Tag: Atheist
Did Einstein Believe in God?
One of the best articles on this subject.
Against Reason, Systems and Idols
Against Reason[1], Systems and Idols
“Reason is what I believe, those that disagree with me are therefore, unreasonable.” Everyone
I have noticed that very reasonable and intelligent men differ widely on a large number of issues. All seem to cling to the idea that their view is reasonable and the other side is unreasonable[2]. This would seem to point to the possibility that the problem may lie in the concept of reason itself. Of course, to examine reason is like asking an eye to see itself. When reason looks at reason, it does so through a dirty lens, and this brings us to the place to begin our investigation of reason.
In my contemplation of reason I came up with a number of answers as to why reasonable men disagree. One of the most obvious is that some men are contentious and simply enjoy fighting and arguing. Of these men you could say, they love controversy because it gets their intellectual juices flowing and therefore it has become like a drug; they have become addicted to arguing and debating. They actually enjoy fighting with words and ideas and to them life would be boring without a good fight going on. These people are often blinded to truth by their love for the fight. Their real goal is not the truth but to win the argument[3].
The human ego needs to be addressed when discussing reason, for when we use reason to examine reason it is like looking at yourself in a mirror. However, it is not just any mirror. It is like the magical mirror of the step mother in Snow White. The one that hung on the wall and was asked, “Mirror, mirror on the wall who’s the fairest of them all?” Of course, the mirror called reason would be asked who is the smartest of them all. The egotism of reason is a very subtle form of intellectual pride that hides itself in “a search for the truth.” A search for the truth that can lead to intellectual pride, belittling of others and name-calling akin to; they’re stupid, morons, imbeciles, etc.
Moreover, the thing that we call reason is often captured and locked up by the idols or systems we create in our minds. Reason then becomes a slave to the system, serving and supporting the system. The explanation for this, is that reason works best when things are concrete, and systems make ideas that should be fluid to become concrete. This is why many so-called intellectuals believe that they can capture the truth and put it into their system. However, the truth is that you cannot capture the truth by any system or ideology, no more than you could capture a great river in a tea-cup. This is the first lesson you should learn in reason 101, i.e. reason has her limits and one of those limits is that she cannot be put into a closed system and still be reason.
Still, another lesson taught by true reason is that reason does not necessarily reign, nor is it the chief element in the state of mind that we humans call intelligence. In fact, reason that has been captured by a closed system can make you quite miserable and very narrow minded. True reason is happy to share its place with the imagination, the will and the emotions[4]. In other words, it knows when not to be reasonable. It knows that it is finite and it is not God. A lesson that many who fancy themselves as philosophers and intellectuals should learn.
What happens when reason forgets that she is not God? Well, she will attempt to storm the very throne of God and pretend to be God. In this, she becomes what the ancients called an idol. We could conclude from this that the building of systems is nothing more than modern man’s building of temples for the idols of the human mind.
When reason alone looks for God, she is not searching for God with a capital G, she really is looking for a god that she can manipulate and place in her system or her temple of idols. Of course, for some any god that they might find is too finite and small for their system, so they simply make their system the absolute while throwing God out of the temple. In this, the human mind becomes a workshop for making idols and its greatest tool is the thing we call human reasoning. If you do not believe me check our history[5]. What you will find is that reason will lead into a system, the system evolves into a movement, as the intellectual wins and captures lesser men in their systems, then the system and movement will harden and become an ideology or a school of philosophy. In this, the ideology becomes the absolute (idol) that the mass man blindly follows.
Those who work in this factory of idols are the so-called intellectuals among us; mere men who really believe they understand the universe or at the least they pretend to. They are usually very intelligent, are fast thinkers and talkers that amaze and entertain the mass man with their knowledge. Many of these intellectuals serve as priest in our temples of human reason (universities). The chief characteristic of these people is not the level of their intelligence but rather that they are ignorant of their own ignorance and have the ability to dress their systems up as science and convince the masses that it is the truth with a capital T. Once the systems are formed and made absolute, the priests will call on their slave of reason to justify their systems.
In all this, we see so-called reasonable men disagree, and reason is demonstrated to be a slave of the human will and all of its rebellious passions. Surely reason is a dirty lens that darkens as much as it enlightens. Remember that as much evil has been done in the name of reason as by religion. In fact when religion does evil its practitioners say it’s reasonable.
This raises the question, have you been captured by an intellectual, a system or idol?
“Dear children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21).
[1] I am not against reason, but rather the abusive of reason and exalting it to the place of God. Reason is the gift of God, but like other gifts from God (sexuality) she is often terribly abused and taken to extremes.
[2] If you want to see a circus go to YouTube and watch the intellectuals argue and debate the issues. All claiming to be reasonable and the other side unreasonable.
[3] “Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:9-11).
[4] The best worldview that encompasses these three parts of the human psyche is Christianity.
[5] The truth about intellectual can be seen in Paul Johnson book “Intellectuals”. He concludes his book by saying “What conclusions should be drawn? Readers will judge for themselves. But I think I detect today a certain public skepticism when intellectuals stand up to preach to us, a growing tendency among ordinary people to dispute the right of academies, writer and philosophers, eminent though they may be, to tell us how to behave and conduct our affairs. The belief seems to be spreading that intellectuals are no wiser as mentors or worthier as exemplars, than the witch doctors or priests of old. I share that skepticism”
The Decline of Organized Religion
The Decline of Organized Religion
I have noticed that many of my atheist friends on the net seem to be gloating that organized religion in the West is on the decline. I suspect that some of them who have a high opinion of themselves even imagine that they are influencing its decline.
Let’s, for the moment, assume that religion is declining just as some of the new atheists seem to believe. This would, out of necessity, cause us to ask the question “Why?” Could it be, as some of the new atheists assume, that humanity, at least in the West, is more educated and getting smarter?[1] I have doubts that education has had little, if any effect on the decline of organized religion or even on the true number atheists. Their growth could be contributed more likely, to a ‘coming out of the closet’ rather than any actual growth.
There has always been a large number of unbelievers in organized religion, especially when the religion is the dominant cultural religion and it has become socially and economically beneficial to pose as a believer. It’s easy to come out the closet when you live in a culture that believes nothing. If this is the case then I personally, as a believer, am thankful to the new atheist for helping us rid ourselves of the chaff within the Christian faith. However, I really don’t think that this is the case.
