An Atheist Defends the Value of Religion

By Bruce Sheimanauthor As an atheist, I approach religion much like an economist. I believe religion persists in our market-based … Continued

By Bruce Sheiman
author

As an atheist, I approach religion much like an economist. I believe religion persists in our market-based culture, despite the prevalence of secularism, because it provides net value over and above its required investment, and because it beats competing belief systems in the same value proposition. I evaluate religion in terms of its pragmatic usefulness to humankind and seek to answer the question posed by William James: “Grant an idea or belief to be true, what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone’s actual life?”

Atheism is a bankrupt ideology on empirical grounds: Its benefits simply do not come close to covering its opportunity costs. Religion, by contrast, offers the vast majority of people a high-value transaction: Its enduring benefits far outweigh its costs. Religion persists, in short, for the reason that it provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Thus, by book “An Atheist Defends Religion” is not mainly a critical examination of the New Atheism. Rather, I am making a broad statement about the affirmative role of religion in the contemporary world and what is lost in a purely secular conception of the world.

For centuries, the theism-atheism debate has been dominated by two positions: hard-core believers fervently committed to their faith in a living God; and militant atheists vehemently driven to repudiate the Divine. The time has come to admit that after more than 2,000 years of back-and forth proofs and counterproofs, this debate has reached an insolvable impasse. The question about the existence of God can never be resolved to either side’s satisfaction. But the discussion need not end there. We are still left with the important issue of the value of religion. And this is a debate that religion can win. “An Atheist Defends Religion” redefines the terms of the debate, offering a new direction and perspective.

I am not a person of faith: I do not feel the majesty or mystery of the Holy. But neither do I stridently repudiate God. Indeed, there is a part of me that wants to believe in God. That makes me an “aspiring theist.” And I want to believe in the Divine because, on balance, religion provides a combination of benefits — moral, emotional, aesthetic, psychological, existential, communal, and even physical-health — that no other institution can replicate. These are the essential qualities that make religion so enthralling, enriching, enlightening, and enrapturing. They explain how we achieve our fullest humanity only in religion.

The question I present is not whether God exists, but whether the world is a better place because people believe God exists. This book, as a consequence, is not a defense of God; rather, it is a defense of the belief in God and of religious belief in general.

Being an atheist is not something that I or any one else rationally or deliberately chooses. I did not think through all the competing belief systems and chose unbelief. It is just something that I am. I must admit, however, that the more I understand the world as revealed by science, the more I find the materialist and reductionist explanation for our human destiny terribly devoid of depth, value and meaning. This offends not my religious sensibility (of which I have none), but my existential vanity – the strongly held personal view that my life counts in the grand scheme of things. As a consequence, I am an atheist who is sympathetic to religious aspirations and who is prepared, if not to defend God, then to defend the belief in God.

A mature view holds that religion is more about meaning and purpose than facts and events. Through religion, we experience the mundane as miraculous and the normal as numinous. Religion teaches us that our lives have inherent worth and that the world is shot-through with value. Paul Tillich said, “He who enters the sphere of faith enters the sanctuary of life.” And that is because the core preoccupation of religion is the preservation and perpetuation of human existence.

More than any other institution, religion deserves our appreciation and reverence because it has persistently encouraged people to care deeply – for the self, for neighbors, for humanity, and for the natural world – and strive for the highest ideals humans are able to envision. And there is no more eminent ideal than religion’s clear declaration of human specialness and the absolute sanctity of life.

Faith is one of the most powerful forces in human development and a strong impetus to personal transformation and collective progress. Religion’s misdeeds may make for provocative headlines, but the everyday good works of billions of pious people is the real history of religion, one that parallels the growth and prosperity of humankind. There are countless examples of individuals lifting themselves out of personal misery through faith. In the lives of these people, God is not a delusion, God is not a spell that must be broken – God is indeed great.

