Category: Atheism
A Letter to a Believer In Response to a Believer on The Existence of God Article
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?
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.
Religion Poisons Everything Or Does It?
Religion Poisons Everything Or Does It?
In the August first edition of The Harvard Gazette[i] an article appeared entitled “Gods in the Details” in which Prof. Joseph Henrich demonstrates that faith and religion is more than a bunch of taboos and superstitions as propounded by most atheist.
His study seems to be indicating that religion was one of the key factors in unifying people in large civilizations and in building a base for their morality. Of course, it has been known for a long time by historians that whenever a civilization stopped believing in their gods they soon sunk into depravity and ceased to exist. It seems now that this has been verified by evolutionary psychology that many in the atheistic community will have to change their rhetoric that religion is worthless and poisons everything.
This study seems to support the idea that religion has contributed to the creation of morality and unity in large civilizations. This, at least on the surface seems, to be indicating that the atheist position that reason alone can create morality and ethics is simply an oversimplification of religion and morality.
[i] The Harvard Gazette is a free on-line newsletter.
A Short letter to a Materialist
A Short letter to a Materialist
I have often had materialists[1] tell me that” there is nothing in nature that requires a supernatural explanation per say. My reply to that is, I might as well say there is nothing in nature which requires a scientific explanation[2]. Nature has no requirement to understand her. You can put any interpretation on her; you wish and she will not protest a bit. Moreover, who says that everyone must look at nature or anything else through the narrow lens of our present human knowledge and the way some atheistic scientists constructed reality?[3] Their whole narrative is based on the assumption that there is no God, which they cannot prove any more than the theist can prove the existence of God. Both start from an assumption and then build a whole world view around that assumption[4]. One big difference is that the believer can still be open-minded enough to do science in his world view while the atheistic scientists are total blind by their materialism to anything outside of their narrow way of looking at things.
Read very carefully the below quote. It is extremely telling about people assumptions and the power they have over a person and groups of people. You also see there a man who I would say is a true believer in science-ism, although a weak form of it, because he knows much of it is false. However, he does admit that his faith is based upon an assumption that materialism is true.
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our prior adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”[5]
[1] A materialist is a person which believes that everything is made up of matter and denies the existence of spirit. Thus denying the supernatural.
[2] Read my article “Rocks on The Ground” http://wp.me/p5pJxI-lTw at lyleduell.me
[3] I feel no intellectual compulsion to view all of life from a materialistic point of view. When you force reality into a closed ideological system as materialism you will surely distort reality. I also have chosen not to believe in Materialism for pragmatic reasons and my mind is closed to it. As William James would say “I am dead to it”. There is simply no life in that world view.
[4] If scientists that are believers and scientists that are atheist wish to argue and fight about the existence of God that’s fine but both sides must admit that they are debating as philosophers and not a scientist.
[5] Richard Leonine, “Billions and Billions of Demons”, New York Review of Books 44, no. 1 (January 9,1997) 28-32 . Lewontin teaches biology at Harvard.
TOP DNA SCIENTIST CONVINCED OF GOD
Did Einstein Believe in God?
One of the best articles on this subject.
Against Reason, Systems and Idols
Against Reason[1], Systems and Idols
“Reason is what I believe, those that disagree with me are therefore, unreasonable.” Everyone
I have noticed that very reasonable and intelligent men differ widely on a large number of issues. All seem to cling to the idea that their view is reasonable and the other side is unreasonable[2]. This would seem to point to the possibility that the problem may lie in the concept of reason itself. Of course, to examine reason is like asking an eye to see itself. When reason looks at reason, it does so through a dirty lens, and this brings us to the place to begin our investigation of reason.
In my contemplation of reason I came up with a number of answers as to why reasonable men disagree. One of the most obvious is that some men are contentious and simply enjoy fighting and arguing. Of these men you could say, they love controversy because it gets their intellectual juices flowing and therefore it has become like a drug; they have become addicted to arguing and debating. They actually enjoy fighting with words and ideas and to them life would be boring without a good fight going on. These people are often blinded to truth by their love for the fight. Their real goal is not the truth but to win the argument[3].
