Letters: Life or death. It’s your choice

In response to Michael Polito, Ph.D (“Religion is an outdated myth” Sept. 8): He is free to choose not to believe in a Creator God, but why does it bother him so much that some others choose to believe? It seems to me that the universe is so enormous and fantastic and life so complex and expansive that any theory that attempts to explain the origin of either must almost by definition be a pretty incredible story requiring a great deal of faith.

As far as scientific theory goes, the popular “big bang” theory doesn’t attempt to explain the origin of the universe. The Big bang begins with the existence of something (presumably gas) followed by an event (the bang). That is not the origin of the universe. The origin of the universe must explain that moment in time at which nothing existed anywhere in any form and in the next moment in time something existed. The only attempt at a “scientific” explanation of the origin of the universe that I have heard was offered by Stephen Hawking, the renowned astrophysicist, in his book, “A Brief History of Time”:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” He says, “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”

Spontaneous creation? Really? This is what science offers us? How can those who criticize belief in God as religious dogma have faith that a nonexistent universe can create itself? Try that sometime. It sounds like quite a trick.

Science has no theory that has been shown to even be plausible, much less reproducible, that explains how to create something out of nothing. This is not science, but simply another paradigm of thinking that allows some people to believe what they are comfortable believing.

We do get to choose what we believe. To believe in creation of the universe and human life by a loving God which offers us a relationship with our creator in life, and after death the promise of an eternity of joy and peace. Or, we can choose to believe in the “scientific” explanation of origin of the universe and human life, in which case we count on self-reliance in life, and after death we can look forward to decomposition. You get to choose.

Wayne Dodge

homebuilder

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by prbeav - 17/09/2012

Chem, I agree it is a perplexing problem.>>As in all considerations, I think the right approach is education for understanding as opposed to education for indoctrination. Also, sharing good impressions, such as Kahlil Gibran's in "On Children," which I paraphrase as follows: Your children neither belong to you nor think like you. You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.>>If parents knew their children will eventually learn of humankind's opposition to adults inculcating beliefs into children, it would have an effect.>>I appreciate your concern, as action is the entire purpose of our quest.

2) Comment by chem - 16/09/2012

prbeav: How can it be stopped? One way to keep parents from from ruining their children's education is to bar teaching religion in school, regardless of type of school. All schools, public, private, and parochial could not teach religion, other than a comparative course. Another way would be to ban all religion from children until they are of a certain age, perhaps something near 18. Neither of the aforementioned will ever come to pass.

3) Comment by prbeav - 16/09/2012

Chem, I strongly disagree that parents have the right to ruin their children's education. People tend to overlook that children are people and citizens. I think each child should have a coach, outside the family. Some of the ideas from coaching, which need to be tailored for the age of the child but perhaps taught at each age: you are part of humankind and humankind cannot function well if you don't function well; you were born pure--without blemish, but the community will present to you falsehoods which can slowly diminish your potential for excellence; you were born uninformed about what humankind understands and humankind's understanding increases exponentially; therefore, it is your duty to yourself to let nothing stand in the way of your understanding. That's enough to give the idea.>>My parents were great middle-class providers, who always did their best, and I managed. However, I wish I had had a coach to encourage me to read beyond the Bible for four decades.>> It took my never ending concern plus appreciation for a loved one's opinions to break me out of the fundamentalist indoctrination I suffered.

4) Comment by chem - 16/09/2012

So, Mildred, you commend jindal for "neatly working around this by providing funds ..." You may commend him, but condemn him. Where do you think those funds are coming from? Manna sent from heaven? No, no. It is public money from taxpayers. I agree, if a parent wants to ruin their child by teaching them nonsense, so be it. But don't ask the taxpayers to underwrite your religious brainwashing.

5) Comment by potkcalb - 16/09/2012

Mildred you are contradicting yourself. You say that religion should not be taught in public schools, and then you turn around and say that you approve of government funding for educational institutions that, as we know, incorporate and inculcate religious teaching. Apparently you and ScotB want it both ways! ABayouBoy perhaps you can answer your own question as to why we have such a high crime rate in the U.S. since we are the most religious of the industrialized nations. And as I have pointed out before, violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, assault) is more prevalent in the 16 states normally considered to be part of the Bible belt than in the remaining 34, the average number of crimes 495 for the former, 361 for the latter.

