Conrad Black speaks out.

The most erudite of all former press barons, Mr. Conrad Black, wrote an opinion piece in the „National Post“, under the heading: „The shabby, shallow world of the militant atheist.“

In this discourse he informs us that during a conversation with Dr. John Lennox, professor of mathematics at Oxford University, and a most rational and persuasive advocate of a „Christian theistic view of the world“, it had come back to him what a „shabby level of mockery“ and sophistical evasion many of the militant atheists are reduced to.

At once I must marvel at the clever presentation and selective use of expressions Mr. Black utilizes:

He tells us, that all this re-enlightenment happened during an „enjoyable conversation“ with one of the „most rational“ professors of mathematics.

By having such an enjoyable conversation, Conrad puts himself on the highest level of rationality, right alongside the professor of mathematics.

How could they possibly be wrong ? After all, mathematics is the ultimate exercise of logic and this alone places both participants to this conversation on a level far above that of the average doubter. 
If a rational professor of mathematics espouses Christianity, then, Conrad does not say, but certainly suggests, his ( and Conrad's ) view of the christian world must be correct.

Again, as if to fortify his own view and beliefs, Mr. Black reminds us later in this dissertation, that „Dr. Lennox is one of the world's most eminent mathematicians.“

Does Conrad think his readers have such limited capacity to recall the written word so that it becomes necessary to present Dr. Lennox's credentials as a mathematician again and again, or is it that Conrad himself does not have sufficient strength of his own ideas in the realm of religion and/or philosophy ?

It seems to me that one could easily draw the conclusion that mastery of mathematics does not, per se, assure mastery of religious beliefs or non-beliefs.

Mathematics is a matter of knowledge and logical deductions, while religion is none of those.

Religion is a matter of belief, and has nothing whatever to do with „knowledge or logical deductions“.

The hackneyed and tired argument for the existence of a „Creator“ , a „devine intelligence“ being absolutely essential to explain the intricate and complex mechanisms of the universe is exactly what it is: Hackneyed and tired.

Conrad Black uses in his headline the words „militant atheist“, with the probably intended emphasis on the word „militant“.

Webster's Dictionary defines the word „militant“ as „having or showing a desire or willingness to use strong, extreme and sometimes forceful methods to achieve something.“

I have never heard of a group of Atheists, lead by Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, storming a Cathedral and killing all praying therein. I have heard, however, of believers engaging in holy wars and killing so-called non-believers by the bushel. 
I have also heard of the Inquisition, which, I venture to say, was quite militant.
So which one is „militant?“ Theists or Atheists ?

Must I remind you of the militancy of Moses, as ordered by God himself ? ( Or so Moe told his followers to keep them do his bidding ), or of the Christian Crusades between the 11^th and 13^th century? Talk about „militant“. That's militant.

If Mr. Black simply meant that some atheists present their views in a loud and forceful manner, then all of them are a long way behind ancient and/or modern preachers of Christianity and several other religions. Abraham a Santa Clara (1644 – 1709 ) was no slouch in matters of militancy, neither was the Southern Baptist, Billy Graham. Both, very militant in their presentations of their beliefs

I do not even want to mention some mullahs preaching their hate filled version of religion in their Mosques.

So, dear Mr. Black, don't try to misdirect us with your clever use of terminology. We're onto you.

I find it most interesting, that Conrad Black and Dr. John Lennox so firmly believe and pillory those who disbelieve.

When actually, this much praised Faith in a Creator, takes the same amount of „believing“ as does the denial of the existence of a Creator.

He, who believes in God, has no „evidence“ with which he may buttress his belief. And He, who does not believe in God, also has no evidence with which to buttress his disbelief.

Where then, does this leave those of us who do not wish to be bamboozled by Conrad, but also will not buy into the denial of Dawkins, Hitchens etc etc. because neither has and therefore cannot present any evidence.

The position of the Agnostic is the narrow shelf left to us.

We are sometimes accused of being non-committed fence sitters.

I, for one, prefer this position to simply accepting a set of beliefs without a shred of supporting evidence.

What was it, Epicurus, the Greek Philosopher (341 -270 BC) said among so many ideas worthy of study and knowing:

„ Nothing should be believed, except that which was tested through direct observation and logical deduction.“

So there you have it: Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism...

Take your pick.

Bertstravels

knows which one he wants.