Paradigm shift and the Loss of Faith

The Logic of Believing In A Supreme Being

The problem with believing in a supreme being or God is that it no longer fits in our paradigm.  Our paradigm used to be one of kingship or feudalism, now it is one of democracy and egalitarianism both of which does not fit well with a belief  in a supreme being.  What is a paradigm? A paradigm is a framework of beliefs containing the basic assumptions or ways of thinking, that are commonly accepted by members of a culture.  Often  paradigms are held subconsciously by the group.  They are looked upon as just the way things are, or reality itself.

Under a feudal paradigm it was much easier to believe in a supreme being because it seemed normal and natural.  It actually reflected our culture.  However, that is no longer true.  In the west today, the dominant paradigm is democratic, which leaves the West open to atheism and agnosticism.

The loss of faith in the 20th century is largely the result of a paradigm change from hierarchy to  democratic and has little to do with evidence for or against God, nor does it have much to do with one’s intelligence.  The decline of faith and its institutions has more to do, for the larger part of the population, with paradigm changes and group think.  Being a believer in God in a democratic society is much harder than having faith under a feudal or kingship paradigm.

This brings us to the question, is it logical to believe in a supreme being?  For many, the answer would  depend on the paradigm that they have accepted.  If you accept the hierarchy paradigm, the supreme being would be the one on the top of the pyramid or hierarchy, and it would be reasonable. If you accept a democratic paradigm, logically you cannot have a supreme being, for all beings are equal.  A hierarchy would seem strange and maybe unreasonable.

The big question, is does reality or nature support one paradigm more than another?  When this question is asked the democratic paradigmatic is totally void of evidence and seems to be totally opposite of a paradigm based on nature.  There is nothing democratic about the universe.  Everything in nature represents hierarchy moving from the simple to the complex.  In this, the natural paradigm supports a hierarchy of being.  Taken to its logical conclusion it supports a supreme being paradigm.  In this, it is reasonable to think that nature would reflect its creator and the created order.

The end of a democratic paradigm can be seen when you attempt to force a hive of bees to live without a queen.  The obvious outcome is the death of the hive.  This might explain the reason why, that when a democracy fails it usually is replaced by a totalitarian system ruled by a hierarchy.  We see the force of paradigms at work in Western culture and we are witnessing the demise of the hive for accepting a paradigm which is contrary to the natural order.

The Logic of Believing In A Supreme Being

The Logic of Believing In A Supreme Being

The problem with believing in a supreme being or God is that it no longer fits in our paradigm.  Our paradigm used to be one of kingship or feudalism, now it is one of democracy and egalitarianism both of which does not fit well with a belief  in a supreme being.  What is a paradigm? A paradigm is a framework of beliefs containing the basic assumptions or ways of thinking, that are commonly accepted by members of a culture.  Often  paradigms are held subconsciously by the group.  They are looked upon as just the way things are, or reality itself.

Under a feudal paradigm it was much easier to believe in a supreme being because it seemed normal and natural.  It actually reflected our culture.  However, that is no longer true.  In the west today, the dominant paradigm is democratic, which leaves the West open to atheism and agnosticism.

The loss of faith in the 20th century is largely the result of a paradigm change from hierarchy to  democratic and has little to do with evidence for or against God, nor does it have much to do with one’s intelligence.  The decline of faith and its institutions has more to do, for the larger part of the population, with paradigm changes and group think.  Being a believer in God in a democratic society is much harder than having faith under a feudal or kingship paradigm.

This brings us to the question, is it logical to believe in a supreme being?  For many, the answer would  depend on the paradigm that they have accepted.  If you accept the hierarchy paradigm, the supreme being would be the one on the top of the pyramid or hierarchy, and it would be reasonable. If you accept a democratic paradigm, logically you cannot have a supreme being, for all beings are equal.  A hierarchy would seem strange and maybe unreasonable.

The big question, is does reality or nature support one paradigm more than another?  When this question is asked the democratic paradigmatic is totally void of evidence and seems to be totally opposite of a paradigm based on nature.  There is nothing democratic about the universe.  Everything in nature represents hierarchy moving from the simple to the complex.  In this, the natural paradigm supports a hierarchy of being.  Taken to its logical conclusion it supports a supreme being paradigm.  In this, it is reasonable to think that nature would reflect its creator and the created order.

The end of a democratic paradigm can be seen when you attempt to force a hive of bees to live without a queen.  The obvious outcome is the death of the hive.  This might explain the reason why, that when a democracy fails it usually is replaced by a totalitarian system ruled by a hierarchy.  We see the force of paradigms at work in Western culture and we are witnessing the demise of the hive for accepting a paradigm which is contrary to the natural order.

More Nonsense of the New Atheists.

More Nonsense of the New Atheists.

The new atheist claim that they have no burden of proof because atheism is not a belief but rather a non-belief. Right,  atheists or no one else can or cannot proof a non-belief.  Nor can they argue for or against a non-belief. In fact, you cannot even speak about a non-belief other than simply to say I do not believe.  However, I know of only a handful of atheist who refuse to speak about the subject of God and they offer arguments against his existence.

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. It is an opinion, not an argument. If you argue you must be 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. 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 proof their un-belief by the means of other beliefs. In essence, they have to borrow believes from other ideologies to speak against the belief in God.  If they don’t want any burden of proof they should simply shut their mouths and not form arguments from materialism, scientism and naturalism.

The Value Of Religion and the Problem With Atheism

In the following video Carl Young present some material that should make the new atheist type rethink the virtue of their constant attacks on religion as though their attacks are in somehow virtuous. Young’s points out that a loss of faith and religion is the reason why so many people today are despond. Young also shows that a loss of faith tends to move a culture towards  State-ism and the development and growth  of a will for power in the human spirit which results in metal disorders and the totalitarian state.

In  a past  article I pointed out  that atheism is a phenomenal which seems to take place at the end of a civilization and is one of the marks of a decaying culture. It is hard to tell whether atheism  is causal or  the fruit of atheism. However,  either way it is not a positive force in the human community.