Two Kinds of Truth

Two Kinds of Truth

There are two kinds of truth: a truth that is developed by reason[i] and self-evident truth.  If we allow the latter to be pulled into the former, the latter and former are both lost. The very idea of knowing anything to any degree of certainty would be lost.

If a man denies that there is a cosmic order, i.e., a God, which I believe to be a self-evident truth,[ii] what grounds does he have to believe that his reasoning can be trusted?  If his reasoning is nothing more than a bundle of atoms interacting with each other in his brain, how can he trust it? Can he use reason to prove reason without first assuming that his reason can be trusted?  He may say that reasoning can be trusted because it was perfected by natural selection, but that is to say that a mindless force we called nature created reasoning and then perfected it by another mindless force, natural selection.  The atheist must trust or have faith in a blind force in order to trust his reasoning.  If he believes in reasoning, he must believe in it through a leap of faith in a blind force, which in my thinking begins to look a lot like a God hypothesis called by the name, reason.

To really be consistent with his atheism, he must maintain that everything (including his reasoning) is a mere illusion of his biological illusion maker that is in his brain. Then in order to function in the world, he must split the world into what is real and what is an illusion, and he must choose to live in and out of his illusions for it is impossible to live in the world he thinks is reality.  On top of this and at the same time, he must cling to the belief or the illusion that he and his beliefs are reasonable and everyone else’s (believers) are unreasonable.

He is like an actor on stage pretending to live out an imaginary story but believing at the same time that backstage is reality, which is meaningless and chaotic.  Of course, if he pretends long enough, he may begin to believe that the play is real, or if he gets really caught up in the story, he may even forget that it is all just make-believe.  The paradox is that often while playing out the story, he holds his audience in contempt for not knowing that the story he is performing in, is not real, or for not knowing what’s going on behind the curtain.

I have found that few atheists have the courage to take their beliefs to their logical conclusion for fear of the life it would produce.  So, they proclaim one set of beliefs while living by another. They claim to find meaning in a universe, which they say has no meaning, and they claim to have a purpose in a cosmos that they claim has no purpose.  They claim to be rational, in fact, the most rational of humans; however, does not rationality demand a willingness to take your own thinking to its logical conclusions and in turn, live out those conclusions?  Yet, I have never met an atheist who has consistently lived out his own thinking. Now, this is not to say they do not exist, but rather I have never met any.

Without a cosmic order, does not reason take you to the point of questioning reason itself?  Does not pure skepticism demand that you become skeptical about your own skepticism?  Should not a true doubter, doubt his own doubts?  Without self-evident truth, reasoning will, in the end, chase its own tail.  You must have something to reason from; you cannot reason from doubt.  As William James said, “You must have a will to believe something.”  Reason must start with something and cannot start with nothing.  Even the atheist must start with something: “I believe there is no God.”  Here he starts with assuming that his reason is sound.  Then he moves to himself “I” and his belief there is no God.  However, he cuts off the limb he is sitting on when he says, “no God.” Can a finite “I” make such a statement without being the very thing that he denies exists, i.e., God? [iii]  Moreover, can he make such a statement without having blind faith in reason?

[i]  These are truths that are formed by deduction and inductive reasoning. However, these truths are not the facts in themselves but are ideas that are inferred from the facts. Believers believe they can trust reason because it is the reflection of a reasonable God in whom image, we are created.

[ii] 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.”  Sometimes overexposure deadens our sensitivity to a thing. We are often actually insensitive to our senses until they are impaired in some way. We seldom think about seeing or our eyes until something threatens our sight. When looking out a window, we will not often see the glass unless we focus on it. The reason for this is that we have given our full attention to the things that 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 modern man is that he is too focused on things to see God. However, his lack of focus does not mean that God does not exist.

[iii] To make an absolute statement that there is no God, a person would have to know everything in this vast universe and be everywhere at the same time. For if he did not know everything, the thing he might not know is that there is a God, and if he was not everywhere at the same time, the place he was not at might be the very place God exists.

The Assumptions of the Atheist Faith

The Assumptions of the Atheist Faith

The atheistic faith is based on three assumptions that are either false or unprovable.  And yes, it is a faith because it is an ideal that exists in the human mind and is supported by other human beliefs.  The idea that it is a non-belief is nothing but atheistic sophistry.  Call it a nonbelief is like calling it a non-idea.  Just some more nonsense.

Let’s look at their assumptions.  The first is that there is no God.  No one can prove that there is no God[1] for in order to do so they would have to be everywhere in the universe at the same time and also outside of the universe at the same time for the very place that they were not, might be the very place that the Uncreated one is present.  They would also have to know everything in the universe; for if there was one thing that they didn’t know, it might be that there’s a God.  In essence, they would have to be God in order to say with certitude that there’s not a God.  The atheist always has to leave a small possibility that there might be a God, which the possibility in itself negates the very idea of atheism.  However, out of fear of the camel getting his nose into the tent many pretend to deny the possibility altogether.

