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.

Faith, Religion and Utilitarianism

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Apologetics, Atheism, Science

Faith, Religion and Utilitarianism

 

Those skeptical of religion often say they believe in science because it works.  In this statement, they are making ‘utility’ the standard of truth.  However, when they change the discussion to religion, their standard of truth switches from utilitarian reasoning (what works) to whatever absolute aligns with their view of physical reality.  In other words, it is ok to establish science and other disciplines by pointing to their utilitarian benefits, but it’s not okay to point to religion in the same way.  Still another inconsistency is that it’s okay for science to use allegories and metaphors that point to something that is veiled in reality, but not religion or theology.  Why the difference in standards?  The answer is clear, they have a prior commitment to materialism and atheism.

It does seem to be quite self-evident that religion and faith works for billions of people and recently a number of studies seem to offer evidence that faith and even religion[1] has some very strong pragmatic and useful benefits[2].  This must raise the question, why are atheists so bent on destroying it?  Could it be that they truly believe that atheists are happier than believers and that mankind would be better off without religion?  I don’t think so[3].  Did atheism bring happiness to Russia or has it led to happiness in China?  The evidence seems to be that atheism can work for some individuals, but it destroys societies.  It appears from surveying the societies where atheists are in charge, that the government is totalitarian and oppressive in its nature.

A lot of skeptics will say they do not believe because faith and religion are simply not true[4], but this brings us back to the question of how do you define ‘truth’?  It seems that when they claim that faith is not true, they are in fact saying that it does not align with or reflect reality, which is the imperialist way of defining the word ‘truth’.  However, in order to do this, you must attempt to analyze faith using the scientific method.  One problem with this is that the scientific method may tell you how faith works, and even what it does, but it cannot tell you what it is.  If you absolute the scientific method, as many skeptics claim to do, the only way to know anything would be to rule out much of what we call human knowledge.  Of course, they only apply this rigorous application of the scientific method to faith and religion, which demonstrates their bias towards religion.

The truth is that atheists assume that their presuppositions are true and have faith (like the believer) that their views are right.  Many atheists still suppose falsely, that science in some fashion supports their claims, but the more knowledgeable atheist knows that science does not sustain their views[5].  The truth of the matter is that science is the study of nature and therefore has nothing to say about a God that has no being and is outside of nature.  This means that science can neither support religion or atheism on the question of God’s existence.

If you’re wondering why men become atheists, read my paper on “The Making of a Fundamentalist Atheist” on my website; lyleduell.me.

[1] There is a difference between faith in God and religion. Religion tends to emphasize what you do and faith emphasizes what you trust in.

[2] “The Happiness Hypothesis, Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom” By Jonathan Haidt.  Ernest Becker in his book “The Denial of Death” makes a strong case for faith as a plus for dealing with life and death.  Though his arguments do not prove the existence of God.  They do demonstrate that faith does not poison everything as the new atheist claim, but rather it is beneficial to many people.

[3] If they believe this then they should be willing to prove it with science, by the use of the scientific method.  Where is there proof that atheism is the best way to the good life?

[4] Some religion does not align with reality nor does it work.  This simply proves that there is such a thing as bad religion.  It does not prove that there is no God.

[5] The US National Academy of Sciences has gone on record with the following statement: ‘Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.” Taken from “Who Made God, Searching For A Theory Of Everything” by  Edgar Andrews.

Death and Dying

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Biblical doctrines, Death and Dying, Eschatology, Eschatology (Last Things), The Resurrection

Death and Dying

Today people are so afraid and terrified of death that they refuse to talk about it or even think about it.  To them, as it was for Job of the Old Testament, death is the king of terror’s.  We often play language games to try to soften it by changing the word from death, to expiring or passing.  The atheist expires, the Christian passes.

No matter how you look at it death is a gateway, either into a new state of being, or non-being.  These are the only two possibilities.  For the believer it is a gateway into a new state of being, which allows them to live in a state of hope.  To the atheist or the materialist it is a gateway into non-being.  It is simply nonexistence as a living conscious being.  It is a return to the dust of the earth.  However, we know from science that nothing just stops existing.  Matter cannot be destroyed, it can only change.  The big question is, does consciousness go on?  The materialist says no, for to him there can be no consciousness apart from the physical brain. But if we asked the question what is consciousness, we come up with the answer that consciousness, in the end, is information and information can exist without the brain.  What about radio and television waves?  You could say they are information and once formed they will continue forever.

Dying is not death, it is the process by which we enter our new state of being or existence.  There is usually some pain associated with this process of dying as with birth.  In fact, we begin to die the day we begin to live.  Life and death seem to travel together on our journey through this life. It sometimes appears on the surface that death is the goal of life, but then for the Christian there is Jesus.

When it comes to the pain that is often associated with dying, the good news is that Gods grace has given us medication to lessen the physical pain.  There should be no severe pain in the dying process for most.  Unbelievers may say that man created the medication.  No, God made it, man discovered it and developed it.  However, if for some reason we must experience a painful death, fear not.  The Holy Spirit will help you to endure it and as you endure it, look past it to the joy that is before you, even as our Lord did.