The debate about the existence of God is neverending. What is not in dispute is that God exists in people’s hearts, minds and spirits. What is not in dispute is that religion is adaptive, constructive and healthful – and thereby makes a positive difference in people’s lives. Reflecting James’ pragmatic conception of belief: When we act as if religion is true, we act with greater optimism, hope and benevolence.

The take-away from this book is that religious experience is the essential human experience. Mine is a human-centric evaluation of religion. By any empirical measure — defined in terms of theism’s practical impact on individuals, society, and culture — religion is profoundly beneficial.

In the end, “An Atheist Defends Religion” cogently explains that the most rational and definitive argument for dismissing atheism is not found in the interminable debate over the existence of God, but in elucidating the enduring value of religion itself.


Bruce Sheiman is the author of the new book “An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better Off With Religion than Without It.”

Written by

  • WmarkW

    A couple of points:1. I assume you’re an American or other Westerner? It might be beneficial in your situation that many people believe in God; but I don’t think the women of Afghanistan, for example, are better for it.2. Belief in God might be good for the community as a whole, but not for the individual believer. Advanced, secular societies like Western Europe and Anglo America are very well off, but don’t have a high enough birth rate to sustain their population. So they import people from poorer, theistic places like Latin America and the Middle East.3. When you say living among believers is good for secularists, I suspect you’re cherry-picking the most secular-friendly types of theism, not Wahhabbi Islam or fundamentalist Christianity that set their societies back scientifically and culturally.

  • norriehoyt

    “More than any other institution, religion deserves our appreciation and reverence because it has persistently encouraged people to care deeply – for the self, for neighbors, for humanity, and for the natural world – and strive for the highest ideals humans are able to envision. And there is no more eminent ideal than religion’s clear declaration of human specialness and the absolute sanctity of life.”PLEASE REMEMBER THE CATHARS AND THE OTHER NON-CHRISTIAN MARTYRS!

  • brucesheiman

    Dear WMARKW:Both of us can spend all day “cherry picking” history. What you need to ask is, in the aggregate, is religion good or bad? If you only look at Afgani women, then you are correct. But if you include the millions of people helped by the hospitals built by Christians the world over, then is religion good or bad? If you want to focus on the Inquisition, then religion is bad (oops, that was 500 years ago; statue of limitations ended). The point is (read Chapter 5 of my book), the real lessons of history do not pertain to what hapened. Rather, the most important realization is how we interpret what hapened. And you are biased against religion and will interpret events so as to condemn religion. If you do not know that, then you seriously lacking self-awareness. That also applies to me, of course, but the difference is, I am aware of it. Thus, when you put the “bad” and “good” of religion side by side throughout all of history, but especially today, you get a net positive. You will discover that the next time you have to go to the hospital.Bruce Sheiman

  • bpai_99

    I have no problem with religion, just religious hypocrites.”I like your Christ. Christians, not so much.” – M. Gandhi

  • bpai_99

    For those people who cannot grow up and forever need to feel a parental figure watches over them, keep using your crutch.“Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves.” – Eric Hoffer

  • brucesheiman

    I am astonished by all the atheists who are so “courageous,” by their own admission. They have no need for any crutches. Perhaps they get by with a secular crutch of sorts. Atheists claim to be so much “better” than the rest of humanity. So much more “superior” and “intelligent.” Perhaps the greatest liability among atheists is their blatant lack of self-awareness and self-honesty. Bruce

  • bpai_99

    “The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression.” – H.L. Mencken

