The Good Samaritan
“And the greatest that these is love“
Many times Christians mistakenly equate an atheist with an agnostic. The first demands that God does not and cannot exist, the second affirms “that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.”1
We as Believers must remind ourselves that unbelievers CAN perceive truth (though very limited at times), as well as believers.
Wisdom is not knowledge, if this was true, the scientists would be the wisest among us.
According to the Bible, “wisdom is the correct application of knowledge.” (see the sometimes failed life of Solomon)
As Christians we should always display grace and humility when presenting the gospel to unbelievers. This should be obvious.
However, even more importantly, it is in our day-to-day relationships and interactions with all people (especially unbelievers), that the love of God needs not only to be displayed, but acted out in tangible ways.
I have spent most of my adult Christ life failing at this, and worst yet is the times I have not even attempted to do so.
I have been guilty of arrogance, condescension and being a “KNOW IT ALL.”
For all those that I’ve abused, please forgive me for my lack of being more like Christ, a goal I shall never even get close too, but should grow more get older, and be more naturally displayed; as I recognize his love, grace and forgiveness of the wretched man that I am.
We are all sinners, and will continue to be so until we give up these earthly bodies.
As believers we need to be open and listen to people, something I still cannot do very well.
We need to consider what unbelievers may or may not believe, make no assumptions, but practice “Active Listening,” because of our willing choice to love others.
The biblical word for real love (Verb: agapaō; Noun: agapē), God’s type of love is NOT based upon emotions, which is always based upon reaction and is conditional.
God’s type of love is not merited, earned, or achievable on its own. It is a simple act of putting someone else before yourself.
Never better seen than witnessed when the God of this universe gave His own Son for the sins of the world, for those that would have faith in this fact and not their own works. The act of faith is a daily choosing that the child of God has. And the greatest choice to faithe,3 is to love someone else (1st Corinthians 13).
What is amazing is that the following agnostic, speaks enough truth, which should be considered by those that call themselves atheist.
These quotes are from an agnostic PhD.2, who appears to be open to truth, at least on some level.
“If science has shown that God does not exist, it has not been by appealing to Big Bang cosmology. The hypothesis of God’s existence and the facts of contemporary cosmology are consistent.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
“Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism,” the astrophysicist Christopher Isham has observed, “is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
“Arguments follow from assumptions, and assumptions follow from beliefs, and very rarely—perhaps never—do beliefs reflect an agenda determined entirely by the facts.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
“What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing. And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either. That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
“If moral statements are about something, then the universe is not quite as science suggests it is, since physical theories, having said nothing about God, say nothing about right or wrong, good or bad. To admit this would force philosophers to confront the possibility that the physical sciences offer a grossly inadequate view of reality. And since philosophers very much wish to think of themselves as scientists, this would offer them an unattractive choice between changing their allegiances or accepting their irrelevance.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
“What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing. And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either. That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
“If moral statements are about something, then the universe is not quite as science suggests it is, since physical theories, having said nothing about God, say nothing about right or wrong, good or bad. To admit this would force philosophers to confront the possibility that the physical sciences offer a grossly inadequate view of reality. And since philosophers very much wish to think of themselves as scientists, this would offer them an unattractive choice between changing their allegiances or accepting their irrelevance.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
“Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for zyklon b, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental missiles , military space platforms and nuclear weapons? If memory serves it was not the Vatican.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
“Commentators who today talk of ‘The Dark Ages’ when faith instead of reason was said to ruthlessly rule, have for their animadversions only the excuse of perfect ignorance. Both Aquinas’ intellectual gifts and his religious nature were of a kind that is no longer commonly seen in the Western world.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