In our culture aging and death is looked upon as a disease that medical science is supposed to cure, or as an enemy that is trying to kill us and must be destroyed.  This struggle against aging and death comes from mans rebellion against nature and the God of nature.  Humanity seems to be in rebellion against all the limits of God including death. Man will not accept death for he views it as the ultimate limit placed on man by God.  Therefore, as in the story of the fall, he is still trying to storm the gates of heaven to seize eternal life.  Yet at the gate, he stills finds the angel with the flaming sword, saying you cannot enter.  All this comes from man’s rebellion and his refusal to except his own mortality and his fallen state.  Once a person excepts that this is a fallen world and that Christ is the way out, death simply becomes the way out.  A way out into a better existence, a way out that we need not fear.  It simply becomes the next step towards eternity.

For the Christian, death is like departing on a journey from one place to another with a stop in between.  Let me explain, the Christian faith teaches that we reside in the body, but we are more than a body.  There is the inner man of the heart.  Both the apostles, Paul and Peter, refer to our body as a tent that we dwell in.  The apostle John also speaks of Jesus, as dwelling among us in the tabernacle or tent.

2 Corinthians 5:1-5

“For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.  Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked.  For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.  Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.”

2 Peter 1:13-15

“I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.”

John 1:14

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (literally in the Greek; tabernacle or tented among us), and we have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

The problem with understanding death begins with a miss-understanding of the nature of man.  Man is body, soul and spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23) and death is the separation of the spirit and soul of man from his body.  It is the Spirit that gives life and when the spirit departs, the body dies.  When the spirit departs it goes back to the God that gave it, or does it?

In the book of Ecclesiastes, the writer said, “I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals.  Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both:  As one dies, so dies the other.  All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals.  Everything is meaningless.  All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust, all return.  Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” (Ecclésiastes 3:18-22)

I don’t believe, that Solomon was saying that he did not  believe that the spirit of man continues after death.  He was simply saying there was no evidence.  He was not certain. The Hebrews believed in an afterlife but it was vague and fuzzy.  Of course, the human mind thinks in pictures and to grasp something of the afterlife, which is  based on our present experience, we must use a picture of a places, made up of other places or parts of places, that we have seen.  That afterlife place for the Hebrews was given the name of Sheol, or literally the place of the unseen.  It was in Hebrew thinking a dark and foreboding place.  This idea corresponds to Hades in the New Testament, which appears to be a waiting place for the final judgment and yet it does seem to  foreshadow the eternal state of a person, i.e. they have a knowledge of their final destiny.

However, in the New Testament it is still a fuzzy and vague place.  The most we know about it is seen in the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31).  This vagueness is probably due to the fact that it is only viewed as a temporary stop on the way to eternity.  One thing about the place of the unseen  it does change in the New Testament.  In the New Testament the righteous are in a state of bliss  while the evil  are in a place of torment.  This separation could have grown out of the belief that the righteous can never be separated from God and if God is with them somehow they cannot be in a place of evil or darkness  (Rom 8:28-39).

The next step into eternity will be the great wakeup call of the trumpet of God and the voice of the archangel announcing the end of time and the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.  At that time all of the dead in Hades will be resurrected with new immortal bodies.  Those who are still alive at his coming will  be transformed and given new spiritual bodies.  Then all men will stand before the great white throne  and be judged by what they did in their former bodies.

The resurrection and the judgment of God, mark God’s final word on sin and death.  Both are destroyed in the eternal lake of fire, which is a symbol of finality.

“Listen, I tell you a mystery.  We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.  For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.  For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.  When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

“Where, O death, is your victory?

Where, O death, is your sting?”

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.  But thanks be to God!  He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ  (1 Corinthians 15:51-57).

Diversity Destroys Social Cohesion in the West

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Christ and Culture, Modern Myths, Nonsense, Science

In my study of ancient history I found that ancient empires after conquering a nation would import foreign immigrants for the purpose of weaken that nations culture in order prevent it from rebelling against the Empire. After reading this it struck me that this is exactly what Western governments are doing to themselves and their people. Did these ancient rulers know something that are governmental leaders don’t? Watch the video and decide for yourself.

A Letter to a Believer In Response to a Believer on The Existence of God Article

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Apologetics, Atheism, Modern Myths

A Letter to a Believer

In Response to a Believer on The Existence of God Article

In my article on the existence of God, I surely was not trying to support fundamentalist creationism.  I was simply trying to show what I feel is a self-evident truth.  Self-evident truth is a truth that is evident, without any proof or argument to all men and can be experienced by our senses and known by our reason.  It is not a truth that can only be known by a priestly class of scientists who have some ‘secret knowledge’.  I am not a scientist, but I believe I have a good grasp on what can, and cannot be known by humans.

Evolution

You asked me what I believe about evolution.  From what I am able to observe, evolution as development is self-evident.  We can see it happening.  However, Darwin’s theory of evolution is not self-evident and he makes assumptions about the development of life which can never be proven by science, such as evolution being non-directed.  I believe that some intellectuals of modern science, as far as evolution is concerned, have claimed to know far too much and have especially over-spoken on their knowledge of  primitive earth[1].  If there is a discrepancy between science and faith it is not found in reality but in both sides over-speaking their position.

I believe that any explanation of existence must start with God-man together.  The problem with many scientists is that they want to explain everything by the dash.  They then define the dash as naturalistic evolution, which seems to be a radical form of reductionism.  I do not have a problem with studying the dash; the problem comes in when some intellectuals make it the whole show and attempt to explain  the embodiment of all existence by it.  This is like trying to define a car wholly by watching it being built on the assembly line and totally ignoring the designers, engineers and planners who worked on it before one bolt or screw was turned.  If we were to watch a car on the assembly line without considering its origin, i.e. the planners, designers and engineers, you would not even know its purpose.  You would have to sit around and theorize why it was built and what purpose it serves.  You might come to the conclusion that it has no purpose and decide to destroy it or regard it as worthless[2].  This seems to be similar to our situation today when science is trying to explain mankind and being befuddled on every turn.

