Month: April 2016
Dogma?
“Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human. When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined skepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded” C.K. Chesterton.
The world is filled with ideas, and many of those ideas could be classified as dogmas. Now, a dogma is an idea that has hardened to a point that is no longer thought about but just accepted on authority. The word dogma is not used as much today, this may be because it sounds too religious for a secular age, which itself has accepted the dogma of secularism. However, we do have a word or idea that is very close to it. It is the word presumption. A presumption is an idea that we take for granted without much thought or for the most part, without any or little thought.
In view of the above it is a self-event truth that all men have and live by dogma to some degree. One thing that can be said about the religious man is that he has accepted parts of his faith as dogma while the secular man is still in a state of denial, believing he is living by reason alone or in some neutral zone free of presumption or dogma. He has reached the unconsciousness of grass and he glories in it calling it tolerance or enlightenment.
Of course, there are some men who have very little dogma. Some of these folks fancied themselves as skeptics. Skeptics claim not to live by or believe dogma according to their dogma. The only dogma that they can believe is the dogma of skepticism. According to them, you must doubt everything except skepticism. Then you have the agnostics who believe nothing because they believe that it is impossible to be certain about the truth. Of course, they are certain agnosticism is true. We should not leave out the relativist which believes everything and nothing, and that everyone is right except the person that believes others are wrong. Of course, they believe that the skeptics, and the agnostics are right. The only person that they do not agree with is the dogmatist. They do not seem to like people who think they know something which is true.
Out of all of the above, the relativist is the one most likely to be tossed about by every wind of teaching that comes along, for they lack a foundation of truth by which to judge any new ideas. As it has been said, “a man who believes nothing will believe anything.” In fact, the relativist really does not believe in objective truth. What they believe in, is personal truth, i.e. truth is what you believe. What makes it true is that you believe it. Most of these folks belong to the same cult, the cult of personal opinion.
The relativist are also the most likely to become fanatical and completely out of balance. Many progressive folks fall within this group always moving forward without knowing which direction is forward; always seeing a cause to give their meaningless life purpose. To me, the really progressive person is the one that when traveling in a direction that is not working turns around and goes in a different direction, like back. Of course, if you are a relativist you don’t know which way is back.
It may be time for all of us to ask some serious questions about some of our new dogmas. Question like, are they really taking us forward or are they simply getting us deeper into the woods. So, deep that we will never find our way out. Why not try putting some of your dogmas, or the lack of it to the test? Start with your religious assumptions using the Bible as an objective standard to judge your ideas. You do not have to believe it, but simply use it as a source of information to compare your personal dogma with. You also might try the same exercise politically with the Constitution and other founding documents. In doing this you might find these source documents truly refreshing and challenging.
Religion and Freedom
Does Reason have Anything to do with Evolution?
Does Reason have Anything to do with Evolution?
The true naturalist, as Darwin, has got to say no to this question. They’re closed system of naturalism says that reason or intelligent design can have nothing to do with evolution. For if they were to say yes, it would allow the camel to get his noise in the tent. However, this leads to another question, if reason or intelligence really has nothing to do with evolution. How could evolution give birth to reason?[1] What about when reason gets into the evolution process by the practice of select breeding? So, we could say that reason is involved in some evolution because human intelligence is directing the evolution of some species through selective breeding. What about when scientists messing with genes and manipulating them, could you call that intelligent design? Reason, directing or influenced evolution.
If human reason can tinker with genes and evolution why is it so far-fetched that super reason can be tinkering with it, designing it and directing it to achieve his goals? There is only one reason for denying this hypothesis, that being a predisposition of science toward materialism and atheism. This predisposition, being a built in bias in science toward metaphysics, came out of its attempt to distinguish itself from philosophy.
Richard Lewontin (evolutionary geneticist), hints at this predisposition and bias when he says “[The public] take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” [2]
“So the moral of the story told by a historian of science is at once simple and endlessly complex. Knowledge without prejudice is not possible and neither is social life. Prejudice can be selectively managed and disciplined but it cannot be eliminated. We have to pick out those prejudices that we find intolerable and oppose them as vigorously as we can with whatever resources we can. But we are going to have to do so without a rational master”[3]
It does seem from the above the following things, (1) many in the scientific community have a presupposition bias towards intelligent design in evolution. (2) Intelligent design has been practiced in the barnyard and in the laboratory for centuries. (3) The hypothesis that the processes of evolution or at least aspects of it are controlled by a super intelligence is not contrary to observation and true science. Intelligence has been observed influencing evolution. (4) Many arguments against intelligent design is grounded more in materialistic philosophy than authentic science.
