Proofs

Proofs
a.k.a. Evidence of God?

Here are updated versions of six opinion columns I wrote over a seven year period from 1999 through 2006. Because of printing limitations, these first appeared as two-part monthly articles. The total word count is about 10,000.

Initially I was only 'preaching to the choir,' but in this web version, I've expanded the text and links with a wider readership in mind. I'm making occasional updates, plus adding more links. In cases where there is more than one embedded link about any certain topic, I've tried to find a variety of sites. (Each embedded link automatically opens a new window. This is for convenient reading, but don't overload your browser!)

Notes to an Atheist, Part One

Notes to an Atheist, Part Two

Hello Humanists, Part One

Hello Humanists, Part Two

Doubters, Part One

Doubters, Part Two

NOTES TO AN ATHEIST

Part One

This article was inspired by two rather intense online discussions. One was with a minister I know. A friend of his had just been murdered, in a crime so terrible I'd seen it on the national news. We discussed God's grace, and the spiritual world.
The other was with three members of my online writer's group: an atheist technician, an agnostic scientist, and a struggling Catholic musician. It was about Science and Religion, and whether either is based in reality, and if they can really help us.
These discussions lead me to write this article. The subject has already filled entire libraries with centuries' worth of hard-thought-out tomes. In this incarnation, it's just long enough to fill a two-part article.
I have written this in the form of a letter to an atheist I might meet someday.

* * *

Dear Friend,
There are saints who proclaim they see the glory of God everywhere, during every waking moment. There are also scientists who tell us, flatly, that they see no evidence of God whatsoever.
You've told me you don't believe in God. You know that I do, and don't seem to mind that. You have so many reasons to doubt, and not enough reasons to believe.
Let's begin by framing the debate.
The most fundamental question has always been: Is there a God? This might be rephrased in this scientific era as: Is there a supernatural? (Things that have not been, and perhaps cannot be, measured by science.)
I won't ask you to try and 'prove a negative,' only to remain open minded. Many things once unsuspected, even in theory, are now accepted as routine.
Are there forces that current science cannot measure? There is little agreement about what such forces might be like. Many Pagans believe in an amorphous 'life force' which imbues the cosmos. There are several very old, as well as some recently updated, versions of this belief.
If that is true, then monotheists such as myself would say that this force is but one aspect of a vast, personal God.
Let's look at the monotheist's descriptions of God. Religious liberals believe in an all-forgiving, milquetoast sort of God. Fundamentalists see a demanding, judgmental God. One version sends nearly everyone to Heaven; the other, to Hell.
I would say the truth is larger than either of those ideas. God created us in His image, with both a mind and a heart. Let's use them both, like God does. I will use 'His' for God, while accepting that God is big enough to embrace both genders.

OBJECTIONS TO BELIEF

I would like to address some common objections to belief in God. By now, I suppose I've heard them all. Fortunately, they can be answered. (Here's a quick review of the traditional evidence.)
Doubters ask, "Why evil?" The old lament goes: "Why do the wicked prosper, oh Lord, while your own people suffer?"
Many who have suffered personal tragedy tend to blame, and then to doubt God. "A good God would not have allowed such a thing to happen," is their heartfelt cry.
God does not treat with this fallen world, directly. With the rarest of exceptions, He only works through the minds of people, especially those He has called to lead His Providence.
In other words, God does not micro-manage the physical world. He might keep His eye on the sparrows, but He does not prevent the hawk from swooping down on their nests. He might number your hairs, but He will not intervene if they begin to fall out.
An example: when a tornado passes through their town, the people whose house is spared ought to thank Chaos Theory -- and not God -- when the fickle wind veers around their home, and wrecks the neighbor's place instead. God was not on the side of the "winners," here. Nor is He against the losers, in sports contests and most other venues.
Some wonder why evil exists at all; and how it could have emerged in a cosmos that should have been entirely good. This question occurs to every perceptive child, and is formally known as theodicy. The answers vary between religions, and most have in fact reconciled the idea of a Good God with the existence of Worldly Evil. (Cardinal Schonborn offers some brilliant insights on this topic.)
An unusual response, once controversial, now subject to serious theological discussion, can be found in the Divine Principle. Based upon a clear grasp of its overall framework, it explains three specific reasons, near the end of its second chapter. For now, I'll try to summarize them here.
God always maintains His original standards and blueprint. For web readers: in an online context, His dealing with evil forces would be like a human discussion forum (or blog) administrator getting into a big argument with a cynical troll. This would "feed the troll," tarnish and distract the person in charge, and drag everything down. God prefers to honor our dignity and free will, and at the same time, maintain the purity of the ultimate Ideal.
Hence, He does not stay the hands of the evil, except when good people arise to do it, whether in crime or war. Several years ago, over in Scotland, there was a terrible massacre of school children. During the memorial service, the town's Pastor said a very wise thing: "God's heart was the first to break." We make Him suffer, but we can also bring Him great joy.
Without a crystal clear understanding of these issues, Christianity has often been challenged by compelling heresies and competing beliefs; such as Mithraism, which teaches that Good and Evil have always existed, and that the best we can hope for is to keep the two "in balance." Today this is the darker variety of New Age belief. This is also the basis of The Force, to the extent it's ever explained, in the Star Wars franchise.
There are other tragedies also, with 'neutral' causes. We need water, but could drown. Gravity is quite handy, yet falls cause numerous deaths. Common sense and good technology mitigate these dangers tremendously, as does medical science. With time, this will only improve. Science can provide safety, and religion a healthy lifestyle. (Folks could be so much more sensible, but then we've have to do without the Darwin Awards.) It's strange, but Darwin and the Bible do agree on one thing: our mortal bodies are but temporary vessels.

HORRORS!

By now you must be itching to tell me all about the horrors promulgated by 'organized religion,' such as the Inquisition and Crusades. They're mentioned constantly, despite having happened many centuries ago. (They've already been apologized for.) The historical reality is complex, and frequently misunderstood. For instance, the Inquisition is one of history's first examples of a formal, deliberative court of law. Bad as it surely was, the alternatives were much worse. As for the Crusades, they were preceded by centuries of invasion and rule by peoples from another land. (Lots of small tribal principalities, back then.) Some have termed them a counterattack, brought on by the harassment of pilgrims to the Holy Land, plus incursions on Byzantine territory.
Here is a different take: what the Church authorities could not overcome by virtue of their own weak doctrines, they sometimes crushed by brute force. For example, a medieval incarnation of Mithraism, called the Cathar heresy, was exterminated by one of the bloodiest massacres in French history. (Here's a sympathetic essay on Catharism. Others claim they provoked violence.)
Many wonder why a good God would condemn so many to Hell. Or how a powerful God could lose so many of His creations to eternal perdition. If Heaven and Hell's populations were sports scores, then (according to mainstream doctrine) God is losing badly.
Simply put, God condemns no one -- people do this to themselves, in this life and the next. Also, though Hell is a terrible place, there are ways out. Difficult roads that anyone can follow to Heaven. (Long ago, Dante and C.S. Lewis both hinted at this.)

