Tag: Religion
Does God Exist?
Does God Exist?
“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
Some of you might think that the question “does God exist?” is an extremely hard question. However, it only seems tough if you are thinking in the unreal world of theoretical science or philosophy. Now, by unreal I do not mean fictional. By unreal, I mean a world outside our five senses, i.e. a world we cannot see, taste, hear, smell or touch; a world very much like the one religious folks call heaven, but of course without a God. However, in the real world of our sense’s God is a self-evident truth. A self-evident truth is a truth, which is tacitly known by all men, who are in their right mind, living in the same world that had not had their reasoning impaired by false theories, ideology or rebellious passions.
If the existence of God is a self-evident truth; what evidence would one expect to find in the world to support this hypothesis? Would we not expect to find some kind of universal spirituality or awareness that there is something which transcends the physical? What do we find when we look at the world? Well, we find religion and faith in some form in every culture in the world, even in those which have put forth a great effort to destroy it, such as those societies controlled by atheistic communism. Even in those societies, faith and religion seem to be resistant to these attacks. This just adds strength to the argument that God is a self-evident truth, which is very hard to eliminate. Because it is self-evident and a very part of man’s nature, if you suppress it, it will just break out in another form[1]. Although the universality of religion and faith may not in itself prove that God is self-evident, it is what one would expect to find if there is a God, and it is consistent with the idea that God is a self-evident.
In addition, scientific evidence is mounting, that supports the idea that humans are hard-wired to believe in a God, which would explain the universality of religion and morality.[2] In other words, it seems that humanities very nature is to have faith in a deity and this is the very thing we would expect to find if God created man with a share of his consciousness. This innate awareness of the divine also supports and is consistent with the hypothesis which affirms that God is a self-evident truth. It would strongly suggest that atheism is not natural or innate and is a doctrine, which is socially created and propagated by the indoctrination of a secular culture, whose beliefs have been twisted by a denial of human nature and its creator.
Besides all of this, would not one expect to find in a world that was created by an intellectual force, to consist of order and design? And when one looks at the world that is exactly what one finds. Does not design, demand a designer? Does not the creation itself point to a creator and designer? Is not design in the cosmos itself, a self-evident truth, at least to those that are in their right minds?[3] Though all of this does not prove the existence of God beyond question, it does add credence to the God theory.
Why So Many Unbelievers
Some might raise the objection, “If the existence of God is self-evident, why are there so many who do not see it?” Jesus said, “some people have eyes but do not see.” Here, Jesus is simply saying that some do not have the will to believe. Humans tend to believe what they want to believe and to see what they want to see. Because of this, they are often blinded by their presuppositions. Moreover, sometimes over exposure deadens ones sensitivity to a concept We are often actually oblivious to our senses until they are impaired in some way. We seldom think about our vision or of our eyes until something threatens our sight. When we look out a window, we often don’t see the glass, unless we focus on it. The reason being that we have given our full attention to the things we are watching outside the window. However, if the window is dirty or has a crack in it, we see it immediately. The problem with many modern men is that they are too focused on things and therefore, are not able to ‘see God’. Through their neglect, they have lost their ability to sense and see God. However, just because a blind man cannot see, it doesn’t mean that sight does not exist.
What is Self-Evident Truth?
When talking about self-evident truth we are talking about a tacit knowledge or impulse, which seems to move our intellect to certain beliefs and behavior. It can be individual or corporate. In the realm of morality, it is an expectation or a sense of the way things ought to be. It is the instinct to order the world that we live in; it is a sense, of “I ought to do that” or “things ought to be this way,” which all men everywhere have. It has been called by numerous names in different cultures. It has been called the Dao or the Tao in the east, the Greeks called it the Logos, the Hebrews called it wisdom, the Americans call it common sense, in philosophy, it is the first principles or natural law. Our founding fathers called it self-evident truth.
It is this impulse that compels us to look for a cause of all things and ask the question “why?” This impulse has been codified by science into the law of cause and effect. If followed to its logical outcome, it will take us to the foundation of all truth. It takes us to a beginning and to something outside of ourselves and because it is the beginning, it is a something, which is the source and catalyst of all things, but in itself, is not a thing nor does it have a cause. This causeless entity cannot be named or classified and is what some theists call God. Of course, the word God is a title and not a name. When Moses confronted this entity and asked its name its reply was “I am.” In other words, you cannot name me for I stand above all things and outside of all categories of human language.
The Great Circle of Life.
Though the existence of God is the foundation of all truth, there are lesser self-evident truths or what we could call common sense truths which all point to, and are dependent on, the well-spring of ultimate truth, which is the uncreated first cause. One such truth is the metaphor of the great circle of life. That is the story of birth (beginning), growth or maturity (ascent), then declension or death (descent), followed by rebirth or resurrection, whose cycle has been observed and experienced by every man in every age since the beginning of human consciousness.
