Author: Lyle Duell

Lyle Duell is a christian businessman, minister and author. He is the author of "From Jesus to Religion", which is available on Amazon.

What is Atheism? A Metaphysical Answer.

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Apologetics, Atheism

What is Atheism? A Metaphysical Answer.

Is atheism simply the lack of faith in a deity, or is it more?  In reality it is both. For many atheists it is simply a lack of faith in a deity, but for many others it is the foundation of a worldview which shapes the way that they look at the whole of reality.  As a worldview it borrows from ideologies and philosophies to form a hodgepodge foundation of the ‘philosophy of non-belief.’

This philosophy of non-belief has as its center the denial and dislike of authority, which in the end can only lead to anarchy of the worst kind.  In fact, all anarchists are atheists however all atheists are not anarchists.  We could also say of atheism that it is the highest degree of human alienation and rebellion against authority and especially the ultimate authority which is God.  We could also say it is the worst distortion of the religious impulse in man, for in the end, it makes the image of God (man) into God, which is the highest form of idolatry.  It promotes man as God, or at the least it makes him think he is God; for only a god could know that there is no God in the universe or outside of it.

Some will retort that atheism has nothing to do with religion or God.  However, at a metaphysical level it is the anti-image of God whose image it needs for its very existence.  It is, therefore, nothing more than a distorted reflection of that which it denies.  This is what Nietzsche meant when he said “If you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss with gaze back into you”

It’s distorted reflection of religion is seen in that it possesses a number of the attributes of religion[i].  Most religion has as  its main attribute, a sin message and a salvation message.  And what do we find when we look at the new atheist’s movement, we find a sin message.  The sin is religion and your freedom and salvation will come when you accept the good news of the gospel of atheism.  Like most religion, the new atheist’s movement also has their evangelists; those who spew out a steady diet of doubt and hatred of religion as they preach to their true believers who are mesmerized by their leaders ability to turn words and flaunt their intellect.  You know, kind of like the TV evangelist who promotes their brand of religion every Sunday on the television[ii].

The true source of much, but not all atheism, comes from a hidden rift with authority[iii] which is then easily redirected by clever men towards God.  In other words it comes more from one’s disposition than from their intellect.  This is why we see atheism increasing when people feel oppressed by poverty, authority and social alienation.  I believe that an analysis of the French Revolution and also the Communist Revolution would clearly demonstrate this.  Atheism, for those with the right disposition is nothing more than a hidden rebellion against authority which they feel is oppressive[iv].  However, for it to be organized, as it was in the French Revolution and the Communist Revolution, you need a group of sophists and opportunists who can promote and direct its anger.  Of course, the new atheists have these opportunists in the three horsemen of their movement; Hutchinson, Harris and Dawkins.  All of which have become millionaires selling their books to the herd that follows them.

So we could say that the source of much atheism begins with the seeds of the things that form one’s disposition.  These things can range from genetics to early child development[v].  Of course, we cannot totally dismiss the intellect.  However, the intellect has much less to do with it than most atheists would like to admit to. In this I am not saying that disposition pre-determines one’s beliefs or behavior.  But it does predispose us towards certain behavior and beliefs

[i] In Russia the atheist communist even had a church that they called the church of scientific atheism.

[ii] It is important to notice that the old atheist type lacks these attributes of religion. Making it something different from the new atheist movement.

[iii] The mass man is angry about his place in life and holds the authority responsible.

[iv] This is why so many of them are angry and militant. They fundamentally believe that all authority is oppressive.

[v] Many of the new atheists seem to have a problem with their fathers, which they tend to project on a deity.  Though I freely admit that I personally have done no scientific study of this.

On Authority

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Biblical doctrines, Jesus

 Authority

“Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him.”By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you this authority?” Matt 21:23

We live in confusing times where there are so many theories and opinions being thrown out there that we are lost in an ocean of ideas.  People no longer have the ability nor the time to sort them all out.  Many are beginning to question whether or not reason has the ability to discern between them.  It has reached the point where many are questioning whether reason leads to discernment or sophistry?

