A Short letter to a Materialist

A Short letter to a Materialist

  I have often had materialists[1] tell me that” there is nothing in nature that requires a supernatural explanation per say. My reply to that is, I might as well say there is nothing in nature which requires a scientific explanation[2]. Nature has no requirement to understand her.  You can put any  interpretation on her; you wish and she will not protest a bit.  Moreover, who says that everyone must look at nature or anything else through the narrow lens of our present human knowledge and the way some atheistic scientists constructed reality?[3] Their whole narrative is based on the assumption that there is no God, which they cannot prove any more than the theist can prove the existence of God. Both start from an assumption and then build a whole world view around that assumption[4]. One big difference is that the believer can still be open-minded enough to do science in his world view while the atheistic scientists are total blind by their materialism to anything outside of their narrow way of looking at things.

Read very carefully the below quote. It is extremely telling about people assumptions and the power they have over a person and groups of people. You also see there a man who I would say is a true believer in science-ism, although a weak form of it, because he knows much of it is false. However, he does admit that his faith is based upon an assumption that materialism is true.

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.  We take the side of science in  spite of the patent absurdity  of some 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, to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our   prior adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”[5] 

[1] A materialist is a person which believes that everything is made up of matter and denies the existence of spirit. Thus denying the supernatural.

[2] Read my article “Rocks on The Ground” http://wp.me/p5pJxI-lTw  at lyleduell.me

[3] I feel no intellectual compulsion to view all of life from a materialistic point of view. When you force reality into a closed ideological system as materialism you will surely distort reality. I also have chosen not to believe in Materialism for pragmatic reasons and my mind is closed to it. As William James would say “I am dead to it”. There is simply no life in that world view.

[4] If scientists that are believers and scientists that are atheist wish to argue and fight about the existence of God that’s fine but both sides must admit that they are debating as philosophers and not a scientist.

[5] Richard Leonine, “Billions and Billions of Demons”, New York Review of Books 44, no. 1 (January 9,1997) 28-32 . Lewontin teaches biology at Harvard.




Why all the social unrest?

Why all the social unrest?

It’s obvious someone is benefiting from it.  Therefore, to know where it comes from all one has to do is look for the people who are benefiting from it.  Let’s look at two examples of immigration and race.  Who benefits from massive immigration? There are a number of groups but for our purpose we will look at two.  The first of them is the large corporations that need the cheap labor that open borders provide.  This cheap labor keeps wages down and allows the corporations to make more money.  Of course this is done at the expense of the working class. It is simply a matter of supply and demand. The more labor that is available the cheaper it is.  This is especially true in a declining job market as we have here in United States.  This coupled with a system of crony capitalism  where the government works with the corporations to guarantee them cheap labor by keeping the borders open.  Of course, the same effect takes place when you implement so-called free trade laws that benefit corporations when moving out of the country. Most of our free-trade agreements benefit large and middle size corporations that have the power to use the government and the funding to move their companies offshore.  The unbalanced free trade laws do little for the American working class and Small Business.  They’re in place manly to help corporations to make more money.  Free trade is not free; someone pays for it.

Massive immigration also helps the political class that uses minorities as a part of their voting base.  This is simple math.  The more immigrants you bring in the more votes you have in your  voting bloc.  In fact, if you build this block large enough you can control the elections for decades.  This raises the question of why any political party would then try to  improve the economics of their voting bloc if in doing so, they would no longer need the help of that political party thus  eradicate its own voting bloc ?  This may explain the economics stagnation of many of the ethnic groups in our culture i.e. their political party does not want them to succeed economically, for if they do they may leave the party.

Who benefits from massive immigration?  It’s big business, the rich and powerful, that own corporations and the political parties that capture the immigrants as a voting block to strengthen their base.  In this, I find it strange that most working-class people vote for politicians and parties that support one-sided free trade and open borders.  I think the communist Lennon referred to these people as useful idiots.

Do atheists have the moral high ground?

Do atheists have the moral high ground?