6) Comment by ScotB - 16/09/2012

Me too, Mildred. Put me down for supporting a parent's right to choose. Great phrase!

7) Comment by chem - 16/09/2012

That is the biggest bunch of tripe. Survey after survey shows that the more secular a country is (or state) the happier the people are, the more giving, less hateful, and less crime. Just the opposite is found for the most religious countries (states). At least do a modicum of research before commenting on topics you don't have a good understanding about.

8) Comment by ABayouBoy - 16/09/2012

Okay, I have to say this. To all of those who do not wish to believe in the after-life. Maybe there is, and maybe there isn't.....but, doesn't it make one wonder about our attitude toward life? If you don't believe, most will likely have a narrow "view" of the world which is "condensed" down into the time frame of their lifetime. They tend to be (most, but not all), more selfish, self- centered, greedy, materialistic, and basically uncaring, unfeeling people - unless it affects "their" own little center of the world. Believers, on the other hand, tend, for the most part to be more caring, unselfish, courteous, friendly, honest, cheerful, etc....need I continue. Basically, they are better people. Both to others, and to themselves. Belief is a state of mind that transcends the mere materialistic. If you consider yourself to be an atheist, look at the "facts". Why such a high rate of crime in the US? Most likely due to the breakdown of the moral standards of our society.

9) Comment by chem - 16/09/2012

How can you say the state is not supporting public schools? Tax money is being used to send children to what can only be described as indoctrination camps for the fringe religious wackos. They will not get an education at these schools, only a healthy dose of lies and brainwashing. I still hold out hope that the courts will stop this insanity.

10) Comment by Mildred Citizen - 15/09/2012

As I predicted, vitriol from the folks too smart to believe in God. I would just say I agree that religion should not be taught in public schools. I commend Governor Jindal for neatly working around this by providing funding for education to the parents and letting the parents choose which educational institution to send their children. This way, the state is not directly supporting religious education. I support a parent's right to choose.

11) Comment by ex-louisianian - 15/09/2012

"It does not take much of an intellect to believe in a god." Massively intellectual people have attempted to resolve the inherent contradictions and logical errors of Christianity into a pattern consistent with physical reality and (real) morality, in the same way clever children attempt to align all the squares of a stubborn Rubik's cube. This letter to the editor, however, is not evidence of such an intellect.

12) Comment by Chucky - 15/09/2012

@DMJ "Religion, or lack thereof, should be a private thing, no? " as i have said at times i agree with you and this is one of those times, and you said it with out calling any one , well you said it nice.

13) Comment by chem - 15/09/2012

It does not take much of an intellect to believe in a god. It is, indeed, the lazy way out. After all, it was primitive man, who knew essentially nothing about the universe, that invented gods to explain the world around him. Oh, there is thunder so the gods must be angry. •••• It takes much more ingenuity to discover WHY AND HOW there is thunder. Einstein, who literally changed the world of physics, had to wait several years before his general theory of relativity was accepted. Yes, the math worked out, but that did not prove that it explained or predicted the real world. He had to wait until a total eclipse of the sun for astronomers to gather enough data to show that light from stars was bent by the gravitation of the sun. After several failed attempts because of weather and a war, astronomers finally had enough data which unambiguously showed that Einstein was correct. In fact, the measurements were exactly what Einstein predicted. •••• What is my point, you may be asking? The point is that if someone postulates a new theory of gravity, a new biological species, a new chemical reaction, or a god, than the onus is on that person to prove, with clear evidence, that their postulate is true. This is why religious people get nervous, upset, and begin to evade the question when asked to prove there is a god. After thousands of years, there is no proof whatsoever. That in itself is enough to dismiss the notion of a god.