The second assumption that I have found in most atheists is the belief that they are smarter than those that believe in God.  I have found this trait even in those who seem to be friendly towards religion.  Of course, this is an assumption that has no scientific basis.  In fact, recent polling of scientists indicates that the split is about 50-50 as to whether or not they believe in some kind of higher power[2].

When it comes to IQ some believe that The American philosopher,  psychologist and psychiatrist William James was the most intelligent man in recent times and of course he was a believer.  I have read estimates that his IQ was twice that of Einstein’s. The most intelligent living person is Christopher Langan.  He is considered by many to be the world’s smartest living person with an IQ of over 200 and he is a believer.

Of course, this doesn’t prove or disprove the existence of a God, but it does prove that the atheists’ second assumption, that they are smarter than believers, is not a scientific view and seems to be wrong.

The third assumption is that science has proven that there is no God.  This assumption is one of the most common ones among atheists and borders on ridiculous.  The following quotations speak directly to this assumption.

“Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won’t help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science.” Science Dept — University of California at Berkeley

“Explanations employing nonmaterialistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm of science …. all of science, is necessarily silent on religion and neither refutes nor supports the existence of a deity or deities.” National Association of Biology Teachers

“no aspect of science can address supernatural questions …. supernatural entities by definition operate outside of natural laws and so [truly] cannot be investigated using methods of experimentation” — American Association for the Advancement of Science”

Some atheists, to justify their unbelief, will say that there are no scientific proofs for God, which may be true, but it raises the question as to why some of the same people believe in aliens and a universe that has a multitude of dimensions.  Where is the scientific evidence and proof of the existence of these things?  Moreover, where is the scientific evidence that the only proofs have to come from science?

[1] “Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.” David Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion”

[2] According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted in May and June 2009

 

More Nonsense of The New Atheists

More Nonsense of The New Atheists

I hope the reader will bear with me as I share with you some nonsense about something that I’ve inherited from the new atheist. It is nonsense, which means that my response is also probably nonsense as well. At least what I have to say will give you something to think about, but I’m not completely certain because it is a non-belief and I’m unsure as to whether you can actually think about it.

The new atheist claims that they have no burden of proof because atheism is not a belief but rather a non-belief[i].  Right.  Atheists, along with everyone else, can or cannot prove or disprove a non-belief.  Nor can they argue for, or against, a non-belief. In fact, you could argue that you cannot even speak from a non-belief other than simply to say, “I do not believe it,”  i.e. I’ve never made an argument for or against the existence of a spaghetti monster.  If you’re talking about spaghetti monsters, the first thing you must do is define it, which no one has ever done for me, so I would have to say that when it comes to spaghetti monsters, I’m agnostic. However, I know of only a handful of atheists who refuse to speak about the subject of God and offer arguments against his existence. They must believe something about the God they are arguing against. Of course, the truth is they build a straw man God in their imaginations and then argue against it.

If you are arguing for or against something, you are not arguing from a non-belief because that is impossible. Moreover, when arguing against something, the argument “I don’t believe” is insufficient because that is an opinion, not an argument. If you argue, you must argue from some other position or ideology not a non-belief. You cannot as atheists do, argue against God and then claim atheism as a non-belief that you have no burden of proof to justify. Atheists must argue against God from either materialism or naturalist ideology, which are beliefs. In other words, the minute they open their mouths the burden of proof lies on the one trying to prove their unbelief by means of other beliefs. In essence, they have to borrow a belief structure from other ideologies in order to speak against a belief in God.  If they don’t want any burden of proof, they should simply not speak and quit arguing from materialism, scientism and naturalism.  Once they argue from these other “isms” or ideologies, they then have the burden of proof to demonstrate its truthfulness. [1]

[i] what is a non-belief? If I hold a belief in my mind that is not true is that a non-belief or is it a false belief? Actually, the only non-belief that a human being can entertain is that God is nothingness. Nothingness is the only non-belief that a human can entertain.

The New Atheist and Self-righteousness

The New Atheist and Self-righteousness

There is a generation that is pure in their own eyes and yet is not washed from their filthiness. Proverbs 30:12

The new atheists think that they’re righteous because they have never really made an honest attempt to be righteous.  You never know how weak you are until you try to lift something heavy.  The new atheist believes that they are righteous because like many in the west they equate righteousness with believing the correct thing.  In other words, if you have the right doctrine, you are righteous.  They inherited this belief, that right doctrine equals righteousness, from evangelical Christianity which they so vivaciously hate.  Like all Pharisees they hate what they are and they detest their own shadow to the point that they deny that they even have one.