  • WmarkW

    “Is religion good or bad?”I’m currently reading While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawser about Muslim immigration on that continent. One of the author’s points is the Europeans didn’t see Muslims as threat to their way of life because they had no experience with Muslim-like religious people.Most Europeans aren’t religious and the ones that are believe in a philosophy consistent with the goals of the UN (author’s analogy). Their paradigm of a religious person is Mother Teresa who fought poverty and built bridges to other cultures. That’s “good religon.”In America, we have Christian leaders who are Muslim-like. Militaristic, xenophobic, anti-gay, sexist and anti-intellectual are not rare traits among American Christians. Even I agree that religion has its good points. Perhaps most important is providing an alternative social structure for people excluded from the mainstream of society, like blacks until recent decades. The civil rights movement was largely organized in Baptist churches. Officially atheist states, like the USSR or North Korea, most certainly suck, so there’s reason to think secularism is a luxury only a free society can afford.Some drawbacks might not be nearly as evident. America produces fewer scientists than other advanced countries. That MAY not be due to religion, but since religiosity is usually negatively correlated with a scientific outlook, it probably is. Same thing with our heavy military involvement in the Middle East. Which is strongly supported by Southerners, who also happen to be the ones who buy biblical prophesy Armageddon books.

  • brucesheiman

    WMARKW: That is as highly balanced a view on religion as I have seen anywhere. I thank you for that. There really are two sides. And in my book, I obviously take one side mainly because it has been the neglected side. But I agree with all your points.It seems that your main criticism of religion is its politicization — and that is when religion becomes bad. In both Christianity and Islam we have extremists. When religion becomes an instrument of the state or vice versa, that is when we have the worst that religion can produce.In Chapter 6 of my book (sorry for the plug), I describe a phenomenon I call the “Fundamentalist Personality,” which looks at the psycho-social influences in extremist religion, which is to say that religious violence is never about religion alone. The worst manifestations of the FP is in Islam, where people have nothing but their religion for their self-worth and identity. I also say that the nature of a religion, whether it is “open” (tolerant, pluralistic, democratic) or “closed” (authoritarian, repressive, intolerant) has much to do with the society in which it operates (open or closed). Islam largely operates in a “closed” political and social environment, and so it is no surprise that its religion follows.I do not mean to be argumentative with you as in my prior memo, but I defend religion because it is not so one-sidedly simple. And the dominance of extremists (even among atheists) is the foremost problem.If you read my book and you are dissatisfied I will give you a full money-back guarantee. It’s not so much that I am plugging my book as I am promoting a way of looking at religion. Remember, I am an atheist. And I only defend religion as a cultural institution, not God or this or that religion, or even atheism. My objective is to, as a friend once sad, to make the amorphous morphous.Thanks for your comments.Bruce

  • edbyronadams

    If religion does not improve your life, why would you bother?If it works, that is actual proof.If it has textual roots, that and the teaching and practice are in accord with these sources, that is theoretical proof. Here, the age of the texts lends authenticity.If it makes sense when examined from a logical point of view, demonstrating consistency with the literal proof from beginning to end, that is theoretical proof.A religion should pass all these tests.

  • brucesheiman

    Dear CCNL1:The most serious criticism I can offer you is quite simple: You are incomprehensible. Case closed.Bruce

  • ThomasBaum

    As I have mentioned before on various posts speaking to different people, there are some atheists that are more “Christian” than some Christians.It is good to see and hear from people that actually try to look at things honestly, no matter what “beliefs” one has.One could say that “religion” has done neither good or bad in the world but that people have. People have used many, many “reasons” for whatever good or bad they do with religion being just one of them.As I have said on these posts many times: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.I do differentiate between religion and faith and I thank God for the gift of faith that God has given me. Religion can be the vessel that God guides faith to someone thru other people.Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • ccnl1

    Bruce, Bruce, Bruce,What don’t you understand about religion? What don’t you understand about the historic Jesus?? Maybe you should read some more books before publishing one!!!

