Re-evaluating Ravi Zacharias

(In response to Catherine Smith’s Monday column, “Existence of God debate will affect ASU.”)

It seems silly to argue over who wreaked more devastation: religion or irreligion. After a certain point, it doesn’t matter who killed more people. The numbers are so big that both sides lose.

“Oh, but religion ONLY killed 100 million people, and those atheist commies killed 150 million.”

Well, anything that’s killed 100 million people seems bad. And anytime you want to say you’re better because Hitler and Stalin outdid you?

Well, you’re not saying much. They pretty much outdid everyone. So, good job Mr. Zacharias.

Jeff Weyant
Undergraduate

I find several discrepancies in Catherine Smith’s argument. It is clear that she has not done sufficient research to warrant a nearly half-a-page article. Stephen Hawking is a self-identified agnostic, not the adamant atheist Smith paints him to be. Hawking studies theoretical physics, and Richard Dawkins studies evolutionary biology, not theology.

These are distinct areas of study, while the speakers arranged to address ASU primarily study religion.

Historically, Smith makes severe errors in her presentation, also. Even with the atrocities of Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot, the death count for atheism can only be totaled at around 95 million. Does that seem excessive?

The Protestant and Catholic lead invasion and subsequent genocide of Native Americans tallies up 100 million deaths by itself. Well, ignore Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito (75 million), the exploits of Genghis Khan (40 million), and violence between Catholics and Protestants (14 million). A conservative estimate from the grand total of theist deaths, including, but certainly not limited to the aforementioned, is somewhere around 2 billion.

So, Ravi Zacharias is either ignoring political fact, or is misusing numbers to convey something that he is predisposed to want to convey.

I don’t even want to go into the fact that Buddha is not a god, and Hindus are polytheistic. I sincerely hope that Smith’s faith is not based on the same poor research she has provided State Press readers with; in that case, a reevaluation may be necessary.

Denise Hurtt
Undergraduate