Tag: atheism
The Limits of Science – A Critique of Scientism
Understanding the New Atheists
Understanding the New Atheists
For the last few years I have been trying my best to understand the new atheist movement and all of its ranting and raving against God and religion. Then it dawned on me, that I could not understand them because we were not talking about the same things. The god and religion that they are ranting against is not the God I believe in or the religion I practice.
The majority of them talk about a god that I believed in at one time and a religion I was a part of when I was a young man. However, I no longer believe in that god nor do I practice that religion. It took a number of years on my journey to find The Wholly Other; or should I say for him to find me and to lead me out of the forest of religious idols I was lost and hiding in.
Looking back on my journey it is hard to understand why it took so long to be found by the Lord seeing that “We live and move and have are being in him”[1], though he, himself has no being, for He is being[2], i.e. He does not have existence rather he is existence[3]. Therefore, there really is no way to argue for his existence for he does not exist in the way we think of existence. So, what are we arguing for, or against?[4] I will get back to this later.
I found that not only do the new atheists have a different vision of The Totally Other, they (at least the majority) had a different vision of religion, which is as narrow as their vision of the God symbol. They seem to believe that all religion is the same, which in their minds means that all religion is bad. Of course, it does not take much thought to realize that the word religion is a word that points to a concept which is as deep and broad as the ocean. Therefore, when the new atheists start bashing all religion and lumping it all together it makes me wonder how much real thought they have put into their subject. I have found some so allergic to the word religion that they cannot even admit that religion can be good or bad. This strongly points to the level of maturity of so many in that movement. They take a thumb full of the ocean and believe that they have captured the ocean. I am not saying this in malice but I believe that many these people have some deep problems.
You may have noticed that I have tried to avoid using the word God, the reason being that the word has been so vulgarized and distorted that it has lost any value in helping us to understand the mystery that I refer to as The Wholly Other. The distortion of the God symbol is one of the real problems with religion.
Religion should help us in our journey to The Totally Other. However, instead of helping it often hinders by giving us false ideas of God, these false images in ancient times were called idols. The problem with idols is that there is no image or thing in reality or in the mind of humanity that can picture The Totally Other. All images of God created by humanity whether in mind or in stone, are idols because they are too small and distort the symbol we use for The Totally Other, i.e. God. The false ideas of God in turn solicits a false responds e.g. the new atheists.
This means that the atheist that has a pure heart may be closer to having a correct view of God than many believers. That is, if he has no image of God in his mind[5]. You see nothing is better than the something if the something is wrong. This is why I call the something that you cannot image or speak about, The Wholly Other, The Uncreated One, I Am or maybe Nothingness? I do it to keep people from creating a false image of God that is too small.
Of course, the problem is that for both believer and atheist, religion stands as a mediator between them and The Wholly Other. You see, for the atheist to argue against God he must have an image of that God in his mind. Whatever image he has in his mind is simply an idol. This is the only reason why they can form an argument against it for no argument can be formed against the Wholly Other for he lies beyond all argument. The majority of men will never get beyond the idols of this world whether they claim to be atheist or theist, i.e. their God is too small. I often wonder how humans could become so corrupt that the scripture would tell us that every imagination of their heart was corrupt, I now know; their God was too small, they were idolaters.
The theist often creates a God in their own image and then projects that image into heaven. The atheist then comes along and says that is not God and they are right. It is an idol that can be manipulated and controlled by man. It is the god of the religious man and the atheist. A god that is created for the opium of the people; or as a tool to control the herd. On the other hand, the deist created an aloof impersonal God that is somewhere out there beyond everything, located in some distant heaven, too aloof to be involved with his creation. Of course, any god that can be herded into some small corner of space and time is just too small to be the Totally Other. It also is an idol[6].
The high theists of the world know The Wholly Other, since they know, that they know little or nothing of being much less than non-being. They confess that they are quite ignorant of the Total Other. They understand, as Isaiah the prophet also understood; “His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts.” To them the word God is a symbol which stands for the limits of their knowledge. This knowledge calls for humility and they are careful not to over speak on the subject of the deity. As one old seer said, those that don’t know speak and those that know do not speak.
You may ask, “Are you saying we can know nothing of non-being?” No, I am saying that you can only know what He has revealed to you. How does He reveal Himself? One way is through nature and the study of it, that is science. The study of nature has reviewed how great and powerful the Wholly Other is and how different he is from humanity. This knowledge should create awe and wonder in ones spirit, which is true spiritual worship. Unfortunately, many that study nature end up worshipping nature, failing to see that she is an arrow pointing to that which is beyond her. As the seer says when the prophet points at the moon the majority look at his thumb. For many science and religion has become the study of the thumb.
