Yesterday…
Drunk on the power of my newly minted, atheist ordination, I wrote a eulogy.
I meant it as satire.
I didn’t write an actual name because I was afraid it might cause someone to suffer.
The surest way to destroy good satire is to explain it.
So be it.
The article portrays the absurdity of contemplating death without God.
The will of the Creator gives meaning to the created.
…sigh…Goodbye, satire.
You were a necessary sacrifice.
My daughter has a friend who adopted a boy from Africa.
His name is Jonathan.
He has an incurable disease that affects his nervous system.
He is 8-years old now and he will die soon.
His family is currently saying goodbye.
Amazingly, some folks believe that Science has something to offer this family.
It probably won’t earn you the Templeton Prize but…
…you just gave evidence for your soul.
“I’m sorry, though, to hear about your friend.”
Why include that statement?
Why offer that sentiment?
Are you really sorry?
Because if you are…
You’re implying that your feelings of shared grief have some significance.
That empathy is more than a chemical reaction.
It’s not your brain that compels you to express sincere sympathy.
It’s your soul.
There is no scientific explanation for the tears being shed for Jonathan.
No mathematical equation makes sense of the ache that is undeniably ‘real’ inside those who know and love him.
No logical syllogism concludes with “Love”.
Your claim of ‘sorry’ lacks evidence.
But we can accept it as true if you’ll allow us to use…
…faith.
0 Responses
I love how these atheists comments are a never-ending stream of inspiration for your blog, and a source of amusement to me. I hope they stick around.
Ooh, ooh, I’ll stick around. I consider that an invite. Just so you know, I’m a little on the spectrum, so if I outstay my welcome, you will have to tell me.
Anyway, what exactly is a soul? Because it appears this is just plugging a gap between the author’s assumption of nihilistic reason and human experience.
You didn’t need to explain your satire, John.
It made it’s point, and now to allow it to work where it may.
Great, John.
I wonder if you realize how smugly patronizing you sound here? As if only Christians – whatever the definition – are the ONLY ones on the planet who are able to empathize/sympathize.
Like I mentioned on Nate’s blog earlier; the imagination of Christians will never cease to amaze me.
If you think you are drumming up points for ‘religiosity’, you are delusional. Wait…..
I wonder if you realize that calling someone “smugly patronizing” doesn’t make your beliefs any more helpful when people are dying…