In this, our time is much like the time that Jesus lived in.  Jesus and the early disciples lived in a world of new ideas and conflicting beliefs.  From the west, Roman and Greek philosophy was pushing in and from the east, the mysticism of eastern religions were make there way into the west.  Within the merger of these world views there was a clash between the reason of the Greeks and Mysticism of the east: the Greeks and Romans looked to reason as their authority for governing their personal and corporate lives.  In contrast those in the east look more to personal inward light that we, today, might call a subjective experience for their authority.

However, when looking at the Hebrews we see something different.  The Jews believed in a hierarchy of authority passed down by the community in the form of revelation, law and religious office.  Moreover, they believed that in order for all revelation to be authoritative it must be confirmed by miracles, signs and wonders.  This confirmation of personal authority by miracles[1] was a long tradition that started in the time of Moses and was commanded by the law.

Moses “You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?”If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him (Deut 18:21-22).

This tradition of looking for confirmation by signs and wonders from a teacher continued and actually increased with the dawn of the New Testament.  Once the scribes and the Pharisees came to Jesus and asked him by what authority he did something.  What they were looking for was a miracle to confirm his authority.  We see Jesus confirming his authority by miracles in Marks gospel.  Jesus said to those that questioned his authority, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?  Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?  But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins….” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”  And the man got up and went home.  When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men (Matt 9:4-8).

We see this principle of confirmation of authority at work also in the ministry of Jesus’ apostles.  The writer of the book of Hebrews said; “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.  God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will (Heb 2:3-4). The apostle Paul claimed this confirming power in his letter to the Corinthians, “The things that mark an apostle-signs, wonders and miracles-were done among you with great perseverance (2 Cor. 12:12-13).

What can we gather from this?  We can gather that an authentic word from God is accompanied with a confirmation of that word by miracles[2].  We might learn that our own culture is much more naïve and accepting in regards to doctrines and opinions of men, accepting them without any evidence that their words are true.  As a result we are like those that the apostle Paul speaks about when he says that “they are tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine and the cunning of men” (Eph 4:12).  We can say of Jesus like no other man that when he spoke things happened.  More importantly, unlike people today he did not attempt to prove his miracles with his words, but rather he proved his words with his miracles.

This view of revelation and miracles also helps us explain the rampant spread of Christianity throughout world in the first century.  Luke in his gospel tells us the reaction to a miracle of Jesus by the people, “The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him.” News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee (Luke 4:31-37).  In fact, if we step away from the situation it begins to looks as if the era Jesus lived in was prepared by divine providence for the coming of Jesus.  At that time there was a universal road system, the universal economy, a universal language, and a universal authority.  For the first time in history the rule of law dominated the world.  All of these things expedited the spread of the news about Jesus, and a part of that news was that there was a man who had the authority of God and unlike everyone else he proved it by doing signs, wonders and miracles that no one else had ever done.

What about these corroborative miracles in the history of the church?  From studying the early fathers of the church, that is the writings of Christian leaders that lived in the second and third centuries, it seems that these miracles increasingly diminished as the church moved away from the apostolic ministry of the Apostles and their immediate disciples.  This should not be considered strange for two reasons.  One is that the message of the gospel had already been confirmed by the apostles and earlier disciples and it would seem that God’s intention was never to have the church live on a milk-toast diet of the miraculous.  We must remember that we are to walk by faith and not by sight..

One reason why some reject the concept of miracles is that if it was true it would empty their ideas of having any merit or authority.  It would reduce all of their ideologies to mere opinion.  Without the proof of miracles all they would have is their sophistry and their power of debate which often depends more on personality and speaking ability than truth.