SCIENCE VS. RELIGION

You have great respect for science, and you've told me that you think religion has mostly opposed science. Therefore, that religion has been a roadblock to the advancement of humanity.
You've brought up Evolution, the obvious example. Science seems to have won, hands down, on this point. Even the Pope has admitted that evolution must be true.
The Creationists have consistently invoked a so-called "God of the gaps." Everything science could not explain, they attributed to God. But as more is discovered, God is then (supposedly) shoved out of one more perch. Eventually, Darwinians gloat, God will have no possible role.
Actually, it works both ways. Science has given us the Big Bang, as well as the Cosmological Anthropic Principle. There are several excellent books which explain these in detail.
Drawing a correspondence between the 'Days' of Genesis and the 'Eras' of the Earth is a sure way to annoy almost everyone! Note that the "Sun and Moon appearing" (in Genesis 1:16) could refer to the clarity of the Earth's atmosphere, after impact events and volcanism have diminished.
I have a friend who got a Ph.D. at UC Berkeley, as a research embryologist, who told me he's seen evidence previously unknown (perhaps spiritual) forces, involved in the development of all new life. His work has been featured in peer-reviewed journals.
Suffice it to say that the latest scientific theories have not eliminated, but rather, given us a probable role for an intelligent Creator.
Most believers in God point to the existence of miracles. By their very nature, no one thinks that such things can be reproduced in a laboratory. There are people who are famous for their alleged psychic abilities, though the vast majority of them have been proven as fakes. A vast reward fund remains unclaimed.
However, the CIA and others have taken a serious interest in human abilities beyond the ordinary five senses. Millions of people can recount striking 'psychic' experiences, but almost by definition, such are difficult for science to verify.
I look for God's hand at the time of the Big Bang, and at the time the first true humans were born on this world. I would look for it in holy places, though usually, well away from the glare of publicity.
Religion has been a great boon to humanity. Sure, there have been abuses, as there are in every walk of life. Such violent "religious" people, past and present, have not been following the clear teachings of their own Faiths. (There are certain exceptions, but in each case, genuine splits developed over such things.)

LIMITS OF SCIENCE

For scientists, accusing religion of violence is like the pot calling the kettle black. Historically, when people have ruled by non-religious 'rational principles,' they've seldom managed to improve their societies. Quite the contrary, some of them produced the most horrific dictatorships in all history. Even in the USA, scientists have carried out atrocities such as the Tuskegee Experiment. Science too has its limits!
The great laws, the foundation of civilization, all have religious underpinnings. From the Code of the ancient Hammurabi, to Moses, to the Magna Carta and the American Founders, we see the hand of the Divine. An understanding that people are not cogs in some domineering social machine.
Even rulers with the best of intentions, be they Kings or bureaucrats, have a terrible time guiding their nations. Whole economies, and specific programs, seldom end up as planned. Even professional futurists, and the finest science fiction writers, have a hard time envisioning the future accurately.
This leads us to the realm of politics, and the creation of laws. A relative handful of health and safety regulations have a genuine basis in science. Once you get past those, the creation, enforcement, and effects of human legislation are so utterly unscientific as to give one fits.
Human rights activists, and the scholars who study that important topic, are worried that atheism provides no clear basis for outlaw nations to behave. In their treatment of citizens (and prisoners), the launching or terror (or even nuclear) strikes, and more. The best John Finnis and his associates can do is, present a complicated argument that such leaders "be reasonable," because the no-rights alternative is surely much worse.
The bottom line? In guiding humanity, religion had done better then science.
Please don't be too quick to dismiss these sections as a "right back atcha" petito principi type arguments. This is not goofball stuff -- much of it has been covered in Scientific American and elsewhere.

Top of Page

Notes to an Atheist, Part Two

Let us continue our discussion about the reality of God, and the legitimacy of religion. I have mentioned how Science has been unable to guide either politics or the economy, on any scale. You see, certain matters are 'internal' to human nature, and thus, extremely difficult to quantify.
This will be clearer if we look at our own personal lives. Science has tried very hard to understand human nature. Studies of both Mind and Brain have fallen far short of expectations. Science cannot grasp emotions, much less our dreams; though dreams are intimately familiar to all humans, including scientists.
Let me put it to you bluntly. Despite centuries of steady advance, science has not given you peace of mind. It has not gotten you a secure or satisfying relationship. Nor will it, until its vision is greatly expanded. Only religion can do this, with any consistency. If you have found these things in some other way, then congratulations: you are unusual, and very lucky.
This leads us to another objection to Faith. One that you personally are too polite to mention. In my native San Francisco, however, they can and do mention it--quite loudly! (As with the self-proclaimed Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.)
Anti-religious people assume that America's colonists were a dour folk, who wore black and never smiled. That the Puritans never had fun, and worse, never allowed others to do so. Free thinkers were, it is claimed, put in the stocks, or burned at the stake.
Historically speaking, this was rare. Roger Williams was exiled, not killed. If such dour Puritans exist (then or now), they are few in number--and in great need of therapy.
Let me spin this another way. The folks who hold it against religion are themselves going about it all wrong. At the extreme, 'swingers' are desperately seeking pleasure, but seldom do they achieve it, in any lasting sense.
Look at any modern 'grownup' publication, in pretty much any field of interest. You will find dozens of ads for self-help books, therapy sessions, sex-enhancing techniques, and much more. It seems that a lot of folks are coming up short in the 'fun' category.
Research indicates that the faithful, and the long-time married, are far healthier, and more satisfied, than singles or even newlyweds. This includes everything from life expectancy to sexual satisfaction.
My point is: the Puritans are having all the fun!