Going back to my illustration of the assembly line, because no designers or testers are visible on the assembly line, we are told by those who manage the factory that we should presume that they do not exist. In fact, we are told that we should not even look for, or inquire about them because one of the laws of the factory says that you must not ask about them, since asking about them might bias your study of the car on the assembly line.  We are also told that the  method to understanding the car, is for us to study the nuts and bolts that hold the car together and that this will ultimately give us a complete understanding of the car.  What nonsense.

The Circle of Life

In my analogy of the circle of life I was attempting to depict the unequivocal whole of life, which I believe to points to a first cause.  In the Orient, life is understood to be a great circle.  We in the west see it as a linear line ascending gradually from the lesser to the higher, like an escalator being a perfect example.  We view life this way because we have interpreted evolution as directed and progressive.  That is, moving toward a goal.  However, Darwin and neo-Darwinian do not agree with this  image of an escalator as a symbol for their theory of evolution.  Evolution in Darwin’s mind and in the mind of many of his disciples is chaotic, undirected and unpredictable, which in my thinking puts it outside of the realm of science.  You cannot analyze something that is chaotic and unpredictable.  How can you apply the scientific method to such a phenomenon?  Does God throw dice?

However, in the circle of life we see progression or growth, then declension, and finally the circle ending with death, which points to a beginning and an end.  If we were to form a picture of the movement of life based on what we see in real history you would have a series of circles, which depict the circle of life moving into eternity on a horizontal line.  You could make each progressive circle larger denoting progress, but that might be debatable, depending on one’s definition of progress and how much you believe in the concept.  In the East, scientists are not as obsessed with the concept of progress or evolution as those in the West are, and they are much more inclined to question some theories of evolution.  Oriental cultures are older cultures, which have had many ups and downs and no longer get too excited about the ups (progress).

In contrast, those in the West seem to be obsessed with only one part of the equation of this circle of life (evolution or growth) which is why they depict existence as an ascending line and not a circle. They are actually taking the portion of the circle which we could call growth or ascension, and making it the whole circle.  This is a great example of dissecting the whole and then making one of the parts, the whole. This is the ultimate form of radical reductionism.  For example, in theology, the church has done the same thing to the gospel in making the death of Christ, which is a part of the atonement, the whole atonement.  Therefore, the resurrection has been eclipsed and even removed from the concept of the atonement, and reduced to a once a year celebration.  One could write a book on the reductionism of western science and theology.

I have been working on a book entitled “In Christ.” It is about the expression “In Christ” that is found in the New Testament 160 times. In the first chapter of the book, I analyze the reason for the disuse of the expression and people’s lack of understanding of it today. One reason for its neglect is reductionism; it was just too big of a concept for the western mind. The expression was dissected and then lost among the pieces. The same reductionism has been applied to just about everything in the west, including man himself. This reductionism has increased with specialization, which has created a new form of ignorance.

The Chain of Descent and Ascent

My purpose in giving a chain of descent and ascent, “…in the real world we see the lesser coming from the greater, the seed from the tree, the boy from the man, the machine from the human.”, was to demonstrate that evolution is not the ruling principle of nature.

When Henry Ford  built his first car, he knew what he was making, the car did not evolve from a screw or nut. It came from the mind of Henry. The screw and the nut already existed, which also came from someone’s consciousness, and Henry just incorporated them in his total equation.  However, the automobile cannot be totally be defined by only studying the screws or the nuts. It must be defined by the completed product.  After, it was created by a consciousness (Henry’s mind); it then evolved, or developed, into what we have today. If you put wings on it, it becomes something else and we start all over again with a new creation, just as it began in the mind of the Wright brothers. They used existing parts to make the whole.

God may have done something like that in creating higher life forms, from things that worked well with simple life forms. Remember in the begin God started with star-dust and made everything, including man. When a builder builds a house, he has a plan of what that house will be when completed. He has in his mind a completed house even before  the first nail is hammered. The house comes from the mind of the builder or architect who is greater than the house. The lesser from the greater is the ruling principle, not evolution. Evolution might have a minor effect on the construction time or phase of the house. However, it is not the end all and does not explain the existence of the house. It would make little difference, whether the construction phase (evolution) was fast or slow. It’s fast from God’s point of view, but slow from mans.

Therefore, I always begin my thinking with God for he is the Alpha and the Omega through whom all things exist and have their being. Where else could one start their thinking and reasoning? I believe this consciousness, which we call God, created the spiritual realm (unseen) and physical realm (seen) and for all we know they may be made of the same stuff, the spiritual (unseen matter) and physical (seen matter).  This view goes beyond dualism and gives three categories of existence.  (1) Absolute Consciousness would be the totally other or God.  (2) The spiritual would be the unseen dimension (heavens) where the angels dwell along with  unseen  things and stuff, which we have little knowledge of at this time.  If it is matter, it might be what some call dark matter or dark energy.  (3) The seen or visible world would be physical matter.  These categories could correspond to The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.  The Father would represent total consciousness; the Son or Logos as matter, both seen and unseen, and the Spirit as force or energy.  This would be a semi-monist view, which could be accepted by theologians and some scientists who have a will to believe, yet are having a hard time putting the pieces together.  In this view, everything inside the universe would be made of the same stuff and leave God outside of it as creator and yet, creating it and coming into it, through the Logos.  In this, the Son would be the coming together of Spirit and matter.  Of course, there are people on both sides of the issue,  who would reject this view.

