that are not exactly the way you would put them, so I am grateful that you have taken a look at the column over the years.

A very partial response is this, inspired by the first Jewish sheriff of New York City, in the days when hanging was a frequent punishment. Citizens complained that Christians would be hanged by a Jew. He responded that it was a shame that Christians would commit crimes that required such punishment.

Martin Luther, in those days of Christian darkness over Europe, said he would rather have surgery from a Muslim butcher than a Christian doctor, so advanced was Islamic medicine.

Today, I would rather work together for a better world with people of any faith, Christian or not, than with the Christians who lie, steal, rape, enslave, and violate the very principles of the Christian faith. Jesus said, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." (Matt 7:16.) I am less concerned with what is in people's heads than in what is in people's hearts, less concerned with the species of the tree than whether the fruit is healthful.

As for the story of Elijah being the only interfaith conference, I think you might not have recalled the Gospel stories of Samaritans. Jews of Jesus' time despised the Samaritans, apparently having some feeling of excluding them (John 4:9) as perhaps you may have of those of other faiths. (Jesus was accused of being a Samaritan and demon-possessed, and while he denies being demon-possessed, he does not say he is not a Samaritan, though he was not.)  Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30) to make precisely the point I am making. In addition, when Jesus healed ten lepers (Luke 17:11), the only one grateful enough to express thanks was the Samaritan. Finally, when Jesus visited the Samaritan woman at the well, he says that salvation is from Jews;  he does not mention Christians. But he does go on to say, "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks." (John 4:23).  I am interested in those whose faith is found in spirit and in truth more than I am interested in what denomination or religious label they use to identify themselves. Spirit and truth are much larger for me than mere creeds, as Jesus indicated in Matthew 25:31, where the righteous are identified not by creed but by their deeds:

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth  his  sheep from the goats:  And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.  Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed  thee?  or thirsty, and gave  thee  drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took  thee  in? or naked, and clothed  thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done  it  unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done  it  unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:  I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did  it  not to one of the least of these, ye did  it  not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

The Bible may not be as authoritative for me as for you, but I hope these themes will help explain my attitude.

As I say, this is a very partial response, but it is the best I can do at the moment, and I hope it will be of some partial help.

I do appreciate your writing.

Vern
 

=====================================
 

3. I found the article on atheists entertaining.

But try talking to some of the atheist groups in Kansas City.  There is one guy named Iggy who puts up post after post on KC Freethought leveling ridicule, personal attacks, and general ad hominems against ALL religion. He also organzies their activities.

This is the forum for the Heartland Humanists and they encourage it.

Iggy tried to shut down the Bill Tammeus blog with vitriol, as you can see in his archived posts in Dec. Jan. and Feb.

Bill had to go to comment moderation, really setting back what was a great blog.

Someone recently tried to do the same thing to Adam Hamilton, and he has had to suspend comments at Seeing Grey.

In my experience, they don't want discussion, they want domination.  And, although they rely on faith, they will tell you not to classify them that way.

Include atheists?  Not around KC in my experience.  Of course, that is just what I have seen so far.  If you know of any with different attitudes...and I mean really, not for speeches...please let me know.

Sincerly,  BC
 

Dear B--:

I, too, have known aggressive atheists who do their cause great harm. Some I would even venture to call "nuts." Some of them have been hostile to me.

Still, none of them have made death threats to me, or bloodied my son's nose when I was unavailable, or cursed me, the way some Christians have.

I think we'll find nasty behavior amongst people of every belief or unbelief. On the whole, I have a number of wonderful, caring atheist friends, as I have a number of wonderful, caring Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish . . . . friends.

Thanks for giving me a chance to report my full experience.

And thanks for reading my column . . . and writing me!

Vern
 

Vern, thanks for taking the time to reply, I know you are very busy.

But you may have missed what I was pointing out.  They are making threats.  One repeatdely says he will visti "The wrath of Hannibla lector" on Christians.  He said this a number of times on the Tammeus blog.

Bill, rightly, could not allow such threats to continue.  (WAs the person joking, in this day and age who knows.)  The same thing is still going on at KCFREEHTOUGHT, by a person who arranges atheist meet ups.

I have never been beaten up by an atheist, but my grandparents were.  And atheists have done me great harm at work.

