You recently printed another interesting and energetic letter by a retired chemical engineer, Phil Beaver. You have printed several of Beaver’s letters over the years, all passionately protesting religion. I am reminded of Shakespeare’s line in Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
The best I perceive the point made is that he wishes to substitute “justice” for “God” in a new humanistic religion, all the while denying that is what he is doing. As a chemical engineer, he surely applied objective truths and standards in his work or he ended up with a chemical mess — or was dangerous in the practice of his craft.
Yet he offers up no objective standard for the application and practice of “justice,” therefore his proposal is valueless as it stands. E.g. Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao were all seeking to impose their subjective standards of “justice” upon all, yet much of humanity stands aghast at the horrors they imposed. Without a single objective standard of “justice” as our goal, we would each be like Don Quixote, charging separate imaginary windmills in different directions. The result is obvious chaos.
Implicit in his letters is the denial of the objective truth of an existing God. I believe there is a preponderance of rational proof of the existence of God and what He is like and what He desires of mankind. I believe that He loves us. Always has. Always will. Yet He is also a God of justice. I believe that someday soon I will see him (I am in my 77th year.). It seems Beaver is of a different persuasion. The first law of logic, the law of non-contradiction, states that both Beaver and I cannot both be right.
If I am wrong, at my death I shall never know it. If Beaver is wrong, he will know so for all eternity. If I am right, I shall enjoy God eternally. If Beaver is right, he will never have the satisfaction of knowing it. Which is the better life bet?
Bert K. Robinson