The self-evident truth of the great circle of life is that it points to the fact that everything has a beginning and an end[4]. It cries out that everything begins with God the great designer and ends with God who is the goal and foundation of all creation. The circle did not create itself. It had to have a beginning and its cause has to be empirically adequate to explain it. The only empirically adequate explanation is God. The great circle tells us that everything is given birth in the mind of God, then it comes into what we call reality, where it begins to grow and mature. It then it reaches a point where it begins to decline and then dies. Then finally it experiences rebirth or resurrection into a different form of existence. God as the uncreated one is the beginning and end of this circle. In this, all of life and nature becomes a metaphor that points to God as first cause and creator of everything[5]. Therefore, God as first cause is the foundation of all self-evident truth and He Himself is the self-evident truth. His self-evident existence is the foundation on which the law of cause and effect has been built on, which says that every effect must have a cause, equal to, or greater than itself. This circle is imprinted on the human psyche as a need for a first cause, which is great enough to explain itself and all things. To deny this circle is to deny human nature and even intelligent consciousness[6].
Self-evident Truth and the Founding Fathers
As stated above, our Founding Fathers believed that the existence of God was a self-evident truth, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…”. The fathers started with what they call the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, which infers that there is a creator and that his existence is self-evident. If there is no self-evident creator, there can be no self-evident truth or common sense of any kind. But, according to the Founding Fathers, there is self-evident truth. Therefore, in their thinking, there must be a Creator that is as self-evident as himself. I bring up the Founding Fathers not because their faith proves the existence of God, but rather to show that these brilliant men understood that all thinking had to have an ultimate foundation to build on, and that foundation had to be conscious and intelligent. Otherwise, there would be no foundation for human reason, to reason from.
However, naturalists contradict all of these ideas when they try to tell us that things go or move from the lower (primitive) to the higher (complex). They tell us that consciousness came from unconsciousness and life from the nonliving and that something came from nothing. In this, they deny the existence of God along with the idea of all self-evident truth and the universal law of cause and effect. To try to justify their belief system, they must take us to the unreal world of theoretical science where they attempt to turn their assumptions into facts. Of course, for the unbiased person science is neutral when it comes to the question of the existence of God. In fact, The U.S. 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.”[7]
In order to further justify themselves, naturalists tell us that things were different at the beginning, which no one would disagree with, however, was the law of cause and effect different? If so, where is the proof? They then say, without one shred of evidence, that in the beginning the right nonliving stuff came together with some other nonliving stuff by accident, almost miraculously, to form life and consciousness. They say this even though they claim not to believe in miracles or consciousness. What faith! It is not surprising that when they propose this hypothesis they seldom give the mathematical odds[8] of this happening, which would make their theory harder to believe than the God hypothesis. From all of this, it does seem that it takes a lot of faith to be an unbeliever.
In saying that the greater comes from the lower; that life comes from non-life and consciousness from non-consciousness, they must invert the cosmic order of things and discard the law of cause and effect to be able to proclaim that the greater came from the lesser. Yet, in the real world, we see the lesser coming from the greater, the seed from a tree, the boy from the man, the machine from the human.
Some Hard Questions
This leaves them with some hard questions. Why is life not coming from non-life now? Why did it even happen in the first place? Why is there something and not nothing? Do you know, there was a time when some scientists did claim that life was still coming from non-life, then another scientist definitely proved that they were wrong[9]. However, it does seem that with all of the knowledge and technology available, scientists could reproduce the effects and duplicate what happened in the beginning, yet they have not.[10] In all of this, atheists must take exception to or ignore the natural order of cause and effect, which says the lesser must come from the greater or equal.[11]
Furthermore, how could order come out of disorder or chaos? Who or what put everything in order? The atheist will respond that the laws of nature brought about the order. But how could a mindless universe come up with the laws of nature? Where did the laws of nature come from[12]? If there are no laws of nature, how could human reason know anything about nature beyond what our immediate common sense experiences tell us? Reason does not work well with chaos; it needs order and laws to make inferences. Reason has forced the materialist into the corner of randomness and chaos wherein they must deny any design in the universe, for to do so would leave the door open for God. So, they must deny the self-evident truth that there is design in the universe. Design is so self-evident that some will admit it, then quickly add, “it only appears to have design.” So, it appears to have design but it does not actually have it? This is like saying that something that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, is not a duck. Many are blind to self-evident truth, but not that blind. Here, they reflect the words of the apostle Paul, “Claiming themselves to be wise without God, they became utter fools instead” (Rom 1:22).
Of course, there are ways that one could justify this upside-down way of looking at nature. By far the easiest way would be to stand on your head or maybe you could deny that consciousness is superior to unconsciousness? This could be plausible, because some men’s consciousness reminds me of a rock. However, even those men can pick up a rock and move it, thereby demonstrating their superiority to it. The rock in and of itself can never be the first cause and the man who moves the rock can’t be devoid of life and intelligence. Intelligent life is always the prime mover.