[1] They use reason to explain how evolution created reason and reason to explain evolution. Is this not based on the presupposition that reason can be trusted, which in turn is based on the supposition that a mindless process could create a rational process. Can these suppositions be supported scientifically? Evolutionist will say that nature gave birth to reason through the process of natural selection. However, natural selection presupposes that there is something to select from. If there was no reason in nature how could it be selected by natural selection?
[2] “Billions and Billions of Demons,” page 31 quoted in Never Pure by Shapin, Steven
[3] Shapin, Steven (2010-07-24). Never Pure (p.46, 56). Johns Hopkins University Press. Kindle Edition.
The Cornerstone of Liberalism
The Cornerstone of Liberalism
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! John 8:43-45 NIV.
The foundation of Liberalism[1] is made up of many stones. However, the cornerstone of the philosophy is the autonomy of the individual. What do we mean by the autonomy of the individual? It simply means that the individual is self-governing and to some degree is self-directed.
It may surprise you to hear that the Bible has quite a bit to say about this doctrine of the autonomy of the individual. In the story found in the book of Genesis, God created man free to make a choice and he also warned man that if he made the wrong choice there would be consequences. The choices were to governor one’s self and be independent of God (autonomous) or to choose to be self – denying and allow God to govern one’s life.
If we look at the liberal faith through the lens of the story. Liberalism is nothing more than an organized rebellion against God[2]. Like Adam in the story liberals do not believe God, of course in our age it’s not a matter of believing God, but rather not believing IN God. However, no matter how you word it, it’s the same old story. Man , wanting to be independent and free from the authority of God. In the story Satan deceived man in two ways. He first convinced man that God’s word was not true and then that God did not mean what he said. Both of his arguments were attacks on the truth of God’s word. Based on what I’ve all already said, it only follows that the liberal faith would be attacking God’s word today and even setting themselves up as the judges of God and his Word. Well, that exactly what we find.
It is the liberal faith that has embraced relativism (the denial that there is any absolute truth) and has led the attack on scripture and on the living word who is Jesus Christ.[3] In fact, liberals and their siblings[4] despise any authority, but especially anything or anyone that represents the authority of God. Like their father they hate God and everything that pertains to the true God. Like their father they know how to subvert language and appear as angles of light to naïve and gullible men. The apostle Paul says of them “And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness” 2 Cor. 11:14-15. Still to this day we have liberals masquerading as Christians for their own purpose or the purpose of their father.
Even from a utilitarian point of view, liberalism has a number of problems, if every person is self-governing and self-directed, what happens when people begin to go in different directions and they then begin to disagree on whom and what should govern? The liberal answer is that a man’s freedom or self-governing ends where any others man’s freedom begins. But does this really take care of the problem or does it just raise more questions? For example who will determine where one man’s freedom ends and any other man’s begins? The state?[5] If the state is to determine this, is the individual really free? What happens if the state defines freedom differently than the individual? Maybe we should toss a coin? No, the one with the most power wins and in the modern world that means the state. Liberalism therefore will always look to the state to determine where freedom begins and ends. The state then judges the difference between good and evil. In other word the state begins to determine morality. Could this be the source of political correctness? It surely is the beginning of a totalitarian state.
In the story, God creates man and then gives him freedom. In the liberal system it is the state that defines and gives freedom to the individual, of course, if the state gives freedom, the state can take it away. If the deity gives freedom no government would have the right to take that freedom away. This was the thinking of the founding fathers when they said that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” and government was created to protect those rights. It is quite obvious that the founding fathers were not liberals. This is the reason why liberals are not extremely fond of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. They simply don’t believe them.
There is any problem with the liberal faith, which is, who has the authority to define the concept of freedom? Freedom is one of those elusive concepts that could be defined in a numbers ways. For the atheist it could be defined simply by the expression “Freedom is doing what I what to do or simply being left alone by the authorities”. For the Christian freedom would be defined “as being free from self to serve God and others.”
Now liberals, will respond by saying that the state should stay out of defining freedom or liberty. But if this true, why then do they use the public school to push their liberal faith? In fact, every time they have a change, liberals use the government and the court system to impose their liberal faith on the American people. They get away with this because the American people do not recognize liberalism for what it is, a godless religion that is against all other religions.