GETTING PHILOSOPHICAL

Let's look at a philosophical objection used by both Humanists and liberal believers. I've heard it phrased best by a popular radio host: "Fundamentalists do good because they're afraid of being sent to Hell. Humanists do good because it's the right thing to do." He concluded that humanism is better; a way of life based in reason, not fear.
However, the above quote is wrong on several counts. For one thing, as an online buddy of mine puts it, that is 'Kindergarten ethics.' As I mentioned earlier, God does not condemn you. Your own words and deeds*, as rooted in your inmost mind and heart, are what blesses or condemns you. Even so, fear is not always bad. It is perfectly legitimate to fear a fall from a lofty cliff--or a spiritual fall into a terribly dark place.
(*For strict Christian readers: there's no need to get upset about issue of Works. In this context, my term 'deeds' can include accepting ones personal salvation by the blood of the risen Christ.)
On the other hand, the humanist's "right thing to do" has turned out to be an amazingly flexible concept. Flexible enough to justify all sorts of things, including actions which defy common sense, much less anyone's sense of justice. One need only look at the history of 'social engineering' to see this.
The American Founders knew this well. If you have no soul, then what is your value, compared with that of the 'whole people,' as embodied by the State? The Constitution we all respect is designed to be a restraint on State power. Only God-given rights are beyond the State's reach. (Here are two web sites which explain this important topic.)

CLARKE'S LAW

Let's go back to the beginning of this discussion. We wondered if there was, or could be, such a thing as the 'supernatural.' Take a look at the history of technology. Many invisible forces, in common use today, were unexpected discoveries. For example, X-rays and microwaves were found quite by accident.
A famous science fiction author coined the precept now known as Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Perhaps certain spiritual phenomena will, in future years, be as routine in our lives as microwaves are today.
Where in the universe are these forces, you ask? Any good Physics textbook will have a scale of 'size and force,' ranging from the smallest quanta to the largest galactic cluster. (Powers of Ten is a wonderful basic illustration.) Near the bottom of the scale is a 'particle desert,' a vast area still mysterious to science. This region is between the Quarks and the Planck Limit -- much smaller than anything displayed in that 'Power of Ten' link.
That is only one place where new forces might be found. We already suspect that, within outer space's Black Hole singularities, the known laws of the universe have broken down. This might not affect us directly. (Frank Tipler thinks otherwise.)
The Superstring cosmological theory posits that there are more than the three (or four) spatial dimensions we are all familiar with. Eleven or more, though they are said to be 'tightly wrapped.' Still, this opens up a wide field of speculation.
Perhaps, in addition to the four known main forces (gravity, electromagnetism, etc.) there are other, as yet undiscovered ones. Several competing Theories of Consciousness are trying to quantify one of these. Heim Theory has enjoyed a revival, and one of Heim's unpublished concepts was a Dimension of Consciousness.

MAJORITIES

As you are surely aware, atheists are in the minority. Sometimes open discrimination is claimed, but that's hard to demonstrate. It's true that polls have shown that a 'declared atheist' candidate would receive very few votes. Hard as this may be for you to accept, that is not because the public is prejudiced, ignorant, or stupid. There are several valid reasons, such as the fact that most atheists lean to the political Left. Some people regard atheists as rebellious at heart, and wonder (fairly or not) if there might be psychological reasons for their rejection of belief. Also, sorry to say, the most vocal atheists are openly disdainful of believers, and use all sorts of pejoratives. 'Freethinking' sounds nice on paper, but in real life they've managed to (really or potentially) alienate most of the American population. (More than 90% of adults believe in God, or a Higher Power.)
As vocal atheists love to point out, the situation in parts of Europe (plus Japan) is different. Darwin is widely accepted, and there are fewer Believers. Church attendance is low. Be honest: how idyllic is that situation?
It's a mixed bag. Those same regions suffer from a much higher suicide rate. Also, they have an ongoing population decline, and within decades may be dominated by newcomers who'd impose sharia law. From a Darwinian perspective, that is beyond ironic.

CONCLUSION

My dear atheist friend, please accept that more than 90% of Americans are not unenlightened fools. People (including respected scientists) really can examine all the evidence, and reach a different conclusion than you did.
Let me conclude by assuring you that God did design this universe, and that He endowed you and me with an invisible soul. Within it can be found the key to human aspirations, as well as our relationships.
Also, there is still plenty for science to discover, and more technology yet to develop. Things that exceed today's technology like my little Macintosh computer does a cave man's stone tools.
I think we'll find that, sooner or later, Believers and Scientists are going to end up on the same side of the fence. Then things will really fly!
All the best, Paul Carlson

* * *
And that's what I would say to a new atheist friend. Others of you, wiser and more learned than I, may wish to write letters of your own. In fact, I hope that you will.

Top of Page

HELLO HUMANISTS

Part One

This month we begin a two-part article about the beliefs and practices of Secular Humanism. (To be precise, as opposed to the older Renaissance Humanism.)
In my view, the differences between Christian denominations are relatively minor. The clash between Christianity and Islam is more serious, yet the two faiths have more in common than many people care to admit.
Even the yawning chasm between monotheism and paganism pales in comparison with one other cultural divide. In the future, the crucial debate will be between those who believe in God and those who oppose that belief.

THE DIVIDE

Marxism may have failed (except on university campuses), but that was just one version of atheistic thought. In my previous article "Notes to an Atheist," I have appealed to them, and mentioned Humanism. This article is an appeal to card-carrying Humanists, plus information for believers who have encountered them, or soon will.
Why the concern? Humanists don't just privately doubt, or simply not believe. They actively denigrate the beliefs of others. They claim the universe is entirely material, and that any belief in the spiritual or supernatural is at best a pleasant delusion, and at worst a dangerous fanaticism.
Some atheists have dubbed themselves Brights, a term derived from Europe's historical Enlightenment period. They will joke about it, but realistically, this appellation cannot make a good impression on the vast majority of the populace. (The word's antonyms, which implicitly append to non-Brights, would be dull, dim, stupid, etc.)
In practice, their opposition to Belief ranges from clear, logical arguments to childish, ignorant mockery. Increasingly, they are launching headline-making laws, new institutional policies, and significant court battles.
At times the clash has become quite personal. After the tragedies of 9/11/01, a famous Humanist publicly complained of "all this talk about God and prayer." In recent years, Humanist leader Paul Kurtz and Christian author Timothy LaHaye have been slamming each other in their books, and by name.