Progress

It was the humanists of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment which made progress and evolution the ruling principles by which modern man viewed just about everything.  Men of the Enlightenment had tremendous faith that human reason and initiatives would usher in a golden age or utopia.  Man would do what God could not do, i.e. create heaven on earth.  This belief caused them to have a fixation on growth and development, which still dominates Western culture to this day.  This focus on growth caused them to be somewhat blind to the fact that evolution or development is only one of the principles at work in the creation.

As stated above, I believe that all laws or principles, first took place in the mind of God in the beginning and then they are being worked out in what we humans call space-time.  A part of this working out is what science calls evolution.  To science, this working out is the whole show and therein lies their error, i.e. makes a part the whole.  If there is a ruling principle, I believe that it is death and not evolution.  Death has the final word and is reflected by the law of thermodynamics[3].  However, in the resurrection it seems to be Gods plan to redeem the creation. In essence, the resurrection would nullify the principle of death and turn it into life.  As for Christians, they believe that this new life from God has already entered the creation in the person of Christ and has been demonstrated in his resurrection.

Making evolution the ruling principle in the universe is like making the falling part in the story of Humpty Dumpty the whole story.  However, the story begins with him setting on a wall and ends with him smashing into pieces when he hits the ground and then the failed attempt of all the king’s men to put him back together again.  Not everything that is made or created evolves.  Some sit upon the wall for a time; some do not even make it to the wall, however, in the end-all fall and break into pieces.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics, i.e. everything is running down and dying, is not only a natural law, but it is also a biblical one.  (Note Rom 5:12).  Like Humpty Dumpty, we are falling down.  Time-space as we know it is like a movie of Humpty Dumpty’s fall run in slow motion.  It can only be called progress or growth (both are metaphors denoting up), in a very limited sense.  The ruling principle is death (down).  The progress that we seem to be experiencing now is nothing but a small bump in the fabric of the universe.  We see it as progress because we have trained ourselves to ignore where Humpty Dumpty started and his end.  All we see is him suspended in midair and we conveniently ignore that he is falling and will break into pieces.

When we talk about Humpty Dumpty falling down; down is a metaphor for death.  It depicts the loss of higher ground.  The only way up is resurrection, which becomes a metaphor for up only after you hit bottom.  In the resurrection, God will put Humpty Dumpty back together and back on the wall.  Jesus came down into this darkness to bring us up into the light.  He descended that we might ascend with him into an existence which has as its ruling principle, life.  In Christ, everything is up.

The concept of progress (up) was emphasized by the humanists of the enlightenment to replace the concept of heaven (up).  It is an Illusionary concept[4], which is absolutely needed by a secular or atheistic culture, for without it the culture would sink into despair and nihilism.  Of course, as the illusion of progress fades, which it must because it is not real, we will see Western culture slip into nihilism.  During the Renaissance and the Enlightenment when the West was experiencing growth in its economy and science, it was easy to believe in unlimited progress, because that was what the West was experiencing.  During this period the concept of declension (down) was set aside and totally ignored and still is today by many.  This denial of declension reaches its pinnacle in the denial of death itself.[5]  This blindness to declension is one of the things which has led Western culture to the edge of the abyss, and not one of us has escaped its influence. The blind faith in progress is the philosophical source of liberalism, communism and progressivism of all flavors.  It leads to a blind faith in mankind, which in the end means, the government.  It is also the chief source and foundation of humanism and utopianism.  All this comes from focusing on one part of the whole instead of the sum of the whole.  People that adopt this view have one eye shut and cannot see the whole picture.  All they see is Humpty Dumpty falling which strangely they see as progress.  Of course, this is fine if you’re whole life is about the study of falling.

However, the great myth of endless progress is now being questioned by a large number of thinkers and with its demise, we will probably see a revival of much true faith and a lot of atheism coupled with nihilism.  If the majorities choose atheism and nihilism, we will also see the resurrection of true Darwinism.  Darwin’s theory of evolution was really never accepted by the majority, for it was filtered through the concept of progress, which actually made it something other than true Darwinism.  In viewing Darwinism through the concept of progressive evolution (escalator) the sting was taken out the theory, for with directed and progressive evolution, man could accept evolution and still retain his dignity and meaning.  This adjusted form of Darwin’s theory (directed evolution) was accepted without any evidence because people’s thinking was already shaped by the concept of progress and some form of evolution was the only alternative to creationism.  This thinking remains today for three reasons (1) our blind faith in the metaphorical concept of progress.  (2) There is still no other naturalistic explanation of existence other than some form of Darwinian evolution.  However, true Darwinism still remains too much of a bitter pill for most to swallow, but the only pill for atheists.  (3) If you take non-directed evolution or Darwinism away from the naturalist, they have no other way to support their views intellectually.  Therefore, atheists will continual to believe in Darwinism even if science was to prove it false.  The scientists who are first atheists and then scientists will continue to propagate Darwinism because it is the foundation of their belief system no matter what science says.