14) Comment by serenade - 14/09/2012

chem, you are right in one sense. I, as a believer (though not one who reads the Bible with a literal viewpoint - I happen to believe that the creation stories are myth and that most of the Pentateuch and the History books are actually folk history -that is, myth that is so integrated into the little history that is actually there that it renders it more folklore than history), can't give you a rational basis for faith. There is none. There is no earthly reason why I should believe in any higher power. But I do. I also believe in scientific fact and don't try to deny it. Religious debate never will go anywhere. There really is no middle ground, there is no changing minds, and, ultimately, religion is a deeply personal matter. If you surveyed any congregation in any denomination or faith in this city about what they believe, each person there is going to give you a different answer, unless they just parrot back the party line (which most people in the pews couldn't actually do). Having letters like this on the editorial page doesn't do anything. Occasionally, however, a letter about politics, or a local non-profit, or pretty much anything but religion will at least make me think. These letters don't serve any purpose except to make either the religious or the non-religious angry.

15) Comment by chem - 14/09/2012

serenade: So what topics would you like to see on the opinion page? Politics? That's a topic on which all can agree! Foreign policy? Recipes? Ford vs Chevy? Climate change? Ecology and the environment? Many topics are quite contentious, but that does not mean they shouldn't be discussed. The problem with the religious debate is that the believers can offer nothing but the same old crass, empty arguments that have been given since religions were started.

16) Comment by prbeav - 14/09/2012

@serenade: for DMJ's agreement to be completed, religion needs to become private. That means no more "under God," in the pledge and other such tyranny over the minds of the people.>>You can help put this issue to rest by lobbying for an amendment to the Constitution, replacing the word "religion" in the First Amendment with the word "thought.">>I sense Baton Rouge, the capital city of Louisiana, is following through with a revolution that will make the Family Forum and Governor Jindal wish they had never plied their foolishness here. Do you feel it?

17) Comment by ex-louisianian - 14/09/2012

The fundamentalists want to use all the coercive powers of the state to privilege his (it's always "his") own unique version of true religion onto everyone else. The fundamentalists never intend to convince; in fact, in the West, they have never been able to convince nonbelievers and skeptics with their tired ontological arguments since Voltaire's day. What the fundamentalists want is only to dominate and compel, and have gotten quite adamant about it.

18) Comment by serenade - 14/09/2012

I am speaking as a Christian when I say this, and I hope the editorial page editor is reading. I am so utterly sick of these letters in The Advocate. The atheists who write are never going to convince the Christians to give up belief. The Christians who write are never going to convince the atheists to wake up one day and say, "You know, I DO believe in God after all." The creationists are never going to convince those who believe in evolution that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that Adam and Eve were real, actual people. And you are never going convince young earth creationists that fossil evidence, carbon dating, etc., are evidence of evolution and adaptation over time. Just please, please, please...put this issue to rest. When DMJ and phil agree, it is time to take notice.

19) Comment by Bouncer - 14/09/2012

I think part of the problem (admittedly, a perhaps small part) is that those who espouse belief in a god and adherence to a set of creeds are laboring under the mistaken supposition that non-religious people are somehow "bothered" by their belief in a god and a religion. To my way of thinking, what "bothers" the non-religious is not the "faith" of the religious. What bothers us (and what ought to disturb any thinking person) is the attempt by religious adherents to appropriate venues that are not (and should not be) under the aegis of religion (such as public education) and to promulgate those religious beliefs in those venues. Look at it this way. Members of a Baptist congregation (used only as an example) would be completely taken aback, and rightly so, if atheists tried to infiltrate the Baptists' venue (their church) through insidious means or through government sanction. That's what bothers the non-religious---the attempt by some religious factions to infiltrate an inappropriate venue, such as the classroom (the science classroom, particularly) with their non-scientific narrative.

20) Comment by chem - 14/09/2012

Mr. Dodge missed the point of the letter. It was about the danger of teaching religion (creationism, intelligent design, et al) in public schools. Dodge and others can believe in all the myths they want, just don't impose those fairytales on everyone else.

21) Comment by nimby? - 14/09/2012

"may the Schwartz be with you" ....

22) Comment by 8point6 - 14/09/2012

Nothing new here. My "progressive" friends are all worked up about Wayne's letter. Good!

23) Comment by DMJ - 14/09/2012

Barookatahh...Allelujiah!!!

24) Comment by nimby? - 14/09/2012

DMJ , amen ....

