Although your letter (TSR July/ August 1998) was intended for Farrell Till, it was, in a very real sense, addressed to all of us who question biblical authority; thus, my reply to a letter that very much deserves a lengthy reply.
Right off the bat, you have the gall to suggest that anyone who rejects the Bible is "meaningless" and must partake in a life that "is nothing but an empty dream." That is your theme throughout. By what right do you set the definition of a "meaningful life"? By what stretch of logic is life "meaningful" only if it goes on and on without end in a Christian heaven? How arrogant of you to dismiss all those other religions with the sweep of your hand! (Many of them strike me as being far superior to Christianity.)
Let me present another viewpoint for you to consider. What meaning is there in a life that goes on forever? Either that life must stagnate within certain parameters for an infinity or else lose its identity in an endless sea of change. The latter is none other than a kind of death; the former could be a meaningless hell.
A meaningful life must be finite. A finite life may grow without completely losing its identity. There is no prospect of going in circles forever. Were we to have the power of living as long as we wished, I think that a time would come, sooner or later, however pleasant our existence, when each and every one of us would say "Enough."
My life is meaningful. I ought to know. I'm the one who is living it! Its meaning is tied to the "here and now" and not to some "Big Daddy" in the sky or to the prospect of living forever. If life has no meaning in our short existence, then how can it have meaning if prolonged forever? We can only live one day at a time. If there is no meaning in today, even though it quickly passes and is forgotten, then where in an infinite life will meaning be found? Is mere existence itself the ultimate meaning? I think not!
Each life lived well is like a story well told. It has a beginning, an end, and meaning. It does not go on for ever and ever. Indeed, no story could truly go on forever and have meaning. Either it would be trapped in an endless repetition of one sort or another, or it would wander forever without settling on a clear meaning. The former would bore a reader to death; the latter would have no point to it.
In an infinite story, 99.99999+% of the meaning must either be in the part already told (or will be told) or in the remainder. If the former, then an infinite stretch of the story has no meaning; we might as well cut it short. If the latter, then we are told a story with no meaning in that the meaningful part is always beyond our reach. So, too, for an infinite life. We live only in the "here and now," and if any meaning is to be had it must be there. Thus, a finite life may have meaning.
Our "radical" rejection of so influential a work as the Bible is neither radical nor nihilistic. It is a consequence of a vigorous exercise of reason, which in its higher forms is exhibited by mainstream Bible scholars everywhere. Having influence is not the same thing as having truth. The Bible may well be the most error-filled work known to man-- outside of those voluminous commentaries purporting to prove its inerrancy. Neither the Koran nor the Vedas, nor Hitler's book, nor Marx's book, nor Mao's little Red Book have anywhere near the contradictions and absurdities found in the Bible. Understanding that fact is a positive step in grasping reality, not a journey into nihilism. Our lives are quite meaningful and positive without an inerrant Bible, thank you!
The skeptic scarcely needs to examine each and every one of those "600 topics of prediction set forth in 8,352 verses of the Bible." It is enough to know that you and others, who, no doubt, are familiar with each of those 600 topics, cannot produce a single one of note that withstands a careful, scientific scrutiny. And, even if such a prophecy could be found in that compilation of assorted, diverse works and multiple editing known as the Bible, that would scarcely boost our confidence in those passages depicting talking snakes and donkeys--or metal ax heads that float on water at the toss of a stick.
We rightfully reject those 600 topics of prediction, at least those requiring miracles, for we have studied the best of them that have been put forward these last two hundred years. They have holes big enough to drive a truck through! If, perchance, we have overlooked something, do bring it to our attention. I assure you that we are interested in the truth, and that means looking at any serious evidence you may have. On a broader front, Till stands ready, even now, to debate you should you change your mind and take him up. As for myself, I'll be happy to examine any "conclusive" evidence you may have via correspondence. Impress us! Present just one, miraculous prophecy that can withstand scientific scrutiny!
Why do you throw that tired, old, slanderous label of "communist atheists" at us? Don't you know that only a few American atheists are communists? Such a cheap shot! Nor are we alone in rejecting a personal creator-god. Have you forgotten about those religions of the Far East? Do you think that every tribal religion believes in a personal creator-god? Where do you put the Japanese in your scheme of things? Many religions do not have an all-powerful "creator-god." You have a lot to learn!
Yes, we atheists do reject the firm conviction of godism, which is held by most of the human race. Since when was truth determined by majority vote? Did not Columbus reject popular belief when he sailed west in order to reach India? Did not Einstein do the same when he developed his radical, new ideas of time and space? You speak as though it were a crime to go against popular opinion! Where do you think new ideas come from? You would be Catholic today had Luther and others not challenged the status quo!
