The Assumptions of Atheism

The Assumptions of Atheism

The atheism faith is based upon two assumptions that cannot be proven.  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 ideal that it is a non-belief is nothing but atheistic sophistry.  Calling atheism a non-belief is like calling it a non-idea.  It’s just more nonsense.

Let’s look at their assumptions.  The first one being that there is no God.  No one can prove that there is no God, 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 in 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 isn’t a God.  The atheist always has to leave a small possibility that their might be a god, which possibly in itself negates the very idea of atheism.  However, out of their fear of the camel getting his nose into the tent many pretend to deny the possibility altogether.

The second assumption, which I have found in most atheists, is the belief that they are smarter than those who believe in a 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, a recent polling of scientist’s indicate that the split is about 50-50, as to whether or not they believe in some kind of higher power[1].  There is also evidence that at higher levels of IQ there is about equal numbers of people who believe in a Higher power.  Some believe that the American philosopher and psychiatrist William James was the most intelligent man in recent times, and of course he was a believer.  He had an estimated IQ of twice that of Einstein.  Christopher Michael Langan is considered by many to be the most intelligent human being alive today, he has a confirmable IQ of somewhere between 195 and 210.[2]  Christopher Michael Langan does believe in a God.  Of course, this neither proves nor disproves the existence of a God, but it does prove that the atheists second assumption, that they are smarter than believers, is completely and utterly wrong.

[1]“The stats say that the split is about 50-50 of those who believe in God and those who do not. A survey taken by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in May and June of this year and reported by David Masci in the Los Angeles Times, found that 51% do believe in God and 41% do not.  These numbers haven’t changed much over the last 100 years either,  despite the numerous discoveries in evolution and biochemistry over the years.”  Suzanne Kennedy; bitesizebio.com 12/21/09

[2] Depending on the source or reference either in news articles, blogs, interviews, Scientific Journals or magazines over the years, Christopher Michael Langan is quoted as having a confirmable IQ of anywhere between 195-205.  He has developed a “theory of the relationship between mind and reality” which he calls the “Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe” (CTMU)

Primal Scream-The Atheist Illusion

The Atheist Illusion

For as bats’ eyes are to daylight so is our intellectual eye to those truths which are, in their own nature, the Most obvious of all.” Aristotle

The greatest illusion embraced by the atheist is not that there’s no God but rather that they are free from illusions.  The belief that you are free of all illusions is the most dangerous illusion of all for it opens the floodgates to the acceptance of unreality in a multitude of forms.

It is self-evident that the atheist has not experienced God, but how in the world can they deny that others have not experienced God?   Especially since experiencing God is a personal matter that cannot be judged empirically by outsiders.  You cannot get into another man’s mind or body to know how or what he is, or has experienced.  Yet this is the very thing that an atheist must  assert.  Therefore, their claim to know another’s mind; this is an illusion of knowledge that cannot be known.

We know that human beings experience pain to various degrees and that it is impossible for someone to experience  another man’s pain precisely and to the same degree.  The same thing is true of our own experience of God since people tend to experience God in different ways and to different degrees.  Consequently, the atheist claim that there is no God is totally unreasonable and contrary to the experiences of billions of people. Thus, the only real claim that they can reasonably make is that they have not experienced God.  Yet in their arrogance they go one step further and say that no one has experienced God and they usually add, that if  the believer claims to have experienced God, then they’re delusional.

The only rational claim they can stand on; is that they have not experienced God.  However that might be saying too much for they could have experienced God and not recognized it as a God experience.  This would be a very likely theorem because their preconceived biases could keep them from recognizing a God experience, if they had one.  Not surprisingly, many atheists will say that since they have not experienced God, He cannot exist, or that God in some way, is obligated to reveal Himself to them in such a way that his existence would be undeniable.  They seldom blame themselves for accepting an ideology or worldview that will not allow or hide them from experiencing God.  It could be that they’re like a blind man who denies the existence of color because he cannot see it or has not experienced it and then blames color for its own inability to be seen.

In the end, the old saying that a man with an argument will never convince the man with an experience is true.  The only people who atheists will move to their unbelief are those who have never experienced God and are already in a sense, in the atheist camp.  Atheists will never be able to argue that God does not exist with a man who has experienced him.  That would be like telling a person who was rescued from drowning in the sea by a man in a lifeboat, that the man who saved him really did not exist.

Humans come to know things in many ways.  We learn through our minds, but we also learn through our numerous senses. Specifically, our mind processes the information that we obtain through our  senses.  However if some senses have been crippled or damaged a person may become dead to that sense and no longer be able to experience anything that comes through it.  It could be that some knowledge requires more than one sense.  I believe this is the case with the knowledge of God.  The knowledge of God requires the whole man.  If any part of the man has been damaged or disabled it becomes increasingly hard for that man to experience God in any meaningful way.

