Dear Mr. Atheist:
Greetings, my dear confused friend, Mr. Atheist. I have desired
for such a long time to dialogue with you about your most morbid and
despairing view on life, and would have contained myself from doing
so, until I heard you speak about how you had elevated your philo-
sophy from despair to hope. I mean, come now Mr. Atheist, you can't
expect us to be convinced that you consider yourself a "person" now,
and that there truly is a difference between "right" and "wrong", or
that you are any more than the matter you are made of, since you now
boast of a human "soul" or "spirit". My arrogant friend, you are
beginning to sound far too religious. Any man in his right mind
surely knows that these terms are those founded and defended by your
so-called "opium of the masses"; those intolerant, hypocritical,
ignorant, poor, confused people (as you surely shouldn't hesitate to
admit) that claim to know God and serve Him. Poor wretches, haven't
they heard that there is no God, nor will there ever be a God (a
truth of which you are quite convinced).
As for your first claim, your claim that you are truly a
personal being, please I beg of you, give me one rational reason why
you should most brazenly boast of this matter. You, of all people,
should realize that all of the known universe (besides this black
sheep we call man) is of a non-personal nature.
A person wills, is self-conscious, communicates, appreciates,
loves, grows in intelligence, and displays a certain amount of
self-will. Now, that I am a being wholly composed of matter is one of
the fundamental tenets of your camp. That I am nothing more than this
body combined with complexity is the position upon which you must
defend (even though of late many of you are speaking of a "soul" or
"spirit", terms in which you should know better in using, but more on
that later). When it comes to the nature and being of man, your
belief (and oh how you hate that dreaded word!) is in the philosophy
of materialism. You boldly claim that "Everything that is, is
material". You blindly assume the validity of the theory of
empiricism which states that knowledge must be restricted to those
objects which can be perceived by our senses. Thus a man and a rock
are, in your theory, relatively the same. Both are just a collection
of atoms. The only apparent difference (and in this philosophy the
key word is "apparent", since in essence, there really is no
difference) is that one is more complex than the other. Yet since I
am material (and only material) and the rock is material, we find
ourselves in a dilemma. Either I must explain why I, as a
self-conscious individual, can feel, reason, think, love, hate, etc.;
or I must explain why the rock does NOT think, feel, reason, love,
hate, etc.
But oh how we strive as man to think that we have a dignity, an
honor, something that will explain why we seem to be different in a
much greater way than just mentioned from a rock. That there is no
essential difference, you, my cavalier Mr. Atheist, must boldly
proclaim.
But this conclusion is ridiculous and is not satisfying to
modern man's reasonings. Do you mean to tell me a totally impersonal
universe all of a sudden puked up this freak of nature, this orphan
of orphans, this being who claims to have self-consciousness and
self-will, and left him to fend for his own against an entire
universe of impersonal things! Poor, poor man! He cries out for an
answer to his personhood, for a reason for his apparent uniqueness
and dignity, but there is no explanation, nor will there ever be an
answer, for there is nothing and no one to answer him. He is a fluke,
a mistake, a slip, an error, a blunder, the world's greatest blooper.
And as man strives for a hope, an answer, anything that may make it
seem as if he has any inherent value or worth, he must rest quietly
in despair and truly realize that he was never meant to be; a
solitary creature of chance who is unlike anything else in all of
creation. So my dear Mr. Atheist, far from being a person, you must
rest assured in the "fact" (for it is the logical conclusion of your
view) that though we may refer to man as a personal being (for it is
a comfort to think of ourselves that way, seeing that that is how
things appear to be), we are deceiving ourselves and must accept
ourselves as we really are: Complexity plus matter.
My, my, my Mr. Atheist, what a complex machine you are! A toast
to this freak of the universe called man; three cheers for the orphan
of the cosmos. Hip, hip, hooray, and all that rot.
"Ah, but it is not nice to call people machines," you say. "It
is not proper, nor mannerly, nor right to talk about people so rudely
with no regards for their feelings."
I'm sorry, but did I hear you correctly. Did you say that
something was not "right"? Do you mean that it is "wrong" then? Do
you mean that it is "evil" and not "good"? Wait a minute, Mr.
