My brief comments regarding Stephen Jay Gould’s family suing over his death from cancer at the hands of inept doctors generated a greater response than anticipated, once again proving the role played by evolution as a fault line in the ongoing battle of values dividing much of America. Yet despite the emotional responses Darwin’s theory continues to evoke, those seeking to escape the implications of a universe created and sustained by God continue to formulate arguments in defense of their position that even a Neanderthal could see through.
One response chided me as a soulless individual for supposedly “speaking so ill of the dead” for pointing out the inconsistencies of materialists seeking compensation for the loss of a loved one since by definition that worldview has no objective standard upon which to base right or wrong with human beings ultimately of no more importance than the disease organisms doctors regularly seek to eradicate.
On what grounds does a naturalist accuse someone of having no soul? To the naturalist, the soul does not exist.
If matter is all that exists and is the ultimate foundation of the universe, mind is nothing more than electronic impulses coursing through the brain. Thus, if we are nothing more than the sum of the sum total of our physical parts, one can no more be held accountable for one’s comments than they can be for the need to go to the bathroom if thoughts are to the brain what urine is to the kidneys.
Interestingly, why do those professing belief that this world is all that is with no afterlife even care whatsoever about what I have to say about someone that has ceased to exist? It’s not like the deceased is going to read my comments.
Though Christianity affirms the existence of an afterlife, there is nothing in the Bible saying we are forbidden from discussing the ignoble deeds of the departed. If we were forbidden from doing so, that would also mean we could not discuss the failings of Joseph McCarthy, Ronald Reagan, or any other figure the Left feels the need to criticize incessantly. Why should Stephen Jay Gould be granted an exception?
In all likelihood having now had his faulty thinking corrected through the singeing flames of hellfire if he continued to deny Christ until his last breath, Dr. Gould would probably thank me for taking the time to warn others of the errors and inconsistencies of his previously held views. In Luke 16:27-28, the rich man sent to hell says, “Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.”
In the raising of such a fuss about correcting the fallacies of the errant departed, one is forced to speculate whether such concerns are raised out of a misdirected sense of propriety or more from a desire to avoid contemplating the fate that awaits themselves should they continue to ignore the pangings of their own conscience.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
No comments:
Post a Comment