BASICS

In the past, when faced with a big challenge, traditional leaders often responded by ignoring, or even trying to silence, their rivals. It's a cowardly and ultimately ineffective strategy. (Think: Galileo vs. the Church, in the simplest version of that history.)
First, let's address the basic difference in worldviews. The two sides cannot even agree on what they can fairly discuss. Humanists always 'state their case' as a fundamental contrast between belief (blind faith) and reason (scientific evidence). The more charitable among them will say, "It's fine if you want to believe that," but with a pitying tone.
They will bristle, and go on the attack, if any believer speaks of having evidence or logic to back him up. Believers know that's silly, since God made everything, including the world, our intelligent selves, and the scientific rules we study things by.
Humanists have complete confidence in 'reason' and 'science.' In most areas of life, this boils down to relying on themselves. But let's take them at their word. Science itself has some limits.
For example, one cannot do experiments upon astronomical objects, nor observe the multi-million year process of evolution. In both cases we can only see the results, and that from a considerable distance. Scientists are unable to create life, much less intelligence. (These things may yet occur.)
There are basic flaws in the scientific method. Godel's Theorem states that mathematics cannot prove itself true; that one must always seek another, larger framework of truth.
This concept was expanded by computing pioneer Alan Turing, with his famous Halting Problem. In essence, it's impossible for a computer to always know whether a given problem is unsolvable, or when to stop trying to figure it out. A popular example involves a donkey caught between two identical piles of hay. Unable to decide which pile to approach, a literal-minded donkey would starve!
As with the Vulcans of popular fiction, logic cannot really give motive, much less meaning, to one's life.

THE BIBLE

Humanists rarely attack such beliefs as the Buddha's Eightfold Path. They reserve their ire for Christianity, and do their best to shred the Bible and popular American beliefs.
The Bible is often derided as a collection of myths, further debased by centuries of mistranslation. Critics will list numerous alleged flaws and contradictions in its text, and supposed weaknesses in its accounts and doctrines. Worse, they'll tell you the whole thing was dreamed up by ambitious churchmen, to overawe the credulous peasants, as a specific instrument of power and exploitation. (That these 'messy' and 'crafted' views flatly contradict each other does not seem to occur to critics.)
They'll also say that its miracles could never have taken place, then go on to bash modern miracles, such as at Lourdes.
In plain fact, there are many more extant (and original language) copies of the Bible than any other historical document. These documents are closer in provenance to the recounted events than any other group of historical accounts, by far. The Biblical Archaeological Society is constantly announcing new discoveries, from Egypt and the Middle East, that verify the Bible's accuracy. Many critics, working from 'anti' pamphlets, and now from deeply flawed Internet lists, are unaware of this.
Simply put, anyone who relies upon that Jesus Never Existed site, or similar ones, may find themselves on thin ice. In its earliest centuries, when Christianity was new and weak, even its vehement opponents of did not question the man's historical existence. That is a modern conceit.
Another fascinating area of study concerns the ancient Shroud/Mandelion and 'Christ Pantocrator' images. (Here again, many skeptics leaped into "dost protest too much" mode . . . )

STRAW MEN

There are endless arguments for and against the existence of God, which alone would fill an entire bookshelf. However, few are convincing. (Here's a concise list of the most common pro-and-con arguments.) In my opinion, no one has ever done it better than C.S. Lewis (in his Mere Christianity) and the Unificationist's Principle of Creation.
Many Humanists display a basic ignorance of theology. Most of their essays poke at concepts such as 'predetermination' and the 'existence of evil' (theodicy), which theologians have already tackled. But if mainstream Christian doctrines are lacking, chances are the Principle has already provided a decisive answer. (Do note that it really helps to grasp its concepts by steps, and in order!)
One (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) attack on the Biblical Noah's rainbow story, published in The Humanist magazine, was especially silly. It presumed that rainbows would not have existed before that time.
Rather than joining in a rich discussion, Humanists are too often content to set up and knock down straw men.

SUGGESTIONS

I'd like to offer the Humanists a few helpful suggestions. You see, despite some impressive scholarship, their organizations have a relatively small membership. Dare I say, a lack of converts?
Surveys reveal that there are millions of non-religious Americans, and Humanists wonder aloud why those people aren't flocking to their banner. With their vast self-assurance, and air of superiority, it puzzles them to no end . . .
There may be several reasons for this lack. For starters, Humanists preach a flexible ethics, carefully divorced from the Ten Commandments. They state that "morality was hijacked by religion" at some point in ancient history. Who had it before is not exactly made clear.
Better not to take the easy route, beating on straw men. People will see themselves as being lampooned by Humanist caricatures, and feel quite insulted.
It's dangerous to relay on shoddy pamphlets and web sites to attack the Bible. If activists use them as 'evidence,' any person with a solid historical grounding (or who knows such a person, to consult), will soon take that activist, and cause, much less seriously.
Some prominent Humanists are 'open' homosexuals who, not satisfied with modern-day tolerance, seek to weaken and defeat traditional morality; up to and including the very concept of right and wrong. This matters to people, and to parents especially.
Normally, vigorous internal debate is healthy for organizations. The Humanists have Nat Hentoff, an atheistic leftist, who makes some profound arguments in favor of prenatal life, and against abortion. (Read his columns on the subject.)
However, they also honor Peter Singer, who advocates the infanticide of "low quality" babies up to a month old -- though lately he's expanded that range. Even for treatable conditions such as hemophilia!
But who draws the line? That part might look good on paper, but fallible humans will always be making those decisions. Without a universal morality in effect, people understand that this 'line' would get pushed all over the place.
Seeing themselves as consisting only of bodies, Humanists focus on theirs to excess. Who else, when holding scholarly conferences on varied subjects, always include workshops about sex? Apparently that's the utmost--if not the only--happiness they can find in life. Most people find that a pity.
Humanists, like most Americans, have strong opinions about politics. Because they're viscerally opposed to the so-called Religious Right, they've wed themselves to the political Left. Despite their brain power, they illogically support liberal politicians, including venal and demagogic ones. They back Al Gore, who (according to his own book and policy record) is of the anti-development 'green' mold. (Not-very-extreme Greens, and essentially all Vegans, oppose any animal use in medical research, and have irrational phobias about nuclear energy and genetic engineering.)

Top of Page

Hello Humanists, Part Two

This is the second half of a two part article about Humanism. With the discrediting of Marxism, it is now the most aggressive form of atheism. I see this as a major challenge, and this article is addressed to Humanists and the Believers who encounter them.