If a person could work miracles they would automatically have more power than those that cannot.  So the only thing that those that do not have this power can do is to deny the idea of miracles.  For such an idea of miracles robs their ideas of any actual authority.  The religious leaders, the Scribes and the Pharisees in the day of Jesus, did not want to accept his teachings however they accepted his miracles as self-evident and realized that they could not deny his miracles less they themselves would look like fools.  So, instead of denying them they simply contributed them to Satan.

The denial of miracles today is not based on science but rather on a dogma of materialistic philosophy.  The materialists clearly understand that if miracles are true then their philosophy is false, leaving them without any power or authority.  It was a philosopher of the Enlightenment, David Hume, who was the first champion of the denial of miracles.  However, his arguments have been successfully overthrown by a number of modern philosophers.  C.S. Lewis summarizes these arguments in his book on miracles.  He shows that a denial of miracles in itself is a faith not grounded in reason.

Here would be a good time to insert some remarks about human reason and knowledge.  Much of so-called human knowledge is based on hidden assumptions that are grounded in the faith or speculations of few men.  Most of these men never demonstrated their authority in any fashion and a large percentage of them did not live an exemplary life[3].  Where then did they get their authority?  You could say that it was their own soul power which gave them their authority.  In other words, their intellect and their ability to manipulate others gave them power over others.

What about miracles today?  I would have to say that I personally have never seen a confirmation miracle like the ones done by Jesus, nor have I see any actual miracles of healing performed by people claiming to have gifts of the Spirit.  What I have seen is healings and powerful works done through prayer.  I find this observation and experience to be quite normal and there is evidence throughout history that there were periods of time without miracles or very few.  For example, in the book of Judges, Gideon asked the angel that appeared to him “where are all the miracles that our forefathers told us about?”  From this we can gather that at the time of Gideon there were fewer miracles being performed in Israel, than during other times.

[1] By miracles I do not mean what we might call faith miracles. We now understand the power of faith in the healing process of the body. In this article when talking about miracles I am talking about supernatural events that often have nothing to do with faith though sometimes in healings are connected, i.e. the calming of the storm, feeding of the 5000, the raising of the dead. These kinds of miracles have nothing to do with the faith of those that are observing, but rather were designed to create faith in those that are observing.

[2] Some have tried to dismiss the importance of miracles by pointing out that that the East was filled with miraculous stories. However, when compared to the miracles of the New Testament it is obvious that there is a difference. For one they are not connected with the confirmation of revelation but rather tied more to magical practices and are set forth that way in the narrative. In contrast the New Testament miracles were set forth in a historical narrative. In other words they were intended to be taken as real.

[3] In his book intellectuals Paul Johnson demonstrates the failed lifestyle of many Western intellectuals. He sums up the book in the last chapter with the question “Why do we listen to such men?”

Can You Be good Without God? 

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Apologetics, Atheism

Can You Be Good Without God?

Can you be good without God? Of the various questions raised in the theist/atheist debate, this question has, I believe, occasioned more witless commentary than any other. That witlessness is again on display in an essay for the Daily Beast, “Can you be good without God?” by Brandon Withrow of the University of Findlay. Withrow interviews a bunch of ticked-off atheists, who get the answer wrong.

He discusses a study titled, “Global evidence of extreme intuitive moral prejudice against atheists”:

“If God did not exist, then we would have to invent him,” said the French philosopher Voltaire. His point: that without a divine being to check right and wrong, any number of atrocities are possible and could go unpunished.

A recent study (of more than 3,000 people in 13 countries) published in the journal Nature Human Behavior echoes Voltaire’s maxim. Looking at intuitive thinking — presumptions drawn by individuals through unconscious biases — researchers led by Will M. Gervais, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky, discovered that most individuals intuitively conclude that a serial killer is more likely to be an atheist (approximately 60 percent) than religious (approximately 30 percent).