“The argument that Hawking has offered may be conveyed by question-and-answer, as in the Catholic catechism. A Catechism of Quantum Cosmology Q: From what did our universe evolve? A: Our universe evolved from a much smaller, much emptier mini-universe. You may think of it as an egg. Q: What was the smaller, emptier universe like? A: It was a four-dimensional sphere with nothing much inside it. You may think of that as weird. Q: How can a sphere have four dimensions? A: A sphere may have four dimensions if it has one more dimension than a three-dimensional sphere. You may think of that as obvious. Q: Does the smaller, emptier universe have a name? A: The smaller, emptier universe is called a de Sitter universe. You may think of that as about time someone paid attention to de Sitter. Q: Is there anything else I should know about the smaller, emptier universe? A: Yes. It represents a solution to Einstein’s field equations. You may think of that as a good thing. Q: Where was that smaller, emptier universe or egg? A: It was in the place where space as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a sac. Q: When was it there? A: It was there at the time when time as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a mystery. Q: Where did the egg come from? A: The egg did not actually come from anywhere. You may think of this as astonishing. Q: If the egg did not come from anywhere, how did it get there? A: The egg got there because the wave function of the universe said it was probable. You may think of this as a done deal. Q: How did our universe evolve from the egg? A: It evolved by inflating itself up from its sac to become the universe in which we now find ourselves. You may think of that as just one of those things. This catechism, I should add, is not a parody of quantum cosmology. It is quantum cosmology.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
“A defense [of religion] is needed because none has been forthcoming. The discussion has been ceded to men who regard religious belief with frivolous contempt. Their books have in recent years poured from every press, and although differing widely in their style, they are identical in their message: Because scientific theories are true, religious beliefs must be false.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
“No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses. A man asking why his days are short and full of suffering is not disposed to turn to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer. The answers that prominent scientific figures have offered are remarkable in their shallowness.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
“Did you imagine that science was a disinterested pursuit of the truth? Well, you were wrong.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” The lame and the blind excepted, who could object?”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
“After comparing more than two thousand DNA samples, an American molecular geneticist, Dean Hamer, concluded that a person’s capacity to believe in God is linked to his brain chemicals. Of all things! Why not his urine? Perhaps it will not be amiss to observe that Dr. Hamer has made the same claim about homosexuality, and if he has refrained from arguing that a person’s capacity to believe in molecular genetics is linked to a brain chemical, it is, no doubt, owing to a prudent sense that once that door is open God knows how and when anyone will ever slam it shut again.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
Footnote
1. Google Online Dictionary
(https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=agnostic)
2. Background (short version)
“Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University, and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France.
Author – Mathematics and biology
Berlinski has written works on systems analysis, the history of differential topology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics. Berlinski has authored books for the general public on mathematics and the history of mathematics. These include A Tour of the Calculus (1995) on calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm (2000) on algorithms, Newton’s Gift (2000) on Isaac Newton, and Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (2005). Another book, The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky (2003), compares astrological and evolutionary accounts of human behavior. In Black Mischief (1988), Berlinski wrote “Our paper became a monograph. When we had completed the details, we rewrote everything so that no one could tell how we came upon our ideas or why. This is the standard in mathematics.”
Berlinski’s books have received mixed reviews; Newton’s Gift and The Advent of the Algorithm were criticized by MathSciNet for containing historical and mathematical inaccuracies while the Mathematical Association of America review of A Tour of the Calculus by Fernando Q. Gouvêa recommended that professors have students read the book to appreciate the overarching historical and philosophical picture of calculus.” (Wikipedia)
3. Faith ~ “Holman Bible Dictionary”
Faith – “Trusting commitment of one person to another, particularly a person to God. Faith is the central concept of Christianity. One may be called a Christian only if one has faith. Our English word “faith” comes from the Latin fides, as developed through the old French words fei and feid. In Middle English (1150-1475) “faith” replaced a word that eventually evolved into “belief.” “Faith” came to mean “loyalty to a person to whom one is bound by promise or duty.” Faith was fidelity. “Belief” came to be distinguished from faith as an intellectual process having to do with the acceptance of a proposition. The verb form of “faith” dropped out of English usage towards the end of the sixteenth century.”
In the English, the verb form of faith would have been spelled “faithé,” or “faitheth,” or “faithing.”
It is these three verb forms of faith that fell out of usage in the late fifteenth century just prior to the culmination of the Greek Textus Receptus into the English translations of the Bible, which included the King James Version.
New Testament Expressions – “The Greek noun, Pistis (faith), is related to the verb pisteuo (I have faith, trust, believe). The noun and the verb are found virtually everywhere in the New Testament, with the notable exception that the noun is absent altogether from John’s Gospel and occurs only once in 1st John. The verb form does not occur in Philemon, 2nd Peter 2 and 3, John, or Revelation.”
