A Letter to a Young atheist
You asked if I had read any books written by atheists. I’ve read a number of the books written by the four Horsemen and many other atheists. After reading them, I still think atheism is a mental disorder that shows up at the end of any declining civilization. Even if every religion throughout the world is wrong that doesn’t make atheism right.
You argument that the division in the religion world is a proof that there is no God demonstrates a shallow understand of the human condition. In fact, if there is an all powerful being you would expect finite creatures like humans to be divided concerning their belief about it. So, what you point out to be an inconsistency is very much consistent with a belief in an all-knowing God. Disunity of belief is the very thing you should expect to find when a finite creature believes in an all-powerful God.
Your quibbles about there being no proofs for the existence of God border on the hysterical. First, there is an enormous difference between evidence and proof. A huge percentage of human knowledge has little to no proof of its own accuracy. The majority of human knowledge believed is based on the authority of a teacher, and to have faith in that teacher. Very few people ever see the evidence or proof for numerous beliefs. These beliefs range from Darwinian evolution, to theories of the multi-verse. If you believe these things, it’s because someone told you to believe it and you accepted it by faith and you accepted it as logical because they framed the evidence in a world view that you had already accepted. When talking about evidence we are using the language of science, when you start talking about proofs you are using the language of philosophy not science. Science cannot possibly prove or disapprove the idea of God. Science recognizes its limitations. Why can’t you atheists? The truth is that you don’t understand science any better than you do religion.
However, science can offer evidence that seems at least to support the idea of a supreme consciousness that created all things. The apparent design that we see in the universe is one of these things and the other is the fact that the universe had a beginning. Both scientific theories support the idea of consciousness more than a belief that the world and the universe were just cobbled together by a mindless force. However, it does not proof it be on a shadow of a doubt.
If you’re looking for proofs in philosophy, you can forget it. Philosophically, it would be hard to prove that you even exist, much more than proving the nonexistence of a god. Human beings are small ignorant creatures whose existence is based pretty much on faith in many presuppositions, which cannot be proven. Our ambiguous position in the universe tends to cause insecurity so we gravitate towards seeking certitude (proofs) of our beliefs. In this religion is actually more honest than secular people when it says that we walk by faith and not by sight.
The new atheists are small-minded people who have an over-inflated view of themselves and their intelligence. As a result they are fundamentalist in their thinking and they still live in a world of proofs. This alone is an unbelievable paradox because of their belief system, or their lack of beliefs. For in their belief system of materialism there couldn’t be such a thing as truth for truth is a concept that belongs in a religious framework that believes in an Ultimate Authority as a foundation of human knowledge. The atheist appeal to truth demonstrates that they are still thinking in a religious framework and in essence, for many their lack of belief has become a religion.
 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?, a searching For a Theory Of Everything” by Fay Weldon.
 In a materialistic worldview there cannot be a traditional moralistic truth. Atheism will always lead to relativism where truth is what a person believes.
A Letter to a Christian Science Teacher
Your Zionist interpretation of the Bible seems to align with those that you dislike; i.e. fundamentalist’s, and your defense of science seems to contradict your statement, that it is not a religion. However, you defend it as though it was your religion. Furthermore, the way you defend it seems to be a little over the top. If you view it simply as a method of finding the truth; i.e. the scientific method, then why the big fuss? No one disagrees with the scientific method. The question is do scientists really follow it? I personal think not. The scientific method is used pretty much to make the scientific community respectable and they keep it as law about as well as the Jews kept the Law of Moses.
I think it is self-evident that in most people’s minds science has become a metaphysical concept, which goes way beyond people in white jackets applying the scientific method to their research. Science has become the authority that people appeal to in a secular atheistic culture and for many, science has evolved into a new religion. It used to be that people would appeal to the Bible or the church. They would say “Because the Bible says so” or “Because the church says so”. Now it is nothing but “science says”. For many in our culture the only knowledge that has not been debunked and found useless is called science. This is nonsense; however it is fostered by many in the scientific community. To me there is far more truth in a good work of art than in most scientific theories, or more power in a song than in all of the science in the world. Science has given us many toys and made life easier in some ways, but I think it hasn’t given many people meaning, peace of mind, joy or love. In fact, many scientists are arrogant jackasses. “Knowledge puffs up, love builds up”. Science does not teach this, the Bible does. The false god (idol) of science has taken us to the very edge of the abyss. It has given evil men the power to take away our humanity and turn us into machines. The state is already using it to manipulate the herd in any direction it wishes. Science is now the handmaid of the state, just as religion was a century ago. I personally, value my freedom more than comfort, ease and pleasure. To me science is like religion, it is human and therefore needs to be criticized and critiqued often. The power that it has attained is equal to that of religion and is one of the powers that the Bible speaks about. Remember that our battle is not with flesh and blood but rather with the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. Those heavenly powers have their counterpart on this earth. What do you thinks stands behind the metaphysical concept of science?