Atheist, there you go using those religious words again. You've got
to stop that you know, it could ruin your reputation. "Right,"
"wrong," "good," "evil," are words that indicate that there is some
ultimate and absolute standard of morality. You know that can't be
true. If there is nothing else of which you can be confident, you are
absolutely (absolutely?!) sure of this one fact: All truth is
relative. You should be ashamed of yourself, trying to promote your
morality on others. How judgmental, how intolerant, how
self-righteous of you. Are you of the opinion that your standard is
any better than mine? Shouldn't you rather say, "It is my own
personal opinion that you should not refer to people as machines."
Then I could reply that, "It is my own personal opinion that we
should call people whatever we darn well please." We would then be in
a dilemma. We have two opposing views. How will we know who is right?
We will attempt to compare both our views to a perfect standard, and
decide which view better conforms to that standard. But wait! Where
did the standard come from? Surely not from the impersonal universe,
for an impersonal universe can offer no personal moral guidance. It
is then reasonable to assume that there is no absolute moral
standard. Therefore, if I say, "It is my own personal opinion that
the purpose of life is to purge the planet of this evil, orphan
entity; man," and you say, "No! The continuation of the human species
is of utmost importance," then I would have to reply, "Why?" Well,
why? Man is just a fluke, a blunder, a cosmic mistake, we have
already proven that. You think the human species is valuable and
should be continued at all costs, and I think that the human species
is a stench in an impersonal universe's nostrils and should be
exterminated at all costs. Who's right? Surely, you're not going to
give me any self-righteous bull and assure me that your view must be
right. I will just have to counter you and say my view must be right.
You see, "right" and "wrong" have no meaning in our conversation.
Neither term stands for absolute rightness in all situations and at
all times or absolute wrongness in all situations, at all times.
"Right" and "wrong" in our conversation stand for nothing more than
our own opinions. You must admit, that unless you are still hanging
on by a thread to the Judeo-Christian ethic, that it is quite
possible that the extermination of the species of man might be the
answer to all things. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there truly are
no morals Mr. Atheist, just opinions.
My, my, my Mr. Atheist, what a self-righteous bigot you are.
You see, I rather think it is quite "right" to refer to
something truly. A dog is a dog is a dog is a dog I say. If someone
is a wonderful machine, I don't mind telling them a bit. And if they
are a useful machine, I especially like to complement them. Of
course, if they are handicapped and broken, inconvenient, or just
plain don't fit in well with the other machines, then again I don't
mind telling them that they need to move over and make room for the
better machines. Utilitarianism, they used to call it. Society, the
mass of people, decide what is right and wrong based on the innate
worth of each machine's contribution to the society as a whole
(understand that "right" and "wrong" in this context is in relation
to society and its welfare, and not to any outside absolute standard;
just the way we like it, huh Mr. Atheist). A society where those in
power are assured of being major contributors and can therefore
direct the society in the direction which they think is best for the
majority of the machines. A philosophy that is founded upon
pragmatism and the changing views of those in power. Ah yes, nothing
like seeing a machine that never got past pre-building stages, that
would have had no use in society (and not only that, but would have
been a tremendous inconvenience to the incubator apparatus), being
terminated and disassembled to make room for those who will benefit.
It's a wonderful thing striving for the good of society, don't you
think, Mr. Atheist (kinda' brings a tear to my eye just thinking
about it).
Ah, Mr. Atheist, defender of truth, moral values, social
welfare, peace and good-will among men. Where would we be without
your great knowledge which transcends the minds of men everywhere! A
knowledge that erects such structures as Utilitarianism, Pragmatism,
Materialism, Marxism, Euthanasia, Abortion, and all other strange and
wonderful things which further the cause of mankind. God bless you,
Mr. Atheist! Oops, I'm sorry (I used the G word, that should only be
used in church, or in cussing, along with the J word), I meant Sod
bless you! You know, sod, the ground, the earth, your mother. After
all, you did spontaneously generate from the materials of your
wonderful mother. It can truly be said then, in a sense, that she is
your mother. I know, I know, you don't buy this new paganism which
gives personality and will to material things, ...yet aren't.. you...
just... material; matter and nothing more. Don't you claim to have
(in spite of all evidence to the contrary) personality, will, and
morals. Didn't she in a sense, even in a remote back-handed way, give
birth and life to you? Ascribing personality to material objects
isn't that far-fetched an idea now, is it, Mr. Atheist! You should
know.