Some may say that this Wholly Other dwells in a cloud of darkness and mystery. Why does he hide Himself? Why does He not reveal Himself? Well, I do not think He is the problem, I think the trouble lays elsewhere. Could it be that He is so awesome and so glorious that in our present form we cannot approach Him without melting into nothingness. This unapproachableness is pointed out in the bible when God tells Moses, “You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” (Exodus 33:20)
There is the real possibility that the darkness that hides the Wholly Other is the darkness that is in the human heart. Jesus said, blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God”. Now by pure in heart I do not think Jesus is talking about not having impure thoughts e.g. lust, greed, etc. but rather having the right focus of one’s own being. He refers to this as the single eye. “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! (Matt 6:22-23).This may be why children find it easy to see God until their parents or their culture (which includes religion) fill their eyes with darkness and forces them to see the world through dark colored glasses. It is no wonder Jesus said “unless you convert and become like little children you will in no way, enter the kingdom of God.” So, let’s stop blaming God and the devil for our bad eyes and poor sight. For that matter let’s stop blaming our parents and culture and accept responsibility for the condition of our own heart. Our hearts are filled with darkness because we have made God too small and are about the business of building idols.
Then, there is the Bible. What is the Bible? The Bible is a collection of writings from men who were searching for the Totally Other. It is the history of their journey and their interaction with the Uncreated One. It records their successes and their failures. It shows them as groping, sometimes searching as a lost children would search for their parent and slowly, in due course growing into adolescence. The Bible also reminds us that the story is not over and that adulthood is still away off.
What about the contradictions and mistakes in it? Would you not expect to find a few anomalies and problems in any writings trying to explain the Total Other? It is a book of symbols that point to something that is on the border of human knowledge, known yet unknown. The Bible itself is a symbol which claimed to be both human and divine. The divine part is perfect in doing what it was created for, which is the building of souls as they journeyed towards the Totally Other.
However, there is a consistent theme and a trend that run though the whole of Scriptures, which connects all of its parts, though sometimes overshadowed, it is always there. It is the central symbol of Scriptures and God’s people throughout the ages. We could summarize that one central symbol with the word ‘someone’. Someone is coming, someone is here and someone is coming again.
The someone of Scripture is the Promised One, the Anointed one, the Messiah or Christ. The one who would save the people from their enemies. Their greatest enemies being sin and death. The Scriptures gave clues to help people recognize this someone. It said that he would be extraordinary and different from other men. His words would be different and his life would be different, he would be Other like the One who sent him.
One man has said that it takes extraordinary evidence to prove an extraordinary claim.[7] The scriptures say that the someone in himself is the extraordinary evidence that the Total Other has given to man. This someone is the final and perfect symbol that points to the Total Other. He spoke like no other man and lived like no other man. When he spoke things happened, people were healed, water was changed into wine, storms were stilled and the dead were raised. No man has ever had so many people believe in him and at the same time has had so many hate him and despise his teachings. He truly is the extraordinary man, the someone sent from the Totally Other. This totally other man is still calling people “To come follow me”.
[1] Acts 17:28
[2] When I say He has no being it might be better to say he is super being. We live and move and have our being in Him, but we are not Him.
[3] Existence is beyond our comprehension though we apprehended it through our own existence and the existence of things around us.
[4] When humans argue for or against the idea of God they are arguing for or against a human construct that at best can only point to the One that stands behind it. Therefore we spend a great deal of time arguing about the idea of God. Now it is true that some ideas of God surely are better pointers than others but all fall short of the reality. This is true in science as well, for there is no theory of reality that is reality. The map is not the territory.
[5] It is unlikely that most atheists have no image of God in their minds, because if so, they would have nothing to argue against.
[6] The true God is super personality and has a knowledge of everything going on in creation. Therefore, he is more like the God that Jesus’ images than the God of the Deist. Jesus says, “that he knows every hair of our heads.” His nature is reflected by Jesus referring to him as “Father.”
[7] Unfortunately, Carl Sagan did not define what extraordinary evidence would look like. For some skeptics, there would never be any evidence of any kind or enough to prove the existence of God.
Hate the Sin and Love the Sinner
Hate the Sin and Love the Sinner
I have heard a number of the new atheists mock and ridicule the expression, “hate the sin and love the sinner.” Of course, it does not take a great deal of thought to realize that every morally thoughtful person applies this ideal to others and especially to themselves. We all fail to live up to our own standards and we often hate our short comings. However, we still continue to love ourselves and forgive ourselves.
If a person or a group does not learn to distinguish people’s failings from the people, we are all in trouble. In the end, the person that cannot separate the sin from the person (sinner) will become a very lonely person and perhaps a moral monster.
The Jack and Jill of unbelief Naturalism and Atheism
The Jack and Jill of unbelief
Naturalism and Atheism
Naturalism and atheism are the Jack and Jill of unbelief[1]. Naturalism is the world view and ideology which teaches that nature is all there is and rejects all spiritual or supernatural explanations of the world[2]. On the other hand, atheism is simply a non-belief in the existence of God. However, when someone is challenged to prove their atheism they usually turn to naturalism, which is a belief and a world view.