I see no evidence of their superiority.  Of course, if a Christian acts that way, they are behaving inconistently with what Jesus said.  An atheist is not behaving inconsistenlty, since NO PERVERSION or atrocity is inconsistent with it.

Sincerly, B--

B--

I am distressed to learn you and others have been harmed by atheists. I imagine the millions of Jews, American Indians, Africans and others who have  been  harmed by Christians (not to mention Christians killing each other) would have strong feelings as well.  Just as I do not paint all Christians bad by those who defame their faith, so atheists who proclaim their way is superior defile their faith by using threats and causing harm. We should condemn all acts of ill-will, and not stereotype people on the basis of their beliefs. Most atheists I know have strong ethical codes and live admirably by them, as do Christians.

Vern

=======================
 
 
 
 

2007 Jan 27.-- Are atheists welcome? Is Atheism a faith?

 
Dear Vern: I noticed that a local atheist group felt that they could not participate in your activities because they felt that atheism was not a faith; my response was that it takes tremendous, blind, unreasoning faith to believe that our present existence, reason, logic, science and ethics are the result of mindless forces. That riled them but they could not come up with an answer that did not regress to chance.  What do you think?  Jim

Dear Jim--
    How did you notice that a local atheist group felt that they could not participate in interfaith activities? What group was it? I would like the atheists to know

• I deliberately have atheists on my Board of Directors along with strong leaders of other faiths
• Freethinkers (including atheists) were participants and recognized as such at Kansas CIty's first interfaith conference last year
• The Interfaith Council is interested in adding a seat for Freethinkers
• The Council already represents one non-theistic faith, ie, Buddhism
• I have promoted atheism as a respectable faith position in my Kansas CIty Star column
• The descriptions of religion I consistently use never refer to "God"
• My own personal creed does not refer to God: http://www.cres.org/team/vern.htm#view
• I have offered alternative interpretations of "God" -- God as an evolving process rather than a Supreme Being
• I have often pointed out that no logical solution has ever been found to the problem of inconsistency in a belief in an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God (as Supreme Being) and the actual facts of this world, where so much unjustifiable suffering exists -- and while faiths may have responses to this problem, they have no reasonable solution to it
• As I often say, the primary question of faith is, "Is life worth living?" not "is there a God"? If a person asks questions about the meaning of life and how we can best relate to each other, that person is a person of faith. It is not necessary to have "answers" to be on the spiritual path.

I can understand why some would not agree with you, Jim, that "it takes tremendous, blind, unreasoning faith to believe that our present existence, reason, logic, science and ethics are the result of mindless forces."  When I stir salt into a  glass of water into which I suspend a string, salt crystals form on the string. Many people would explain this as a natural, not a mindful, process.
    We might use the awesome beauty of the Grand Canyon, the complexity of the human eye, the moral sense each person carries as strong arguments for a caring, mindful force behind the universe, But others might say they all have compelling natural explanations. The complexity of the DNA crystal is different in degree from the salt crystal, but ultimately just as explainable by natural causes.
    And the disasters of tornado and flood, the fragility of the skin and the spine, the pages of history filled with greed, oppression and war are arguments against a "truly caring, mindful force behind the universe."  Why would such a mindful force design a universe in such a way that many animals eat by eating others, sometimes ferociously, inflicting pain, tearing the body of the victim apart? The amount of suffering in the food chain is so staggering it is difficult to honor. Would it not have been more mindful to design a universe with life given necessary nutrients, say, from deposits in the soil, or dissolved in accessible pond water?
    Similar issues can be raised about a universe in which human beings -- like helpless children -- are rapped, tortured, faced with starvation. I revere the skeptics who are alert to the suffering in the world just as much as I revere those who have responses to it from the religions which teach belief in a God.

Jim, I would be very grateful if you would convey this information to them. Thank you!