Note well that the best and brightest are clearly on our side. According to a recent survey, only about 7% of our scientists are believers. That, in a country that is a hotbed of Christian fundamentalism! Statistics show that the better educated a person is, i. e., the more developed his or her brain, the more likely that person will reject biblical authority. In the extreme case, that of the Nobel prize-winners, devout, Bible-believing Christians are something of a rarity. The Bible is criticized, of course, by both atheists and Christians. Devout (but intellectually honest) Christians led the way.
Far from lacking a standard of morality, we understand its true meaning and source. Therefore, unlike the religious terrorist, we cannot abandon morality in the name of some god whenever we please. We will never be able to justify holy wars or burn dissenters at the stake, in the name of Jesus. We will never have a theology that can justify massacring neighboring peoples and taking their lands in the name of God. We will never burn our babies in ovens or beat them to death to drive out "the devil," as is done surprisingly often by distraught Christians who think that the rules of morality may be lifted for religious reasons. Neither are we obliged to "justify" the atrocities found in the Bible. Trying to justify such atrocities is bound to sow confusion in one's mind as to what is and is not moral.
Far from being morally rudderless, as you seem to think, we are at the, fountainhead of morality! We don't need an intermediate, a "Big Daddy" in the sky, to tell us that love is good and murder is bad! We have a pretty good idea of how to create a warm, friendly and workable community. The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. We have no need to further justify our rules of morality. What works, works.
We have no need of a god to pass judgment on us. For the wayward among us, the long arm of the law is much more effective. Christians can sin "on credit" and confess at the last minute, thereby avoiding hell. What kind of system is that for preventing crime? The great bulk of locked-up criminals profess to be religious, but their beliefs didn't stop them from committing their crimes.
We have no need of a god to praise us. Praise and recognition will flow from the just societies that we create or live in. Since when does the biblical god praise individuals, anyway? Doesn't the Bible say that God is no respecter of individuals?
Our thirst for knowledge is keen. We seek real knowledge, the truth, not mere justification of dogmatic principles. We are free to seek real knowledge, whereas the conservative Christian must support his or her literal belief in the Bible no matter how absurd it becomes.
Our reverence for life is deep. Unlike our fundamentalist brothers, who regard life on Earth as a mere stop on the road to paradise, an unpleasant but necessary stop at that, a place to do one's duty and be gone, we are free to embrace life in all its wonder and beauty. Unlike our fundamentalist brothers, we know that such magnificence must be cared for. We will never allow our natural resources to be used up or abused under the theory that the world is shortly coming to an end, anyway. We suffer from no such illusion.
By all accounts, be it a firmer grip on morality or having life with a deeper meaning, the atheist (who has adopted secular humanism) stands well. I would not trade my lot with any Christian alive or dead.
Why should we fear death? Death is like leaving a banquet. You don't want to leave too early as the food and company are at their best. On the other hand, you don't want to eat forever! After a while, the food becomes bland and the pleasures blurred, and your stomach hurts.
Unlike many Christians, we do not view ourselves as unworthy worms hanging over a great fire by a slender thread. How can anyone fully enjoy life with such poison in their brains? If you teach a person that he or she is a worthless stench in God's nostrils, what kind of person are you going to raise? That some fundamentalists do grow up healthy in mind and body is more an attribute to human robustness and independence than anything else. The whole idea of hell, no doubt invented for a complex of historical reasons--but especially useful for keeping an ignorant flock in line, is one of the great contradictions of Christian theology. God cannot be both a mass torturer par excellence and a loving father at the same time, period. No amount of jumping backwards through flaming hoops, of postulating infinite crimes and other such absurd notions, will ever justify the concept of hell. The atheist has the good sense (along with some Christians) to dust it off as a primitive fairy tale.
If you prefer a sadist for a god, then keep your hell of fire and brimstone. You are welcome to it. However, don't mistake us for simple-minded children who may be frightened by such talk. Did you know that the history of hell may be traced back to Iran and other places? It's an evolved, man-made concept. Thus, hell holds no terror for us. There is no "grim truth" there to be owned up to at some future date, except in ignorant minds. We don't waste our time and energy on such idiocy. We have far better things to do, such as enjoying a meaningful life.
(Dave Matson, The Oak Hill Free Press, P.O. Box 61274, Pasadena, CA 91116; e-mail, 103514.3640@compuserve.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: If Dr. Archer wishes to reply to Dave Matson,
I will publish it. However, I would prefer that Dr. Archer show the
courage of his convictions and agree to defend the Bible in a public
forum, preferably at the theological school where he teaches. If he is
so certain that the inspiration of the Bible has been shown by "more
than 600 topics of prediction," he should welcome the opportunity to
defend this claim in a forum that would give him the opportunity to
vindicate the Bible before an audience of aspiring clergymen, whose
faith would surely be strengthened by a successful defense of Dr.
Archer's claim.