Now, naturalism assumes that its explanation of reality is true, but its explanation is based upon s the fundamental assumption that there is no God and nothing, other than nature, exists. In order for any of their explanations to be true, they must first prove their fundamental assumption within their own world view, but unlike atheism they have a belief to prove. Furthermore, their basic assumption cannot be proven by science because the question of the existence of God is outside of the realm of science[3].
So, the naturalist explains everything, as though there is no God and then they say that their explanation is proof that there is no God. But, if their explanation does not come from science, where does it come from? Could it be their imagination? And is not their claim just circular reasoning? They say that their explanation proves their assumption, and that their assumption proves their explanation. Their whole argument is based on faith in their assumption that there is no God. Since when does simply having an alternative view ascertain that view as the truth?
Their explanation, which I call the ‘tall tale’, does not in itself prove it is rational or true. It is simply a human construct that offers an alternative view to theism[4]. A naturalist is different from an atheist in that the atheist denies the existence of God; the naturalist has a world view or a belief which does not include God and it assumes that he does not exist. Then they use their assumption that there is no God to prove their naturalistic explanation of everything and then they use their explanation to prove their assumption. Remember that an explanation and an interpretation are not the same as evidence or reality. The interpretation is not the reality. The map is not the territory.
Atheism is a denial of God’s existence and it is a non-belief. However, atheism is seldom alone and it needs materialism and naturalism to support its non-belief. As soon as the atheist commences to explain the world though naturalism, they become a believer and begin to live by faith within the naturalistic explanation and assumptions. When this happens the burden of proof is as much on them as it is on the theist. Of course, they have no proof but only the explanation and assumptions of materialism and naturalism. Their so-called evidence and proof all hang on their tall tale, most of which come from their fertile imagination.
What we have in naturalism is a series of assumptions (1). All that exists is nature and she is the whole show. There is nothing outside of her to intervene in her course (non-provable assumption). (2). That reason alone can figure her out (non-provable assumption). (3) That she is controlled by certain laws, that allow reason to work. Of course this raises the question, how can mindless nature create the laws of nature?[5] (4). Reason then assumes that she (nature) is irrational and chaotic, no design and direction, which contradicts number two (reason cannot figure out chaos). (5) Based on reason (physics) nature had a begin and an end. This seems to indicate that there is something outside of her that brought her into existence. However, this contradicts assumption number one, that there is nothing outside of nature. Is the idea of something coming from nothing reasonable, or is this an unreasonable faith which comes out of an atheistic necessity?
[1] Like Jack and Jill naturalism and atheism stands or falls together.
[2] Seeing that we only have a limited knowledge of what makes up the universe, it takes a great deal of faith to believe that nature is the whole show or the only thing that exists. My word, we cannot even define nature.
[3] 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.
[4] Both naturalism and theism have a story to tell.
[5] The naturalist usually responds by shrugging their shoulders and saying they were always there. You can have eternal laws but you cannot have any eternal lawgiver.
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
Extraordinary evidence
Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The problem with this is that Sagan does not define what would constitute an extraordinary claim[1] or what would represent extraordinary evidence. So, no matter what evidence you give the skeptic he will simply say it is not evidence or it is not extraordinary evidence. The skeptic then becomes the judge of what is evidence, what is not evidence, and what is extraordinary evidence. From this simple observation I would have to conclude that evidence is for the seeker or for a person who has the will to believe. A seeker or a person who has a will to believe is surely not a person who has a prior commitment to skepticism.
Usually, what the skeptic wants is absolute or overwhelming evidence. In other words he wants you to beat him into submission. Of course, this is a requirement and condition that many skeptics only apply to the existence of God. For example, many of them believe in the string theory and the existence of aliens, both of which have no evidence at the present time, yet they believe these highly speculative theories. So, what is the difference between these beliefs and the belief in a deity? These theories seem to be extraordinary claims, which means they should all have extraordinary evidence to prove them. However, they have none and yet they are believed. This is said not to disagree with Carl Sagan but rather to show the inconsistencies of skeptics and their bias towards faith in God. Many of them have a prior commitment to materialism and atheism[2].
We also need to point out that you can prove very little to a person who has a will to doubt. René Descartes the famous French philosopher believed that you could only prove to yourself your own existence. Thus his famous statement, “I think therefore I am”[3]. When people demand proof before they will believe something, they are asking for a lot. Proof and evidence seem to be somewhat in the eyes of the beholder. Absolute proof cannot be given, because a person could claim that the thing to believe, or the evidence, is an illusion or that we live in a matrix where everything is not real. On the other hand, there seems to be room for different degrees of evidence which point to the truthfulness of something. There can be circumstantial evidence which is inferred from other things and there can be eyewitness evidence.
However, I do believe there is some extraordinary evidence for the existence of God. That extraordinary evidence comes in the form of miracles. By miracles I mean something that cannot be explained by natural causes or by the laws of nature. When we use the word miracle we also are inferring that the things that we are talking about are very rare or only happened once in the history of the universe. These miracles are (1) That something came from nothing. (2) That part of the something was alive. (3) That some of the living stuff had consciousness (4) That something which was alive changed into something else.
