Thomas Jefferson believed that in the next generation his view about God would be the majority view, in high percentage, especially among the educated gentry. He is identified as a deist – that there may be a God somewhere, but He has no effective interest in planet Earth. The laws of nature are the guides for man’s life and habitat. Well over 200 years later, persons holding belief in God are more numerous than ever. Just before Thanksgiving, 2008, a significant investment was made in an advertising campaign by humanists: Why believe in God? Be good for goodness sake. The statement was mounted in large letters on the sides of buses in Washington, D.C. In a straw poll an internet provider discovered that, by significant majority, respondents thought the ad to be in bad taste. Persons were asked if they celebrated Christmas. More than ninety percent said that they did. Apparently relating the ad and the season, respondents held, in large percentages, religious feelings about Christmas. During all eras there are those in each generation who wish to end belief that there may be a personal God. There is reason to believe, on the current turn of the issue, that there may be a concerted attempt to gain scientific knowledge that there is, indeed, no deity. This comes from a strong emphasis by most earth scholars that the world came from an unassisted big bang, and mankind evolved ultimately from the first life following. The increase of interest in a nul hypothesis about God, also stimulates my own belief that the large body of theistic scholars ought to advance the research that points to the likelihood of God, with the benefits of Christian culture leading to a happier, healthier, even longer natural life. Theologians tend to believe that God cannot be proved in quite the same way as one proves the make-up of some chemical compound. Probabilities are about all that can be hoped for and expounded on many matters, religious or otherwise, outside the solar system. Even the immensity of space, and the fueling of the stars become more than we can answer at this point in man’s search.
What is goodness? Is goodness for me the goodness of a secular Godfather? Who will ever define goodness with objectivity, except for One outside of human purview? I have heard so many differences about what goodness is from so many people, some satisfactory in the treatment, but paradoxical if not contradictory. What is truth for one is not moral for others. What is proper speed on the road is not speed for others. What are good manners for one are not good manners for others. What is generous for one is stingy for the other. What is sinful for one is not sinful for others. A student protested in our college that his wrongdoing was not an issue, the issue was what was done in multiples of persons. His stealing money from another student wasn’t wrong, but racial prejudice was wrong. His view of wrong was not personal but social. One of the great sins of mankind is warfare. As one listens to what belligerents have said, right is in them, and the evil is in others. Such is our arrogance. Both may be wrong. In some way we must posit a God or god substitute. If man can be presumed to have evolved, could God evolve? If this positing is not for God, it is for some outer Source, or mankind may become a god. We conjure ourselves. We come up with concepts that turn us into proud prople. We are denied human depravity, which is a basic problem. We may go empty into the sunset – no plan. We do well preferring faith, Christian hope. Of the choices, the choice for Christ provides meaning of all, addressing totality. A thinking person does not deny God because mankind has come up with a myriad of gods to choose from. If there is God, and he cares about human rescue, with some offer as to how that rescue may be attained it is likely that the search will point toward the plan development we gain from the Christian Scripture – one of redemption. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020