One huge contributor to the decline in organized religion and other social organizations is the transfer of the dependence of poor people on their faith community and other social organizations to their dependency on the state for all of their needs.
Personally, it’s hard for me to see anything very positive about this transfer of power. The only result is that the poor have lost their moral compass, and the state has gained more power over them thereby expanding their power over the entire population. On the other end of the economic spectrum, the wealthy and business class no longer have to demonstrate their goodness and honesty by going to church, although many still go to church for what they call “net working”; to sell their wares.
All of this has little or nothing to do with the level of intelligence of people living in the West or the new atheist movement, both of which I believe are a part of the declension and decay of civilization. One mark of a declining civilization is its loss of faith in its gods or religion. This loss of faith many not be causal but it does go hand and hand with the death of civilization and is a sign of a decaying culture.
The churches like all social institutions in Western culture are losing membership and this is not something to be gloating over for the reason that people are becoming increasingly isolated from each other, which in turn gives the state more power. This is one of the factors contributing to our loss of freedom. Taking religion out of the public square is not the separation of powers, it is the enthroning of state power without any organized resistance. This is why dictators and tyrants make it their goal to eradicate religion as soon as they gain power. Therefore, most tyrannical governments support atheism.
In addition, the creation of democracy and the rise of individualism also can give rise to an anti-authority mindset, that also can cause a decline in any authoritative organization. So, it is not surprising that organized religions, which have an authority structure, are declining the most in democratic societies. This would include mainline Protestant and Catholic churches which have an authoritative structure. Independent churches which are more democratic in their structure are maintaining their membership and even growing in membership.
Again, we see that the increase of knowledge seems to have little to do with the decline of religion and the rise of atheism. The rise of atheism can be traced much more easily to social and psychological[2] reasons then to any level of education.
[1] If people are getting smarter why is there a decline in philosophy students which seems to be corresponding with the decline in religion?
[2] Note my article on “The Making of a Fundamentalist Atheist” and “Prerequisites for Atheism” at: lyleduell.me
What is Atheism? A Metaphysical Answer.
What is Atheism? A Metaphysical Answer.
Is atheism simply the lack of faith in a deity, or is it more? In reality it is both. For many atheists it is simply a lack of faith in a deity, but for many others it is the foundation of a worldview which shapes the way that they look at the whole of reality. As a worldview it borrows from ideologies and philosophies to form a hodgepodge foundation of the ‘philosophy of non-belief.’
This philosophy of non-belief has as its center the denial and dislike of authority, which in the end can only lead to anarchy of the worst kind. In fact, all anarchists are atheists however all atheists are not anarchists. We could also say of atheism that it is the highest degree of human alienation and rebellion against authority and especially the ultimate authority which is God. We could also say it is the worst distortion of the religious impulse in man, for in the end, it makes the image of God (man) into God, which is the highest form of idolatry. It promotes man as God, or at the least it makes him think he is God; for only a god could know that there is no God in the universe or outside of it.
Some will retort that atheism has nothing to do with religion or God. However, at a metaphysical level it is the anti-image of God whose image it needs for its very existence. It is, therefore, nothing more than a distorted reflection of that which it denies. This is what Nietzsche meant when he said “If you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss with gaze back into you”
It’s distorted reflection of religion is seen in that it possesses a number of the attributes of religion[i]. Most religion has as its main attribute, a sin message and a salvation message. And what do we find when we look at the new atheist’s movement, we find a sin message. The sin is religion and your freedom and salvation will come when you accept the good news of the gospel of atheism. Like most religion, the new atheist’s movement also has their evangelists; those who spew out a steady diet of doubt and hatred of religion as they preach to their true believers who are mesmerized by their leaders ability to turn words and flaunt their intellect. You know, kind of like the TV evangelist who promotes their brand of religion every Sunday on the television[ii].
The true source of much, but not all atheism, comes from a hidden rift with authority[iii] which is then easily redirected by clever men towards God. In other words it comes more from one’s disposition than from their intellect. This is why we see atheism increasing when people feel oppressed by poverty, authority and social alienation. I believe that an analysis of the French Revolution and also the Communist Revolution would clearly demonstrate this. Atheism, for those with the right disposition is nothing more than a hidden rebellion against authority which they feel is oppressive[iv]. However, for it to be organized, as it was in the French Revolution and the Communist Revolution, you need a group of sophists and opportunists who can promote and direct its anger. Of course, the new atheists have these opportunists in the three horsemen of their movement; Hutchinson, Harris and Dawkins. All of which have become millionaires selling their books to the herd that follows them.
So we could say that the source of much atheism begins with the seeds of the things that form one’s disposition. These things can range from genetics to early child development[v]. Of course, we cannot totally dismiss the intellect. However, the intellect has much less to do with it than most atheists would like to admit to. In this I am not saying that disposition pre-determines one’s beliefs or behavior. But it does predispose us towards certain behavior and beliefs
[i] In Russia the atheist communist even had a church that they called the church of scientific atheism.
[ii] It is important to notice that the old atheist type lacks these attributes of religion. Making it something different from the new atheist movement.
[iii] The mass man is angry about his place in life and holds the authority responsible.
[iv] This is why so many of them are angry and militant. They fundamentally believe that all authority is oppressive.
[v] Many of the new atheists seem to have a problem with their fathers, which they tend to project on a deity. Though I freely admit that I personally have done no scientific study of this.
An Argument from Size
An Argument from Size
Once I had an atheist tell me that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Now, this may or may not be true, but it does demonstrate something about a number of atheists that I know. It demonstrates the inconsistency in their thinking for they say they cannot believe in a God that they cannot see, for which they point out that there is no scientific evidence. And yet they believe that it is likely that there are alien life forms in the universe, which they have not seen nor do they have any evidence for their existence. I’ll grant that this may change at any time, however, for now it is the truth based on current knowledge.
They say the reasons for their readiness to accept alien life forms are based on the size of the cosmos and probability[1]. However, does not size and probability leave the door open as well to the existence of a God in the vast universe? Therefore, to make a dogmatic statement that there is no God is neither reasonable nor logical, or at best inconsistent. The universe is so vast one would have to be everywhere at the same time and know everything there is to know to make the statement “There is no God.” The only proper statement that can be made about Gods existence would be, “I am skeptical of it” or “I don’t know.” However, if one is a skeptic he would have to be skeptical of his skepticism. This would simply mean that when everything is said on the issue, he would have to confess that he is an agnostic.