Let’s look at each one of the above. First, that something came from nothing.[4] This miracle happened when the universe came into existence. Science refers to this event as the big bang theory. If you wanted a detailed explanation of what happened in the big bang, you need to go to science. If you go to the book of Beginnings (Genesis) it simply says in concise speech, “In the begin God created the heavens and earth”. In this we find that the something came not from nothing, but was rather created by a something (God). For the how of that, you would have to go back to science again.
My question is this, what is more of extraordinary claim. That God, an intelligent being, created the heavens and the earth or the claim of the naturalist atheist, that something came from nothing. If you believe that something came from nothing please send me your extraordinary evidence.
The second miracle is that a part of the something that was created is alive. When we look at the universe, its order and its complexity, we must stand in awe not only of the universe but also of the fact that there is life in it. Life is a miracle and there is no evidence of life coming out of nonlife today[5]. That secures the creation of life a place among miracles of miracles.
The third miracle is that some of the living stuff had consciousness; certainly we are talking about the existence of man. The fact that the universe gave birth to a conscious being like man is an extraordinary happening beyond imagination. There is one thing that is more miraculous than consciousness and it is that conscious beings could believe that consciousness came from unconsciousness.
The fourth miracle is that something that was alive, changed into something else. Yes, I am talking about evolution or continuous development. Did you ever think about how much of a miracle, evolution is? In essence the universe and life does not exist but it is becoming and we do not know what it is becoming. Some say it is dying, but I don’t think so. I think it is simply changing, growing and maturing. Could it be evolving toward the omega point?
A part of this growth and development is still another miracle which was the resurrection of Christ into a higher life form, or the new being. His resurrection was the last evolution of mankind into his final and complete form. In his pre-resurrection form he was called “a root out of dry ground” which expressed the unlikelihood of his existence. His existence like the other miracles was a onetime happening that is hard to explain. In his death and resurrection he demonstrates something coming from nothing, something that was dead coming to life, and something changing from one state to another and becoming something else. In this, he is the one that all existence points to. As scripture reads, “He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end”. He is the over man of Nietzsche or the omega man who is over all of creation.
I know that all of these miracles can be explained away by materialists and their tall tale of naturalism. They tell an unbelievable story of how these things happened and then declare the story as evidence that all these miracles just happened naturally without an intelligent guide behind it. In other words they were just accidents. It is up to the reader to choose what they will believe. Accidents or miracles?
[1] Sagan being an atheist or at best an agnostic only used this criteria when talking about religious questions. He seemed to have no problem with the speculative theories of physics, i.e. string theory, big bang theory and black holes. All of which are based on very thin scientific evidence. Sagan is a classic example of scientific bias, which comes from a prior commitment to materialism.
[2] Richard Lewontin (evolutionary geneticist), s,” hints at this predisposition and bias when he says “[The public] take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity 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, a commitment to materialism.” “Billions and Billions of Demons,” page 31 Quota in Never Pure by Shapin Steven
[3] A statement by the seventeenth century philosopher René Descartes. “I think; therefore I am” was the end of the search Descartes conducted for a statement that could not be doubted. He found that could not doubt that he himself existed, as he was the one doing the doubting in the first place. In Latin (the language in which Descartes wrote), the phrase is “Cogito, ergo sum.”
[4] “A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing” By Lawrence M. Krauss is an attempt to explain the universe without God or a first cause. The book is a disappointment, for the nothing that it propounds that the universe came from, turns out to be a something. Jan 1, 2013 by Lawrence M. Krauss and Richard Dawkins
[5] 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. In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment created some of the chemical ingredients that are found in basic life forms. However, these 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 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.
Godless-A Portrait of a New Atheist
A Portrait of a New Atheist
His name is Godless[1]. He is a young college educated white male with a high opinion of his intellectual ability. Like most young white males in American he is angry, without knowing what he is angry about. He has a thirst for recognition, meaning and purpose and has little or none of any. He was born into a liberal progressive society that promised utopia and has not delivered on the promise. He is angry and empty, and he needs to blame someone for this fallen world which does not meet his bourgeois expectations. He feels that he deserves better. Because of his liberal ethos which represses anger, he is passive aggressive. His continual attacks on religion are an outlet for his repressed anger at the world and the God who made it[2].
His passive aggressive anger comes out in his blogs where he projects himself as a truth seeker and often as a mild-mannered individual while at the same time using sarcasm and cynicism to belittle religious folks. The majority of the time he stays anonymous because he is too timid to put his name on his writings and is afraid of the backlash which might come from his sarcasm and hubris. In his private life he preys on average people who he feels he is superior to, he tries to draw them in to debate in order to destroy their faith and convert them to his non-faith. I am sad to say there are some believers that behave in the same obnoxious way. Of course, this behavior is the mark of most fundamentalist movements, whether religious or secular.