Faith Bible Ministries Blog ~ An Online Study of the Bible 
David Berlinski should not say he is a “secular Jew”. Read his books, he is very religious by any definition of religion. That can be considered a lie. Secular jew or secular christian is an oxymoron. Just one of the ever dwindling numbers of “religious scientists”(another oxymoron) trying to get his god injected anywhere possible
LikeLike
Thank you, Mark. I 100% agree with you. As an honest reporter, I was stating what he referred to himself. It is up to the reader to determine if it is right, lying, or correct. But, I think you are right. Brent
LikeLike
Ok. Not the response I expected. Always great to hear from rational non-religious folks! Hopefully, rational thinking people who require evidence for any anything will triumph over the silly religion beliefs of the era!
LikeLike
We agree. There are so many silly religious people who suck the air out of the room. I would die for what I believe, probably the same as you would. It is a shame that all you have to do is turn on the TV or the Internet to see people who make God look like a complete idiot. I believe in God and have put my body on the line for that belief, but always utilizing logic to the extent that integrity is maintained. Yet, in these days of frivolous self-centeredness, dare I say woke individuals who misrepresent progressive ideology, wherein I believe that silly religious people misrepresent the God of the Bible in the same way, we as
logical, rational, compassionate, and truthful human beings should be able to have intelligent conversations. We should be able to agree to disagree. I have no idea by what your worldview is, and frankly, it’s none of my business. However, I thank you for your honesty, respect, and insight. Brent
LikeLike
World view? Odd question. I never came close to stating a “world view”. I don’t have a “world view”! Not sure how you got there. Rational, scientific people like me just have to go where sufficient evidence leads. I take no comfort in made up religious BS.
LikeLike
Okay, Mark let’s get real about this conversation. My statement was I was unaware of your worldview because I could not discern what it might be. Every human being has a worldview, all it is is your perspective of life. And if you try to act like you are completely objective and scientific and that there is only black-and-white and no other explanation of what you think other than the facts; then you are self-deceived. I am an old man that has stretched himself and been willing to consider my opponent’s opposition to what I’m stating from the position of definitely trying to destroy my own presuppositions.
This is the closest to objectivity have ever seen and most people cannot do it, and I no doubt fail more than most. You see most people without ever studying the evidence state that the Bible is just full of baloney because it says miracle to can happens and since we know that miracles can happen therefore the witnesses must’ve lied therefore the Bible cannot be trusted because it says that miracles happened and we know that miracles can’t happen and if the witnesses said that they happen we know they’re liars and we cannot trust the Bible. The redundancy of the circular argument is ludicrous because when you consider anything you need to be open-minded, especially to the things that you think are ridiculous. Otherwise, you postulate that you alone have the truth.
LikeLike
Objective and scientific? Yes, that’s the only rational position to take on everything. Black and white answer? Well, some things have a definite answer(earth orbits the sun, the sun will rise east to west, etc). I have the truth? Truth about what? I questioned some religious dogma and now you say I think I have the truth? Not sure how you got here.
LikeLike
No, one does not have to be “opened minded” about, as you worded it, “ridiculous” stuff. All “stuff” requires some sufficient evidence to even be considered.
LikeLike
Yes you are right, so said the holy Roman church as they crucified Galileo for his obvious ridiculous blasphemy that the Earth rotated around the sun. But if you really research the Bible it says that the earth is an orb and not flat, hanging as it thought; by a thread and it also states that it revolves around the sun. You can even find string theory in the Bible, in the Old Testament. But why hasn’t it been found this before? I guess it’s because it’s a ridiculous superstitious book that isn’t worth the consideration in the first place. “The only sure barrier to truth is the presupposition that someone already has it.” “Therefore, periodically we must reconsider our positions on any given subject in order to maintain integrity. It is obvious that I am dealing with the 22-year-old sophomoric – person that doesn’t even understand the basic principles of science and empirical evidence. That thinks that deductive reasoning is the best tool wherein actually inductive reasoning is what brings truth out, without a presupposition which deductive perceptional reasoning does. But I know you must know that by now, I thank you for reminding me that blind people cannot see what is obvious to others that have been enlightened. This will be the end of our conversation. In a few decades, or less we will find out which one of us is right. This is your warning, youngman. This is what you will remember through eternity if I am correct. If I am wrong, then I look forward to taking a very long nap in complete serenity. Good day young man.