Part of the problem with their size argument resides in their concept of God. As a matter of fact, the size argument tells us more than anything else about the picture thinking of the atheist. It tells us that they have a corporal image of God in their minds. In other words, God is a big man or spaghetti monster somewhere up in heaven, which of course would making him pretty large to have created a universe that is so vast. Of course, this is similar to the picture thinking of a small child, who may equate God with Santa Claus or a bearded man sitting on a throne in some distant heaven. It is little wonder for many atheists that a flying tea-pot or a flying spaghetti monster are their favorite metaphor for God.
This is keeping with and explains the fact that I’ve had a number of atheists claim that they rejected God when they were children. The truth is that most mature people reject the image of God that they had when they were children, replacing it with an adult concept of the deity[2]. In fact, the Scriptures tell us that we should not have any image of God in our minds for God cannot be imaged. Any image of God that a human has in their minds is an image of an idol.
Here is where more strangeness comes in to the mix. Atheists claim that their position of denying the existence of God is not a faith or even a belief, as though theirs was some kind of neutral position, like that of the agnostic. If a person were to make the statement that they did not believe in alien life forms and in the same breath propound that his statement was not a belief, we would think them mad. Yet, the atheist seems to think such claims are the mark of genius. In other words, it is a dogma that cannot be proven, but at the same time it is not a dogma. What it seems to be to me is either a claim of infinite intelligence on the part of atheist, or a personal faith similar to a religious faith, but it cannot be a non-belief. That borders on nonsense.
Of course, if you infer that their belief, or whatever it is, resembles a religious faith they go ballistic. Yet their movement is organized like a religion, it has its evangelists like a religion and it has apologists like a religion, it even has a salvation message like religion. It is saving the world from religion, but of course it is not a religion[3].
Nevertheless, the atheists have a burden of proof to prove why they can go beyond the claims of agnosticism, to atheism. This burden of proof is not owed to Christians or believers in God, but to reason itself. There is not enough evidence for anyone to postulate that there is no God, and to insist that they have evidence to prove their claims, border on insanity[4].
The atheist, in order to be intellectually honest, must admit that their claims are based on faith similar to those of religion. It is here where the believer stands on a higher ground than the atheist, for he knows and confesses that his belief is ultimately based on faith, though it is faith that is not without reason or evidence. The atheist refuses to face the fact that his unbelief is based on a supposition because to do so would destroy the illusion that his belief is based on reason alone.
One thing that science has done for us, it has given us knowledge of the vastness of the universe. In doing this, it has demonstrated how very little we know about anything. If we were to put all knowledge into a container that encompasses everything that there is to know about the universe, how much of that knowledge do you think humanity now has? Would you say, 1% or maybe 5%? I think if you were to say 1% your answer would demonstrate that you have a good imagination. Human beings are mere infants in a vast universe which is infinitely big and infinitely small; which means that no one can claim absolute knowledge based on rationalism.
In the end the size of the universe does not prove or disprove the existence of God. It does tell us that if you choose to believe in God, your God must be big enough to accommodate the size of the universe. Of course the problem with most atheists, and most believers, is that their God is too small to begin with. It is not hard to deny the existence of a small God as the atheist has done, nor is it hard to avoid the commandments of a small God, which most believers have done. Humanity tends to shrink their gods to fit their intellect and their appetite.
[1] The readiness of so many atheists to believe pseudoscience, is evidence of the inconsistency in their use of reason and basing their beliefs only on evidence. They seem to have a great imagination except when it comes to things spiritual. They have a burden of proof in explaining their inconsistencies. Could it just be simply old bias.
[2] Most mature believers believe that God is pure consciousness or personality diffused throughout time and space or that he is totally other and is beyond man’s ability to form an image of him.
[3] Many atheists refuse to look at the word religion as a broad concept resulting in a narrowly defined definition of religion as organized religion. Of course this is done because of their awareness that their movement has many marks of a religion. In fact arguing over the semantics of the term religion is proof in itself that their thinking has reached the point of being a religion.
[4] Only few make this claim.
The Death of Religion
The Death of Religion[1]
The Christ event, the death and resurrection of Christ, symbolizes many things like the end of the old order and the beginning of the new “It represented a new way of approaching God and a new and better covenant. However, many fail to see that the first part the equation, the death of Christ marked the end of religion as a way to approach God. So, we could say that when Christ died, all religion died with him, along with all of its idols.” In view of this statement, I thought it good to give the readers a working definition of what we mean by religion.
The most common idea that comes to mind when we hear the word religion is one of ceremonial and other worldliness. However, when we look deeper we begin to see a sense of religion in just about everything we humans say and do. We see it in our devotion and ceremonialism in regards to our professionalism and nationalism. Robert D. Brinsnead goes so far as to say, “To be a person is to be religious, because a person is by nature homo religious.” One man said, “that a man’s religion is his ultimate concern” and we all have an ultimate concern.
We can also understand the word religion in a narrow sense to mean an institution that forms the foundation of a society and gives it the moral fabric that holds it together[2]. Religion as an institution can be created by humans as in the case of the world’s great religions like Buddhism, Islam, and modern Christianity, or it can be a divinely created religion like ancient Judaism or primitive Christianity. It can be organized like the great religions around the world, or unorganized like American civil religion or New-Age religion. It may even take the form of non-religion like atheistic communism, which itself has become a religion. It is religion in the form of institution that we will be discussing in this article.
From the above we can gather that we can never be completely free from religion in its broadest sense and probably not in any sense of the word. However, we can strive to be free of bad religion in every sense of the word. We might say that anything we do or say that does not lead to life is bad religion.
If you didn’t notice, let me draw your attention to the fact that in talking about religion I did not classify primitive Christianity as a religion. I did this for the simple reason that it is not a religion but rather a way of life. Jesus Christ never founded an organized religion nor did he intend his followers to fabricate one. In fact, Jesus’ intent was to destroy religion as a mediator between God and man. Therefore, primitive Christianity in the first century, like its Lord, stood against all institutionalized religion. It called upon all men everywhere to cease building the institutions of religion, which is a call for man to stop making idols and to start having a living relationship with God through Jesus Christ. The command of God in the gospel is that all men must come out of religion into his Son (II Cor 6:14-18). This calling out of religion includes modern Christianity, which is a total subversion of primitive Christianity.