In his blogs Godless has a habit of stating rather than arguing his positions, which he does very well. His favorite story is the tall tale of naturalism, in which he gives an account of the universe and the world as though his story was fact or history instead of theory and speculation. His writing is an example of authoritarian rhetoric masquerading as explanatory argument. Of course, he has no personal authority, which means that much of his thinking is nothing but his opinion or the bloviating of talking points from his atheistic websites. Therefore, it is not surprising to see very few footnotes or references[3]. When he does quote someone, the references are vague and his inferences are embellished to reflect his position. Like so many atheists, he uses rhetoric and assertions in the place of explanatory argument to the point that his opponents give up from exhaustion in any attempt to answer his rhetoric. If they attempt to answer him, he accuses them with ‘using the same-old arguments’. What can I say? It is the same-old augments because it the same-old rhetoric. How much can a man say about a so-called non-belief without repeating himself? Godless is truly a sophist.
He uses negative rhetoric to belittle religion and its practitioners, often inferring that they are unethical, ignorant or even stupid. Recently, Godless told me that I was lying when I told him that I had two neighbors that were atheist and that they would not talk to me about their atheism. From then on, he inferred that I was a liar. In his delusion, Godless seems to glory that he has x-ray eyes which can see things in religion and in people, that others cannot see. Even while ranting and raving he seems to be quite ignorant of the fact that theologians have been pointing out the same anomalies in religion that he does, for centuries.
He fails to see that anything that humans touch; whether it’s religion, science or even atheism, they will corrupt it. This all tends to make Godless shortsighted and extremely narrow. I do wish he would get a new set of glasses. We could use someone with x-ray eyes to take a good look at our government. However, the problem would be that Godless would see the corruption in government and conclude that all government is evil. You see, Godless is an extremist like the fundamentalist that he criticizes.
Like so many of the new atheists, Godless’ whole self-esteem seems to depend on his ability to out argue the theists. He has become his atheism. He has no self, apart from his atheism. In this, atheism has become his purpose, meaning and life. He reminds me of the apostle Paul, who said, “For me to live is Christ” However, for Godless it would be “for me to live is atheism” Godless does not drink, smoke or party; he has no addiction other than atheism. I know that Godless will respond by saying that all of this could be said about the theist as well. I agree to a point. There are some theists who are addicted to the wrappings of faith, which we call religion. In fact, many ex-Christians were addicted to religion and when religion could no long satisfy their ego; they simply changed addictions.
Godless could not be an agnostic because it would not help his self-esteem to say I don’t know. How could being an agnostic set him apart from the herd and demonstrate his superiority? Agnosticism would leave him without a self and quite empty. You cannot be lambasting faith and be noticed by saying, “I don’t know.”
In a true sense of the word, Godless is not a skeptic for he is quick to accept any philosophy or science that comes down the pike as long as it supports his atheism[4]. In many cases, not all, Godless is so ill-prepared intellectually that he is incapable of discerning true science and philosophy from pseudoscience and sophistry. He prides himself on being open-minded; however, his openness is often a smoke screen to cover up his hubris pride in assuming intellection superiority over all other world views and it also services as a smoke screen to cover his anger. His anger and passive aggressiveness is the thing that separates him from the old atheist type.
He claims to be a seeker of truth, sometimes even professes an attempt at believing. Yet, he continues to waddle in and feed at the trough of his atheistic propaganda. He spends hours of his time perusing the Internet looking for talking points and arguments against religion. He actually spends more time on his atheism than many people of faith who do on their religion. Some even assemble regularly to learn and rehearse their negative beliefs. Of course Godless justifies all of this by thinking of himself as an angel of light that is trying to save the world from religion, which he views as the ultimate evil[5].
You see, like all people Godless needs meaning and purpose in his life. Yet, he has denied the most fundamental and ultimate foundation of meaning. The result of this denial is that he must seek meaning in a lesser purpose and at the same time elevating this lesser purpose to his ultimate concern. He fails to see that other people do not have the ability to create an illusion of ultimate purpose as he does and they really need faith to have meaning.
A friend was placing Bibles in the public schools of Russia and he was called into the office of education by the head administrator for the entire nation. At first, he was afraid that he was going to lose his visa for handing out Bibles. Then to his surprise the administrator thanked him for what he was doing. In their discussion, the administrator rehearsed the years of communistic atheism and their indoctrination and went on to say that as a result of it; the children had what he called “empty eyes.” You see in Russia, the atheistic communist had their ‘thought police’; which did not want the people to even ask the question “why” because it would lead them to look for meaning, and in their search for true meaning, it would lead many to God.
I know the new atheist types believe they can find meaning in something less than God. Maybe in their relationships or in spreading their belief, or should I say the lack of it? Some may find meaning in the belief that they are saving the world from the ultimate evil of religion[6]. However, in view of the mindless universe they propose and their atheistic world view can any meaning be real? Is it not really nothing more than an illusion? I think it was Nietzsche, who said that if a person was brave enough to face reality (no God) that the reasonable thing to do would be to kill yourself or to go insane, for the alternative would be to live a life of despair or a life of illusions and dishonesty. The majority of the new atheists are neither brave enough nor honest enough to take their belief to their logical conclusion, so they live in a world of self-created illusions[7].