  • daniel12

    Part two.Essentially you have things backward. You say Islam is the way it is because it operates in a backward and totalitarian environment (politically). The fact is if you read the Koran you will see for all religion it is a blueprint for a totalitarian state. Sura after Sura says God is everything, sees all, judges severely–as if God is an all patrolling eye, as if modern surveillance technology and more. Islam created the political environment you dislike so much today. It was not hijacked by the present political environment. And as already said, unfortunately it was necessary centuries ago–and still probably is today because differences between peoples would be all the more severe and intractable.Consider Islam in the light of Christianity. Christianity is essentially Judaism not confined to the Jews but open to everyone and uniting everyone under the belief in Christ as the redeemer. Islam too is a type of Judaism, and like Christianity is a Judaism open to everyone–but not united under Christ but Mohammed the prophet. And both Christianity and Islam are types of totalitarian blueprint–and both unfortunately were necessary (Islam still is) to prevent clashes between peoples. Everyone knows the West was born to a great extent under the sign of the cross–it created civilizational identity. Westerners no longer need Christianity because individual differences are accepted, but not so in the Islamic world. The Islamic world is still struggling to have individual identity not be a problem but a method of driving greater political and cultural sophistication. And of course the West both plays a role in educating Islam to use individual identity and frightens it with the specter of individual identity run amok. How this problem can be solved is the question to answer. I hate to break it to you but at least the part in your book on Islam needs to be rewritten. And really, I hate to say it, but I do not believe you did any research at all on Islam before you wrote. And probably not enough research on religion in general. Perhaps you should drift off a little bit less in religious meditation and emphasize some of that atheistic skepticism you claim to have. But then again, you were probably never much of an atheist at all.

  • daniel12

    Part one.Mr. Bruce, you misunderstand Islam (and unfortunately a significant part of religion in general). Read the Koran. The religion Islam was for all religion a political method of uniting disparate tribes and peoples centuries ago. Without this unitive effort clashes would have been much more prevalent centuries ago. The problem is that this method of uniting disparate tribes and peoples operates at the lowest common denominator–therefore it cannot help but be seen as totalitarian whether one approaches it from the political or religious aspect. As for why people readily took to Islam, unfortunately it must be said that the very individual identities which you say are lost in Islam operated to the detriment of everybody–consensus on even the smallest things was impossible. Wars were constant. The Middle East was and still is notorious for war because it was and still is a meeting point of many cultures.

  • khote14

    Bruce, I have to suspect your claim to being an atheist, why? What is this business about “atheism being a corrupt ideology …”It is not an ideology, it is the lack of an ideology. This is a mistake the believers make.Religion, faith in unprovable gods and all that – good points and bad, perhaps you are right that this crutch helps people through a life they could not otherwise tolerate. I do not know, I don’t claim to know.It is not the content of the faith, the dogma, the doctrine with which I disagree i particular – religions differ greatly in these areas. It is the suppression of the intellect, the suspension of disbelief required to support these beliefs.In this light all theistic religions are the same. This particular attribute of belief is a cross-cutting concern for all of them.

  • katavo

    “… What is not in dispute is that religion is adaptive”What?!? Adaptive? Are you using the same word “religion” as the rest of us?Religion claims absolute truth, absolute knowledge, and absolute faith. There is no room within those claims for adaptive behavior.Another poster quotes Eric Hoffer, and I will too:”We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand.”I’ll reach for one of my favorite stories regarding religious intolerance of reality – that of Galileo.The church at that time maintained as part of its dogma the “truth” of the sun-centered universe. Rather than adapt it’s dogma when faced with irreconcilable proof offered by Galileo that this was not so … they instead chose to “adapt” Galileo.Religion is dogma, doctrine, absolute faith. For you to use the word “adaptive” in this context makes one suppose that you really have no clue what you are talking about, and instead are more interested in piling on superlatives rather than examining the facts.It appears you are no atheist, but instead are more likely to be some christian posing as an atheist to sell your book, written to sell to discomfited christians hoping for a last-ditch reason not to chuck the whole crock out the window.

  • katavo

    oops, excuse me: “earth-centered universe”

  • hyjanks

    I think it was Voltaire who, upon being asked if he believed in god, said: “I believe there are no gods. But I also believe that man is in desperate need of them”.