SOMETHING NEW

The ranks of Humanism include many brilliant, even groundbreaking, scholars and scientists. Even so, they sometimes come across as modern-day Luddites. In their eagerness to debunk America's (all too numerous) quacks, frauds, and harebrained notions, they also stomp on a number of genuine, cutting-edge theories.
For example, they do not posit that the mind is seated in the brain, but assert there is no Mind at all! Just a cascade of physical impulses racing around those soggy neurons. Therefore the 'sense of self,' morality, personal goals, etc., are all illusions, little fancier than the inchoate yearnings of animals.
This idea is controversial, and is not accepted by most mind/brain researchers. Philosophers can blow it out of the water, because no scholar can even propose that theory without somehow stating, "I think it is true." (Here's an excellent British article on this topic.)
The ideas of quantum physics and superstring theory are discomfiting to Humanists, because they depict all existence as energy. As intricate, multidimensional 'fields' poised in swift harmonic vibration. Reductionism finds itself in a similar bind. Consider: the famous Two Slit Experiment is affected by the presence of an Observer, but if that person is merely a chunk of chemicals with neural impulses, how does the Cosmos "know" to respond predictably?
Some (but by no means all) New Agers love to parrot multisyllabic scientific terminology, but the reality is even more amazing. (Here's a great essay on this topic.)
Why do Humanists like to imply we're nearing the boundaries of the known? Science made that mistake a hundred years ago, and may again. It's risky to name names, but why not take Rupert Sheldrake's theory of Morphic Fields seriously? Tens of millions of educated, perceptive animal lovers will tell you that, without a doubt, their pets have some type of ESP.
But you may have a hard time getting them to say so! Why? Skeptics have so browbeaten the public that most people know very well when to shut up. Who wants to get called a nut case, or an ignorant fool? Folks will even argue themselves into disbelief, whenever they have a paranormal experience.
Ever witnessed a really strange, truly inexplicable occurrence? Between the (more harshly skeptical) Humanists and the (more scatterbrained among) New Age people, good luck getting a fair hearing these days!
Following the tragic events of 9/11/01, I read an account by a respected magazine editor. He lives alone, and on the morning of Sept. 11th he slept in. And had a very disturbing dream, about a tall skyscraper in flames after a terrorist explosion. Humanists won't call him a liar, at least not to his face. Instead they'll say that he always has strange dreams; that this vision of terror was a mere coincidence. Or maybe the neighbor had the news playing really loud, just before he woke up. All I can say to that is: "Yeah, right."
Similarly, psychic frauds are a dime a dozen. No one has won the skeptic's million dollar reward. But a genuine psychic would be nuts to trade that money for the deluge of meddling, if not the dire peril, that would arise from claiming it. Could this prize be claimed with some guarantee of anonymity? No, because applicants have now been limited (with good reason, based upon experience) to people with an existing reputation/media presence.

HUMAN NATURE

Humanists think they've relegated every human experience to the test tube. Our noblest impulses, they say, are mere chemistry. For example, the hormone oxytocin can stimulate motherly love and, in animals, erase it when blocked.
The chemical MDMH (Ecstasy) can make anyone feel loving. It will give people a high, but then it wears off, leading to a miserable "crash." If it's imposed by a pill, then it isn't really you. If it really changed you, you'd only have to take it once.
Humanists tell how an 'experience of oneness' and the 'presence of holiness' can be generated by applying electric fields directly to the brain. They also debate the fascinating idea that God has 'hard wired' us to experience His presence. But, as with the pills described above, if you switch off the device, the experience goes away.
Religion and family are the genuine article.
Note that the experience of satiety (of having just eaten), and of sexual excitement, can be mimicked in similar ways. But if you relied on that, you'd starve! And in the long run, cease reproducing. Humanists would probably retort that anorexics and narcissists have similar problems. And I, in turn, would call them spiritual anorexics, and worse.
(Ironically, Richard Dawkins once tried out a 'holiness stimulator' device, and came away disappointed. Either he's got the most advanced brain on the planet, or he's dulled his spirit as much as anyone possibly can . . . )
Professional skeptics demand hard proofs for everything. I would ask them, "Do you love your spouse? Is that person very special to you, even exclusively so?" Could they prove that objectively, or demonstrate it for me in a lab? I'd like to see them try. Or will they assure their spouse that their love is only an illusion; an effect of oxytocin and social conditioning?
Humanists are human, too. No matter their stated convictions, they're also people with undescribed beliefs, higher passions, and profound desires. They too have priests and prophets, they just call them something else.
Consider: what if an Angel of God appeared to a disbelieving skeptic, while they were at the bathroom mirror one morning? And explained that the author of an essay called "Hello Humanists" prayed for the doubter so hard that God answered, by sending along this visitation? The minute the angel departed, that person would probably dismiss the experience as the result of "the anchovy-laden pizza I ate last night." Then, if the angel came back, would they consult a Priest or a Psychiatrist? Never mind that angels are real -- a stubborn enough skeptic might end up in a mental hospital.
What if the returning Christ appeared as a guest on Oprah? The skeptic would cry Fraud! And if drifting clouds began to spell out Scripture verses? They'd look high and low for some clandestine technological explanation.
People can be too committed to a certain mindset, including the very people who condemn 'fixed' mindsets the loudest.

POLITICS

As noted above, with rare exceptions, Humanists gravitate toward the political Left. Thus, even while denigrating religious beliefs, they buy into a whole different set -- the political kind. Are religions just myths? Fragile reeds upon which to base our lives?
Consider political beliefs, and the actions, individual and collective, based upon them. (School policies? New taxes? Defense budget? All these and more.) In practice, what are those actions based upon? A party platform? A campaign speech? A blog or magazine article? All these are so fleeting, so fragile, it's astonishing!
Those Humanists who study up on formal political ideologies have a slightly more solid foundation. However, recent history, not to mention 'real world' outcomes, show deep flaws in every ideology. Leftists will seldom admit this, but some ideologies and track records -- such as their own -- are more flawed than others.
Meanwhile, God gave the Jews such a solid foundation they've endured, and indeed flourished, for millennia. Better, they've given humanity great wisdom; plus scientists, scholars, entertainers, philanthropists, and so much more.