Some may feel that I am being hard on the new atheist. No, I am simply trying to get them to think outside of their world view and their talking points and to know that there is another way of viewing life, the world and God; which are all reasonable positions from within a theistic world view. Assuming that they have a will to believe as many of them profess, here is what they must do to move toward faith.
They must recognize that there is a difference between religion and faith and that there is a difference between good religion and bad religion. Yes, there are a lot of crazy things going on in the Christian faith, but they do not have their source in Christ and those that know Christ the best believe that much of American Christianity has little or nothing to do with Jesus Christ. So, I would suggest that atheists and believers alike refocus their eyes off the Christian religion on to Jesus Christ.
An important step for those who would like to explore faith in Christ would be to stop acting like an atheist. This would include not reading and writing the propaganda that is on the Internet and stop reading the books of the superstar atheists, who, by the way, remind me of the Televangelists who have made millions of dollars selling books on atheism. Likewise, I would also encourage Christians to stop listening to the TV celebrity preachers and get serious about knowing your own faith.
Another step would be to start calling and thinking of yourself as an agnostic. This will take the ego out of your belief system and at the same time make your belief more rational. If you believe that theism is unreasonable because it cannot be proven, you will have to believe that the opposite is just as unreasonable, for both positions cannot be proved or disproved empirically to the other side.
[1] In using the expression Godless I have no individual in mind, but am using it as a synonym for some, not all of the new atheist types. Many of the new atheists think they are all radical individuals and therefore cannot be critiqued as a group. However, like all movements there are many similarities of the people in the movement. This paper may not apply to the old atheist type some of which even view religion as good or at least a necessary evil.
[2] His passive aggressive anger is usually directed towards religion and government. This is all clearly seen in the poster boy of atheism Karl Marx, who was an atheist and hated religion and government and believed his system would usher in a new utopia free of religion and government. One thing which can be said of Karl Marx is that he believed his system would fix the problem, he erred in his analysis of what constituted the problem, but at least he had an answer. However, Godless has no answer to the problem other than sucking all the air out of it and hoping it will collapse. He has no system to replace what he is trying to destroy other than putting him and his kind in command. Could you imagine what a world would be like following men like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens? If these men were believers I would not like them because of their hubris. Their demeanor and disposition makes me shiver.
[3] There are a number of reasons for this lack of references. Godless wants people to think that his ideas are original. This makes him look more intelligent and above the herd. It also denotes a person who has bought into the subjectivism of age while condemning religion for being subjective. He fails to see that subjectivism in the end destroys his idol of reason.
[4] He is likely to believe in aliens and in the string theory even though there is not one bit of scientific evidence for either.
[5] This is one of the hall-mark beliefs of the new atheists. Therefore, the extremist in this movement views believers as evil and if consistent, could treat believers as the communist atheist did in Russia and China.
[6] Are they really angles of light? “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 a 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 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.”
[7] If there is no God, humans have a choice of living in a world of illusions or a world of despair. If they choose illusions, the question then becomes what is the best illusion? Is it the illusions of atheism or religion? What would be the criteria for making this choice? Would it not be happiness? If so the atheist loses because there have been a number of studies done recently that demonstrate that people of faith are happier than those that have none.
The Voice of God
The Voice of God
Ps 19:1-4
The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours forth speech,
and night to night declares knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words;
their voice is not heard;
yet their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
Many today believe that there is no God or if there is, He is distant and aloof. The first group we call Atheists and the second we call Deists. However, in scripture, both Old and New Testaments depict a God that is near. This can be summed up with the words of Saint Paul.
“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. He is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life, breath, and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ (Acts 17:24-28).
In this section of scripture we see a number of very interesting things. However, for our discussion we need to focus on the latter half of the section where Paul makes some bold statements concerning the nature of his deity. He said, “God is not far from each one of us.” Then he says that we live and move in Him and we have our being in Him” In this Paul set forth a lofty and radical view of the uncreated one i.e. God, a view that is not heeded or believed by many even in the Christian movement.
First, he points out that there are no sacred places in which the deity dwells. The implication is that the God of heaven and earth cannot be contained in anything built by human hands, neither can he be served by any priesthood of men. The coming of Christ has made sacred places and sacred men obsolete. In Christ, all men and places have been made sacred by the work of Christ. In this, Christ was the end of all religion as a system of mediation.
What is Paul saying about God? He surely is implying that the deity is not some impersonal distant deity that has no interest in the affairs of men; to the contrary, he seems to be saying that the God of heaven and earth created humanity with a curiosity and then gave him clues in nature that would allow man to find Him. It is in these clues that man hears the voice of God.
What are some of the clues that the deity gives to man? Well, he gave him the sense of awe. We humans are the only creatures that have the ability to experience awe and wonder. For that reason, we are the only animal that worships. The next time you are on a high place and look out over God’s good earth and you have a sense of awe come over you, try to hear the voice of God speaking to you in that experience. It helps to be alone in a very quiet place. God often speaks in a very soft voice.