In order to understand the degree of this subversion, we must further understand the contrast between modern Christianity and primitive Christianity, the latter we will refer to from now on as the Faith. We will see from this contrast that the Faith was subversive to all religion and that modem Christianity is nothing more than a total perversion of the true Faith, which we will see has very little in common with religion in any of its form or institutions.
As we begin to observe organized religion, you will begin to see a common thread that runs through all religion. That thread is that religion is the mediator between man and his absolute. In some cases, this absolute is God, in others it is an idol. An idol is anything made by man and exalted by man as his absolute. This would include ideologies and theological belief systems that have been created to serve him in his understanding of God and reality. Given time these systems usually are exalted to be absolutes. When this happens they become idols and men soon found that these systems of belief that were intended to serve and liberate them, have in fact enslaved them[3]. The religious traditions and institutions that he has made to serve him by giving structure and form have become his master. A modem example of this enslavement to an ideology is Marxism. First, you have the ideology that was meant to enrich mankind. Then you have the subversion of it by the followers of the founder. Then you have the institution that enslaves while claiming to be the perfection of the ideas of its founder.
This subversion and movement away from the founders intentions can be seen equally well in the Christian movement. The Christian church in its institutional form has watered down and has even subverted the teachings of its Lord to make them and itself acceptable to the masses. This perversion is often done under the cloak of evangelism and the love of souls. However, the truth about of the matter is that the institutionalized church loves numbers because it loves power and the status of the numbers.
Subsequently, in order to protect and propagate itself, the institution must also exalt itself to a place of being the sole mediator between its members and their absolute. It usually also claims the right to invest the authority of mediation on certain sacred people, places, codes, and times. Thus we have the creation of the distinction between the sacred and the profane. As long as the institution has control over the sacred, it has a tremendous power over its followers. It is in this area of distinction between the sacred and the profane that primitive Christianity became hostile to all religion. For it proclaimed that in the resurrection of Christ, that God had declared all things clean or sacred, for He is the Lord of all things and all people. In this act of raising his Son, he forever abolished the distinction between the sacred and profane. Therefore, this act of God is also the abolition of all religion, which raises the question; can one believe in the resurrected Christ and religion at the same time?
We have already made the statement that religion mediates though the channels of sacred people (priests or clergymen), sacred places (temples, shrines, etc.), sacred laws (creeds, theological systems, laws, etc.) sacred times (Sabbath day, Sunday, etc.). However, when we look at primitive Christianity we see an amazing absence of these sacred mediators. Instead, we find that there is only one mediator between God and man, and that one mediator is not a religion nor any of its forms of mediation, but rather a man. “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men. The testimony given in its proper time” (1 Tim 2:5,6). If we build on this teaching of the apostle Paul, we must conclude that when Jesus Christ appeared, all religion ceased to mediate the presence of God. In other words, when Jesus came to life, all institutionalized religion was put to death along with all its forms of mediation. At least in the mind of God.
It was religion and its laws that judged Jesus to be the accursed one, but God reversed that judgment by raising him from the dead and declaring him to be the just one. In justifying Jesus in this mighty act of raising him from the dead, God condemned to death all religion, placing it in the old order of things that was done away with through Christ (John 19:7, Col. 2:13-17). He also shows in this act that the real intent and purpose of the Law (religion) was to point people toward Christ and to bring them to faith in the perfect revelation of God which is Jesus Christ (John 1:17, Gal 3:23-25). In restoring Law [religion] to its proper place and fulfilling it by his very presence, Jesus dismantled one of the main forms of mediation of religion. In religion law rules as the absolute. In the Faith it is the living Christ that rules and we could go so far as to say that his standard of rule is not a written code but rather the well-being of man (Mark 2:27). When God raised Jesus from the dead and enthroned him at his right hand, He dethroned all religion. The living Christ has replaced all religion (a system of law or theology). To be involved in making new laws, religions, or systems of theology, is to stand opposed to the living Christ.
Moreover, where institutionalized religion rules there must also be a sacred group of people to teach and enforce the law, for the profane or common people as defined by religion, have no right to handle the sacred law. Thus we have the need for the professional clergy that is set apart for the sacred. However, when we look at primitive Christianity we find no evidence of a professional clergy that was set apart from other members of the community of Faith. In fact, we find evidence that would contradict and even condemn any professionalization or sacralization of any group in the Christian movement. The message we find in the New Testament is that in Jesus Christ all men are equal and have equal access to God through the one mediator, Jesus Christ. Therefore, the apostle Peter could refer to all believers as priests of God (I Peter 2:9).
In the act of making all believers priests, God has forever done away with a separate or professional priesthood or clergy system. In his book entitled “The Church” the Catholic theologian Hans Kung says, “all human priesthood has been fulfilled and finished by the unequal final, unrepeatable and hence unlimited sacrifice of the one continuing eternal high priest. The perfect self-offering sacrifice replaces all cultic sacrifices offered by men; the perfect priest replaces all human priests” (page 469). In commenting on 1 Peter 2:4, Kung says, “the word ‘priest’ ” occurs again here, not used in the sense of an official priesthood, and not in reference to the one high priest Christ, but applied through him and in him to all believers. The WHOLE people, filled by the Spirit of Christ, becomes a priesthood set apart; all Christians are “priests”[4] (page 475). In making all Christians priests, God has made them equal and has forever destroyed the religious concept of mediation through sacred groups of men or women. In this we again see a marked distinction between religion that promotes a sacred group of men and primitive Christianity that makes all men equal before God.
Religion tells us the temple or Holy Place is the place where man will find and worship God. In religion the temple or shrine is the symbol of the presence of God. However, when we turn to the New Testament, we find the very opposite message. In fact, the first Christian martyr, Stephen, was killed for telling religious people that God does not dwell in earthly dwellings made by man (Acts 7:48). The apostle Paul proclaimed the same message when he visited Athens. “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples (church buildings) built by hands” (Acts 17:24).
