In following video, Carl Jung presents some material that should make the new atheist type rethink the virtue of their constant attacks on religion as though virtuous. Jung points out that a loss of faith and religion is the reason why so many people today are despondent. Young also shows that a loss of faith tends to move a culture towards State-ism along with the development and growth of a will for power in the human spirit, which results in mental disorders and the totalitarian state.
In a past article I pointed out that atheism is a phenomenon which seems to take place at the end of a civilization and is one of the marks of a decaying culture. It is hard to tell whether atheism is the cause, or the fruit, of a culture in declension. However, either way it is not a positive force in the human community.
An honest unbeliever, Dr. E. Wengraf does not seem to share the enthusiasm of the new atheist in debunking people’s faith, “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 a 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 fatalism or criminal mindlessness.”
The Truth on Religion and Violence
The following is a reply to a young man on social media who was commenting on a post having to do with faith in God. In the comments, there were a number of posts written by the new atheist type criticizing religion for the violence throughout the world. Some went so far as to say that religion is the cause of most wars and most of the violence around the world. Before beginning let me share with the reader that I don’t make any apologies for religion. When religion does something wrong, it deserves the same criticism as the non-religious.
Let me begin by throwing some mud of my own; have not the ideologies of atheistic communism and liberalism been responsible for killing over two hundred million people since the French revolution? That is more than all the other wars recorded in history. If you take out the wars caused by economics and power-hungry kings, how much is left to blame on religion? The belief that religion is the biggest source of war and violence is an atheist myth and propaganda disseminated by them to prejudice people against religion.
The idea of killing people for abstract ideas and ideology are a modern phenomenon with Muslims being the first to practice it on a large-scale in a religious sense. Even here there are many scholars who point out that the Muslim faith more like resembles a fascist political system rather than a religion. However, even if you count it as a religion it is the only major religion which has violence as a part of its core beliefs. By this, I mean it is the only one whose Scriptures (Koran) preach violence. The Jewish faith and its scripture in the Old Testament have stories of violence in them, but the violence was directed toward a certain ancient nation that no longer exists. There is nothing in the Old Testament scripture that would justify Israel today committing violence against another nation or religion except in self-defense. The other major religions teach love and peace.
You asked me why God has made it so hard to find him. I personally don’t think God has made it hard to find him. I think it is Western culture that has made it tough for people to find him. For example, a materialistic mindset has hardened the hearts of people in the west making it hard for them to see God. To experience God it takes time and effort which men in Western culture are no longer willing to do. They expect to find God the way a person would add up two plus two and get four. Unfortunately, experiencing God is more different than that. Finding God comes by way of subtraction, and not addition.
Our spiritual neglect has reached the point that our so-called Christian civilization is no longer Christian. This hasn’t happened through progress in our education or by growth in our spirituality; it’s happened as a result of total neglect of the spiritual. We have simply ignored God. It was not long ago that anyone who was considered an informed person would have a working knowledge about their religion. Today in general, the educated class is totally ignorant of their culture’s religions. Two years ago, I was sitting at a table with four or five people with PhD’s. To my amazement, I found that I could not carry on an intelligent conversation with any of them about religion, philosophy or science. They were specialists who were only well-versed in their particular field. When it came to religion, they were as ignorant as children. Over the years they’re getting to be quite many; I have given numerous books to intellectuals to read on Christianity and to my best recollection not one of them has read the books. It is people like this that criticize religion on Facebook and other social media. They are as ignorant as rocks when it comes to religion and yet they parade themselves as knowledgeable.
You see, the rejection of religion is not a problem of the intellect. It is a problem of the will or appetite. All this intellectual crap that they parade before the world is just a smokescreen to cover up their indifference and bias towards religion. It is all done to save the appearance that they are honest and sincere. They fail to accept that the basic condition of mankind is one of ignorance, sinfulness and hypocrisy. Their arrogance blinds them to God and it justifies God for turning them over to themselves. They have forgotten God and God has turned them over to be the play thing of their own disgusting selves.
Secular people have even rewritten history exaggerating the depravity of the Greeks and Romans only to justify themselves. We are in many ways the most depraved generation of humanity that has ever lived. As the Scriptures say, “there is no one righteous, no not one; there is no one who seeks God.” As a result the end of western civilization is near. Metaphorically, we are living out the story of Lot in Sodom.
Let me recommend a couple of authors; Joseph Peterson is excellent and can be watched on YouTube. C.S. Lewis is still relative and is a good place to start for someone who is seeking God. Start with his book ‘Mere Christianity’. He is English and I find it easier to listen to him on tape or an audio book, than by reading him. You can get his book and more on YouTube.
A Letter to a Young atheist
You asked if I had read any books written by atheists. I’ve read a number of the books written by the four Horsemen and many other atheists. After reading them, I still think atheism is a mental disorder that shows up at the end of any declining civilization. Even if every religion throughout the world is wrong that doesn’t make atheism right.
You argument that the division in the religion world is a proof that there is no God demonstrates a shallow understand of the human condition. In fact, if there is an all powerful being you would expect finite creatures like humans to be divided concerning their belief about it. So, what you point out to be an inconsistency is very much consistent with a belief in an all-knowing God. Disunity of belief is the very thing you should expect to find when a finite creature believes in an all-powerful God.
