Skip to main content

Comfort of Religion or Truth of Atheism


As I have noted in the past, one suggestion that really bothers me is the one that asserts that evolutionists have all the brilliant minds on their side while Creationists get the ones too weak-minded to make it in academia. Darwinists act as if their team has all the jocks while we get the rejects, the ones not picked to play the game.

One of the weapons in their arsenal of demonizing our side is the “comfort of religion” missile. The way this one works is by pointing to our belief in God as a crutch—as something we lean on because we are too scared to come to grips with the fact that we, and life, are meaningless.

So we are said to be holding onto our precious comfort of religion like a child desperately contending that Santa Claus is real, even though he is beginning to see evidence to the contrary. We lay our heads on our collective pillow, and finally drift off to sleep comforting ourselves with our religion.

As atheist philosopher Paul Kurtz put it, “Religious systems of belief, thought, emotion, and attitude are products of the creative human imagination. They traffic in fantasy and fiction, taking the promises of long-forgotten historical figures and endowing them eternal cosmic significance.”

Apparently when Kurts thinks of Jesus, he thinks “long-forgotten historical figure.” Apparently Jesus’ millions of followers over 2,000 years are not enough for Kurtz.

But beyond that, notice what Kurtz is claiming: that it is our creative human imaginations that have created this belief system; it is our defense mechanism for coping in this world.

To carry Kurtz’s point out, if we would just do away with our make believe playtime, then we would finally come to terms with evolution and atheism.

In his book Atheism, the Case Against God, George H. Smith suggests, “If the choice must be made between the comfort of religion and the truth of atheism, many people will sacrifice the latter without hesitation.”

So we shrug off the truth of atheism in order to be comforted by our imaginary religion. I have written many articles refuting the notion that there is any truth to atheism/evolution, so I won’t do that here. But comfort of religion?

This idea would only sound good if Christians enjoyed problem-free lives, or if the Bible painted God as a fluffy teddy bear. Did Jesus have the comfort of religion in the Garden of Gethsemane or on the cross of Calvary? Did Paul have the comfort of religion when he was shipwrecked, beaten, snake bit, imprisoned, and beheaded? Did Peter have the comfort of religion when he was crucified upside down? Or when the other apostles were all killed for their faith?

Do the 165,000 Christians who are martyred worldwide each year have the comfort of religion?[1] Do the Chinese believers who have their tongues cut off for teaching the Bible have the comfort of religion? Did the Bible translators who were burned at the stake have the comfort of religion?

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be our Comforter, but He did not promise us an easy, pain-free life. So what comfort are we supposedly clinging to?

It appears to me it is the atheist that is clinging to comfort as he soothes himself with his pseudo-science, assuring himself that there is no God, Lord, or Judge.

I think the fact that so many people cling to God’s Word despite the persecution shows that religion is not for the weak; rather, history is filled with accounts of people bravely using their final words to appeal to their executioners to give their hearts to the Lord.

If I were faced with choosing the comfort of religion or the truth of atheism, I suppose I too would sacrifice the latter, but only because there is no truth in atheism.

 



[1] Guillen, Michael, Can a Smart Person Believe in God? Thomas Nelson Publishers, p.41-44 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The “Christians Hate Gays” Myth

During these Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) hearings before the Supreme Court I keep hearing how much Christians hate gay people. This was news to me since I am a Christian and I don’t hate gay people. I also go to church with over 1000 other Christians, and if any of them hate gay people, they sure haven’t told me. Before moving to South Carolina I worked at or attended several churches in Texas; prior to that I spent a decade going to church in Florida. Guess what? No one hated gay people. In fact, I don’t know any Christians who hate anybody. The very uniform of a believer is his love, and if a person does not show consistent love, then he is not actually a believer. Are there non-believers who hate gay people and claim to be Christian? Of course. But that doesn’t represent Jesus or His church. Equating  hateful sign-wavers with Christianity is like equating a kindergarten baseball team to the New York Yankees. They may claim to be playing the same

Famous Frauds in Homosexual Science Part 2: Twin Studies

A second piece of shoddy science has been heralded as proving people are born gay. This time, instead of cadavers, living twins were studied. This study compared male identical twins to male fraternal twins; in each set of twins, at least one man was homosexual. 22% of the fraternal twins showed both brothers to be gay, compared to 52% of the identical twins. Since identical twins are closer genetically than fraternal twins, this study claimed that genetics play in to homosexuality, or that people are born gay. But an obvious question that arose from this study is, why did 48% of the identical twins only have one gay brother? If they are so close genetically, then 100% of the identical twins should have two gay brothers. This study does more harm than good to the argument from genetics. There are other factors to be considered. One is that the men doing the study (Richard Pillard and Michael Bailey) could have intentionally picked fraternal twins that the

The Rose of Sharon and Lily of the Valley

If you have spent much time in church you have probably sung some songs with lyrics like these: “He leads me to his banqueting table, his banner over me is love… Jesus is the rock of my salvation, his banner over me is love.” “Sweetest rose of Sharon, come to set us free.” “He’s the lily of the valley, the bright and morning star…” But are those songs biblical? They come out of the writings of the Song of Solomon, but are we to understand those lines as describing Christ? The Song of Solomon is a collection of love poems that were written between two people who were deeply in love and about to be married. While we know that King Solomon is one of the writers, the other’s name has escaped us, and we know her today simply as the Shulamite woman. Some people believe that since this woman is not named then she never existed; some teach that this book is pure allegory, only existing to serve as symbolism. King Solomon, they say, represents