In His polemics with the Pharisees, Jesus contrasted the physical temple in Jerusalem with his own body. In this, he was claiming to be the new temple of God. No longer would men find God in earthly temples made out of brick and mortar, but now they would find him in a person. As God dwelled in the physical body of Jesus, He now dwells in the spiritual body of Jesus, which is made up of all that believe in Jesus as their Lord (II Cor 6:16). This group of people is referred to in scripture as the church. In the Bible the word church is used to denote a people, never a building. This is why the apostle Paul could refer to the church as the new temple of God in the new order. From this it becomes obvious that the only place that God dwells in all of creation, is in the only thing that was created in his image, that is man. God dwells in our brother and only in our brother. Therefore mankind and only mankind is sacred. What we do to our fellow man therefore, we are actually doing to God. This is why Christians put such a high importance on human life. This is why we must go to the aid of our brother; for helping our brother is helping God (Matt 25:26). We that are brothers in Christ should remember this teaching when we begin to tear each other apart in the name of truth. What truth is more important than our brother?
We also see in religion an emphasis on sacred times. Both in Judaism and paganism we find a distinct separation between the sacred and the profane in regards to time. In paganism, the times vary greatly. In Judaism, we find the Sabbath day or the seventh day set apart with a number of additional feast days as the sacred times for the Jewish people. However, when we turn to the New Testament, we find the distinction between times abolished in Christ. In the new order in Christ, all time becomes sacred because it all belongs to Christ. For he is the creator and Lord of all time (Col 1:15-18).
The apostle Paul in writing to Gentile Christians that had been converted out of paganism, exhorted them not to go back to religion by observing special times and days. “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not Gods. But now that you know God or rather are known by God how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you” (Gal 4:8-11). He goes on to say, “therefore, do not let anyone judge you by what you eat, drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a new moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” (Col 2:16-17) Some have misunderstood this passage thinking that Paul was saying that the reality behind the Sabbath was Sunday. However when we look at the passage in its context we quickly see that the reality behind the Sabbath was not just another or different sacred day, but rather the person of Christ himself. It is Christ that is the final and perfect rest for the people of God. (Heb 3:7-11).
By Through Christ, God has made all times sacred by entering into ALL of time in the person of His son Jesus. In everything that Jesus did, he did it to the glory of God. Therefore, everything he did was worship to the Father. In this, Jesus demonstrated that God is present in all times and activities. For in Jesus (God with us), God has entered into the very times and activities where Christ was involved. In this God was telling us that the everyday and ordinary has become sacred. Therefore, Christians no longer worship God at a particular time or place, for they worship him at all times in everything they do (Col 3:17). This also means that our work, play and even our rest is worship to the Father, for we see Jesus involved in all of these things making them acceptable to the Father. Christians do not come together to worship God in the traditional sense but rather to encourage and to exhort one another unto good works, which is worship in its true sense (Heb 10:24-25). The good works that we do outside of our meetings are the highest form of worship for the spiritually mature. Putting the emphasis on coming together to worship God in a sacred place at a sacred time is a digression back to religion and a movement away from God. Note Herman Ridderbos, “Paul: An Outline of His Theology” (Page 481).
The modern church’s emphasis on corporate worship with its ritual, form, and structure is a move back to religion and an effort to take God out of the everyday or ordinary and place him back into the sacred. Great attention is given to create the atmosphere that will give the worshiper the sense of the presence of God. This sends the message that God is somehow more present in this religious atmosphere than in the nonreligious everyday. It matters little whether the religious atmosphere is created by icons, ritual, esthetics or emotionalism; it all represents a return to religion. When religion does this, it presents God as the totally other, that is, totally removed from the everyday, a God that must be approached through sacred people and sacred places. However, in the New Testament we see a very human God that draws close to man in the everyday. A God who has come among his people in the form of a man. A God to whom all have equal access. A God that is near and can be called on in any place and at any time. A God that has hallowed the everyday with his presence.
Moreover, religion makes worship something you do in a sacred place and is directed toward God. In contrast, when we look at the Faith, we find that worship is something you do in the everyday and is directed toward God through your fellow man. “And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.” (Heb 13:16) “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” (James 1:27) From this we can gather that true religion and true worship is something that is done in the everyday and has very little, if anything, to do with what the modern church calls worship. True worship is loving your brother and sharing the message of God’s love with your neighbor.
From all this, we can conclude that religion, instead of bringing or drawing us closer to God, actually distances us from God. But if this is the case, how do we explain this phenomenon? How could a faith that started out as a simple way of life turn into a religion? How could God be taken out of the ordinary and placed back into the sacred? The answer is that the Christian faith was subverted by religion and human wisdom. The tracing of the evolution of this subversion is beyond the scope of this article. However, for those who would like a complete treatment of this subversion, I recommend “The Distancing of God” by Bernard J. Cooke and “The Subversion of Christianity” by Jacques Ellule. These two books will forever change the way you look upon the Christian religion.
[1] This article may help some to see that religion and faith in God are not the same. A person can question religion without questing the existence of God. In like manner, a person can believe in Jesus Christ and yet reject many aspects of the Christian religion.
[2] Some of the new atheist type have postulated that religion has nothing to do with shaping the morality of a culture. This position is so ridiculous that it’s not worth commenting on.
[3] These idols can consist of ideologies, pseudo-religions like scientism and political ideologies like nationalism, etc.
[4] Hans Kung
The Cornerstone of Liberalism
The Cornerstone of Liberalism
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! John 8:43-45 NIV.
The foundation of Liberalism[1] is made up of many stones. However, the cornerstone of the philosophy is the autonomy of the individual. What do we mean by the autonomy of the individual? It simply means that the individual is self-governing and to some degree is self-directed.
It may surprise you to hear that the Bible has quite a bit to say about this doctrine of the autonomy of the individual. In the story found in the book of Genesis, God created man free to make a choice and he also warned man that if he made the wrong choice there would be consequences. The choices were to governor one’s self and be independent of God (autonomous) or to choose to be self – denying and allow God to govern one’s life.
If we look at the liberal faith through the lens of the story. Liberalism is nothing more than an organized rebellion against God[2]. Like Adam in the story liberals do not believe God, of course in our age it’s not a matter of believing God, but rather not believing IN God. However, no matter how you word it, it’s the same old story. Man , wanting to be independent and free from the authority of God. In the story Satan deceived man in two ways. He first convinced man that God’s word was not true and then that God did not mean what he said. Both of his arguments were attacks on the truth of God’s word. Based on what I’ve all already said, it only follows that the liberal faith would be attacking God’s word today and even setting themselves up as the judges of God and his Word. Well, that exactly what we find.