Your quibbles about there being no proofs for the existence of God border on the hysterical. First, there is an enormous difference between evidence and proof. A huge percentage of human knowledge has little to no proof of its own accuracy. The majority of human knowledge believed is based on the authority of a teacher, and to have faith in that teacher. Very few people ever see the evidence or proof for numerous beliefs. These beliefs range from Darwinian evolution, to theories of the multi-verse. If you believe these things, it’s because someone told you to believe it and you accepted it by faith and you accepted it as logical because they framed the evidence in a world view that you had already accepted. When talking about evidence we are using the language of science, when you start talking about proofs you are using the language of philosophy not science. Science cannot possibly prove or disapprove the idea of God. Science recognizes its limitations. Why can’t you atheists? The truth is that you don’t understand science any better than you do religion.
However, science can offer evidence that seems at least to support the idea of a supreme consciousness that created all things. The apparent design that we see in the universe is one of these things and the other is the fact that the universe had a beginning. Both scientific theories support the idea of consciousness more than a belief that the world and the universe were just cobbled together by a mindless force. However, it does not proof it be on a shadow of a doubt.
If you’re looking for proofs in philosophy, you can forget it. Philosophically, it would be hard to prove that you even exist, much more than proving the nonexistence of a god. Human beings are small ignorant creatures whose existence is based pretty much on faith in many presuppositions, which cannot be proven. Our ambiguous position in the universe tends to cause insecurity so we gravitate towards seeking certitude (proofs) of our beliefs. In this religion is actually more honest than secular people when it says that we walk by faith and not by sight.
The new atheists are small-minded people who have an over-inflated view of themselves and their intelligence. As a result they are fundamentalist in their thinking and they still live in a world of proofs. This alone is an unbelievable paradox because of their belief system, or their lack of beliefs. For in their belief system of materialism there couldn’t be such a thing as truth for truth is a concept that belongs in a religious framework that believes in an Ultimate Authority as a foundation of human knowledge. The atheist appeal to truth demonstrates that they are still thinking in a religious framework and in essence, for many their lack of belief has become a religion.
 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?, a searching For a Theory Of Everything” by Fay Weldon.
 In a materialistic worldview there cannot be a traditional moralistic truth. Atheism will always lead to relativism where truth is what a person believes.
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.
Can You Be Good Without God?
Can you be good without God? Of the various questions raised in the theist/atheist debate, this question has, I believe, occasioned more witless commentary than any other. That witlessness is again on display in an essay for the Daily Beast, “Can you be good without God?” by Brandon Withrow of the University of Findlay. Withrow interviews a bunch of ticked-off atheists, who get the answer wrong.
He discusses a study titled, “Global evidence of extreme intuitive moral prejudice against atheists”:
“If God did not exist, then we would have to invent him,” said the French philosopher Voltaire. His point: that without a divine being to check right and wrong, any number of atrocities are possible and could go unpunished.
A recent study (of more than 3,000 people in 13 countries) published in the journal Nature Human Behavior echoes Voltaire’s maxim. Looking at intuitive thinking — presumptions drawn by individuals through unconscious biases — researchers led by Will M. Gervais, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky, discovered that most individuals intuitively conclude that a serial killer is more likely to be an atheist (approximately 60 percent) than religious (approximately 30 percent).
From the study’s Abstract:
Preliminary work in the United States suggests that anti-atheist prejudice stems, in part, from deeply rooted intuitions about religion’s putatively necessary role in morality. However, the cross-cultural prevalence and magnitude — as well as intracultural demographic stability — of such intuitions, as manifested in intuitive associations of immorality with atheists, remain unclear. Here, we quantify moral distrust of atheists by applying well-tested measures in a large global sample (N = 3,256; 13 diverse countries). Consistent with cultural evolutionary theories of religion and morality, people in most — but not all — of these countries viewed extreme moral violations as representative of atheists. Notably, anti-atheist prejudice was even evident among atheist participants around the world. [Emphasis added.]
The issue is simple, though. The answer to the question we started with hinges on what you mean by “without God.” Let’s take a look.
- If God does not exist, you cannot be good. You cannot be evil. You can’t conform or fail to conform to anytranscendental standard, because if there is no God, there are no transcendental standards. There is no Moral Law if there is no Moral Lawgiver. If there is no God, there are merely opinions and consequences of acting on opinions. We may label certain opinions “good,” but that’s just our opinion. What we really mean by calling something “good” is that we like it. Which is fine, as long as we understand that “good without God” is just a metaphor for “something I (or we) like.” If there is no God, all of our “moral” decisions are just opinions — perhaps opinions we like, or opinions we don’t like — but neither good nor bad.
- If God does exist, but you don’t believe in Him, then of course you can be “good without God”, in the sense that you can be good without believingin God. It is central to the moral theology of all the great faiths that non-believers may act in accordance with Moral Law without belief in God and even without knowing Moral Law in any formal sense. The Moral Law is written in our hearts, theists universally agree, and we feel the weight of morality whether we believe in God or not.
Now of course an additional question can be asked: Do theists actually behave better than atheists? I think this is the question that ticked off the atheists in the essay. If theists do, on the average, behave better than atheists, there are certainly many exceptions on both sides, and arguments can be made that particular groups of theists/atheists behave better/worse than other groups of atheists/theists. Mankind is a confusing mess.
Atheists, however, are on quicksand when they argue about “goodness” and “evil,” given that their metaphysics, if taken seriously, utterly rules out the existence of either. Also, it would seem to me that atheists could be a bit more contrite in light of the fact that whenever they have assumed state power — from the Reign of Terror to the gang currently launching missiles from North Korea — atheism has brought hell to earth.
The godless would garner more respect if they took their own metaphysics seriously, and if they showed at bit of contrition for what real atheists have done when in power. Author unknown.