  • katavo

    paarsurrey, your pursuit of peace is to be admired. But I must take issue with your assertions in some ways.How many gods are there now, and have there been? Ra, Thor, Zeus, the Christian and Jewish gods, Allah, Quetzalcoatl, Mithra … FSM? More gods than you or I could count, certainly.Yet you do not believe in any of those other gods do you, Thor or Ra or Zeus? In fact you are atheistic towards these gods. By sheer count, all of the believers amongst us are atheistic to all of the vast number of gods but their own.Atheism is therefore a natural state. In fact, you are only a few steps away from being a “real” atheist yourself – stop believing in the few gods you believe in now. You already know how not to believe in the others.And one other thing, consider your atheism towards these other gods. Do you believe in that atheism, is it an ideology you pursue, is there a church of atheism you attend to join together with other atheists in not believing in Thor?Can you see how silly it is to say someone “believes in atheism?”

  • shaktahir

    Hi,Mr.Sherman

  • coloradodog

    Are you serious? Religion “…. provides net value over and above its required investment…” considering all the war, torture, pain, hatred and exclusion it has caused?Then again, without religion, what would ccnl1 continually cut-and-paste about?

  • coloradodog

    Bruce is no atheist but rather another Huckabee poser trying to make a fast buck pimping poor old Jesus.

  • MGT2

    COLORADODOG,About religion, you said: “considering all the war, torture, pain, hatred and exclusion it has caused?”Historically, most wars are caused by other reasons than religion, including the World Wars, the Gulf wars, tribal wars in the populous East and in Africa, the Civil War in America, and many more around the world throughout thousands of years of human interactions; these wars were primarily about wealth and power, not religion. And they account for more torture, pain, suffering, hatred and death than religiously inspired wars. However, that does not excuse war in the name of religion.

  • Carstonio

    The problem with the benefits that Sheiman ascribes to religion is that one cannot choose what to believe. The act of being convinced into a belief is not a conscious one. If one tries to believe in a god in hopes of those benefits, one has already pierced the fourth wall. I can imagine people wanting to believe in a god would make sense if one assumes that such a god is benevolent or just. While one can argue that the god of the Old Testament is neither, the greater issue is that one can just as easily assume that a god is indifferent or malevolent.”the more I understand the world as revealed by science, the more I find the materialist and reductionist explanation for our human destiny terribly devoid of depth, value and meaning. This offends not my religious sensibility (of which I have none), but my existential vanity – the strongly held personal view that my life counts in the grand scheme of things.”I’m disappointed that Sheiman has appeared to buy into the straw men that creationists and other fundamentalist theists have created to bash science. “Materialism” assumes a divide between material and nonmaterial existence – it’s not a scientific concept, but merely a mischaracterization of science. We can’t assume that such a divide even exists. And it’s not “reductionism” to insist on standards of testability and falsifiability for hypotheses. My answer to Sheiman is that humans should let go of our existential vanity. We should acknowledge that the available evidence indicates that the universe is indifferent to human existence, and we should be comfortable with that. Since we have no evidence that there is a “grand scheme of things,” we shouldn’t want such a scheme to exist. We shouldn’t desire validation from the universe – what matters is that we validate ourselves. We have no evidence for inherent value or meaning. The evidence we have indicates that these are human-created concepts, and there’s nothing wrong with that.”I am an atheist who is sympathetic to religious aspirations and who is prepared, if not to defend God, then to defend the belief in God.”I’m not an atheist because I acknowledge the possibility of gods. But I’m not sympathetic to others’ beliefs about gods because those beliefs are ultimately about other people. It’s one thing if someone wants to believe in a divinely created purpose for himself, but they have no right to believe in such purposes for me or anyone else. That’s simply a matter of personal boundaries.