25) Comment by DMJ - 14/09/2012

I agree with phil and nimby. Enough with the religion/anti-religion letters. It just encourages us trolls and gets everyone riled up. Religion, or lack thereof, should be a private thing, no?

26) Comment by nimby? - 14/09/2012

the Advocate is getting a lot of mileage on this subject ; lot of wasted words with little results . on the other hand we've been having some great weather , for this I am thankful ....

27) Comment by phil - 14/09/2012

I believe in God and also find the universe and this Earth and life just to complex to have created itself out of nothing to form what we have now. Now that I have stated that, I want to go on to other important issues like the local mayor race in Baton Rouge, the sewer cost increases etc etc.. I think I have already made my point here about God and the fact that God does exist. Amen.

28) Comment by DMJ - 14/09/2012

I wonder if Mr. Dodge realizes the irony of his last paragraph. It confirms what atheists have been saying for decades: people believe in religion because they fear the unknown, especially death. It's easy. It's lazy. It's self-serviing. It's refreshing to hear a Christian actually admit it. "What happens when you die?" the impressionable child asks. "You go to Heaven where everything is perfect and you can be with Jesus, Mary and Grampa and Gam-Gam again," the parent replies.

29) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 14/09/2012

Triple, ignorant does not equal stupid. Ignorance is just a lack of knowledge, but many like Mildred refuse to actually learn. (Hence, her implied insult in putting quotations around intellectuals). And apologies for my typing skills. An iPad keyboard is quite small.

30) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 14/09/2012

[e-mail], let's follow your analogy. Atheists don't care which end you open your on, but what we dislike is the little end folks trying to tell us that we must also open our eggs on the little end. Get it now? And imam talking to Mildred as well. Not that religious zealots ever pause from their proselytizing to open their ears or eyes.

31) Comment by Triple - 14/09/2012

@Potkcalb, Mildred=Ignorant, you know that's not nice, how about intellectually challenged?

32) Comment by 8.3 - 14/09/2012

Dodge must be a school board member. If not, he looks to be qualified.

33) Comment by [e-mail] - 14/09/2012

"...why does it bother him so much that some others choose to believe?" This is also always been what I don't understand. I wonder if Polito has a problem with people who open their eggs on the little end?

34) Comment by potkcalb - 14/09/2012

Better the "intellectuals" than the ignorant Mildred Citizen.

35) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 14/09/2012

Spudaroonski...To quote Catholic Church elementary school rote.."God is, always was, and will always remain the same. Amen I can remember saying this everyday in religion class for 6 years.

36) Comment by Spudaroonski - 14/09/2012

I always get a kick out of religious people who use the argument that something just can't possibly spring from nothing. Then they do an about face and use that exact same logic to justify their belief in their creator. So tell me...who created the creator? Here's what you fail to grasp Wayne. Non believers don't give a flip what you believe. It's only when you try to force your beliefs and your idea of morality down peoples throats is when we have a problem with it. To all the religious junkies out there try this. Treat your religion like your genitals and don't whip them out unless someone ask to see them.

37) Comment by Mildred Citizen - 14/09/2012

You are right, Wayne. Faith in God really gets the faithless worked up! You can expect a lot of insults and snide remarks in response to your letter from these "intellectuals".

38) Comment by Bighug - 14/09/2012

I agree with all the comments by krl777. The letter asks why it bothers Polito that others believe. Did he come to your door asking you to believe the same as he does? Are there syndicated radio and TV programs airing daily asking you to give up your belief and think as he does? I suggest that Dodge follow the advice in his Bible and remove the plank from his own eye before going for the mote in another's.

39) Comment by krl777 - 13/09/2012

Dodge ends with the words of a mafia thug: Believe in my God, or you'll be sleepin wit de fishes. As for the rest, Dodge exaggerates both the coherence of the Biblical account, and the absurdity of the scientific account. We can infer a big bang event from galactic red shifts. It may be speculation that the big bang was spontaneous, but if time didn't exist before the big bang, that may be as good a word for it as any. So the scientific account is not mired in absurdity. As for creation of all of matter out of nothing by a non-material being which existed forever -- that truly is absurd.