The writer of Psalms said “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day, they pour forth speech; night after night, they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” It is obvious, that this man believed that when he sat under the starry sky and looked up that he could hear the voice of God. If you want to give your faith a boost, just look up. You may hear the stars speak to you of the Creator.
Still, another clue might be mans passion for fairness and justice. It seems that men everywhere want things put right. Could this desire for fairness and justice be the echo of Gods voice? Could the sense that things are not right be the voice of God? There is a sense that something is wrong, echoes throughout the scriptures. “All have sinned and are falling short of the glory of God.” This is one reason why people of faith call the scriptures ‘the word of God’, because it has a ring of truth; a truth that echoes in the human experience.
In his book “Man’s Search for Meaning” Viktor Frankl suggests that in every human being there is an intrinsic need to have meaning. Could this inner cry for meaning be the voice of God calling us to find our purpose in him? Saint Augustine said, “Our souls are restless until they find rest in God”.
In the above Scripture Saint Paul also seems to be saying that the deity with which he is speaking about exists in another dimension, other than we humans. In fact, He encompasses all the dimensions, for He created them. Some moderns have criticized Christians for believing that God was up there in sky, but it is obvious that Paul believed God filled the entire space-time continuum and more. The mistake of some is to take literally the metaphoric language of the Bible that speaks of heaven as literally up.
One thing is obvious, if Paul is right about the deity, the deists who believe in an aloof distant God are wrong in their interpretation of God’s nature. If we live and move in the uncreated one, he surely is aware of every hair on our head as Jesus said. It also seems that if we are that close to God we should be able to sense his presence. “God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being.” Paul is inferring that God has revealed Himself, sufficed that men ought to seek Him and if they seek with all their heart they will find the Total Other. No half hearted search is sufficient, the true God is not easy to find. However, He is self-evident to the pure in heart. “Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God”. Therefore, the place to begin your search is to purify your heart.
When a scientist has a hunch that there is more than meets the eye, they begin to search for the answer. If they do not have the tools for their search they create them. When they wanted to search the heavens, they created the telescope. When they wanted to search the microscopic world, they created the microscope. After creating their tools and collecting their findings, they then passed that knowledge on to their disciples. Likewise, in man’s search for God, men basically did the same thing. When men beheld the greatness of creation and its order, it forced them to seek the architect that created such an awesome universe. They then created their tools that could help them find God.
What are those tools? Well, it may surprise you but some of the tools are the telescope and microscopic. You see, both of these tools of science demonstrated how complex and orderly the universe really is; in that they point to and reveal a designer and a lawgiver. Therefore, in a sense they were both a word and a clue from God that tell us something about God’s greatness. The early natural philosophers (scientists) would say that there are two books which reveal God; the book of nature and the book of Scripture. Scientists study the book of nature. Theologians study the book of Scripture, both books point to the uncreated one.
I personally believe that there is a third book that we could call the book of humanity. If we look at man, we see a creature, which the bible says was created in the image of God. If mankind is created in God’s image and likeness, we then should be able to learn a lot about God from studying man. The author of Ecclesiastes says that God has placed eternity in the hearts of men. He learned this about man by observing and talking to men and woman about their thought world. He concluded that humanity in general believes in more than what is seen and perceived by their physical senses. They seem to have an intuitive sense that there is something more than the scene. Could it be the sense and vague remembrance that they were created for the stars or at least another world. Could this be a clue from God? Could it be that, this sense or desire for another place is the thing that is driving modern man’s quest for outer space? Could this other worldliness be a vague remembrance of our origin and purpose? Could this sense, be God drawing us to himself and the stars?
Of course, some will dismiss this as only suggestive and intuitive. However, can we totally dismiss the intuitive? I think if we do; we do so at our own peril. Not long ago I read a book on fear in which the author pointed out that many people had used their intellect to dismiss their fear to their own ruin. He pointed to numerous situations where people sensed intuitively they should not be in a place or with a certain person. Yet, they used their reason to dismiss the fear to their own demise. The question is, have many silenced the voice of God with their reason, and therefore missed some of the clues that God has given them? How about you?
Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof
What about the burden of Proof? There seems to be three definitions for what the burden of proof means. There is the philosophical definition that is used in debates where the burden of proof is on the person making a claim for something. Then there is legal definition that varies from country to country. In the United States, the legal burden of truth is on the prosecutor. Then there is, what you might call the agreed-on burden of truth where two people holding opposite views agree on each taking turns to affirming a proposition with the other taking the negative. The latter form of the burden of truth is what is practiced tacitly in a normal discussion.
It could also be argued that if one is challenging a recognized consensus of a culture or a discipline, the burden of proof would be on the challenger. For instance, if a person challenges a theory of science in which there is a consensus that a theory is correct the burden of proof would be on the one challenging the consensus, e.g. the big-bang theory. The scientific community does not accept that it has the burden of proof to prove to every individual in the culture that what it says is, in fact, the truth. The burden of proof is on the one questioning the consensus.
