Here is a response to the article that appeared in the Toronto Star on  Sunday February 14, 1998.

LIKE SANTA, GOD A TALE FOR YOUNG

God, for Mr. Edward Barker is like Santa Claus, an imaginary being constructed from "convoluted logic" and carefully "indoctrinated" into the minds of the very young. The indoctrination of the very young occurs when the "powers of reasoning" are sufficiently underdeveloped. When the time of such development does occur and the young can "reason logically" they are afraid to do so, since any such thinking " would be deemed blasphemy" and would result in the "wrath of a ...omnipotent being". As a result of these awful consequences, the child must continue in the conscious "suppression of all logic" which would show the "impossibility of such a concept ". For Mr. Barker the existence of God is like the existence of dinosaurs. The lesson to be learned from both is that "it is impossible to prove something does not exist". His experiences during World War II: "the army church parade, where God's aid was invoked to help us to go and break the First Commandment'", his veteran experience in North Africa and Sicily and as a POW in Germany, together with "religious teachings [that] clashed with those provided by science", were enough to "confirm [in him] the illogicality of a benevolent, omnipotent entity ". For him "logic tells me I will experience exactly the same feelings after death that I experienced before I was born "- the "eternity of nothingness".  What stands out most in this article is the constant referral to the " I " statements.

"I think nearly all children undergo this experience." "I got through life with the conviction..." "I consciously follow a moral and truthful pattern..." "I found religious teachings clashed with those provided by science..." "I suppose religion had to be utilized somehow". "I firmly believe when I depart this life...' "to me ( I ), belief in a god, or gods falls into this category..."

Mr. Barker cannot get beyond the " I " to the "what is". He is stuck in the epistemological idealism of Descartes' "I think therefore I am". This principle, in our day, has been modified accordingly: "I think therefore it is". For Barker the " I " determines everything. Maybe this is why for him it is "almost impossible to prove something does not exist ". If existence is only in one's mind, then it is solely subjective. Subjective experiences are personal and private. No one has access to them except oneself. Therefore, no one can comment on their validity. True knowledge will constantly ask and answer the question: "Is what I propose with my mind really like this"? This is what science does all the time. It looks for evidence. Mr. Barker gives none for his positions. But then, his method does not allow for any evidence.

Mr. Krevs.

"One of the deepest exigencies, and probably the deepest exigency, of the Cartesian method is never to go from things to ideas, but on the contrary from ideas to things. Existences are given to a Cartesian only through, and in, essences."¹

Endnote

1. Etienne Gilson, God and Philosophy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955), p.97