Dear editor,
This is in response to Nov. 12 op-ed article, ``True Deceiver." Very proportionally few would agree that religion is a comforting illusion, particularly because it's not always comforting nor is it an illusion in the view of most people.
Nor is there a contradiction between the application of reason and appeals to a supernatural entity. Many of the great philosophers (most, in fact) were not atheists.
The writer mentions ``a number" of supposed logical inconsistencies in the Bible but mentions only two, and they are easily refuted.
The author mentions that if one is to advocate a literal translation of the Bible (most Christians do not and neither do I), adulterers and those who break the Sabbath should be stoned to death.
Yet in the widely read (or so I thought) passage about the near-stoning of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), Jesus said, ``He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
No one condemned the woman, least of all Jesus. Is ``to cast the first stone" not a common idiom in English? Elsewhere, Jesus says the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27) and allows the picking of grain.
Jesus also healed the sick on the Sabbath (Luke 14:1-6, Matthew 12:9-13) and allowed circumcision on it (John 7:19-24).
It's difficult to refute points about ``Old Testament barbarism'' since the author doesn't cite a single instance of it nor does he bother to explain why one is unlikely to get a solid understanding of the world from a ``true believer'' or elaborate on the supposedly long history ``true believers'' being required to blindly follow authority and not ask questions.
I agree, however, that it is desirable to set young people ``on the path of intellectual and emotional development.''
As for humans being sinful, indeed we are (If anyone's aware of someone who isn't, please let me know so I may learn from them).
Sadly, the author neglects to tell the reader what's ``negative and passive'' about humanity following God's will or why the existence of God is improbable. What exactly does he think would happen if everyone followed their own will, as he seems to suggest we should do?
I agree with him that we should ``want to make a better life for ourselves and others through our own positive choices and actions,'' although I don't see the contradiction between doing so and believing in God. Incidentally, studies show that believers give more to charity than atheists.
Also incidentally, Adolf Hitler (read ``Mein Kampf" if you doubt and have the patience to read such a bad book), Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Kim Jong-il, Mao Zedong and the Marquis de Sade were atheists. So was Friddrich Nietzche before he died insane and his former home was converted into a Bible Society.
Bradley L. MacDonald