Watch You Tube at the End by a Honest Atheist

“The rationalists’ and atheists’ claim to the moral high ground is based on ignorance of history.  The hallmarks of atheistic regimes were persecution, oppression, brutality, cruelty and mass killings. Atheistic regimes from the start embarked on violence and have been amongst the most evil and bloodthirsty in all human history. The motivation of many of the killings was a hatred of religion.”[1]  John Gray whom himself is not a believe adds, “Yet the mass murders of the twentieth century were not perpetrated by some latter-day version of the Spanish Inquisition.  They were carried out by atheist regimes in the service of Enlightenment ideals of progress.  Stalin and Mao were not believers in original sin.  Even Hitler, who despised Enlightenment values of equality and freedom, shared the Enlightenment faith that a new world could be created by human will.  Each of these tyrants imagined that the human condition could be transformed through the use of science.”[2]  May I add a belief shared by many of the new atheists?

The atheistic response is usually along the line of denying that the atheism was not the true source of the violence.  They attempt to blame the political ideology at the time for the violence.  However, the political ideology of communism and  Marxist economic systems are both grounded in atheism and the totalitarian statism which seems to go together.

An honest person can already see in the seeds of the new atheist movement the belligerent nature toward believers and the hate of religion that can be a source of violence of the worst kind.  You can see this vindictiveness in many of their blogs, if not in the body of the blog, then in the comments where believers are ridiculed and called about every name in the book.  Richard Dawkins the high priest of the new atheist movement, at a recent Reason Rally told the crowd to ridicule and mock believers at every opportunity.  What he meant was for his Brown Shirt atheists to find some ill versed Christian and make them look stupid.  Of course, a well versed Christian could do the same to an ill versed atheist.

The new Atheists are no different from their forerunners, they hate religion and religion’s people. They mock Christians for saying that you should love the sinner but hate the sin, exclaiming that it’s impossible.  However, they claim to hate religion, yet love people of faith.  Just more nonsense.

[1] “The Liberal Delusion” by John Marsh.

[2] “Heresies: Against Progress And Other Illusions” By John Gray. Kindle location 553.



Ratings and Ravings of Atheists And other Nonsense

Ratings and Ravings of Atheists And other Nonsense

Ravings-irrational, incoherent talk-A rant-extravagant or violent declamation 

Sometimes there is fine line between truth and nonsense, and we live in a culture where that line is being increasingly blurred.  One reason for this is the volume of information and the corresponding specialization that is needed to consume it. In some ways, this knowledge explosion is good, but it is also is dangerous, because with it comes with a lot of pseudo-knowledge that the average person has a hard time sorting out from the truth.  Plus, given the intelligence of the new atheist and their ability to communicate, it is easy for them to deceive large numbers of people.  Therefore, many of my articles are not about the existence of God, because to me, the existence God is a self-evident truth, which needs no proof.  Therefore, you will find many of my writings are more about atheism, its belief and its rants and ravings.

The new atheist’s deception is often in the form of pseudoscience or by making assertions that are not grounded in truth or facts[1].  They are experts at the use of rhetoric in spreading misinformation about science and religion.  At their best, most of their material is based on very thin scientific hypothesis and theories. Consider as an example, Richards Dawkins’s hypothesis of selfish genes as the driving mechanism for natural selection.  Unfortunately, thousands have read this book and have accepted it as fact when it is nothing more than a hypothesis[2], which is n more like a guess without any evidence.  Not only is the evidence for his hypothesis nonexistent, it is a hypothesis that can never be proven by the scientific method because genes cannot be observed being selfish or for that matter, of having any direction or motives.  People need to remember that an explanation of something is not in itself the evidence and that assertions are a very poor map to the truth.

In their rants and ravings, the new atheists are constantly claiming that explaining everything naturally destroys the need  for God and proves that he does not exist.  They use the expression, “the God of the gaps” when they’re inferring that a belief in God was only needed to explain the mysteries of the universe.  In their thinking, now that we have figured out the universe, we no longer in need of a God[3].  The problems with this idea are too numerous to be expressed in this article, but one of the greatest is the self-evident truth that the more science discovers about the universe the more mysteries appear.  Quantum mechanics has created a world of possibilities and of mysteries.

An even more fundamental question about the God of the gaps’ hypothesis is, do we really know that much about the universe?  I have read that the universe is made up of 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.  Since we don’t know what dark energy or dark matter are, we would have to conclude that we don’t know much about 95.1% of what is known as the dark universe or space.  Remember, we are talking about the known universe which we observe today and some scientists believe that this universe is just one of many.  Moreover, how much can we truly say that we know about the 4.9%  part that we call ordinary matter? And out of this ordinary matter how much do we really understand?  Even when we try to explain this 4.9%, our explanations are veiled and shrouded in metaphors.

