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

To Save a Life

(Like my blog about the peace symbol, this blog was written as a default response to all the parents, students, and other people who are asking my opinion of To Save a Life.) By now you have probably heard of the movie To Save a Life, which opened nation-wide in theaters on January 22nd. The movie deals with so many issues that teens face today, like suicide, cutting, drinking, drugs, premarital sex, teen pregnancy, and abortion. At first glance this movie looks like an awesome resource that we should recommend for our teens, parents, youth pastors, and youth workers. But a closer look at the movie reveals a few disturbing things. For starters, according to pluggedin.com, there are 2 uses of the “A” word, 5 uses of hell (used as a curse word), and once the “D” word is used. There are other crude terms used to describe a girl, and crude terms for referring to sexual activity. There is also a bedroom scene that shows a girl removing a boy’s shirt, then afterwards the girl putting he...

Catechism #15

Q. By what sin did our first parents fall from their original condition? 
A. Our first parents’ sin was eating the forbidden fruit. The first sin we see in the Bible was in the eating of the forbidden fruit by Adam and Eve. But as we saw last week, there are sins of commission and omission. The eating of the fruit was an act of commission—a sin that was committed in the Garden of Eden. But before Eve ever took her first bite, a few sins of omission occurred that led up to the sin of commission. First, notice that it was Eve, not Adam, that did all the talking with the serpent in Genesis 3. Yet it was Adam, not Eve, who was created as the spiritual leader of the family. For whatever reason Adam abdicated his role as the spiritual leader and stood silently by as Eve ate the fruit. After Eve’s bite, she gave it to Adam, and he ate it too. Not only did Adam omit his role as leader, Eve omitted her trust in the goodness of God. Not only did she misquote God ...

All Things To All Men

One of our favorite verses to use in our evangelism methods is where Paul said that he “becomes all things to all men” so that he might “by all means save some (I Corinthians 9:22).” This is certainly a good idea if we keep it in its proper context and application. For example, I remember a time in high school where I knew a kid that loved skateboarding. Being the chicken that I am, I was never a skateboarder. All he would talk about was skating, and I knew none of his lingo. But to help develop a relationship with him (he was new to our church and didn’t know many people), I brushed up on my skating lingo so I could ask if he had done any sick ollies lately (impressed?). This would be like Paul saying “to the skateboarder, I became a skateboarder.” This is effective and necessary. But then there are the people that use this verse to justify doing sinful things in the name of evangelism. The first one that comes to mind is about drinking. Some people will go into the bars to evan...