KNOWLEDGE

After Darwin, Humanists assumed that God had been banished; that the Bible was only a fairy tale. Now, geneticists have discovered that all humans now alive are descended from a single Mitochondrial Eve, who lived in Africa tens of thousands of years ago. Meanwhile, archaeologists continue to verify the Scriptures.
When Copernicus discovered that the Earth is not the center of the universe, Humanists rejoiced. But then Hubble found out that the entire universe flashed into existence in one instant, which his rival Hoyle soon dubbed the Big Bang. Not only that, but its underlying physical laws were so precisely 'tuned' that stars, chemistry, and intelligent life would later emerge.
Humanists believe that nothing could be as powerful or pervasive as God is supposed to be. Yet physics is now positing the existence of quantum singularities, Higgs fields, Hilbert space, and more. Weird and subtle infinities all over the place!
Anything that moves at an infinite speed is effectively omnipresent. Since that something also underlies the entire cosmos, it would by definition be omnipotent. Having made the rules in the first place, its only limits would be the ones it placed upon itself. (The Church Fathers stated this a lot more eloquently.)
But how could God comprehend everything, all at once? Without a speed-of-light limit, computability is also unrestricted. You've heard of the Pentium 4, so how about a Pentium Infinity ?

CONCLUSION

Here's a challenge to Humanists. One of their greatest bugbears is the idea of Life After Death, and especially communication those who have passed on. Most people think it happens, even while doubting séances held for thrills, or for money. The real point is, do humans have a component other than physical, or not?
What if that component is separated from observation by a fourth spatial dimension? What if it's something like the exotic 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' that now confound astronomers? What if tachyons turn out to be real? (That could explain things like precognition.) Or, as Roger Penrose says, our neurons have a direct quantum component?
It might even be possible to discover and study the immortal human soul--and remain an atheist! But that's not likely. Whatever our spirits are made of has a source, and that Source will be as obvious as the Sun is to its companions here on this Earth.
Genuine wisdom includes knowing the limits of reason and belief. When desire is informed by belief and reason, with sincere humility, then success and happiness can follow. One popular, real-life example is depicted in Homer Hickam's book The Rocket Boys, and its movie version October Sky. The hagiographies of the saints, both Catholic and Buddhist, offer countless other examples.
I'll meet you back here in ten thousand years, and we'll talk.

by Paul Carlson

Top of Page

DOUBTERS

Part One

This two part article is about the reality and goodness of God. Not so much as an emotional experience, but about coming to an intellectual understanding. Your author has enjoyed some lively online exchanges on this subject, and from these I've drawn several key points.
In this first half we'll talk about the internal, subjective evidence for a good God. Next time, we'll look at objective proofs.

ATHEISTS

Surveys indicate that over 90% of Americans believe in God, or at least, some type of Higher Spirit. Normally this is a comforting enhancement to one's life, but sometimes it can foster an abrasive fundamentalism. Either way, that belief is often based upon emotions, or childhood faith, as much as intellectual conviction.
Militant atheists are busy crusading against belief. In defiance of logic, they've concluded that no type of God exists. (One cannot always 'prove a negative,' especially about something intangible.) However, this anti-believing minority of Americans may not be as certain of their position as they sound. In fact, their convictions often mirror those of the people they mock.
Many atheists have a rebellious attitude toward Authority Figures, usually stemming from their own childhood. Others are cynical deconstructionists, with a mind set to challenge any and all beliefs, the more popular the better. For certain people, since God is omniscient, the idea that "someone can see what I've been up to" is cause enough for alarm, and thus for denial.
Unfortunately, some atheists have experienced a senseless tragedy, and concluded that "a loving God would never allow such a thing to happen." For them, I recommend Rabbi Harold Kushner's excellent book When Bad Things Happen to Good People

AGNOSTICS

A more rational position, one taken by a huge number of intellectuals, is Agnosticism. Simply put, they are doubters, admitting they do not know for sure.
Often they'll point out the sheer diversity of human beliefs, with all their apparent contradictions, and then question how anyone could settle upon the correct one. In this regard, please recall the famous parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant. The Divinity is vast, and has many aspects!
I am addressing this article to agnostics, and to the people who love them. Decades ago, in his book Mere Christianity, CS Lewis also spoke to doubters, in a plain and lucid fashion I can only hope to emulate.

SOULMATES

Is there too much evil in the world? Yes! But that's no reason to doubt God. Humanity has done well, despite all those destructive tendencies.
Not only that, but we all seek goodness, and good people. In growing up, no matter how awful their surroundings, young people dream about finding a soulmate. Even folks who've pretty much given up on that, for themselves, will enjoy books and movies in which the protagonist does find a soulmate. To acknowledge this yearning for true love, and still deny God, is like saying, "We all get thirsty, but water does not exist."
Where do people keep all this love, or for that matter, evil? (The dreams, the influences, and everything.) Not just inside a material brain, that's for sure. We also have an invisible soul.
One example would be a TV set. You can mess up the image on its screen, or turn it off, and even unplug the thing. But that does not affect this 'immaterial' TV signal, which you otherwise cannot perceive. Nor does altering the physical set shut down the broadcasting station, which is the enduring Source of the TV's special character and value.
Another metaphor would be candles, as in, the relationship between candle and flame. The flame cannot 'come to life' without its material support. An unlit candle is not 'dead,' however, it has no fulfillment. Can either reach fulfillment without the other? No! Flame is only colored plasma, but if you unstructure your mind a little, it makes a lot of sense.
Agnostics have a soul, too, and its core is good.

JUDGMENT

Many agnostics know all about the bloody history of religion, and worry that belief in God (especially, any self-proclaimed Only True Faith versions) might increase such tendencies. They also worry that a strict moral standard could make people more judgmental, and less tolerant. Never mind that humans have been violent and prejudiced all along, and for many reasons--or that atheistic Marxists are the worst of all.
Jesus, along with almost every saint and major religious figure, told us "not to judge others." He said that only God can see into our souls, so He alone will decide who goes to Heaven. The Divine Principle (in its Chapter 5) takes this a step further, explaining that people choose their own spiritual realm, based upon their life on Earth.
(Not that this eliminates the need for police and courts, much less individual discernment. Concerned people have a role as well.)
The agnostic need not fear. Genuine religions are about peace and harmony.

AFTERLIFE

In order to worry about the destiny of our souls, we have to accept that we each have one, and that it goes somewhere after our physical death. Agnostics see no scientific evidence for this, even while admitting that science keeps revealing all kinds of amazing (and previously invisible) things.
Some believers worry about this, saying people ought not seek proof; that the act itself implies a weakness of faith. They assert that faith and science are separate realms, with an unbridgeable gap.
Both atheists and fundamentalists will deem such worriers crazy, for trying to "compartmentalize their minds" and "maintain two contradictory beliefs" about the spiritual and the scientific. Happily, other believers will respond that, in a larger context, it's not a problem at all, personally or in theory. God created both realms!
Actually, there's nothing inexplicable about believing in an afterlife. The truth survives Ockham's Razor far better than vague brain theories or contradictory 'psychological fear' speculations. To wit: The spiritual reality is there. It exists.
Almost everyone perceives the spirit world to some degree, even though it's mostly evaded science. Certain people perceive it unusually well (historically and anecdotally a perilous blessing), and from the best of those people, humanity's lore, wisdom, and religions arise.
Agnostics can discern the basic truth, and embrace it safely.