I have noticed in my reading that the old edifice of progressive evolution is beginning to tip and is slowly being replaced by true Darwinism[6].  This movement toward Darwinism is not so much coming from an increase in scientific knowledge as an increase in atheism.  If this happens, the symbolic tree of life will have to be changed to resemble a bush growing in every direction without any impulse or direction up, which would support a pure atheistic theory, with no room for intelligent design or direction.  If accepted, it seems that science would have to drop the concept of constant progress from the ideal of evolution and adapt some kind of chaos theory. This would eventually change the culture’s view of progress and evolution. However, the chaos theory does reflect increasingly our overall cultural thinking at the present, which is moving toward chaos, atheism and nihilism. At the moment, it is hard to know if science is leading or whether the culture is leading science.  Time will tell.

Culture, History and Science

It does seem that many scientific theories have the propensity to reflect the culture at the time of their creation.  When the culture was progressing and knowledge was thought to be absolute, science seemed to reflect these concepts and values.  Now that things are less certain and the culture is falling into disorder and declension, science seems to be reflecting it with the Chaos theory.  This may be just my imagination, but it seems clear to me at this moment that culture and history push science and not the other way around.  From this, I must conclude, that much of science has a cultural  bias, which should be included in any analysis of its theories.  There is little doubt in my mind that much of what is called science is socially created and has less to do with reality then the way we are thinking at the time of its invention.  Of course, science, will say that society is changed by their theories, which is partially true.  However, new theories are created because the old ones no longer fit the culture.  Based on these conclusions I believe we are on the edge of a paradigm change that will sweep away many of the existing theories.

The more I study science the more skeptical I become.  I think humans in general pretend to know more than they actually do.  We tend to accept the pretenders in their pretensions because it makes us feel secure, believing that at least someone understands the mess.  This creates the illusion that we are somehow in control.  I guess that makes us all liars to some degree and intellectually dishonest.

An example of what I am talking about is global warming.  The majority of scientific organizations have endorsed the theory with little evidence, which could not truly be called science.  Many endorsed it not because of the evidence, but because they were presupposed to do so because of their ideology.  I think if you were to look at the theory of evolution and its history, you would find the same kind of thing to some degree.  One difference is that Darwin’s evolution was a financial plus for everyone and fit nicely into the capitalistic system.  On the other hand, global warming only benefited a certain group of people, who so far are not powerful enough to impose their beliefs on the majority.  Darwin also was skillful in using the right metaphors, which were taken from a common experience and pointed to something that everyone could see going on in the barnyard and in society.  That being growth and progress.  In contrast, the global warming crowd used a concept that was foreign to most people, i.e. global warming.  The average person could not see it or experience it, which made it hard to believe.  This is the reason they changed the metaphor to climate change.  Warming can be experience and judged by everyone; however, only scientists can discuss climate.

Science and Picture Thinking

Now, I am not saying that I do not believe in evolution to some degree or for that matter, climate change, but personally I do not believe there is enough true science to support any dogmatic position on either.  I definitely am not a creationist, which believes in a young earth.  However, their picture thinking may be as close or closer to the truth then the present evolutionist, whose picture thinking can only be totally fabricated in their imaginations, for no one was there to witness what they say happened, which Gee points out repeatedly in his book “Deep Time.”  Much of the same thing could be said about physics.  Most of the theories in physics can only be explained mathematically.  The minute you turn them into picture thinking you embrace falsehood.  This is the same in theology, when you form an image of God in your mind you have committed idolatry and have embraced error, for God cannot be imaged.  The Scriptures explain God, like math explains reality.  The scriptures can only explain God in a narrow, limited, veiled way.  Paul said, “We see through a glass darkly.”  The same could be said about math.  As theology has always been guilty of saying too much about God, today science is guilty of saying too much about reality, at least some scientists.

Most popular science writers must write in such a way that it helps the average person to visualize reality.  In doing this, they cannot but help to distort and veil reality.  The human mind cannot image the unseen world of science any better than it can visualize the unseen world of the Bible, i.e. heaven.  These popular authors have to try to use metaphors similar to religion to bridge the gap between the visible and invisible[7].  However, much of the population believes their metaphors to be literal; this is misleading and can only lead to misunderstanding.  Even Stephen Hawkins talks about visualizing the big bang, what nonsense.  There is a Chinese proverb that says,  “Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.”  I think we have plenty of the latter.

[1] Note Henry Gee’s “Deep Time”.

[2] This seems to be the place that modern atheistic science is taking us.

[3] The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system all energy is equalizing, which points to the fact that in our discussion that everything is dying.

[4] The chief tenet of the Enlightenment is that the growth of knowledge is the key to human emancipation. No true believer in the Enlightenment would ever question that article of faith. Yet faith in progress through the growth of knowledge is itself irrational. Gray, John. “Heresies: Against Progress and Other Illusions” (Kindle Locations 238-239). Granta Publications. Kindle Edition.

[5] “The Denial of Death” by Ernest Becket.

[6] Secular educators are cautious about teaching non-directed evolution for fear of the backlash from the community and in particular the religious community.  However, as the next generation of the walking death dead take the place of the present generation we will see a larger push for non-directed evolution and the atheism, which accompany it.

[7] Note “Physics as Metaphor” by Roger S. Jones. University of Minnesota Press.

Does God Exist?

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Apologetics, Atheism

Does God Exist?