From the study’s Abstract:

Preliminary work in the United States suggests that anti-atheist prejudice stems, in part, from deeply rooted intuitions about religion’s putatively necessary role in morality. However, the cross-cultural prevalence and magnitude — as well as intracultural demographic stability — of such intuitions, as manifested in intuitive associations of immorality with atheists, remain unclear. Here, we quantify moral distrust of atheists by applying well-tested measures in a large global sample (N = 3,256; 13 diverse countries). Consistent with cultural evolutionary theories of religion and morality, people in most — but not all — of these countries viewed extreme moral violations as representative of atheists. Notably, anti-atheist prejudice was even evident among atheist participants around the world. [Emphasis added.]

The issue is simple, though. The answer to the question we started with hinges on what you mean by “without God.” Let’s take a look.

  1. If God does not exist, you cannot be good. You cannot be evil. You can’t conform or fail to conform to anytranscendental standard, because if there is no God, there are no transcendental standards. There is no Moral Law if there is no Moral Lawgiver. If there is no God, there are merely opinions and consequences of acting on opinions. We may label certain opinions “good,” but that’s just our opinion. What we really mean by calling something “good” is that we like it. Which is fine, as long as we understand that “good without God” is just a metaphor for “something I (or we) like.” If there is no God, all of our “moral” decisions are just opinions — perhaps opinions we like, or opinions we don’t like — but neither good nor bad.
  2. If God does exist, but you don’t believe in Him, then of course you can be “good without God”, in the sense that you can be good without believingin God. It is central to the moral theology of all the great faiths that non-believers may act in accordance with Moral Law without belief in God and even without knowing Moral Law in any formal sense. The Moral Law is written in our hearts, theists universally agree, and we feel the weight of morality whether we believe in God or not.

Now of course an additional question can be asked: Do theists actually behave better than atheists? I think this is the question that ticked off the atheists in the essay. If theists do, on the average, behave better than atheists, there are certainly many exceptions on both sides, and arguments can be made that particular groups of theists/atheists behave better/worse than other groups of atheists/theists. Mankind is a confusing mess.

Atheists, however, are on quicksand when they argue about “goodness” and “evil,” given that their metaphysics, if taken seriously, utterly rules out the existence of either. Also, it would seem to me that atheists could be a bit more contrite in light of the fact that whenever they have assumed state power — from the Reign of Terror to the gang currently launching missiles from North Korea — atheism has brought hell to earth.

The godless would garner more respect if they took their own metaphysics seriously, and if they showed at bit of contrition for what real atheists have done when in power. Author unknown.

The Two Humanities A New Perspective[1]

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Apologetics, Bible, Biblical doctrines, Science

The Two Humanities A New Perspective[1]

From the beginning of time, there have been two humanities that worship.  Those who worship the true God and those who worshiped false Gods; those that believe God and those that do not.  This view of a divided humanity raises a number of questions.  One of them is, when did this great divide take place and was it ever deepened by happenstance, or by God’s action?

For a long time biblical, scholars have believed that there were two creation stories in the book of Genesis.  I personally looked upon Genesis chapter one, more less as a general account recording the creation of the physical universe which included man.  Genesis’s chapter two offers a more detailed description of the creation of humanity.

However, recently I began to think that Genesis one and two may have clues that point to some interesting ideas.  For instance, could it be saying that they were two creations?  One humankind being for a general or broader humanity and one for a specific humanity. To employ scientific terminology, could there have been two species of humanity created?  One that had a special place to live and special relationship to the creator?  In other words, one was more human and more God-like than the former, maybe one that was endowed with God’s spirit?

If you recall the story, when Cain killed Abel he was ejected from the presence of the Lord and it says that he went out and he took a wife and built a city.  This raises a number of questions.  One being who did he marry, and another being where did the people come from, for him to build a city?

As we move along in the story, we are told in the sixth chapter of Genesis, “When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.’ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.” (Genesis 6:1-4)[2].

What are some of the things that might be inferred from this section of scripture?  One, there was were two humanities one seemingly superior to the other.  The two inter-married and produced a third race.  We can also infer that the mixture of the races resulted in a shorter lifespan for all the descendants of both races. From the reaction of the deity, we could also assume that he was not pleased with this mixture of humanity.