SOCIETIES

Doubters have been told that Religion opposes Science, and that through all of history, it has been so. Actually, for monotheists the reverse is true. Vague and capricious Pagan beliefs stultified human societies. Cyclical beliefs (re-creation, a flourishing, then inevitable destruction) are ultimately futile, producing societies that tend to be resigned to an impersonal Fate. It was the Jewish concept of a rational, consistent, purposeful God that freed us from those mental bonds. (Read Thomas Cahill's excellent book The Gifts of the Jews.)
What about modern times? A doubter will sometimes point to Yokelville, the mythical Buckle of the Bible Belt. A place where the woman practice Kinder, Kirche, Kuchen or else; everyone believes Pat Robertson's every utterance, and parents beat their children for not obeying each silly rule. In this town, a simple reference to Evolution will get you ostracized, and Intelligent Design is Jesus' last hope for entering the public schools.
Does such a place exist?
Depends on who you ask. Atheists use it for condescending mockery, but an agnostic is genuinely worried about the influence of uncritical religious traditions. There really are a few isolated communities like this, but they are rare in the developed world. Meanwhile, whether it's a union member, political party loyalist, naive coed, or military recruit: anyone who prefers, or is required, to place themselves under the authority of another is at risk of exploitation. Critical thinking will help avoid such violations of trust.
Please understand that people who consider themselves bastions of Traditional Morality do have valid worries. Modern travel and economics have resulted in the scattering of families, the demise of noble traditions, and the weakening of morality. Loneliness and despair often result.
Third World, and especially Muslim, people look with horror upon this result, even as some of their own people embrace it. Their extremists become retrotopian, seeking a return to an idealized past.
Must progress and technology always cause this mess? A few scholars are saying it's the wrong argument, and perhaps a false dichotomy. Technology can unite families, too. Hyo Jin Nim [a Unificationist musician and producer] has the right idea, in harnessing modern culture to spread God's Way.
Either way, agnostics can stop blaming belief.

NO PROBLEM

No living person has any actual problem with God, and (at least since the Old Testament) nobody ever has. Their only worries are over some imagined version of God, presented by their own darkest fears, or by some human preacher who is ignorant or worse.
God's real Heart and concern are all for the good, and always have been. Doubting and questions are okay, and accepting the correct answers is better still.
This article continues with Part Two.

Top of Page

Doubters, Part Two

This is the second half of an article about doubters, also known as Agnostics. For their sake, and those who love them, we're discussing the evidence in favor of God. In this part, we'll look at several objective proofs. (By 'objective,' I mean evidence based upon accepted fact, if perhaps interpreted in a new light.)

TRADITIONAL PROOFS

Hundreds of books have been written about various Proofs of God's Existence. A standard philosophical one speaks of 'creation ex nihilo', a doctrine that squares with Big Bang theory. (Here is a Muslim interpretation; apparently the Koran squares with it as well or better.) Another avoids an infinite series of regresses with the necessity of an Uncaused Cause, or kalam.
One ancient argument, by Johannes Scotus Eriugena and others, speaks of "a Being greater than any other that can be conceived, and Whose nonexistence cannot be imagined." Others, such as Bishop Berkeley, held that our universe could only remain in existence because of Someone continually observing thus upholding it. (Esse est Percipi--to Be is to Be Observed.)
Intelligent Design advocates write of 'irreducible complexity,' and seek of special intervention. ('ID' became extremely controversial, and its opponents ought not feel smug -- the discussion continues.)
The Anthropic Principle describes the sheer improbability of our cosmos, while scholar Paul Davies explains the scientific difficulty surrounding the origin of life itself. (Read his thought provoking book The Fifth Miracle.) Meanwhile, plenty of doctors are questioning the tenets of Darwinian evolution.
I invite readers to research these issues further.

HISTORY

Agnostics worry about the bloody history of religion. In response, others will point out that (for example) a formal Inquisition was better than raging lynch mobs. Not all heretics were nice people . . .
In cases of injustice or atrocity, of which there have been plenty, note that ruthless men have always gravitated to centers of power and wealth. Today it might be Wall Street, or even a nonprofit activist group. Back then, it was some majestic cathedral, if not a baronial castle. In other words, you can blame those men, and not the church.
Not all religions are the same. The monotheistic faiths have a different foundation, and have affected civilization in a special way. (Dinesh D'Souza provides a wide-ranging look in his book What's So Great About Christianity.)
Some major theologies describe endless cycles of building and destruction. Others have promoted inaccurate and unworkable concept of the universe. For example, under the sway of al-Ghazali, medieval Islam short-circuited its great scientific advances. He renounced the then-new concept of 'secondary causation,' which had been embraced by the medieval Church Fathers. This concept allowed for a genuine Scientific Method to emerge, and thus, new theories and progress.
The old thinking was that all natural phenomena are simply "habits of God," and thus, "God willed it" is always a sufficient explanation. A relevant blog quotes National Geographic with a stark illustration of this mindset. (Scroll down to the section about the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir.)
On the other side of Asia, the Chinese court adopted Taoism, which (with its quirky deities and philosophical mysticism) ran directly counter to research and progress. Admiral Zheng's mighty fleet, which could've explored then dominated the globe, was brought home and scuttled.
Other religions and cultures have gone through similar phases--and there are modern scholars (both ultraliberal and reactionary) who'd do the same thing now! These remain difficult and controversial issues, and your author invites further input.
Misinformed agnostics will say that Christianity is to blame for medieval ignorance. In fact, established Christian scholars kept reason and knowledge alive throughout the Dark Ages. Jean Buridan, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, Nicolas Oresme, and dozens of others realized that God works through the natural world, and sought to understand both.
In essence, truth has built upon truth. Past thinkers knew God, and formed doctrines, as well as their times allowed. With a few retrotopian exceptions, each new Divine revelation, supplemented by new scientific discoveries, have made beliefs more accurate, and religions more beneficial.