For example the question of, what is light. Is it is wave or a particle?  Is it really a wave or a particle or does it simply behave like a wave or particle? Aren’t the word’s wave and particle just similes or metaphors that describe what light does or how it behaves?  Can we say that we truly know something if we understand it metaphorically?  In view of how little we actually know about the universe, I would think that atheists would be cautious about throwing around the God of the gap’s hypothesis as their source explanation of faith.

I personally believe that the new atheist’s argument on the God of the gaps says more about them than it does about the how’s and why’s of faith in the existence of God.  It tells of their intellectual arrogance and their ‘know it all’ attitude toward the universe, which borders on ridiculous.  They actually believe that specks of dust like human beings, can know enough about the universe to say that there is no God.  The God of the gap’s hypothesis also demonstrates the complete misunderstanding, which the atheists have, of faith and people of faith.  At best some atheists who were religious can understand a religious man, but a religious man many not be a man of true faith and only a man of faith can totally understand faith or a person of faith.  The God of the gap’s hypothesis infers that atheists know something about the source of faith and people of faith, which is simply an assertion that comes from their intellectual hubris.  The truth is that they know little about true faith and for that matter, humility.  Their God of the gap’s hypotheses actually reflects an archaic view of human knowledge set forth by the philosophers of the Enlightenment who believed in the perfection and completion of human knowledge, which most thinking people would laugh at today.

At the outset, I want the readers to know that I am not writing to address the old non-theist type of atheist, whose unbelief was either grounded in faulty reason or perhaps an indifference to religion.  My writing is about a group of atheists called the “new atheists” whose beliefs are grounded in a hatred for religion and an exaggerated faith in science.  Unlike, the old atheist type the new atheists are organized and evangelistic in trying to convert people to their faith.  In this, they seem to be taking on the very nature of the thing that they disdain and hold in contempt i.e. organized religion.  The new atheists, like organized religion in the past, are now using the strong arm of government to spread their faith by the hindrance of religious expression and by using the courts to restrict religious freedom.  They also are twisting the Constitution so it also can be used to hinder the free expression of religion instead of protecting it.  Ironically, all the time that they are doing this, they are depicting themselves as Angels of light that are liberating the world from faith, which they claim poison’s everything.

However, are the new atheists really Angels of light as they claim, or are they really Angels of darkness?  I will let one of the old atheist types answer that question.  An honest unbeliever, Dr. E. Wengraf once confessed, “Every piece of anti-religious propaganda seems to me a crime.  I surely do not wish it to be prosecuted as a crime, but I consider it immoral and loathsome.  This not because of zeal for my convictions, but because of the simple knowledge acquired through long experience, that, given the same circumstances, a religious man is happier than the irreligious.  In my indifference and skeptical attitude toward all positive faith, I have often envied other men to whom deep religiosity has given a strong support in all the storms of life.  To uproot the souls of such men is an abject deed.  I abhor any proselytizing.  But, still, I can understand why one who believes firmly in a saving faith tries to convert others.  But I cannot understand propaganda of unbelief.  We do not have the right to take away from a person his protecting shelter, be it even a shabby hut, if we are not sure, we can offer him a better, more beautiful house.  But to lure men from the inherited home of their souls, to make them err afterward in the wilderness of hypotheses and philosophical question marks, is either criminal fatalisms or criminal mindlessness.”

If by chance a new atheist reads this, they will immediately dismiss Dr. Wengraf’s statement that religious folks are happier than unbelievers.  However, science seems to be moving in the direction of proving that people of faith are happier than unbelievers.  For example, Jonathan Haidt who is an atheist has written a book on his study of what makes people happy and concedes that faith in a transcendent is one of the things that makes people happier than others[4].  Ernest Becker in his book “The Denial of Death” points out that religion helps people to meet their basic psychological needs which in turn make them happier[5].  Arthur C. Brooks has written a book entitled “Gross National Happiness” and it demonstrates that people of faith are happier than those that lack it.  Of course, the new atheist will reply, “that’s not science.”  My reply is, that it is more scientific than you’re ranting and raving about the God of the gaps and how religion poisons everything.  Where are the real studies which prove that people believe in God because they do not understand something about the universe?  Where are the statistical studies that religion poisons everything?  These are nothing but assertions of angry and desperate men who want to poison’s people’s mind with their propaganda and rhetoric.