It is the liberal faith that has embraced relativism (the denial that there is any absolute truth) and has led the attack on scripture and on the living word who is Jesus Christ.[3] In fact, liberals and their siblings[4] despise any authority, but especially anything or anyone that represents the authority of God. Like their father they hate God and everything that pertains to the true God. Like their father they know how to subvert language and appear as angles of light to naïve and gullible men. The apostle Paul says of them “And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness” 2 Cor. 11:14-15. Still to this day we have liberals masquerading as Christians for their own purpose or the purpose of their father.
Even from a utilitarian point of view, liberalism has a number of problems, if every person is self-governing and self-directed, what happens when people begin to go in different directions and they then begin to disagree on whom and what should govern? The liberal answer is that a man’s freedom or self-governing ends where any others man’s freedom begins. But does this really take care of the problem or does it just raise more questions? For example who will determine where one man’s freedom ends and any other man’s begins? The state?[5] If the state is to determine this, is the individual really free? What happens if the state defines freedom differently than the individual? Maybe we should toss a coin? No, the one with the most power wins and in the modern world that means the state. Liberalism therefore will always look to the state to determine where freedom begins and ends. The state then judges the difference between good and evil. In other word the state begins to determine morality. Could this be the source of political correctness? It surely is the beginning of a totalitarian state.
In the story, God creates man and then gives him freedom. In the liberal system it is the state that defines and gives freedom to the individual, of course, if the state gives freedom, the state can take it away. If the deity gives freedom no government would have the right to take that freedom away. This was the thinking of the founding fathers when they said that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” and government was created to protect those rights. It is quite obvious that the founding fathers were not liberals. This is the reason why liberals are not extremely fond of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. They simply don’t believe them.
There is any problem with the liberal faith, which is, who has the authority to define the concept of freedom? Freedom is one of those elusive concepts that could be defined in a numbers ways. For the atheist it could be defined simply by the expression “Freedom is doing what I what to do or simply being left alone by the authorities”. For the Christian freedom would be defined “as being free from self to serve God and others.”
Now liberals, will respond by saying that the state should stay out of defining freedom or liberty. But if this true, why then do they use the public school to push their liberal faith? In fact, every time they have a change, liberals use the government and the court system to impose their liberal faith on the American people. They get away with this because the American people do not recognize liberalism for what it is, a godless religion that is against all other religions.
In the story when man sinned something happened to his nature. Before the fall his will was directed toward God, after the fall his will was directed to himself. His will was directed to satisfying his lower nature. He then began to live not for God, but rather to satisfy his lower nature’s appetites. The story therefore depicts liberalism, perfectly, for liberalism is nothing more than a high form of hedonism (living for pleasure). Even, discipline and self-restraint is practiced primarily to extend the ego.
The conclusion is this; liberalism is nothing more than an organized rebellion against the living God. It is a religion or a philosophy that denies and subverts God’s word. Therefore, it is sinful for Christians to be involved in liberalism or to support any group or politic party that supports it.
[1] Liberalism is not being nice or compassionate. It is a philosophy that competes and stands in contradiction to the Christian faith. The advanced liberals which often call themselves progressives are liberals who have embraced the liberal philosophy and have taken it to its end, which is anarchy.
[2] The symbol and the height of the liberal move is the French Revolution with its motto “No king and no God”.
[3] Liberals have used the methodology of higher criticism to deny the authority of scripture and to deny the Lordship of Jesus. Note Eta Linnemann Book “Historical Criticism of the Bible” with the sub-title “Methodology or Ideology? Reflections of a Bultmannian turned evangelical”. Also note Jude 8-16
Harry Blamires book “The Christian Mind” saved me from embracing a liberal view of the Bible.
[4] The two siblings of liberalism are atheism and libertarianism. Atheism is the ultimate distortion of the image of God in man and libertarianism is a secular counterfeit of the Christian faith which in its true state lives above the law.
[5] In the end for the liberal the state becomes God walking on the earth. A good example of this that the state in the abortion controversy ended up determining what is life or non-life. In this Secular liberalism is nothing more than man playing God.
The Burden of Proof and Non-Belief
The Burden of Proof and Non-Belief
About two years ago I became interested in the new atheist movement and began to spend some time reading and contemplating it. As I got into it, it struck me how much stress the new atheists puts on the question of who has the burden of truth[1] and on their belief that atheism should be categorized as a non-belief and not a belief. It seemed that the significance they gave to these beliefs in their blogs diverted the attention away from the question of ‘does God exist’ and on to peripheral subjects[2]. At first this puzzled me and then it dawned on me how crucial these beliefs are to their thought system.
Why are these beliefs so important to new the atheists? My suspicion is that some of them on the top of their intellectual food chain know that human reason can question and deny almost any belief. Reason can lead you to doubting your doubts. So, how do you avoid this? By simply declaring your thought system as an non-belief, making it immune to doubting and skepticism. You never have to question it, for how can you question a non-belief? So in essence, you can be a true believer without believing anything. Ingenious to say the least.
What about the burden of proof? Everyone who has dabbled in philosophy knows that you cannot prove empirically metaphysical ideas, you must infer them from facts and the inferences you contribute to the facts. These inferences can always be questioned and doubted. The atheist knows that the hard work is not questioning the inferences but creating them. So, in their discussions with believers most stoop to the level of criticism. This is why we find very few arguments against the existence of God and numerous arguments against the arguments of the theist, which proves nothing but the strength of the argument.
Some atheists have gone so far as to declare their un-belief as an absolute, claiming to have proven atheism[3], even to the point of criticizing and attacking agnosticism, which is the very state of mind that doubting is grounded on. The agnostic says I do not know, therefore ‘I should question everything including my doubts’[4]. On the other hand some atheist[5] say you should doubt everything, but not your doubts about the existence of God and of course whatever else they deem as important. Now I admit that atheism is the more manly and brave position rather than agnosticism, but it’s not the most rational or consistent position, from a doubters (skeptics) and believers point of view.
[1] I have a number of articles on my website about the burden of truth. The technical definition of burden of truth basically says that it falls on the person making a positive affirmation. However, you can make a positive affirmation on a negative. Example: there is absolutely no God. Most reasonable people will admit that this statement cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt but the statement itself demands evidence or else it is simply an empty statement. If not then why do atheists argue about it all the time?
[2] In one exchange the new atheist spent so much time arguing about the burden of proof we never got to the subject of the existence of God. The young man seemed incapable of simply carrying on a conversation about the question, ‘does God exist’.