LikeLike
And NO, all claims don’t necessarily have to be approached with an “open mind”. For example, if someone told me to not go outside today because there is a 50 foot gorilla walking around and will kill me, I DON’T have to keep an “open mind” about that at all. UNLESS THEY PROVIDE ME WITH SOME SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR IT. I fully understand that there are some grey areas about claims and evidence. I hope I clarified that point which I did not word well previously.
LikeLike
Mark Do you know what a figure of speech is that’s what is used when they talk about the earth appearing in the language in the Hebrew is that it would appear that the earth is held in place by nothing and therefore the only way they could communicate that idea is to state it appears that it is hanging by a string. And yes I have Islamic friends it was written 500 depending on which book you use rather as a Crandall the other two books of the belief that records scientific facts that were known beforehand the ones in the Bible were not presented before the Bible presented them that makes the difference see your lack of research displays that you are unaware that the Koran only regurgitates what has been said by great thinkers that are Persians. There is no new insight is the point that I made concerning the strain how do you describe something that hangs in the air from something that doesn’t utilizing what is called a figure of speech which I’ll talk about in my next response because evidently you don’t know what they are. Or maybe I just presented it incorrectly and if I did please forgive me
LikeLike
Mark do you know what a figure of speech is. A figure of speech is when you take ordinary words and combined two more words that make no sense in their literal meaning. Such as if I said get off my back you don’t really think that I am physically on your back and somebody new to America they heard that they would be confused concerning the literal meaning. You see if you are good science you know history so that you don’t keep making the mistakes that others did and concerning this figure of speech it’s good to know the history concerning all figures of speech such as it’s raining cat and dog, that person looks like a dead ringer for someone else, the graveyard shift and many other figures of speech. Now where did the figure of speech of get off my back originate. It turns out that during the early 1900s there was a world fair in Chicago and therefore a photographer had a box camera set up at one particular location close to the zoo at one point he saw a man running with a chimpanzee on his back holding onto his collar and hitting him on top of the head with his other hand. He took a picture of this weird situation which nobody would ever believe could occur in the first place because it sounds ridiculous and published it in the paper. Soon afterwards it would be common when people were talking to other people and telling them to quit bugging them or delete them alone to quit being a monkey on my back. Over the decades they dropped part of the terminology to wear today is just get off my back. But this is an example of where a monkey outside your house if somebody warned you about him might be worth looking out the window but what you state in your ignorance is that you apparently wouldn’t even look out the window because it’s too ridiculous and in your pride think you know what makes sense and doesn’t but see it’s the things that don’t make sense that we need to examine even if only superficially. I have never known a science that is a real man of science take the attitude that you have presented that’s why it appears to me that you must be somebody in your early 20s may be in their second year of science in university or somebody that reads a lot but you are very arrogant and what you think and believe. And you think that you don’t believe something because all that you entertain her facts which shows me how immature you are and no scientist that I’ve ever met and I’m talking about people that don’t believe the Bible at all, individuals I respect because at least they attempt to challenge their own presuppositions whatever present themselves away you have Mark. I have made every mistake in the book, over the last almost seven decades. So I thank you again for the courage that you shall meet because I take that will what I said before and I was wrong you have displayed integrity and you have not said the kind of negative things that I’ve said that would make you angry. I’m not angry at all with you Mark I’m simply doing as I do as a licensed and registered counselor among one of three different hats that I wear and that is to throw ice water and somebody’s face to shock them to get them angry because it is anger, that many times will cause them to research the issue they’re talking about and therefore find out how they are incorrect. I am trying to push you off Mark so that you would go in attempt to destroy what I’m saying and you would gain greater insight to what you’re talking about because you come across very foolish you have no idea how many PhD’s I may have where I’ve come from what I know. Or that I’ve observed thousands of people die leaving this world for something else. You haven’t seen the miracles only a few of them but things that cannot be explained by my five senses and my six cents which is actually a word we call feelings which all it is is experiential history involving our five senses concerning a situation wherein which makes us aware that maybe it’s dangerous maybe we should consider fight/flight and not freeze. Again I thank you Mark. And please understand I have spent almost 5 decades teaching people. I guarantee you that with a library of over 3000 books I love science, nature, and even philosophy and theology. You need to spend time listening to the great Stoics which will help broaden your perspective. Because people may not dispute you because there being kind but they see the spinach in your teeth even if you refused to admit that it’s there, this is what motivated me 40 years ago to dig deep into what my opponent said trying to disprove my own presuppositions and therefore I have changed my opinion on many things in life because I’ve had the courage to challenge myself in the way that most people don’t please follow this example you will become a great and wise man if you do. The only presupposition that is a barrier to truth is the belief that you already have it. Therefore periodically we must re-examine our own beliefs in a critical manner to determine if they are true or not.