Science is the false god of many worldly people. It promises them salvation if they will give it their money and commitment. It promises health and wealth to all that follow it. It claims to be able to predict the future (global warming). Something the Bible says only God can do. Not only does it claim to know the future, it also claims it can control it. It also boasts of its miracles of healing and its signs and wonders. To me this sounds a little like the antichrist in the book of Thessalonians and surely sounds like religion. I think science is what you make of it, but for many they have made it their faith and religion.
 Science is a concept that does not existence in reality. If it does where is it? Can I see it, smell it, taste it or touch it? I can do all these things to the people that practice it but I cannot do it to it. In this manner, it resembles religion.
 ” The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness” (2 Thess 2:8-12).
God and Einstein
There has been much debate about the religious beliefs and faith of Albert Einstein. Both the atheist community and the believing community have claimed him as one of their own. However, I believe it can be demonstrated that Einstein was somewhat of a mystic and would not be overly comfortable in either group.
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. This insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms — this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men.”
Rudolf Otto wrote a book entitled, ‘The Ideal Of The Holy’ in which he attempts to explain the spiritual experience that Einstein describes and what Otto goes on to refer to as the numinous which he believes is a sign which points to the deity and could be likened to the voice of God that beckons man to his true center.
The sub-title to Otto’s book, ‘The Idea of the Holy’ is ‘An inquiry into the non-rational factor in the idea of the divine and its relation to the rational’. In the book Otto points out that numinous is not rational or reasonable but it’s not irrational or unreasonable, it is simply outside of those categories. You might call it super-rational.
It is this numinous experience that the atheist lacks. Because he has not experienced it, it is impossible for him to understand someone who has experienced it like Einstein. Einstein had experienced the Totally Other which lied beyond his explanatory powers to communicate it to those who had not experienced it, those that he referred to as dead or blind. Otto’s book is the best attempted I have seen to put the experience into words. You can get a PDF copy at the below address.
The Two Humanities A New Perspective
From the beginning of time, there have been two humanities that worship. Those who worship the true God and those who worshiped false Gods; those that believe God and those that do not. This view of a divided humanity raises a number of questions. One of them is, when did this great divide take place and was it ever deepened by happenstance, or by God’s action?
For a long time biblical, scholars have believed that there were two creation stories in the book of Genesis. I personally looked upon Genesis chapter one, more less as a general account recording the creation of the physical universe which included man. Genesis’s chapter two offers a more detailed description of the creation of humanity.
However, recently I began to think that Genesis one and two may have clues that point to some interesting ideas. For instance, could it be saying that they were two creations? One humankind being for a general or broader humanity and one for a specific humanity. To employ scientific terminology, could there have been two species of humanity created? One that had a special place to live and special relationship to the creator? In other words, one was more human and more God-like than the former, maybe one that was endowed with God’s spirit?
If you recall the story, when Cain killed Abel he was ejected from the presence of the Lord and it says that he went out and he took a wife and built a city. This raises a number of questions. One being who did he marry, and another being where did the people come from, for him to build a city?
As we move along in the story, we are told in the sixth chapter of Genesis, “When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.’ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.” (Genesis 6:1-4).
What are some of the things that might be inferred from this section of scripture? One, there was were two humanities one seemingly superior to the other. The two inter-married and produced a third race. We can also infer that the mixture of the races resulted in a shorter lifespan for all the descendants of both races. From the reaction of the deity, we could also assume that he was not pleased with this mixture of humanity.
Are there any benefits to viewing humanity this way? It would help explain the numbers of people that are reported existing in the world during the time of Cain and Abel. It also explains the large numbers of humanity present at the time of the flood of Noah. It would also offer an explanation for the decrease in the life expectancy of humanity.