One fallacy of the skeptic is that many of them seem to believe placing the burden of proof on the believer in some fashion wins the debate, as though the one who has a so-called non-belief has nothing to prove. If the believer makes a positive affirmation, he has no burden of proof until someone questions the truthfulness of his statement. If the questioner offers evidence for his doubt, he also, then shares in the burden of proof in proving his evidence against the affirmation.
Let’s assume that atheism is a non-belief, would it not follow that if you had no obligation to support it or prove it, that it would be equally hard to speak about it in any way negative or positive. This would infer that the atheist, if consistent, should not spend a lot of time talking about a non-belief. Yet, we find them writing books and articles about their non-belief all the time, attempting to support and establish it by an appeal to philosophy and science. How in the world can you support something that does not exist, i.e. an non-belief? One man has said that to claim that atheism is not a belief is like saying anarchy is not really a political position.
Let us again, assume that atheism is a non-belief as the atheist often asserts. What if someone simply asked them if they believe in a God and they responded, “No, I’m an atheist”. The person who questioned them could simply respond naturally by asking the question, “Why are you an atheist?” According to atheism, the right response should be “I don’t have to answer it because atheism is a non-belief.” Who has the burden of proof?
Now if we reverse this line of questioning and have someone ask a believer “Do you believe in a God?” and the believer says, “Yes I do”, this response would then put the burden of proof on the believer, especially if the person in turn asked “Why?” This is an example of the agreed on burden of proof, which is just a part of ordinary conversation.
It would also seem rational if the atheist used science or philosophy in an attempt to prove his worldview or his atheism. He must accept the burden of proof in regard to his arguments from science or philosophy for he has shifted the burden of proof from his non-belief to those beliefs. So the great emphasis that atheists put on the burden of proof and atheism being a non-belief seems to be a lot of twaddle.
The Death of Religious Freedom?
The Death of Religious Freedom?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It is interesting to note that the very first amendment to the Constitution was the amendment guaranteeing religious freedom to all. We are not sure as to why it was the first amendment, but I suspect that it had to do with the idea that the most basic of rights is for a human being to have the right to think what they want about anything and especially their standing with God. It’s obvious that the founding fathers valued religious freedom and thought religion to be important for the general welfare of the nation. I’m not sure the same could be said about their heirs. It seems that Americans take their religion and religious freedom for granted. But should they? I think not, for being free to exercise your religious beliefs is rare in most parts of the world and the majority of people have little rights to exercise their faith as they desire.
In fact, the only places that have true religious freedom are Europe, the United States, and few other countries that have been influenced by Christianity and classic liberalism[1] and have not yet been brought under the spell of atheistic communism. I say this to point out that religious freedom is rare and should be protected from all that would destroy it. It is quite obvious that the common denominator among the nations where people are persecuted for their religious faith and speaking out for freedom are where either the majority is Muslim or the ruling oligarchy is atheist. There is every reason to believe that when the numbers of Muslims or atheists[2] reach a large enough number in any country, the persecution of other religions and beliefs will start begin. In Europe where Muslims number 10% to 20% of the population, people are already being intimidated by threats of death if they speak out against Islam. There’s no reason to think it won’t happen in our future. In fact, at their present birth rate Muslims will be one of the largest political groups in the country by 2050. Some estimate the number as high as 40 to 50 million.
In atheistic countries in the pass, it has been estimated that as few as 10% were true atheists and party loyalists. Yet, they were able to suppress religious freedom and almost every other ideology that opposed them. At the present rate of growth the new atheist, a group of atheists who reflect many of the characteristics of the communistic atheist[3] of Russia and China, could easily be 10% of the US population in a short time.
With these forces of atheism and Islam growing in the world, I believe any thoughtful person who values freedom of thought and religion would be somewhat alarmed by the growth of these two ideologies. The only way to counteract this ideology is to make a positive faith affirmation.
[1] I use the expression classic liberalism because new liberal or progressives are somewhat antagonistic toward religion.
[2] There are two types of atheist, the old type which views religion as neutral or a necessary evil and are sometimes even supportive of religion when it is doing good. Then there is the new atheist who despises religion and believes it to be the greatest evil under heaven with them having the obligation to destroy it.
[3] The new atheists are deconstructionist of the most fundamental kind. Like the atheists of the French revolution and the Russian Revolution, they are filled with anger and hatred which flows from their nihilism. Their nihilism has its roots in the failed utopian vision of the ideology. They have the tendency to blame God and religion for the evil in the world and believe that their ideology will usher in a utopia. I believe that this group would suppress religion anyway that they could, this includes violence. Richard Dawkins, one of the founders of the new atheist has already encouraged his followers to mock and ridicule religious people publicly. On 24 March 2012 at 2:55 PM, Richard Dawkins propagated militant atheism at the “Reason Rally” [sic], encouraging his audience to “Mock them [believers], ridicule them in public.” this can be seen on You Tube.
Lyle Duell 