Re: 2001's gospel message

Moorad Alexanian (
Mon, 08 Nov 1999 10:36:41 -0500

It seems to me that one can see, experience, know, etc. God's "fingerprints"
everywhere or nowhere. To the theist it is everywhere, to the atheist it if
nowhere. Of course, those in the middle must make up their own minds.


-----Original Message-----
From: Allan Harvey <>
To: <>
Cc: <>
Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: 2001's gospel message

>At 07:59 PM 11/5/99 +0000, wrote:
>>At 09:07 AM 11/05/1999 -0700, Allan Harvey wrote:
>>>As an aside, I'd recommend Joel Cannon's review of Contact:
>>>He points out what also struck me, which is that for Jodie Foster's
>>>character (and presumably also Sagan) the only way for God to be
>>>meaningful is if he "leaves his fingerprints all over the evidence."
>>In some fashion I agree with Sagan. A God who leaves NO fingerprints just
>>might be an imaginary figure like a leprechaun. Belief in a God with no
>>fingerprints becomes unsubstantiated belief. And maybe that was the appeal
>>of Contact (the book) to me. We Christians need to remember that the
>>resurrection IS a BIG fingerprint.
>In some fashion I agree with Glenn (hey, it happens sometimes). Of
>course most fundamentally God's "fingerprint" is Jesus Christ.
>The problem comes when people look not at that revealed fingerprint but
>insist on their own ideas of what they think God's fingerprints are
>supposed to look like. When they require that "fingerprint" (be it
>Sagan's orbiting crucifix or "gaps" in the evolution of life) as a
>necessary condition for the truth of Christianity, we must teach them
>that they have no right to tell God how he must reveal himself or how he
>must do his creative work.
>| Dr. Allan H. Harvey | |
>| Physical and Chemical Properties Division | "Don't blame the |
>| National Institute of Standards & Technology | government for what I |
>| 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 | say, or vice versa." |