Are there any benefits to viewing humanity this way?  It would help explain the numbers of people that are reported existing in the world during the time of Cain and Abel.  It also explains the large numbers of humanity present at the time of the flood of Noah.  It would also offer an explanation for the decrease in the life expectancy of humanity.

It also would answer the problem of death being in the world before the fall of man. In this view, death was outside the garden and life was inside of it, or in relationship with God. When Adam sinned, he brought sin and death into his world and because of his lost relationship with God, he became like those outside the relationship ruled by the law of sin and death.  Immediately after his sin, we see sin and death at work in the story of Cain and Abel.  The god species lost its protective place with God.  It is here in the story that we find another clue.  Cain leaves the presence of the Lord, goes out and marries and builds a city.  Who did he marry?  Well, there are only two possibilities, he married his sister, or he married outside of the god species.  You could say he interbred with another species.  We used to think that mating between species was impossible or never happened.  However, new evidence seems to be pointing to the fact that Homo sapiens did mate with other species of humanity.  So some in the scientific community referred to this species as the ghost species[3].

[1] This whole article is based on speculation. The Bible is very vague about the history of the earth and the earth erases its history. Therefore, it is impossible to know exactly the history of mankind. Science as we know it today is as vague as the Bible. If you want to study a book on our depth of knowledge of the earth’s history read Henry Gee’s book “Deep Time”.

[2] This account might explain the source of the legends of Greek heroes being the sons of God.

[3] If you are interested in the studies which talk about humans having intercourse with sub-humans and if you want to know more about what scientists call the ghost species simply Google the subject.

The Darwinian Evolution Narrative

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Apologetics, Atheism, Science

The Darwinian Evolution Narrative

The more I read on evolution the more I have come to realize that the theory of Darwinian Evolution is based more on narrative than facts.  By this I mean that it is based on a well thought out story without a lot of real facts to back it up.  Most often it is based on conjecture or outright fiction.  I also have noticed that the facts are often made to fit the story instead of the story fitting the facts.

How could this happen?  How could so many intelligent people embrace such a theory as fact?  There are three answers to this question.  The first one is that they have accepted the scientific maxim or dogma that everything must be explained naturalistically, leaving no other possible explanation, except maybe for the seeding of the earth by alien life forces.  This dogma also hinders any real attempt by those inside the system to attempt to disprove the theory.  The second is the failure to see that the theory is not the facts.  Some confuse the map for the territory.  The third is that many in the educated class had accept science as a new faith. Some have gone so far as to give it a name, it’s called scientism; the belief that only true knowledge must come through science.  Well this may make Johnny a real brilliant boy but it also makes him a very narrow-minded boy.

Evolution in its most basic form is a fact.  Life changes and adapts to its environment.  We can see this happening in the barnyard and sometimes it is aided and directed by man (consciousness)[1].  However, Darwin’s theory of evolution is not a fact, it is an interpretation of the facts, with the interpretation of the facts being dependent on the narrative and there is no narrative without a secular or atheist world view.  Historical fact verifies that the materialistic worldview came first, then the narrative and then the theory.  It is a well-known fact that Darwin and others in his time believed in the theory of evolution before there were any scientific facts to support it[2].  This simply means that it would be very easy for this theory to have a social origin.

Evolutionist’s are constantly asking the question what narrative best fits the facts?  By this they’re usually talking about a theological narrative that they suppose existed.  However the truth is there is no theological narrative as to how God made the world.  The Bible simply states that God did it and any good theologian would never suppose or assert that they were capable of explaining how God created the world.  They clearly understand that such an event could only be spoken about metaphorically in story, poetry and myth.  Theologians understand the difference between truth, and the truth.  Theology leaves room for mystery and science leaves none. For that reason, science has the tendency to fill the gap’s with narrative and speculation, which it then attempts to falsify.  At least that is what it claims to do and should do.