The human ego needs to be addressed when discussing reason, for when we use reason to examine reason it is like looking at yourself in a mirror. However, it is not just any mirror. It is like the magical mirror of the step mother in Snow White. The one that hung on the wall and was asked, “Mirror, mirror on the wall who’s the fairest of them all?” Of course, the mirror called reason would be asked who is the smartest of them all. The egotism of reason is a very subtle form of intellectual pride that hides itself in “a search for the truth.” A search for the truth that can lead to intellectual pride, belittling of others and name-calling akin to; they’re stupid, morons, imbeciles, etc.
Moreover, the thing that we call reason is often captured and locked up by the idols or systems we create in our minds. Reason then becomes a slave to the system, serving and supporting the system. The explanation for this, is that reason works best when things are concrete, and systems make ideas that should be fluid to become concrete. This is why many so-called intellectuals believe that they can capture the truth and put it into their system. However, the truth is that you cannot capture the truth by any system or ideology, no more than you could capture a great river in a tea-cup. This is the first lesson you should learn in reason 101, i.e. reason has her limits and one of those limits is that she cannot be put into a closed system and still be reason.
Still, another lesson taught by true reason is that reason does not necessarily reign, nor is it the chief element in the state of mind that we humans call intelligence. In fact, reason that has been captured by a closed system can make you quite miserable and very narrow minded. True reason is happy to share its place with the imagination, the will and the emotions[4]. In other words, it knows when not to be reasonable. It knows that it is finite and it is not God. A lesson that many who fancy themselves as philosophers and intellectuals should learn.
What happens when reason forgets that she is not God? Well, she will attempt to storm the very throne of God and pretend to be God. In this, she becomes what the ancients called an idol. We could conclude from this that the building of systems is nothing more than modern man’s building of temples for the idols of the human mind.
When reason alone looks for God, she is not searching for God with a capital G, she really is looking for a god that she can manipulate and place in her system or her temple of idols. Of course, for some any god that they might find is too finite and small for their system, so they simply make their system the absolute while throwing God out of the temple. In this, the human mind becomes a workshop for making idols and its greatest tool is the thing we call human reasoning. If you do not believe me check our history[5]. What you will find is that reason will lead into a system, the system evolves into a movement, as the intellectual wins and captures lesser men in their systems, then the system and movement will harden and become an ideology or a school of philosophy. In this, the ideology becomes the absolute (idol) that the mass man blindly follows.
Those who work in this factory of idols are the so-called intellectuals among us; mere men who really believe they understand the universe or at the least they pretend to. They are usually very intelligent, are fast thinkers and talkers that amaze and entertain the mass man with their knowledge. Many of these intellectuals serve as priest in our temples of human reason (universities). The chief characteristic of these people is not the level of their intelligence but rather that they are ignorant of their own ignorance and have the ability to dress their systems up as science and convince the masses that it is the truth with a capital T. Once the systems are formed and made absolute, the priests will call on their slave of reason to justify their systems.
In all this, we see so-called reasonable men disagree, and reason is demonstrated to be a slave of the human will and all of its rebellious passions. Surely reason is a dirty lens that darkens as much as it enlightens. Remember that as much evil has been done in the name of reason as by religion. In fact when religion does evil its practitioners say it’s reasonable.
This raises the question, have you been captured by an intellectual, a system or idol?
“Dear children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21).
[1] I am not against reason, but rather the abusive of reason and exalting it to the place of God. Reason is the gift of God, but like other gifts from God (sexuality) she is often terribly abused and taken to extremes.
[2] If you want to see a circus go to YouTube and watch the intellectuals argue and debate the issues. All claiming to be reasonable and the other side unreasonable.
[3] “Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:9-11).
[4] The best worldview that encompasses these three parts of the human psyche is Christianity.