Now, this brings me to one of my rants and ravings against the new atheists.  My rant is that, they have super stars who remind me of the TV evangelist that sells religion.  In fact, almost all of the leaders in the new atheist movement have become quite wealthy by selling their new brand of atheism.  The high priest of the movement Richard Dawkins has made millions of dollars selling books.  But even worse is the herd that follows Dawkins and the other super stars of the movement.  How can these atheists criticize religion when their movement looks more like a fundamentalist religious cult every day?[6]  Lenin once referred to his followers as “useful idiots”.  I often wonder what Dawkins and his cronies actually think of the people that follow them and y give credence to their rants and ravings.

You will find that my writings are not only about the rants and ravings of the new atheists, but also about some of the nonsense and myths propagated by believers of different sorts.  This nonsense continually provides ammunition for the new atheists, and also can be the very cause of some unbelief.  I will address their nonsense and myths in the context of answering the attacks on Christianity by the new atheists, who often allege that nonsense and myths are part of Christianity.  I will demonstrate that these subjects are not a part of the faith handed down to the Christian community by Christ, but rather they’re just theories or subversions of the ancient faith.  Much in the same way  these atheists are subverting science to prove their hypothesis. I have addressed a number of these religious subjects in my book “From Jesus to Religion.”

In many ways, I am thankful to the new atheists, for they have forced believers to refine and bring the faith to higher levels of reason.  Moreover, they have forced believers to re-examine and correct some ill-conceived ideas about God, human knowledge and science.  Sometimes God uses the most unlikely people in his effort to grow up mankind.  Of course, the new atheists will deny that religion even corrects its hypothesis and theories, which again is one of their fallacies that I’ve addressed in other articles.

Some have accused me of being anti-scientific, which is just not true.  I love science and enjoy reading it and exploring its ideas.  However, I do believe that many in science have made a grandiose assertion that it alone has true knowledge, an assertion which I cannot accept.  This assertion has led to almost every discipline claiming to be science.  This in turn has led to the discrediting of true science.  If science is going to maintain its place of authority, it must cease its over-speak about its ability to know certain things.  It also must rigorously enforce the scientific method.  Like all human knowledge, science has its limits and it should know and confess those limits.  When I speak of science in a negative way keep in mind that I am not denying science or human knowledge, but rather I am simply trying to whittle it down to a realistic size.

Moreover, I want to emphasize that my articles are not written to be read by atheists for if they were, they would be read by few people.  In the numerous encounters I have had with atheists of all flavors, I have had little luck in getting many to read anything meaningful on theism.  In this, I see little difference between them and a fundamentalist religious person who bases their beliefs on dogma and feelings, and seems to be satisfied with an argument or feelings, instead of the truth.  Most of my writing is for believers and honest agnostics that wish to know more about atheism, science and God, and how they fit together.  I am also hoping to introduce several new ways of framing a number of old ideas.  Not for the purpose of creating new ideas, but simply to stimulate thinking and a different way of looking at old truths.

I hasten to point out that I do not speak for all Christians in anything I write.  Christianity is a big tent belief system, which can accommodate a large diversity of opinions.  However, in most of my writings I will attempt to stay within the parameters of the scripture and the ancient faith.

[1] They pray on people who cannot tell the different between a fact and a presupposition.

[2] It does not rate the label of a theory.

[3] The expression the God of gaps was first used by theologians to discourage using the gaps in human knowledge as an argument for the existence of God. God is not the god of gapes. He is the God of natural law and nature, and works through natural laws and the miraculous. He does what he wants through any means he wishes.

[4] “The Happiness Hypothesis, Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom” By Jonathan Haidt.

[5]  Ernest Becker in his book “The Denial of Death” makes a strong case for faith as a plus for dealing with life and death. Thought is arguments do not prove the existence of God. They do demonstrates that faith does not poisons everything as the new atheist claim, but rather is beneficial to many people.

[6] John Gray an European intellectual and naturalist see the new atheist as a religious cult. “Heresies: Against Progress And other Illusions”