  • Carstonio

    To clarify, I acknowledge the possibility that the universe has sentience, while I emphasize that the likelihood of this is vanishingly small since there’s no evidence for that sentience.”Religion teaches us that our lives have inherent worth and that the world is shot-through with value.”Again, we have no evidence that value is inherent, even the value of our own lives. What evidence can religion offer for inherent value, as opposed to the value that humans bestow on the world? The issue here is that not all religions claim inherent worth for human lives. Some claim such worth only for believers, and some claim a conditional worth based on deeds.

  • DouginMoz

    Can you see how silly it is to say someone “believes in atheism?”First, theism, by definition, is a belief in God. It doesn’t matter what god or how many gods. One will do. Therefore, atheism, on the other hand, is the belief that there is no god of any type or description.

  • Carstonio

    “Man’s nobler sentiments shuch as love, courage, honor, joy, etc. do not exist because they cannot be proven by empirical science.”I know of no one who believes that. Again, that sounds like an anti-science straw man. Those things exist but in the subjective sense – they do not exist in the objective sense like a tree or a person.”The second is existentialism in which the meaning or significance or purpose of one’s life must be determined by that individual on his own terms. It is what the Bible refers to as ‘doing what is right in one’s own eyes.'”That falsely implies that the opposite of inherent morality is no morality at all, that the only alternative to god-given law is complete lawlessness. Deciding one’s own meaning or purpose does NOT equate to doing whatever one wants with no regard for others. The goal is to pursue one’s own happiness in ways that do not interfere with others pursuing their own happiness. Emotionally mature adults should not need to be told what to do like unruly 3-year-olds – I’m referring to Kohlberg’s stages of moral development.Also, why should we believe any person who claims to have laws from gods? I could just as easily claim that gods don’t want humans to wear pink shirt with plaid pants.

  • daniel12

    Carstonio, it is possible to speak of inherent value in the world, for somehow, in spite of all evidence the universe cares not a whit about man, man has evolved from something less in the past and there is no real reason to say man cannot evolve indefinitely–man apparently is on some sort of path whether he likes it or not. And if such a path exists, then the universe cannot be spoken of as totally indifferent and that it is man only who gives value to his life.

  • Carstonio

    Also, how can we assume that gods have anything to do with morality? Some religions don’t have gods as lawgivers, such as that of the ancient Greeks. It’s possible that gods wouldn’t care about morality at all, or they may want humans to hurt each other for whatever reason. I’m not arguing for any of those, I’m arguing for making no assumptions about gods at all, including the assumption that they exist or that they don’t exist.

  • DouginMoz

    Bruce, I have to suspect your claim to being an atheist, why? What is this business about “atheism being a corrupt ideology …”Why is it that it is so hard for you to believeAt the university, I was sufficiently indoctrinated with secular humanism to devolve to an agnostic. It would be nearly 20 years before I would return to Christianity; and although there were several reasons for my recommitment, one of them was watching during decades of teaching school, where the direction of the world and our youth were headed. There is an article very similar to this one on this side of the world in which an atheist, while intent on remaining so in his personal beliefs, believes that Africans need Christianity in order to develop. He bases this opinion on his observed differences between Christian Africans and non-Christian Africans. I’ll post the website when I can get to my work computer tomorrow. I don’t want to misquote the article.

  • DouginMoz

    “Man’s nobler sentiments shuch as love, courage, honor, joy, etc. do not exist because they cannot be proven by empirical science.””The second is existentialism in which the meaning or significance or purpose of one’s life must be determined by that individual on his own terms. It is what the Bible refers to as ‘doing what is right in one’s own eyes.'”Also, why should we believe any person who claims to have laws from gods? I could just as easily claim that gods don’t want humans to wear pink shirt with plaid pants.

  • ccnl1

    And there is the infectious probability wave, “Homeland1” who enjoys disturbing all with his/her constant gibberish!!Please note, there is an apparent connection among all of these waves!!