As a result talking to some atheists is often like talking to a handicapped man who doesn’t know that he’s handicapped.  They are like children who have grown up in a dysfunctional family and cannot see the dysfunction because it has been normalized by their family.  Some even mock and belittle the idea of family because of their experiences. They simply cannot believe in a real family.  In this they are very much like the atheist who has not experienced God for his goodness and therefore cannot imagine His existence.  They have been handicapped by living in their dysfunction.  I once suggested this to a young atheist at which he let out a primal scream “I’m not broken”.  His scream of denial was evidence of his illusion and also his denial of it.

The Problem With Existence

The Problem With Existence

Rene Descartes, for many or at least for himself, solved the problem of existence with the well-known statement “I think therefore, I am”.  But, did he answer the problem  of existence?  Actually, he didn’t because he never explained existence.  Yes, I know that I exist but the knowledge that I exist does not in itself explain existence, it assumes existence.  For many, they assume existence as a materialistic biological presence that we experience with our senses.

The problem with existence is that its comprehension is beyond the ability of human knowledge.  You cannot put existence under a microscope, nor can you apply the scientific method to it.  Therefore, it must remain in the realm of the subjective mind.  For all we know we may live in a matrix that was created by a superior intelligence, i.e. a computer program, or we could be a projection of a deity’s mind.  Maybe existence is simply an illusion of a brain in a vat or a mass of information that fell together in some mystical way.  For many, all of the above could be true except for the ones that use the word deity.  For they are allergic to the idea of God and believe that existence can only be made up of dirt (materialist).

When studying existence we run headlong into huge gaps in human knowledge. Gaps that most likely will never be filled[1].  This demonstrates the fallacy of the so-called ‘God of the gap’s’ argument.  The gaps in human knowledge are so vast that science will never be able to fill them with anything but speculation and vague theories.  Therefore, it does not really matter what you fill them with unless you’re an atheist who has had your imagination cut out by years of secular brainwashing, a lobotomy that has made atheists into monist who believes that reality can only be made up of one thing.  This has resulted in them being some of the most closed-minded people in the world. On the other hand, the duelist can believe in a multitude of realities and worlds. He can believe in the world of matter or in the world of spirit. He can believe in worlds beyond the worlds, which for now, are unable to be imagined by the human mind.  If the duelist at the present time cannot prove the existence of these worlds, it may simply be because he does not have the proper instruments to prove it.  Before the telescope and the microscope humans did know about the very small or the very huge in our universe.  Of course, all that happened before some began to believe that they knew everything.

The Christian faith holds out the possibility of many worlds. Christians believe that God  formed the creation which is made up of the seen and unseen. This opens the possibilities of many forms of existence and many worlds. Some scientists have come close to this when they postulated a  hypothesis known as the string theory, which basically says that there are 11 dimensions in the universe. However, as it stands right now there is no physical evidence for this theory; at best, there are some mathematical equations that seem to support it. The most that can be said about it, is that it is an interesting theory.

When it comes to existence, my conclusion is that we have two choices. We can in embrace the mystery of the universe in faith that there is more than we can see with our present tools and that existence will always remain a mystery to some degree, or we can embrace the monist view of materialism believing that everything is simply dirt (material as we understand it today). Before choosing one, we ought to be careful and think through the consequences, because your choice will greatly impact your existence. In many ways, it could be the biggest decision of your existence.

[1] Some true believers, believe in infinite progress and believe that humanity will find the theory of everything. My reply to them is not in this world. To believe that a finite being can have infinite knowledge is an allusion created not by science but by the religion of science-ism and a blind faith in the doctrine of continuous progress.

Religion Poisons Everything or Does It?

Religion Poisons Everything or Does It?

In the august first addition of The Harvard Gazette[i] an article appeared entitled “Gods in the Details” in which Prof. Joseph Henrich demonstrates that faith and religion is more than a bunch of taboos and superstitions as propounded by most atheist.

His study seems to be indicating that religion was one of the key factors in unifying people in large civilizations and in building a base for their morality. Of course, it has been known for a long time by historians that whenever a civilization stopped believing in their gods they soon sake into depravity and ceased to exist. It seems now that this has been verified by evolutionary psychology that many in the atheistic community will have to change their rhetoric that religion is worthless.

This study seems to support the idea that religion has contributed to the creation of morality in large civilizations. This at least on the surface seems to be indicating that the atheist position that reason alone can create morality and ethics is simply an oversimplification of religion and morality.

 

[i] The Harvard Gazette is a free on line newsletter.