[3] Not many will make this assertion. However, a few are brave enough.
[4] The true skeptic believes that the way to truth is through doubting. Thus if you stop doubting you close off the source to truth and actually become a believer. Atheistic absolutists’ are true believers in that they brand their abstract reasoning as absolute, and put their faith in it.
[5] These atheists are true believers, that believe that reason is pure and therefore can be absolute. Of course reason is never pure and human knowledge never reflects reality totally.
An Exchange with a Naturalist
An Exchange with a Naturalist
The radical monotheists are the true skeptics. When the majority believes in many gods, they believed in one. When the majority is atheistic, they continue to believe in one true God. The human impulse is to deny the true God because of the tremendous tension it bring into existence. Mankind escapes the tension by creating false gods or denying the existence of God. Both are forms of escapism from the true God. Lyle Duell
The following is a reply to my article “Does God Exist?” by an atheist and in turn my reply to him. The article was forwarded to him by a friend. I never engaged him personally in correspondence.
Unbeliever to my Friend:
He (Lyle) states that there is some form of religion, be it shamanism, ancestor worship, etc., in every group of people everywhere in the world. I and most rational people accept this to be true based on years of observation and exploration of even the most remote areas of this planet. All cultures have faith or religion. They all have a sense of right and wrong. They all have a sense of fairness. The question is: What explains this best? Is it the God hypothesis or the naturalist hypothesis? Just to say the condition exists says nothing.
Lyle:
Your friend is right. However, I believe it is more reasonable to expect to find a world filled with morality and faith if you start with a moral God hypothesis rather than a naturalist hypothesis that believes the world is an accident created by irrational and amoral causes. The latter would only seem rational to a person who is irrational or has accepted on faith the dogmas of naturalism. Naturalism is a philosophy, which taken to its logical conclusions, would deny reason, on which it claims to be based. Can you really trust a mind that was formed by a mindless process of natural selection alone? Is it reasonable to believe that reason was created by an unreasonable force or cause?
Though the presence of universal faith and morality does not prove the existence of God, it is exactly what you would expect to find if a moral consciousness (God) had directed the process of the creation of the world.
Moreover, the naturalists have a hard time demonstrating why this spiritual consciousness and morality evolved equally in all humans throughout the world in the same time frame. This phenomenon seems to fit the ideal of revelation more than a naturalistic causation.
Unbeliever to my Friend:
It is here that Mr. Duell misses the mark and uses faulty logic. This does not prove that God is self-evident.
Lyle:
I did not say it proves the existence of God or that He is self-evident. However, it is consistent with a God hypothesis. You cannot prove a self-evident truth to anyone who is dead to it, for the conditioning of his ideology and his disposition keeps him from seeing the truth. These people’s perception has been so distorted by false ideology it would take more than evidence to convince them. You cannot cure blindness with an argument.
Unbeliever to Lyle’s Friend:
It (the existence of religion and morality) merely proves that we are all human and think basically alike.
Lyle:
You have stated the facts correctly, but the facts in themselves do not answer the question of why. Why are we basically alike when it comes to morality and religion? You attempt to answer the question with a narrative or a story of history, which you admit you cannot prove. So in essence, you did not answer the question of why. You attempt to answer a why question with a how answer, which is simply begging the question. The truth is that your atheistic worldview cannot answer the question of why things are the way they are and not some other way. In contrast, the theistic worldview simply says that all men were created in the image of God and therefore inherited his natural characteristics and tendencies from God. Moreover, your how answer cannot even answer the how question, because it is based on assumptions and speculation with fragmented and thin evidence and no proof. So, in the end you must admit that your position is held by faith.
It seems if your thinking is correct, we would think alike on everything; however when we look at humanity we are divided on just about everything. We cannot carry on a conversation with another human but for a few minutes before we start disagreeing. Why do all humans think the same about things like faithfulness, compassion, justice, and retribution if these concepts were created by mindless evolution? And why did all the cultures evolve equally in the same time frame, having all these basic moral elements in them? If evolution is not directed by a consciousness, why did all the cultures in the world develop civilizations with the same basic morality in the same time frame?
Unbeliever:
Man did not evolve with long teeth, sharp fangs, great strength, or great speed compared to other animals. Our secret weapon was to evolve a problem solving brain to better cope and increase our chance to survive as a species.
One downside of a problem solving, thinking brain is that it is always thinking and trying to solve problems or riddles. Think of it as exercising our weapon to make it better, like young animals play-fighting, or cats mindlessly sharpening their claws. When there is no problem to solve, we invent one. Just consider the number of games and puzzles we have created to amuse ourselves.
When early humans finally evolved this thinking, self-aware brain, they found that they were in an unfriendly, hostile world and likely feeling frightened and vulnerable and unable to explain the mysteries all around them. After witnessing events like lightning and volcanoes, it would seem likely that they would attribute these and other events to creatures much more powerful then themselves, even if these creatures were invisible to them Everywhere on the planet, it is only human to want to improve one’s lot and chances for survival in this world. What better way to gain some small sense of control than to beseech these powerful beings with offerings and rituals. Thus religion is born out of our own frailty and need for our thinking brains to find some way to influence the forces that seem to be against them. The small odds that things went their way could only reinforce their belief systems because the only other option was to admit that they have no control over their environment or elemental forces at work. Admitting that would be too darn scary, so the belief in supernatural forces would continue until a time when science would begin to answer the mysteries of thunder and flash floods and slowly erode the need for religion.
Today we are in this period of science eroding the need for religion. The older the country and more educated, the faster the population is turning away from the religious view of the world. In the countries of central Europe, including Italy, the churches have lost so many members that the government has had to step in to preserve the great historical church buildings because there are not enough members to pay the bills. In Germany, if you do not belong and contribute to a church, the state will make you pay a special tax for their upkeep, and still the numbers are declining. In general, the only countries where religion still flourishes are those with extreme poverty because their population is still looking for some small bit of control over their destiny.
Lyle:
How could man survive long enough without long teeth, sharp fangs, great strength or great speed, to develop reason? Reason would be, by its very nature, the last characteristic for evolution to produce and yet the naturalist must postulate that it was the first. It seems quite reasonable to believe that man must have developed reasoning more rapidly than evolution could explain.