“For as bats’ eyes are to daylight so is our intellectual eye to those truths which are, in their own nature, the Most obvious of all.” Aristotle

Some of you might think that the question “does God exist?” is an extremely hard question.  However, it only seems tough if you are thinking in the unreal world of theoretical science or philosophy.  Now, by unreal I do not mean fictional.  By unreal, I mean a world outside our five senses, i.e. a world we cannot see, taste, hear, smell or touch; a world very much like the one religious folks call heaven, but of course without a God.  However, in the real world of our sense’s God is a self-evident truth.  A self-evident truth is a truth, which is tacitly known by all men, who are in their right mind, living in the same world that had not had their reasoning impaired by false theories, ideology or rebellious passions.

If the existence of God is a self-evident truth; what evidence would one expect to find in the world to support this hypothesis?  Would we not expect to find some kind of universal spirituality or awareness that there is something which transcends the physical?  What do we find when we look at the world?  Well, we find religion and faith in some form in every culture in the world, even in those which have put forth a great effort to destroy it, such as those societies controlled by atheistic communism.  Even in those societies, faith and religion seem to be  resistant to these attacks.  This just adds strength to the argument that God is a self-evident truth, which is very hard to eliminate.  Because it is self-evident and a very part of man’s nature, if you suppress it, it will just break out in another form[1].  Although the universality of religion and faith may not in itself prove that God is self-evident, it is what one would expect to find if there is a God, and it is consistent with the idea that God is a self-evident.

In addition, scientific evidence is mounting, that supports the idea that humans are hard-wired to believe in a God, which would explain the universality of religion and morality.[2]  In other words, it seems that humanities very nature is to have faith in a deity and this is the very thing we would expect to find if God created man with a share of his  consciousness.  This innate awareness of the divine also supports and is consistent with the hypothesis which affirms that God is a self-evident truth.  It would strongly suggest that atheism is not natural or innate and is a doctrine, which is socially created and propagated by the indoctrination of a secular culture, whose beliefs have been twisted by a denial of human nature and its creator.

Besides all of this, would not one expect to find in a world that was created by an intellectual force, to consist of order and design?  And when one looks at the world that is exactly what one finds.  Does not design, demand a designer?  Does not the creation itself point to a creator and designer?  Is not design in the cosmos itself, a self-evident truth, at least to those that are in their right minds?[3]  Though all of this does not prove the existence of God beyond question, it does add credence to the God theory.

Why So Many Unbelievers

Some might raise the objection, “If the existence of God is self-evident, why are there so many who do not see it?”  Jesus said, “some people have eyes but do not see.”  Here, Jesus is simply saying that some do not have the will to believe.  Humans tend to believe what they want to believe and to see what they want to see.  Because of this, they are often blinded by their presuppositions.  Moreover, sometimes over exposure deadens ones sensitivity to a  concept We are often actually oblivious to our senses until they are impaired in some way.  We seldom think about our vision or of our eyes until something threatens our sight.  When we look out a window, we  often don’t see the glass, unless we focus on it.  The reason being that we have given our full attention to the things we are watching outside the window.  However, if the window is dirty or has a crack in it, we see it immediately.  The problem with many modern men is that they are too focused on things and therefore, are not able to ‘see God’. Through their neglect, they have lost their ability to sense and see God.  However, just because a blind man cannot see, it doesn’t mean that sight does not exist.

What is Self-Evident Truth?

When talking about self-evident truth we are talking about a tacit knowledge or impulse, which seems to move our intellect to certain beliefs and behavior.  It can be individual or corporate.  In the realm of morality, it is an expectation or a sense of the way things ought to be.  It is the instinct to order the world that we live in; it is a sense, of “I ought to do that” or “things ought to be this way,” which all men everywhere have.  It has been called by numerous names in different cultures.  It has been called the Dao or the Tao in the east, the Greeks called it the Logos, the Hebrews called it wisdom, the Americans call it common sense, in philosophy, it is the first principles or natural law.  Our founding fathers called it self-evident truth.

It is this impulse that compels us to look for a cause of all things and ask the question “why?”  This impulse has been codified by science into the law of cause and effect.  If followed to its logical outcome, it will take us to the foundation of all truth.  It takes us to a beginning and to something outside of ourselves and because it is the beginning, it is a something, which is the source and catalyst of all things, but in itself, is not a thing nor does it have a cause.  This causeless entity cannot be named or classified and is what some theists call God.  Of course, the word God is a title and not a name.  When Moses confronted this entity and asked its name its reply was “I am.”  In other words, you cannot name me for I stand above all things and outside of all categories of human language.

The Great Circle of Life.

Though the existence of God is the foundation of all truth, there are lesser self-evident truths or what we could call common sense truths which all point to, and are dependent on, the well-spring of ultimate truth, which is the uncreated first cause.  One such truth is the metaphor of the great circle of life.  That is the story of birth (beginning), growth or maturity (ascent), then declension or death (descent), followed by rebirth or resurrection, whose cycle has been observed and experienced by every man in every age since the beginning of human consciousness.

The self-evident truth of the great circle of life is that it points to the fact that everything has a beginning and an end[4].  It cries out that everything begins with God the great designer and ends with God who is the goal and foundation of all creation.  The circle did not create itself.  It had to have a beginning and its cause has to be empirically adequate to explain it.  The only empirically adequate explanation is God.  The great circle tells us that everything is given birth in the mind of God, then it comes into what we call reality, where it begins to grow and mature.  It then it reaches a point where it begins to decline and then dies.  Then finally it experiences rebirth or resurrection into a different form of existence.  God as the uncreated one is the beginning and end of this circle.  In this, all of life and nature becomes a metaphor that points to God as first cause and creator of everything[5].  Therefore, God as first cause is the foundation of all self-evident truth and He Himself is the self-evident truth.  His self-evident existence is the foundation on which the law of cause and effect has been built on, which says that every effect must have a cause, equal to, or greater than itself.  This circle is imprinted on the human psyche as a need for a first cause, which is great enough to explain itself and all things.  To deny this circle is to deny human nature and even intelligent consciousness[6].