Mother Earth has truly blessed us with such wonderful machines,
hasn't she, Mr. Atheist. Since we all came from one source, maybe we
are all one after all. Maybe we need to get back to basics, to find
ourselves in the nature that gave birth to us. Maybe we can tap into
the creative powers that gave us consciousness. Maybe, if we can just
get in touch with that oneness within ourselves, then we can share it
with others, and mankind could truly experience peace. Maybe we are
the g...ods?! We are unique, you know.
And now, dear Mr. Atheist, you have gone full circle. In denying
the fact that there is an transcendent, rational, personal God which
created all, you have come to find that the next best substitute for
that God is man himself. You have come to worship yourself in a
sense. You believe that mankind can perfect himself, regardless of
all the evidence to the contrary. You believe that the changing tides
of society (mankind in plural) can define morals. You are convinced
that there is a reason to exist, even though you are a mistake to
start out with. You have come to the pinnacle of your evolution. The
next big step could be the G word (Of course, then you will have to
retract your belief in atheism, for atheists say that there is no God
now, nor ever will be one). Mankind, the greatest machine ever known,
master of his destiny, maker of all morals, the supreme being in
every sense of the word!
In the final analysis Mr. Atheist, you have a greater faith than
I. "Oh come now," you exclaim, "surely you jest." But it is true, Mr.
Atheist. For some reason you claim to be personal when an impersonal
universe does not produce personal beings. For some reason you claim
to have ethics, but there is no reason for anyone to be assured that
your values are more "right" than any other person's. Disregarding
logic altogether, you would have all men to believe that (1) life
came from nonlife, (2) personality came from non-personality, (3)
everything ultimately came from nothing, (4) order came from chaos,
(5) reason came from irrationality, and (6) morality came from
amorality. Quite a list of premises wouldn't you say. I find it awful
hard to believe such preposterous claims without some evidence. HOW
COME YOU DON'T? Is it because the only other alternative is...no,
that's not possible. Forget I even said anything. Let's just suffice
it to say that you have faith. Yet it is not the kind of faith that I
have. You see, there are two kinds of faith. Faith based upon
evidence, and faith irregardless of the evidence. The first is called
evidential faith, the second is called blind faith. The six premises
listed above that you would have me to believe: Can you give me ample
evidence that they are true? Or must I just believe them with a blind
faith?
Thanks, Mr. Atheist, but no thanks. I'll stick with my faith
founded upon evidence. You see I believe that a personal, infinite,
rational, loving God created the universe. Because He is personal, He
has the capabilities to create a personal being. Because He is an
infinite, rational Creator, He has the ability to lay down an
absolute moral code that He has the right to impose upon His
creation. Because He is loving, He has made Himself known in the
person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ claimed to be God the Son made
flesh, sharing in our humanity. Jesus Christ claimed to be the only
way to God. God the Father set His seal of approval upon the
testimony and teachings of Jesus by raising Him from the dead so that
He lives forevermore at the right hand of the Father. The proof for
the veracity of the resurrection is overwhelming and thoroughly
convincing when examined. I believe that Jesus truly rose from the
dead, and that He is the Lord of the universe. I believe that because
of the great mass of evidence. How about you, Mr. Atheist? Are you
willing to examine the evidence, or will you continue with your vain
hope and your blind faith? Of course, if you want to examine this
with an open mind, you'll have to go through a bit of an alteration.
You'll have to at least admit the possibility of a personal,
infinite, rational God. To do that we will have to change your name.
You'll have to change your name to Mr. Agnostic. This won't be too
painful and hopefully you won't have to keep this name too long (it
does seem a little awkward, doesn't it). After you have examined the
evidence, we can then change your name back to Mr. Atheist, or to Mr.
Christian, whichever you prefer, depending upon what you decide.
Sincerely,
Mr. Evangelist
Written by: Richard J. Vincent
If you would like to examine the
evidence, you may either write me,
leave a message on this BBS, or
contact me on Prodigy KDCB44A. You may
also phone me at 317-271-0864.