Vern Barnet

---

  dear Reverend:
  Your response to my argument that atheism requires faith seems to indicate that you are an atheist  yourself.

  further your response that natural processes to not require mind as an explanation because they are natural in fact begs the question.
  As to your characterization of the problem of evil, that does not mean that a mind is not responsible for natural processes, it just means you do not like the minds methods. In fact, christians have an answer to the problem of evil, but you reject it; that is not a logical question  In fact, I would submit that the problem of evil is a logical problem for atheism because any moral system they propose must be subjective.  In other words, let us say they do not like something.

  so what?

  they do not have all knowing objective knowledge of any ultimate purpose of our present trials,  all they have to fall back on is force.

and they have done that abundantly; I recommend the Black Book of Communism published by Harvard University Press to catalog the death toll of the atheistic practices of dialectical  materialism which exceeds by ten times the death toll of so called religious wars. and I would hope that your response is not that those crimes are not the fault of  atheism but rather of Communism.  In  fact, one could be communist without being atheistic,  it is dialectical materialism that made the system so deadly. Materialism  meaning that all can be explained by matter in motion;,
which means without any reference to mind. If all is matter in motion. with molecules sometimes colliding, the molecules at whatever level of complexity have no need to ever say "excuse me"
The atheist must assume that such reasoning processes as we have are able to give us objective  knowledge. Yet Saint Darwin himself wrote that he sometimes wondered if we could really  trust the meanderings of a mind which evolved in the same manner as a  monkeys.  Therefore I must agree wit you; atheism has a place in what you call faith based activities.  However, I think you tend to alternate meanings of words to argue different  positions.  In any event, when I have expressed similar doubts at some local meetings, it was  made clear that  I was not welcome. I appreciate the time you give to your work and it is clear that  you arequite dedicated

  sincerely,
  Jim

Dear Jim,
    I have been called an atheist. So have Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and the great Presbyterian theologian Paul Tillich. Whether they and I qualify as atheists depends, as your recognize, on what one means by the term.
    I do not understand what you mean when you say: my "response that natural processes to not require mind as an explanation because they are natural in fact begs the question." My point is what some people consider evidence of divine activity can be considered by others as "natural," ie, without supernatural involvement.
     I respectfully disagree with you that "christians have an answer to the problem of evil." I think the conservative Nazarene theologian Al Truesdale pretty well sums it up in his book "If God Then Why?" when he examines all the arguments offered to explain how God can be both all powerful and all good and finds them failures. I would be interested if you have a new answer. His faith is grounded not in an answer to  the problem of evil, but rather in a response to the self-sacrificing love of  Christ as Savior. I believe his position has great integrity and is transparently honest, whether I agree with it or not. Please outline your "solution" to the problem of evil. I would be very interested in it.
    I also disagree with you that atheists have a problem in establishing a moral system. In fact, social studies have shown that in general atheists have better social values than church goers. The man who is probably most responsible for inciting the American Revolution, Tom Paine, wrote simply, "to do good is my religion." Religion, on the other hand, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever, is often used to justify the most horrible treatment of other human beings.
    I also question your characterization of dialectical materialism, at least as expressed in Marx.  "Materialism" does not mean "that all can be explained by matter in motion" as I understand Marx. Marx believed that the moving power in history (analogous to the role God has in the three religions I've named) is economic rather than spiritual. Unfortunately, American business and many politicians seem to have adopted this viewpoint. I respectfully suggest that your contrasting matter and mind is a category of thought that is more appropriate in other metaphysical systems. i personally am uncomfortable with either/or discussions. Objective/subjective is a distinction that bears little on my experience of reality, which is completely dependent on relationships. The idea that anything can be completely "objective" in a philosophical sense, or "subjective," is highly problematic in my view, because all things are interrelated. Even a "private thought"
takes its form from external stimulation or recollection.
    I am sorry that you have found yourself in meetings where expressing your honest doubts has made  you unwelcome. Of course whether your comments should be welcome depends on the nature of the meeting. If the meeting is of, say, Roman Catholics to discuss the liturgy, expressing your doubts would probably be out of place. If you were at an interfaith meeting whose purpose is to develop appreciation for the various faiths of the members, such commentary from you might also be considered out of place. If you were at the Euphraxophy Center, or the Unitarian Church, where atheists are most certainly welcome, but the purpose of the meeting was financial planning for the next year, again, your comments might not be considered in order. If you were at a meeting discussing, say, the Urantia Book, the Course in Miracles, or a philosophy class on certain topics, your comments would seem to me to be very appropriate. There is, of course, a big
difference between what is worthy of discussion and what is appropriate for discussion in any particular situation. If you wish to be on my mailing list so you can find activities appropriate for your concerns, send me your mailing address.
    Thank you for writing. I hope I have been of some help.
Vern Barnet