In the story when man sinned something happened to his nature. Before the fall his will was directed toward God, after the fall his will was directed to himself. His will was directed to satisfying his lower nature. He then began to live not for God, but rather to satisfy his lower nature’s appetites. The story therefore depicts liberalism, perfectly, for liberalism is nothing more than a high form of hedonism (living for pleasure). Even, discipline and self-restraint is practiced primarily to extend the ego.
The conclusion is this; liberalism is nothing more than an organized rebellion against the living God. It is a religion or a philosophy that denies and subverts God’s word. Therefore, it is sinful for Christians to be involved in liberalism or to support any group or politic party that supports it.
[1] Liberalism is not being nice or compassionate. It is a philosophy that competes and stands in contradiction to the Christian faith. The advanced liberals which often call themselves progressives are liberals who have embraced the liberal philosophy and have taken it to its end, which is anarchy.
[2] The symbol and the height of the liberal move is the French Revolution with its motto “No king and no God”.
[3] Liberals have used the methodology of higher criticism to deny the authority of scripture and to deny the Lordship of Jesus. Note Eta Linnemann Book “Historical Criticism of the Bible” with the sub-title “Methodology or Ideology? Reflections of a Bultmannian turned evangelical”. Also note Jude 8-16
Harry Blamires book “The Christian Mind” saved me from embracing a liberal view of the Bible.
[4] The two siblings of liberalism are atheism and libertarianism. Atheism is the ultimate distortion of the image of God in man and libertarianism is a secular counterfeit of the Christian faith which in its true state lives above the law.
[5] In the end for the liberal the state becomes God walking on the earth. A good example of this that the state in the abortion controversy ended up determining what is life or non-life. In this Secular liberalism is nothing more than man playing God.
The Burden of Proof and Non-Belief
The Burden of Proof and Non-Belief
About two years ago I became interested in the new atheist movement and began to spend some time reading and contemplating it. As I got into it, it struck me how much stress the new atheists puts on the question of who has the burden of truth[1] and on their belief that atheism should be categorized as a non-belief and not a belief. It seemed that the significance they gave to these beliefs in their blogs diverted the attention away from the question of ‘does God exist’ and on to peripheral subjects[2]. At first this puzzled me and then it dawned on me how crucial these beliefs are to their thought system.
Why are these beliefs so important to new the atheists? My suspicion is that some of them on the top of their intellectual food chain know that human reason can question and deny almost any belief. Reason can lead you to doubting your doubts. So, how do you avoid this? By simply declaring your thought system as an non-belief, making it immune to doubting and skepticism. You never have to question it, for how can you question a non-belief? So in essence, you can be a true believer without believing anything. Ingenious to say the least.
What about the burden of proof? Everyone who has dabbled in philosophy knows that you cannot prove empirically metaphysical ideas, you must infer them from facts and the inferences you contribute to the facts. These inferences can always be questioned and doubted. The atheist knows that the hard work is not questioning the inferences but creating them. So, in their discussions with believers most stoop to the level of criticism. This is why we find very few arguments against the existence of God and numerous arguments against the arguments of the theist, which proves nothing but the strength of the argument.
Some atheists have gone so far as to declare their un-belief as an absolute, claiming to have proven atheism[3], even to the point of criticizing and attacking agnosticism, which is the very state of mind that doubting is grounded on. The agnostic says I do not know, therefore ‘I should question everything including my doubts’[4]. On the other hand some atheist[5] say you should doubt everything, but not your doubts about the existence of God and of course whatever else they deem as important. Now I admit that atheism is the more manly and brave position rather than agnosticism, but it’s not the most rational or consistent position, from a doubters (skeptics) and believers point of view.
[1] I have a number of articles on my website about the burden of truth. The technical definition of burden of truth basically says that it falls on the person making a positive affirmation. However, you can make a positive affirmation on a negative. Example: there is absolutely no God. Most reasonable people will admit that this statement cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt but the statement itself demands evidence or else it is simply an empty statement. If not then why do atheists argue about it all the time?
[2] In one exchange the new atheist spent so much time arguing about the burden of proof we never got to the subject of the existence of God. The young man seemed incapable of simply carrying on a conversation about the question, ‘does God exist’.
[3] Not many will make this assertion. However, a few are brave enough.
[4] The true skeptic believes that the way to truth is through doubting. Thus if you stop doubting you close off the source to truth and actually become a believer. Atheistic absolutists’ are true believers in that they brand their abstract reasoning as absolute, and put their faith in it.
[5] These atheists are true believers, that believe that reason is pure and therefore can be absolute. Of course reason is never pure and human knowledge never reflects reality totally.
Lyle Duell 