And one other thing I must confess when I said that Galileo was hung by the Roman Catholic Church I wanted to see what response you have because it is true but if you know your history you know that prior to it being called the Roman catholic church it was a Roman empire and it was arbitrary of all that was science in fact 100 years before Galileo Michelangelo presented some of the most scientifically unbelievable insights of his day as did Galileo and many others followed the science that at some point came under the purview of the church but the church was the government so we need to make a distinction between religious organizations and a religious government. It was not the Bible that condemned the Galileo or Michelangelo or even Newton it was a ungodly organization that called itself godly. They killed hundreds of thousands of Christians for not believing what they said was true and they did not fall the Bible and to this day do not believe the Christian doctrine of salvation or many other doctrines. Why do you think we have so many perverts in the Roman Catholic Church because they demand that priests be celibate whenever Paul teaches in first Corinthians that you’re not supposed to be celibate if you have any sexual feelings yet they cannot admit they’re wrong and they keep on going and violating people and people below blame God or the Bible for this ungodly organization which we call the Roman Catholic Church of which my family followed for many decades. Who declared that marriage was a hindrance to his work as a scientist you would say that he was a great man but I’ll bet you your research what you have not done has not determined that he was a born-again believer and that he had written over a million scriptural commentaries on the Bible. He was both scientist and Christian believer. So I guess you’re smarter than he is and I know he’s much smarter than that I would ever hope to be, excuse a childish pun. The point is you need to broaden your horizons. It is self-evident you’re a young man and again you haven’t disputed that and I applaud your integrity for not lying but it is so axiomatic that you do not know history and you have not studied the things that you attempt to say and you even use ridiculous analogies such as if somebody told you there was a giant ape outside your house that wanted to kill you that you wouldn’t believe it. Only an ignorant man refuses to look out the window if the source of the information is credible. You see the word atheist as we first started with in the Greek when you put a before a word it means it’s antithetical in the word theist is God so an atheist is one that doesn’t believe in God. But let’s see if you know this one, and agnostic, again with the A front and the word Gnostic meaning knowledge actually means a person that is stupid or lacks knowledge. Now we use it in a nonliteral way to talk about a person who thinks there may be a God but maybe not a God but hasn’t made up their mind but this is not a look word that would’ve been used by the Greek Stoics are masters of thousands of years ago because it’s a word used of an idiot that has no knowledge not one that’s hasn’t made up his mind. Anyway Mark again thank you for your time I hope that I spurn you on to dig deeper and deeper not just validating what you believe which is all you’ve done to this point but looking for truth. Because you’ve caused me to go back and search out things you have caused me to research and I thank you for that, to double check statements before I make them because I’m an old man and I could be wrong. And I will be wrong many times before I leave this earth, but I want to affect people in a positive way where whether they agree with me or not they are spurned on to becoming the wisest person they can. I will finish with this, it is the interpretation of wisdom.
Wisdom is the correct application of knowledge. This is why we have so many thousands of 20-year-olds going to college and gathering all this knowledge but they don’t know how to apply it correctly to their worldview or to the science empirical testing and greater than deductive logic which can many times be deceptive because as we start to investigate we take small bits of information that allow ourselves to have a hypothesis which we then deduce a conclusion that we attempt to prove which on its very faces a ridiculous form of science. Inductive reasoning means to let all of the facts come in and do all of the research and let the conclusion be made by the researcher not by a presupposition where you try to make the pieces fit the puzzle that you think it represents. Brent
LikeLike