Self-evident Truth and the Founding Fathers

As stated above, our Founding Fathers believed that the existence of God was a self-evident truth, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…”.  The fathers started with what they call the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, which infers that there is a creator and that his existence is self-evident.  If there is no self-evident creator, there can be no self-evident truth or common sense of any kind.  But, according to the Founding Fathers, there is self-evident truth.  Therefore, in their thinking, there must be a Creator that is as self-evident as himself.  I bring up the Founding Fathers not because their faith proves the existence of God, but rather to show that these brilliant men understood that all thinking had to have an ultimate foundation to build on, and that foundation had to be conscious and intelligent.  Otherwise, there would be no foundation for human reason, to reason from.

However, naturalists contradict all of these ideas when they try to tell us that things go or move from the lower (primitive) to the higher (complex).  They tell us that consciousness came from unconsciousness and life from the nonliving and that something came from nothing.  In this, they deny the existence of God along with the idea of all self-evident truth and the universal law of cause and effect.  To try to justify their belief system, they must take us to the unreal world of theoretical science where they attempt to turn their assumptions into facts.  Of course, for the unbiased person science is neutral when it comes to the question of the existence of God.  In fact, The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has gone on record with the following statement: ‘Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes.  Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”[7]

In order to further justify themselves, naturalists tell us that things were different at the beginning, which no one would disagree with, however, was the law of cause and effect different?  If so, where is the proof?  They then say, without one shred of evidence, that in the beginning the right nonliving stuff came together with some other nonliving stuff by accident, almost miraculously, to form life and consciousness.  They say this even though they claim not to believe in miracles or consciousness.  What faith!  It is not surprising that when they propose this hypothesis they seldom give the mathematical odds[8] of this happening, which would make  their theory harder to believe than the God hypothesis.  From all of this, it does seem that it takes a lot of faith to be an unbeliever.

In saying that the greater comes from the lower; that life comes from non-life and consciousness from non-consciousness, they must invert the cosmic order of things and discard the law of cause and effect to be able to proclaim that the greater came from the lesser.  Yet, in the real world, we see the lesser coming from the greater, the seed from a tree, the boy from the man, the machine from the human.

Some Hard Questions

This leaves them with some hard questions.  Why is life not coming from non-life now?  Why did it even happen in the first place?  Why is there something and not nothing?  Do you know, there was a time when some scientists did claim that life was still coming from non-life, then another scientist definitely proved that they were wrong[9].  However, it does seem that with all of the knowledge and technology available, scientists could reproduce the effects and duplicate what happened in the beginning, yet they have not.[10]  In all of this, atheists must take exception to or ignore the natural order of cause and effect, which says the lesser must come from the greater or equal.[11]

Furthermore, how could order come out of disorder or chaos?  Who or what put everything in order?  The atheist will respond that the laws of nature brought about the order.  But how could a mindless universe come up with the laws of nature?  Where did the laws of nature come from[12]?  If there are no laws of nature, how could human reason know anything about nature beyond what our immediate common sense experiences tell us?  Reason does not work well with chaos; it needs order and laws to make inferences.  Reason has forced the materialist into the corner of randomness and chaos wherein they must deny any design in the universe, for to do so would leave the door open for God.  So, they must deny the self-evident truth that there is design in the universe.  Design is so self-evident that some will admit it, then quickly add, “it only appears to have design.”  So, it appears to have design but it does not actually have it?  This is like saying  that something that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, is not a duck.  Many are blind to self-evident truth, but not that blind. Here, they reflect the words of the apostle Paul, “Claiming themselves to be wise without God, they became utter fools instead” (Rom 1:22).

Of course, there are ways that one could justify this upside-down way of looking at nature.  By far the easiest way would be to stand on your head or maybe you could deny that consciousness is superior to unconsciousness?  This could be plausible, because some men’s consciousness reminds me of a rock.  However, even those men can pick up a rock and move it, thereby demonstrating their superiority to it.  The rock in and of itself can never be the first cause and the man who moves the rock can’t be devoid of life and intelligence. Intelligent life is always the prime mover.

One might also argue that consciousness is an illusion and makes an appeal to the subatomic level as real reality.  But again, that would seem to undermine the validity of human reason.  If our senses cannot know reality, how can we trust our reason?  In denying reasonable consciousness, the naturalist undermines the very reason he is claiming to stand on.  If there is no consciousness, but only a swerving mass of atoms, how could they trust their brain or reason to deny the existence of God?  Darwin himself being a naturalist had doubts about mans power to reason correctly.  He said in a letter to a friend “with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.  Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”[13]

In all of this, the atheist and naturalist must go against the cosmic order that is set forth in the real world of our senses and they must opt to see everything through the assumption and belief system of naturalism which blinds them to the self-evident truth of God, and many other truths.  It leads to believing that consciousness came from the lesser unconsciousness (lifeless matter)—that life came from lifelessness.  Could you say that atheism is the natural way or the self-evident way of looking at things?  I think only if you are living in another world, a one dimensional world created by the schemes of men.