In this, the Darwinian theory of evolution is a theory of necessity for those accepting a materialistic or atheistic worldview.  The only alternatives would be for them to just simply say they don’t know. Unfortunately, the majority are not willing to do that or even try to base their study and research on an attempt to figure out how consciousness created all things. In most cases this is because they have a prior commitment to materialism, like Johnny, they have become small-minded. It should also be noted that because of their prior commitment to materialism it would be very difficult to attempt to falsify a theory which you have already committed to as the only one possible.

However, this insight has not led me to any expectation on my part that the theory will be overthrown sometime in the near future. The Theory itself has evolved into a secular myth that supports a secular world view. The science has ended, religious faith has taken its place.

[1] I find it strange that people can accept that man can direct evolution and at the same time hold to the belief that a God could not do it.

[2]  “The Road of Science and The Ways to God” By Stanley L. Jaki Page 282

 

The Darwinian Evolution Narrative or Myth

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Apologetics, Atheism

 The Darwinian Evolution Narrative

The more I read on evolution the more I have come to realize that the theory of Darwinian Evolution is based more on narrative than facts.  By this I mean that it is based on a well thought out story without a lot of real facts to back it up.  Most often it is based on conjecture or outright fiction.  I also have noticed that the facts are often made to fit the story instead of the story fitting the facts.

How could this happen?  How could so many intelligent people embrace such a theory as fact?  There are three answers to this question.  The first one is that they have accepted the scientific maxim or dogma that everything must be explained naturalistically, leaving no other possible explanation, except maybe for the seeding of the earth by alien life forces.  This dogma also hinders any real attempt by those inside the system to attempt to disprove the theory.  The second is the failure to see that the theory is not the facts.  Some confuse the map for the territory.  The third is that many in the educated class had accept science as a new faith. Some have gone so far as to give it a name, it’s called scientism; the belief that only true knowledge must come through science.  Well this may make Johnny a real brilliant boy but it also makes him a very narrow-minded boy.

Evolution in its most basic form is a fact.  Life changes and adapts to its environment.  We can see this happening in the barnyard and sometimes it is aided and directed by man (consciousness)[1].  However, Darwin’s theory of evolution is not a fact, it is an interpretation of the facts, with the interpretation of the facts being dependent on the narrative and there is no narrative without a secular or atheist world view.  Historical fact verifies that the materialistic worldview came first, then the narrative and then the theory.  It is a well-known fact that Darwin and others in his time believed in the theory of evolution before there were any scientific facts to support it[2].  This simply means that it would be very easy for this theory to have a social origin.

Evolutionist’s are constantly asking the question what narrative best fits the facts?  By this they’re usually talking about a theological narrative that they suppose existed.  However the truth is there is no theological narrative as to how God made the world.  The Bible simply states that God did it and any good theologian would never suppose or assert that they were capable of explaining how God created the world.  They clearly understand that such an event could only be spoken about metaphorically in story, poetry and myth.  Theologians understand the difference between truth, and the truth.  Theology leaves room for mystery and science leaves none. For that reason, science has the tendency to fill the gap’s with narrative and speculation, which it then attempts to falsify.  At least that is what it claims to do and should do.

In this, the Darwinian theory of evolution is a theory of necessity for those accepting a materialistic or atheistic worldview.  The only alternatives would be for them to just simply say they don’t know. Unfortunately, the majority are not willing to do that or even try to base their study and research on an attempt to figure out how consciousness created all things. In most cases this is because they have a prior commitment to materialism, like Johnny, they have become small-minded. It should also be noted that because of their prior commitment to materialism it would be very difficult to attempt to falsify a theory which you have already committed to as the only one possible.

However, this insight has not led me to any expectation on my part that the theory will be overthrown sometime in the near future. The Theory itself has evolved into a secular myth that supports a secular world view. The science has ended, religious faith has taken its place.

[1] I find it strange that people can accept that man can direct evolution and at the same time hold to the belief that a God could not do it.

[2]  “The Road of Science and The Ways to God” By Stanley L. Jaki Page 282