  • Carstonio

    Daniel,”man has evolved from something less in the past and there is no real reason to say man cannot evolve indefinitely–man apparently is on some sort of path whether he likes it or not. “That’s a corruption of the concept of natural selection, which makes no judgment about earlier forms being “less” than later forms. When one species evolves from another, that doesn’t mean that the new form is better or greater than the old one. When conditions change in nature that favor some species and do not favor others, evolution isn’t saying that one deserved to survive and the other didn’t. Part of the problem may be the common misperception of evolution as “survival of the fittest” which falsely implies jugmentality. The forces of change are simply pushing – it may only seem like we’re being pushed in a particular direction because we are pattern-noticing creatures.Doug,”the ultimate conclusion of scientific materialism is that it must be empirically verified. In this manner, God as spirit, can never be scientifically verified. Thus, no God! I am not anti-science, only anti-scientific materialism which established limiting boundaries on what science could discuss.”What basis is there for saying that there is a material/spirit divide, or that spirits are off-limits to scientific inquiry? The problem there is that there’s no intellectual discipline involved – anyone can claim anything about spirit existence. It’s almost like saying, “I can prove a mountain exists, but only in the spirit realm so you can’t challenge my proof – ha ha!””There is nothing false about it, because no such thing was implied, unless you think that the Bible verse implies that.”I don’t know if the Bible verse about “doing what is right in one’s own eyes” was intended as a slam against that concept, but I do know that it has been used that way, to claim the existence of moral absolutes.”It would only imply that if you believed in, as you said, an inherent morality being correct, which you don’t.”I should clarify that I don’t reject the possibility of inherent morality. I merely assert that the burden of proof is on any claim that it exists. “People only got away with that in the 60’s and 70’s because of the drugs.”Ha! Did you get my point about competing religions making conflicting claims about their moral codes allegedly being dictated by gods? The issue there is not the merit of the codes themselves, but the claimed sources.

  • forcestar6

    God of creation is not divisive. Jesus said, “the father and I are one”. In Jesus Christ saying he and God of creation are one, he did not say he was God. Rather, he said he and God of creation are of one mind, working through brain, the logos of mind–greek conception. Jesus Christ is consubstanital and of the same body of God of creation, parusia (Greek, one substance) Jesus said, “seek the truth and you will find it”. It is said of Jesus Christ, he is the word (logos) made flesh. Jesus Christ said, “I have come that they may have life and have it more abundantly”.In the Old Testament, God said, “vengeance is mine and mine alone”. Secularly it is said, you have a problem with your fellow man, take the matter before the magistrate. Do not take the law into your own hands. Ethics and religion go hand in glove. It may be said Aristotle knew Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ knew Aristotle. Both of these men speak for human elevation of consciousness. In conscious think doing what is right, despite you may have explored that which metaphysically is wrong (universal absolutes)and you will see the light. Charles Hartshorne and Alfred North Whitehead speak of God of creation being dipolar, whereby God of creation is both abstract, wherewith the Godhead is unmovably fixed in being and concrete, wherewith the Godhead is ever becoming through created life. Jesus Christ said, forgive seventy times seven till infinity. He said my peace I leave with you. Jesus Christ represents the Godhead’s love of humanity. When has all humanity at once reciprocated? I applaud the Atheist. Homework had been employed. Francis Bacon, “a little knowledge in philosophy leads one to atheism, but a further proceeding therein brings one back to God”, one body with Jesus Christ with the power of the spirit holy, just and eternal.

  • ThomasBaum

    forcestar6You wrote, “God of creation is not divisive. Jesus said, “the father and I are one”. In Jesus Christ saying he and God of creation are one, he did not say he was God. Rather, he said he and God of creation are of one mind, working through brain, the logos of mind–greek conception.”This is your interpretation and you are wrong.You also wrote, “Jesus said, “seek the truth and you will find it”.”I don’t know if Jesus said that but He did say, “I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father except thru Me”, and if you notice He did not say “God” but said the “Father” and since God is a Trinity, referred to as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Jesus did not say that there was only one way to Him or the Holy Spirit, did He?Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.