One man said of the new atheists that their thinking was “…attitudes masquerading as ideas, emotional commitments disguised as intellectual honesty.”  At first these remarks puzzled me and then I realized that the new atheist’s thinking did not have its origin in deep clear thinking and reasoning, but rather in attitudes and the emotions brought about by those attitudes.  The attitudes that come to my mind as typical of the new atheist type are rebellion, hubris and self-righteousness, which are very similar attitudes as those involved in the social justice movement. All of these attitudes are commonly found among younger people, especially young educated males.

Like so many young people of today the new atheists seem to be angry, but  why are they angry?  They are a part of the most spoiled and pampered generation that’s ever been on the face of the earth.  The majority of the new atheist types are college graduates that have grown up with comfort, ease and pleasure beyond another generation’s imagination.

What are they angry about? They’re furious that the world, and it’s God, is not to their liking.  Yet they are frustrated that they don’t have the power to change it.  They only have the power to destroy it, which is the reason they are called ‘deconstructionists’ by many.  This deconstructionism can take many forms; it can be seen in the new atheist movement, the feminist movement and the social justice movement.  All of these movements have their roots in atheism and in the denial of the divine.  All of these movements are nihilistic in the end and create a people without God, without meaning and without any hope in the world.  The only meaning they seem to have is found in their deconstructionism and their utopian world view.  This can all be seen in the atheistic communist movement that destroyed everything in its path.

Are the new atheists righteous?  Well, if there is a God, they are not righteous, they are evil.  If there is no God it really doesn’t matter because the word righteousness would be just a word without any real content.

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

 

 

Is Atheism Rational, An Argument Based On Size

Is Atheism Rational, An Argument Based On Size

Is atheism rational?  The answer is no. It is dogma.  You cannot make a rational statement that there is no God in a universe as big as we know ours to be.  The size of the universe eliminates certitude in any negative affirmation as to what is not in the universe. In like fashion, I can say that there is a car in the garage but because of the garage size in contrast to the size of a dust mite, I cannot say there are no dust mites in the garage unless I intervene and create an environment where dust mites cannot exist or create an instrument that will aid me in seeing them. The difference between the car and the mites is the size. The size of the garage and the size of the thing I’m looking for matters. The size of the universe does not prove there is a God, but it does eliminate atheism as a rational opinion. The more manly option would be agnosticism, which confesses that it just does not know whether there’s a God or not. I say more manly because it is often uncomfortable for human beings to know and confess their lack of certitude in a belief.

The size of the universe also puts a demand on how one describes the God who created it. If you believe that a being created the universe it would seem logical that the being must be greater than or at least equal to the thing created. This would mean that the human mind could not fathom this being (if it be lawful to call it a being) for we cannot fathom the universe much less the force that created it. One of the great problems in trying to define the deity is that such a deity would be, out of necessity, outside of nature and we humans only know and have natural words and concepts to explain anything. So immediately, our language would fail us in describing such a being. That is why some people when referring to such a being refer to him as the Totally Other or the Uncreated One or as some of the mystic’s “nothingness”.

It would be safe to say that human beings will never be able to say that the infinitely small or the infinitely big cannot exist.  It is more rational to say that they exist and yet because of our finiteness, we cannot observe them. In this instance, our faith that such a being exists is based on the overall understanding of the universe and how it is put together, not on specific facts of science.

My Personal Perspective on Atheism

 

My Personal Perspective on Atheism

 You can tell me all you want about the openness and sincerity of atheists but here’s my real-life experience of 72 years.  I have given hundreds of atheist books written by some of the best Christian apologists and not one of them have read them. I must gather from this than by in large they are not open seeking people. They seem to be fundamentalist in their thinking process and they’re thinking is like concrete. They do not seem to be overly interested in truth, which is understandable when considering their world view. Moreover, they are ignorant about the things that they criticize to the point of being ridiculous.

They have no facts; all they have is an attitude that they like to call “non-belief”. In their thinking, their best argument is a laundry list of the evils of religion, which they somehow believe addresses the question of the existence of God. The amazing thing is that they engage in this rock throwing while forgetting that they live in a glass house of communistic atheism, which has done more evil than all the religions in the world put together.

Their silliest parody is their constant appeal to science for the reason why they don’t believe in a God. Of course, every first-year science major knows that the subject of  God is outside of the realm of scientific study. 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.

If you want something to read, try reading or watching some of Jordan Peterson’s discussions with Sam Harris. As you watch, carefully observed the thinking process of the two men. I don’t agree with everything that Peterson says but at least his mind flows and is not concrete like Harris. Though I admit that Harris is a very intelligent person and is well spoken. However, having a well-spoken sophist as the head of a movement does not prove the movement right.