It also would answer the problem of death being in the world before the fall of man. In this view, death was outside the garden and life was inside of it, or in relationship with God. When Adam sinned, he brought sin and death into his world and because of his lost relationship with God, he became like those outside the relationship ruled by the law of sin and death. Immediately after his sin, we see sin and death at work in the story of Cain and Abel. The god species lost its protective place with God. It is here in the story that we find another clue. Cain leaves the presence of the Lord, goes out and marries and builds a city. Who did he marry? Well, there are only two possibilities, he married his sister, or he married outside of the god species. You could say he interbred with another species. We used to think that mating between species was impossible or never happened. However, new evidence seems to be pointing to the fact that Homo sapiens did mate with other species of humanity. So some in the scientific community referred to this species as the ghost species.
 This whole article is based on speculation. The Bible is very vague about the history of the earth and the earth erases its history. Therefore, it is impossible to know exactly the history of mankind. Science as we know it today is as vague as the Bible. If you want to study a book on our depth of knowledge of the earth’s history read Henry Dee’s book “Deep Time”.
 This account might explain the source of the legends of Greek heroes being the sons of God.
 If you are interested in the studies which talk about humans having intercourse with sub humans and if you want to know more about what scientists call the ghost species simply Google the subject.
The Darwinian Evolution Narrative
The more I read on evolution the more I have come to realize that the theory of Darwinian Evolution is based more on narrative than facts. By this I mean that it is based on a well thought out story without a lot of real facts to back it up. Most often it is based on conjecture or outright fiction. I also have noticed that the facts are often made to fit the story instead of the story fitting the facts.
How could this happen? How could so many intelligent people embrace such a theory as fact? There are three answers to this question. The first one is that they have accepted the scientific maxim or dogma that everything must be explained naturalistically, leaving no other possible explanation, except maybe for the seeding of the earth by alien life forces. This dogma also hinders any real attempt by those inside the system to attempt to disprove the theory. The second is the failure to see that the theory is not the facts. Some confuse the map for the territory. The third is that many in the educated class had accept science as a new faith. Some have gone so far as to give it a name, it’s called scientism; the belief that only true knowledge must come through science. Well this may make Johnny a real brilliant boy but it also makes him a very narrow-minded boy.
Evolution in its most basic form is a fact. Life changes and adapts to its environment. We can see this happening in the barnyard and sometimes it is aided and directed by man (consciousness). However, Darwin’s theory of evolution is not a fact, it is an interpretation of the facts, with the interpretation of the facts being dependent on the narrative and there is no narrative without a secular or atheist world view. Historical fact verifies that the materialistic worldview came first, then the narrative and then the theory. It is a well-known fact that Darwin and others in his time believed in the theory of evolution before there were any scientific facts to support it. This simply means that it would be very easy for this theory to have a social origin.
Evolutionist’s are constantly asking the question what narrative best fits the facts? By this they’re usually talking about a theological narrative that they suppose existed. However the truth is there is no theological narrative as to how God made the world. The Bible simply states that God did it and any good theologian would never suppose or assert that they were capable of explaining how God created the world. They clearly understand that such an event could only be spoken about metaphorically in story, poetry and myth. Theologians understand the difference between truth, and the truth. Theology leaves room for mystery and science leaves none. For that reason, science has the tendency to fill the gap’s with narrative and speculation, which it then attempts to falsify. At least that is what it claims to do and should do.
In this, the Darwinian theory of evolution is a theory of necessity for those accepting a materialistic or atheistic worldview. The only alternatives would be for them to just simply say they don’t know. Unfortunately, the majority are not willing to do that or even try to base their study and research on an attempt to figure out how consciousness created all things. In most cases this is because they have a prior commitment to materialism, like Johnny, they have become small-minded. It should also be noted that because of their prior commitment to materialism it would be very difficult to attempt to falsify a theory which you have already committed to as the only one possible.
However, this insight has not led me to any expectation on my part that the theory will be overthrown sometime in the near future. The Theory itself has evolved into a secular myth that supports a secular world view. The science has ended, religious faith has taken its place.
 I find it strange that people can accept that man can direct evolution and at the same time hold to the belief that a God could not do it.
 “The Road of Science and The Ways to God” By Stanley L. Jaki Page 282