Educating the "Myopic" Christian

In the November 2 issue of The Voice, once again we find William Carlotti [Divine Fingerprints] seeking to educate me away from my faith. I apologize if Mr. Carlotti finds my resume concerning my search for divine fingerprints short-sighted or myopic. I am neither applying for employment or for Mr. Carlotti's approval. My submissions are targeted at a true minority of readers here in Connecticut—people who are not programmed by leftist ideology to have a knee-jerk opposition to the Judeo-Christian faith. Many people presume that all Christians are an uneducated flock of sheep, perpetually ignorant of diverse cultures, science, and the world around them. While certain Christian movements may fulfill this stereotype, I consider myself one of a number of thinking Christians who do not.

William Carlotti seems to advocate a God concept that's defined by science. Perhaps he would agree with the late, great Carl Sagan's opinion that "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying … it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." (See the recent US News and World Report special, "Mysteries of Faith.")

Since Mr. Carlotti's theology centers on scientific wonders such as light, magnetism and gravity, perhaps Sagan's last sentence does not apply to him. Regardless, I believe any God that is defined by our finite and limited "myopic" understanding of the physical universe would be a finite and limited God. Even worse, it would be a God open to individual personal preferences. If one were to take a survey of the world's great scientists, one would find a diverse spectrum of belief—with atheism and agnosticism dominating. If science defined God at all, there would be a consensus of theology within their ranks.

Then we have that dreaded word, "religion." A profane word to many, as they sing along with John Lennon: "Imagine there's no Heaven, it easy if you try; no Hell below us, above us only sky …" Left wing ideology agrees with Marx, as he defined religion as a force of oppression and manipulation and a psychological opiate of the masses. The realm of human religion has much to say about God, but alas, like our hypothetical, individual scientists, their perceptions of God are wildly varied and inconsistent with one another.

Some "tolerant" thinkers in our society love to promote universalism, a belief that all religion is equally valid and theologically truthful. While I fully embrace the American freedom of religion, to translate universalism into a tenet of belief is intellectually dishonest. If God were as real and specific as the law of gravity, for example, I wouldn't consider gravity subjective and open to interpretation. I wouldn't assume, like in the cartoons, that one has to realize they are standing in mid air before they actually start to fall. Likewise, if one believes that enlightenment is obtained by resolving karma through reincarnation and an eight-fold discipline, then they cannot consider the Christian concept of salvation through faith in Christ equally valid. And they both stand in opposition to the strict adherence of Judaic or Islamic law and ritual.

In the study and sharing of my Christian belief, I try to avoid subjective claims. If I were to proclaim how I "felt God's grace and love come to me one day," how easy it would be for someone to answer, "Well, that's you! Your feelings aren't rooted in reality!" Instead, I reference specific facts and discoveries uncovered by archaeology, history, papyrology and parapsychology—facts that I believe support (but don’t prove) my religious viewpoints. One can dispute a specific fact or conclusion I present, but to dismiss all of what I share as the building of straw men and myopic is disrespectful.

With people such as Mr. Carlotti, there is never a direct rebuttal of facts presented. Instead, there are wide sweeping judgments and disparagement. It is always easier to cut down than build up—this fact alone gives people like Noel Ambry and William Carlotti the advantage. It keeps contributors like myself on the defensive. I challenge them to present their own opinions as frequently as they rebut other perspectives.

I realize how tempting it is for people not to be reined in by the confines of any organized religion. If one is resistant to defining God with specific attributes, a study of any organized religion would be considered a colossal waste of time. Thus not only do such people refuse to ponder anything that leads them where they would rather not go; they consider anyone who does adhere to such things stupid and foolish. Is this Mr. Carlotti? I can't say, since I do not actually know him. I do know that many prefer an unintrusive, ambiguous, generic God who requires and asks nothing of them. It's human nature, and deep down we all would like to be our own God: Jeff writes for The Voice, thus sayeth the Jeff of Hosts! Christianity is a force in my life that counters this natural egoism.

Predictably, Mr. Carlotti then takes a page from Noel Ambery and once again we depart on a magical mystery tour—a tour of historic oppression and violence at the hands of proclaimed "Christians." I often wonder why all the Christian Voice readers seem to allow our faith to be characterized by such things as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch-hunts, and so one. For the quadrillionth time, there is absolutely no New Testament scriptural teaching that supports militarism, oppression or violence. Christianity is defined by the New Testament, not by any politically motivated "Christian" aggressors of history!

Mr. Carlotti also implied that I find the wonders of science mundane. Here Carlotti does something he frequently accuses other contributors of doing, as he assigns me a sentiment I never expressed. I do love science, and specifically astronomy. Way back on July 2, 1998, I submitted an article to The Voice entitled "Christian's Shouldn't Dismiss Science." In this letter, I urged Christians not to ignore the wealth of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution. I also stated that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account was untenable, since it actually has the creation of the earth, sea and plants before the sun, moon and stars were "set in the sky." Can anyone imagine a plant predating sunlight? Since astronomical processes already contradict the Biblical creation account, for the life of me I have no idea why so many fundamentalists get all worked up over evolution. And just like Mr. Carlotti, I brought up the oppression of astronomers such as Galileo. My continuing fear is that the more Christians disregard the evidence for evolution, the more people will believe Christians are ignorant and close-minded as a whole. My reward for being so scientifically minded? I was slammed by a fundamentalist contributor for having "stupid and screwy ideas." I hope Mr. Carlotti can see the irony in this—for I get it from all sides!

To conclude his article, Mr. Carlotti offers up another brutal and violent proclamation from "the god of the Israelites." As Yogi Berra said, it's "deja vu all over again."

Another ancient perspective needs to be understood. The Israelites believed that all misfortune—be it illness, disability, natural catastrophe, famine, sterility, or even vulnerability to the war crimes of a hostile invasion—was a divine judgment for the sins of the people. This is yet another attitude redefined and corrected by Jesus, as he characterized God as ever anxious to forgive and embrace his disobedient children. Humanity is now seen as incapable of fulfilling God's law. Salvation would now be a gift of Divine grace rather than a reward for righteousness. Divine judgment is now reserved for a final "Day of Judgment."

So, in conclusion, I urge Mr. Carlotti to stop bringing up the same points of contention over and over again. He has yet to educate me on anything I do not already know.