[5] The truth about intellectual can be seen in Paul Johnson book “Intellectuals”. He concludes his book by saying “What conclusions should be drawn? Readers will judge for themselves. But I think I detect today a certain public skepticism when intellectuals stand up to preach to us, a growing tendency among ordinary people to dispute the right of academies, writer and philosophers, eminent though they may be, to tell us how to behave and conduct our affairs. The belief seems to be spreading that intellectuals are no wiser as mentors or worthier as exemplars, than the witch doctors or priests of old. I share that skepticism”
The Decline of Organized Religion
The Decline of Organized Religion
I have noticed that many of my atheist friends on the net seem to be gloating that organized religion in the West is on the decline. I suspect that some of them who have a high opinion of themselves even imagine that they are influencing its decline.
Let’s, for the moment, assume that religion is declining just as some of the new atheists seem to believe. This would, out of necessity, cause us to ask the question “Why?” Could it be, as some of the new atheists assume, that humanity, at least in the West, is more educated and getting smarter?[1] I have doubts that education has had little, if any effect on the decline of organized religion or even on the true number atheists. Their growth could be contributed more likely, to a ‘coming out of the closet’ rather than any actual growth.
There has always been a large number of unbelievers in organized religion, especially when the religion is the dominant cultural religion and it has become socially and economically beneficial to pose as a believer. It’s easy to come out the closet when you live in a culture that believes nothing. If this is the case then I personally, as a believer, am thankful to the new atheist for helping us rid ourselves of the chaff within the Christian faith. However, I really don’t think that this is the case.
One huge contributor to the decline in organized religion and other social organizations is the transfer of the dependence of poor people on their faith community and other social organizations to their dependency on the state for all of their needs.
Personally, it’s hard for me to see anything very positive about this transfer of power. The only result is that the poor have lost their moral compass, and the state has gained more power over them thereby expanding their power over the entire population. On the other end of the economic spectrum, the wealthy and business class no longer have to demonstrate their goodness and honesty by going to church, although many still go to church for what they call “net working”; to sell their wares.
All of this has little or nothing to do with the level of intelligence of people living in the West or the new atheist movement, both of which I believe are a part of the declension and decay of civilization. One mark of a declining civilization is its loss of faith in its gods or religion. This loss of faith many not be causal but it does go hand and hand with the death of civilization and is a sign of a decaying culture.
The churches like all social institutions in Western culture are losing membership and this is not something to be gloating over for the reason that people are becoming increasingly isolated from each other, which in turn gives the state more power. This is one of the factors contributing to our loss of freedom. Taking religion out of the public square is not the separation of powers, it is the enthroning of state power without any organized resistance. This is why dictators and tyrants make it their goal to eradicate religion as soon as they gain power. Therefore, most tyrannical governments support atheism.
In addition, the creation of democracy and the rise of individualism also can give rise to an anti-authority mindset, that also can cause a decline in any authoritative organization. So, it is not surprising that organized religions, which have an authority structure, are declining the most in democratic societies. This would include mainline Protestant and Catholic churches which have an authoritative structure. Independent churches which are more democratic in their structure are maintaining their membership and even growing in membership.
Again, we see that the increase of knowledge seems to have little to do with the decline of religion and the rise of atheism. The rise of atheism can be traced much more easily to social and psychological[2] reasons then to any level of education.
[1] If people are getting smarter why is there a decline in philosophy students which seems to be corresponding with the decline in religion?
[2] Note my article on “The Making of a Fundamentalist Atheist” and “Prerequisites for Atheism” at: lyleduell.me
Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?
One of the most respected scientists of today says he has found evidence of the action of a force “that governs everything.”
The theoretical physicist Michio Kaku claims to have developed a theory that might point to the existence of God. The information has created a great stir in the scientific community because Kaku is considered one of the most important scientists of our times, one of the creators and developers of the revolutionary String Theory which is highly respected throughout the world.
To to come to his conclusions, the physicist made use of what he calls “primitive semi – radius tachyons “.
Tachyons are theoretical particles capable to “unstick ” the Universe matter or vacuum space between matter particles, leaving everything free from the influences of the surrounding universe.
After conducting the tests, Kaku came to the conclusion that we live in a “Matrix”.
“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”, he affirmed. “Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.”
“To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”
Lyle Duell 