SOCIOLOGY

One discussion concerning belief in God, more complex than its commonly-known "I'd rather bet on God" version, is called Pascal's Wager. Basically, when uncertain about such a crucial issue, it's better to make the more wise and logical choice.
As it happens, one can also choose to believe in God based upon solid and reliable data -- which doesn't require dying to verify anything!
Census and actuarial data show Americans in fine detail. In our large and diverse population, one group stands head and shoulders above the rest.

* They have the most property and wealth, manage and share it better, and continue this for longer periods. They recover best and soonest from 'external' disasters.
* They enjoy the finest health, and live by far the longest. They recover from accidents and illness faster and more completely.
* They enjoy sex a lot, in both frequency and intensity.
* They're the least likely to commit, or to become victims of, violent crime.
* They report the greatest level of happiness and satisfaction in their own lives, and with the people who share it.

I could go on, but this covers the basics pretty well. What young person, while growing up, wouldn't desire to experience all these?
Here's the kicker. Taken together, the above traits describe one particular group: long-time married, church-going people. This is true regardless of all other common factors.
Here are three concise online overviews. (The third link is a PDF file.)
Hearing this, an agnostic may tell you it's merely tradition, and the obvious result of a specific lifestyle encouraged by one's peer group. I'd say they have it backward; that God made us, and wise people choose to live according to His blueprint.
Here's a parallel situation: After discovering its efficacy against scurvy, British sailors began to carry lemon juice on long voyages. These 'Limeys' used it with confidence, and well before learning about vitamin C, much less its exact metabolic function.
A common analogy is: think of road signs and stop lights as the 'standard guidelines' for the Road to Your Personal Goal. You can declare your "total liberation" from such "oppressive and uptight social restrictions," and proceed much faster. But for how long?
Every lifestyle has direct, and pretty obvious, consequences. For example, rock musicians often die prematurely.
Agnostics are usually quite intelligent, but they can also be very stubborn. Would it not be the wisest course to pick the best lifestyle, gain its obvious benefits, and then develop a fuller understanding as you go along?

CULTURE

In my own family, for bedtime stories, we bought several collections of Native American legends. From these, and other sources, we noticed the universality of Past Paradise, Mistaken Fall, and Ongoing Redemption themes. These have been found in every human culture, including ones never in contact with Judaism or Christianity.
In history, religious people stood behind nearly all the great social advances. The very concept and practice of organized charity, and the first medical hospital, were pioneered by the Roman Catholic church. (A key point is that these institutions were -- and remain -- open to all people, including non-Catholics.)
On the other hand, science has produced medicine and weaponry.
Clergy people spearheaded the emancipation of slaves, and the Civil Rights movement; while Social Darwinians advocated formal racial eugenics, and Marxists plotted tragic revolutions.
Of course, some clergymen did try to preserve an awful past. But, for every such counter-example an agnostic will produce, there are a dozen retrograde (or outright destructive) actions by ideological firebrands, most of whom are vehemently anti-Christian. The VHEMT and Deep Ecology movements wave the banner of science. Not to mention racial zealots, Marxists, Earth and Animal Liberationists, Anarchists, and their allies.
Good intentions alone are never enough. As Martin Luther King said, "The ends do not justify the means. Rather, the means build the ends."

MORALITY

In his famous writings, C.S. Lewis points out the unshakable primacy of morals in human awareness. Even strict atheists use terms such as good/better and evil/worse, 'ought to' and 'ought not,' and crime versus the public interest. (Given their stated philosophy: why?) Meanwhile, those who act without any awareness of morality are judged criminally insane.
Humanists speak of "rising above our animal natures," and of "going beyond what Nature gave us." Rather than saying we "dodged around," or "should sink beneath" that nature. Much less, using neutral terms such as "become different than." Seems our old friend Morality keeps popping up everywhere!
Agnostics should pay close attention to honored practices such as infant (and more so, older child) adoption, especially by couples who already have biological children. Darwinians are at a total loss to explain this, while loving Believers understand perfectly.
In biology there are carnivores, parasites, egg-laying paralyzer wasps, and worse. "So then," a doubter will ask, "is the whole creation evil, or is human evil merely an aspect of nature?"
To which I respond, "No to both!"
Certain animals have rather disgusting habits. However, those are natural behaviors, and we tend to judge them by human standards. Standards that we, as moral beings, do possess -- while animals don't. Meanwhile, humans have achieved extremities of goodness and evil that no animal could hope to match. In a backhanded way, evil itself is evidence for God. (Here's a great essay on this topic.)
As for me, I'd use the example of Mother Teresa versus a Death Camp commander, but then I'd be invoking Godwin's Law, and somehow I've gotten all the way through these essays without doing so.

HEAVEN

The largest reason that people fail to believe in God is simple, even obvious, yet it's seldom discussed in this context. That is, our distance from the Ideal. Our lack of a clear vision of Heaven. (Some people imagine it would be a boring place!)
Each and every person; ever born, now alive, or arriving in the future; is eternal, has a unique character, and is of the highest value. (Even if there are plenty of people who do not know this, about themselves much less others, yet anyway.)
The purpose of the Creation, and of our lives, is joy. To experience it, and to share it with each other, and with God. To freely exchange pure and genuine Love and Beauty, and multiply it endlessly. To have secure and fulfilling eternal relationships; as a couple, family, and in wider circles. To unencumber our mind and willpower, thus to achieve vastly more than has been done in all of history, so far. Plus so much more, that we can scarcely imagine it.

FINAL CONCLUSION

Humans are experts at arguing, and no amount of evidence or persuasion will convince a person who doesn't want to be. A brain-scan study has shown how people respond to political facts. Anything unfavorable to their usual viewpoint or affiliation gets a different mental treatment, and meets with emotional denial rather than intellectual engagement.
Anyone who's discussed religion (or poltics) with strongly opinionated people doesn't need a fancy study to inform them about this reaction. If a person actually does change their mind, most likely they won't admit it, at least not right away.
It's always worthwhile to speak the truth. Best if it's put nicely, and in terms familiar to your specific audience. The most worried doubter may yet come around. Whatever your field, please think about how you can accomplish this. The world will be a better place for it.

I'd love to hear your feedback. Contact me at, cuebon \at\ aol /dot/ com, and make your subject line distinct.

You are visitor number:

Semi-important note:
I am linking to popular and relevant web sites. They are not my web sites. In most cases I have no connection to, or thorough knowledge of, the persons creating those sites. If you find any broken links, or a specific problem with a site's content, please let me know.

Top of Page

Home

Articles