[1] Unfortunately, the case can be made that when suppressed it will break out in the form of addiction to alcohol, drugs, sex and the occult.

 [2] Infants are hard-wired to believe in God, and atheism has to be learned, according to an Oxford University psychologist.  Dr Olivera Petrovich told a University of Western Sydney conference on the psychology of religion that even preschool children constructed theological concepts as part of their understanding of the physical world.  Psychologists have debated whether belief in God or atheism was the natural human state.  According to Dr Petrovich, an expert in psychology of religion, belief in God is not taught but develops naturally.  She told The Age yesterday that belief in God emerged as a result of other psychological development connected with understanding causation.  It was hard-wired into the human psyche, but it was important not to build too much into the concept of God.  “It’s the concept of God as creator, primarily,” she said.  Dr Petrovich said her findings were based on several studies, particularly one of Japanese children aged four to six, and another of 400 British children aged five to seven, from seven different faiths.  “Atheism is definitely an acquired position,” she said.  The Age July 2008 by Barnet Zwartz. www theage.com.

[3] Some atheists will argue that the universe only has an appearance of design, but in reality it doesn’t have any design.

[4] The majority of scientists now believe the universe had a beginning (the big bang theory) and that it will eventually end or run down (law of thermodynamics).

[5] God created all things.  It is another question to ask of how he did it; fast or slow.

[6] Many atheists like Sam Harris have reached the point where they are beginning to deny intelligent consciousness.  This is the logical end of atheism and naturalism.

[7] Taken from “Who made God?, Searching for a Theory of Everything” by Fay Weldon Edgar Andrews

[8] The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of a universe conducive to life, occurring by   chance is 1 in 1010123.  Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny,  New York: The Free Press, 1998, p.9

 [9] There was a time when some scientists believed in spontaneous generation, however, this theory was disproven by Louis Pasteur when he established beyond a shadow of a doubt that spontaneous generation is impossible under present day conditions. Even if science were to create life in the laboratory, it would only confirm that the lesser comes from the greater. For such an experiment would show that it took consciousness to arrange the elements to make life.

 [10] In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment created some of the chemical ingredients that are found in basic life forms. However, the scientists’ claim, that they had done this by reproducing early earth conditions, has been proven false. Plus, it is basically a false presupposition that they created life. A few of the building blocks of life is not life. A few bricks are is not a house. Even if science were to create life in the laboratory, it would only confirm that the lesser comes from the greater. For such an experiment would show that it took consciousness to arrange the elements to make life.

 [11] If super consciousness is a necessary cause of consciousness, and the law of cause and effect states that the cause must be greater than the effect, then the presence of consciousness necessarily implies the presence of super consciousness. The presence of super consciousness, however, does not imply that consciousness will occur. The same could be said of life. If life is a necessary cause of life, then the presence of life necessarily implies the presence of super life.

 [12] I had an atheist answer this question. His answer was that the laws were always  there .i.e. eternal. So, we can believe in eternal laws that control and govern the universe, but we cannot believe in an eternal God or an eternal law giver. It seems that as long as we believe in a mindless first cause the atheists are happy.

[13] Darwin’s quota: Letter to William Graham, Down (July 3, 1881), In the life and letters of Charles Darwin including an Autobiographical Chapter, edited by Francis Darwin (London: John Murry, Albernarle Street, 1887), Vol. 1, 315-316.

The Timid Preachers Among Us

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Christ and Culture, Government, Politics, Religion
  • The Timid Preachers Among Us

Ephesians 5:11-13

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light.

In my interaction with the clergy and those in full time religious work, I hear a lot of concerns about the faith becoming irrelevant for the majority of the people.  I think this is and should be a real concern, because this isn’t an idle observation or concern, but the truth.  Religious leaders have become ill, relative to the people in western culture.  The clergy has become a group of people whose sole purpose is to make their people feel good, inflate the membership and teach them abstract doctrines that have no relationship to real life, or sometimes God.

It seems that most religious leaders are quite content with being muzzled by our secular culture that would and has relegated the clergy to second-rate citizens that are not allowed to speak about politics in the public square or in their pulpits.  This seems to be true even though the government and society is corrupt and doing evil things.

I think the thing that bothers me the most about all of this is that the clergy in private seems to think of themselves as great defenders of the truth.  However, the only truth they stand for is truth that is convenient and non-offensive.  This all becomes quite obvious, when you look through Face book and see an amazing absence of any real content posted by preachers.  Most of the posts that are submitted about the corruption of politicians and government are posted by laypeople.  Little is said by the clergy about anything that is controversial.  So the Christian movement has become an army of foot soldiers with its officers hiding behind the wall of  separation  between the church and state.  By the way, that wall was erected by a corrupt politician, Senator Lyndon Johnson in 1954, and then voted in by a bipartisan ballot in Congress. Just think, large corporations can do anything they want politically and yet nonprofits like churches, American Legion and veterans organizations have no say, less they lose their tax-free status.

The consequence of this withdrawal from the real world is that the church and its leadership have ceased being the light of the world and the salt of the earth.  They are more like sugar and spice and everything nice.  The result is; the world, western culture, and the church, are filled with corruption and decay.  My counsel to the clergy is for them to take their heads out of the sand.  Stop speaking platitudes to the choir and get your holy hands dirty and engage the world.  If you haven’t noticed there is a war going on.