Science is about distance and measurement. Religion is about meaning and purpose. If this is true how could science erode religion? The reason religion is eroding has little to do with science. Religion is declining mainly because of its abuse of authority and the time that it takes to learn it sufficiently to experience its benefits. This does not set well with a culture that wants instant gratification and results. Moreover, the same erosion we see in organized religion is happening in all civic organizations, government, and even science. These social phenomena are difficult to understand and have more to do with a decline in civilization than the progress of science, e.g., the decline of the family and human relationships in general. People’s respect for science has been on a big decline for the last three decades because of its unfulfilled promises and its embellished claims. This is especially true as government co-ops science and pseudoscience to further its agenda as in communist countries.
Unbeliever:
Now you may ask me how I know all this to be true, as I was not there to witness it. Well, I could say the same to you about your beliefs. Given what we really know as facts after all these thousands of years, what scenario seems the most plausible? Do we finally accept science or do we continue to believe in magic and invisible beings?
You can continue to believe in the veracity of a collection of well-known stories finally written down by desert dwellers during the Bronze Age if you choose to.
Lyle
You know it is true because you accept it by faith. Everything you claim and believe about ancient man is prehistory, i.e., before any written history. I personally see no conflict between real science and religion. The problem comes in when you mix up theories with facts and history with fiction. Moreover, the people of faith that I know do not believe in magic. However, they do believe that there are things that exist, which we cannot see, and I do believe that science believes in a lot of things they cannot see. If you do not believe me, read a good book on theoretical physics.
A note to my Friend
Your friend’s argument is nothing but a tall tale that naturalists have been spinning for a hundreds of years. It is nothing but a narrative put together with little or no evidence. All of it seems plausible only because people have been indoctrinated with it in our school system and universities. Remember, the interpretation is not the observation. They have observed none of the so-called facts of their tale. Yet, they call it science. The conclusion is not the data. The explanation is not the evidence. A narrative like you friend spun proves nothing other than he has a story to tell. It says nothing as to whether or not the story is true. To prove the story takes facts, which the atheist and naturalist does not have and will never have because they are talking about things that are prehistoric. That is before history was recorded. Your friend seems to sense this but is too arrogant to refrain from spinning a yarn whether true or not. You should learn to ask people the question that God asked Adam: “Who told you that?” If you asked your friend that question, and if he were honest, he would have to admit that he got it off some atheistic website or from some college professor, most likely a non-scientist. And where did they get it from? (Note: footnote for more on the tall tale of naturalism.)
To postulate that early man was brutish has nothing to do with the debate on the existence of God. No theist whom I know would maintain that ancient humankind was in general intellectual and civilized. Even today many men are uneducated and uncivilized if left to themselves. However, the brutish picture that modern man paints of ancient man is questionable and equally unknowable. It is a red herring that has little to do with the question, “Does God exist?” Yet the tall tale represents the fallacious arguments and quibbles made by atheists.
Unbeliever
Isn’t it curious how the religion seem so slow to change, even in the face of so many facts,
while scientists and atheists would change and believe in a heartbeat if given a single verifiable fact.
Lyle
Science does not solely deal with facts; it deals with theories about the facts. If you have noticed, the older a science gets the fewer new theories it has. When it runs the course of easy questions, it will slow down. I am not sure, but it seems that your friend and many other people believe that science has facts that disprove the existence of God. If so, he is wrong. The truth is they have no facts that disprove the existence of God and atheists do not have a good argument against the existence of God. The best they have is the tall tale. What he does have is a high opinion of himself.
Unbeliever
It is the way of science to change instantly when new facts are presented, instead of pining for the old ways.
Lyle
It is obvious this man has not studied the history of science. Whether intentional or not, what he said is a bald-faced lie. It often takes decades or even centuries for science to change its theories. The string theory, for example, has been in style for about 75 years and it’s just recently being set aside by many scientists. Science also hangs onto working theories for a long time even when it knows that it is wrong because it works well in the models that it has created.
Unbeliever
I can’t believe I wasted another afternoon responding to this article. Neither you nor your friend is likely to be influenced by it, but feel free to pass it along to him. All that has transpired here is the wasting of my time, and as you know, without a warm fuzzy heaven to look forward to, time is all the more precious to me.
Don’t expect any but the tersest responses in the future, if any on religious matters.
Yours in music,
Lyle
The Tall Tale
Unbelievers of all types typically use a short naturalistic narrative to undermine belief in God. By narrative I mean a short history of the evolution of culture and humanity. They accomplish this by first running a series of statements about prehistoric earth and man, which creates an unflattering picture of early mankind. The thing that is neglected in their narrative is the fact that most of statements are not based on facts but assumptions with very thin evidence to back them up. These assumptions have four sources: their blind faith in progressive evolution, the concept of progress, a good imagination, and of course the indoctrination of our universities.
One of the biggest problems with this picture is that an informed naturalist believes in evolution, but not progressive evolution. Progressive evolution is rejected by knowledgeable naturalists because it leaves the door open for intelligent design and the existence of God. Therefore, in their thinking, progressive or directed, evolution must be rejected. However, they continue to tell the tall tale as history based on progressive evolution to prove their assumption that there is no God. In this, they borrow from the believer the theory of intelligent design to prove the point that there is no design. In this, they tell a tale that is based on the foundation of progressive evolution, which they believe is not true.
In actuality, when they tell the tall tale, all they are doing is rehearsing a naturist world view or system, while offering no evidence for it and assuming that it is true. Neither do they inform their hearers of the massive number of pages that are missing in their story. Nor do they inform people that the story was created before there was one bit of evidence for it, which means it was not founded on scientific evidence but assumption and a good imagination. Darwin himself admitted that he had no evidence for his theory. Of course, the theory was floating around before Darwin put it into print.
Because the naturalist believes there is only one possible narrative to explain everything, every new fact is forced to fit the tall tale. If they cannot be squeezed into their narrative, they are simply labeled anomalies and set aside.
If there was no evidence for it, where did tall tale come from? Is it a self-evident truth? The problem with that is that those folks that promoted it do not believe in self-evident truth. Of course, the truth is that it is a construct of their imagination. In this, the system or narrative itself becomes the evidence for the system. In other words, if I can build a system, the truth of its premise is thereby established by the system I have created. The possibility that I can build a system on a false premise is ignored. The system is justified by the fact of its construction. They can get away with this story telling only because of the conditioning of the audience, which has been feed a steady diet of it in the school system and in the media. The myth becomes reality in their minds.
Lyle Duell 