One might also argue that consciousness is an illusion and makes an appeal to the subatomic level as real reality. But again, that would seem to undermine the validity of human reason. If our senses cannot know reality, how can we trust our reason? In denying reasonable consciousness, the naturalist undermines the very reason he is claiming to stand on. If there is no consciousness, but only a swerving mass of atoms, how could they trust their brain or reason to deny the existence of God? Darwin himself being a naturalist had doubts about mans power to reason correctly. He said in a letter to a friend “with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”[13]
In all of this, the atheist and naturalist must go against the cosmic order that is set forth in the real world of our senses and they must opt to see everything through the assumption and belief system of naturalism which blinds them to the self-evident truth of God, and many other truths. It leads to believing that consciousness came from the lesser unconsciousness (lifeless matter)—that life came from lifelessness. Could you say that atheism is the natural way or the self-evident way of looking at things? I think only if you are living in another world, a one dimensional world created by the schemes of men.
[1] Unfortunately, the case can be made that when suppressed it will break out in the form of addiction to alcohol, drugs, sex and the occult.
[2] Infants are hard-wired to believe in God, and atheism has to be learned, according to an Oxford University psychologist. Dr Olivera Petrovich told a University of Western Sydney conference on the psychology of religion that even preschool children constructed theological concepts as part of their understanding of the physical world. Psychologists have debated whether belief in God or atheism was the natural human state. According to Dr Petrovich, an expert in psychology of religion, belief in God is not taught but develops naturally. She told The Age yesterday that belief in God emerged as a result of other psychological development connected with understanding causation. It was hard-wired into the human psyche, but it was important not to build too much into the concept of God. “It’s the concept of God as creator, primarily,” she said. Dr Petrovich said her findings were based on several studies, particularly one of Japanese children aged four to six, and another of 400 British children aged five to seven, from seven different faiths. “Atheism is definitely an acquired position,” she said. The Age July 2008 by Barnet Zwartz. www theage.com.
[3] Some atheists will argue that the universe only has an appearance of design, but in reality it doesn’t have any design.
[4] The majority of scientists now believe the universe had a beginning (the big bang theory) and that it will eventually end or run down (law of thermodynamics).
[5] God created all things. It is another question to ask of how he did it; fast or slow.
[6] Many atheists like Sam Harris have reached the point where they are beginning to deny intelligent consciousness. This is the logical end of atheism and naturalism.
[7] Taken from “Who made God?, Searching for a Theory of Everything” by Fay Weldon Edgar Andrews
[8] The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of a universe conducive to life, occurring by chance is 1 in 1010123. Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny, New York: The Free Press, 1998, p.9
[9] There was a time when some scientists believed in spontaneous generation, however, this theory was disproven by Louis Pasteur when he established beyond a shadow of a doubt that spontaneous generation is impossible under present day conditions. Even if science were to create life in the laboratory, it would only confirm that the lesser comes from the greater. For such an experiment would show that it took consciousness to arrange the elements to make life.
[10] In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment created some of the chemical ingredients that are found in basic life forms. However, the scientists’ claim, that they had done this by reproducing early earth conditions, has been proven false. Plus, it is basically a false presupposition that they created life. A few of the building blocks of life is not life. A few bricks are is not a house. Even if science were to create life in the laboratory, it would only confirm that the lesser comes from the greater. For such an experiment would show that it took consciousness to arrange the elements to make life.
[11] If super consciousness is a necessary cause of consciousness, and the law of cause and effect states that the cause must be greater than the effect, then the presence of consciousness necessarily implies the presence of super consciousness. The presence of super consciousness, however, does not imply that consciousness will occur. The same could be said of life. If life is a necessary cause of life, then the presence of life necessarily implies the presence of super life.
[12] I had an atheist answer this question. His answer was that the laws were always there .i.e. eternal. So, we can believe in eternal laws that control and govern the universe, but we cannot believe in an eternal God or an eternal law giver. It seems that as long as we believe in a mindless first cause the atheists are happy.
[13] Darwin’s quota: Letter to William Graham, Down (July 3, 1881), In the life and letters of Charles Darwin including an Autobiographical Chapter, edited by Francis Darwin (London: John Murry, Albernarle Street, 1887), Vol. 1, 315-316.
Science Against Abortion
The Timid Preachers Among Us
- The Timid Preachers Among Us
Ephesians 5:11-13
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light.
In my interaction with the clergy and those in full time religious work, I hear a lot of concerns about the faith becoming irrelevant for the majority of the people. I think this is and should be a real concern, because this isn’t an idle observation or concern, but the truth. Religious leaders have become ill, relative to the people in western culture. The clergy has become a group of people whose sole purpose is to make their people feel good, inflate the membership and teach them abstract doctrines that have no relationship to real life, or sometimes God.
It seems that most religious leaders are quite content with being muzzled by our secular culture that would and has relegated the clergy to second-rate citizens that are not allowed to speak about politics in the public square or in their pulpits. This seems to be true even though the government and society is corrupt and doing evil things.
I think the thing that bothers me the most about all of this is that the clergy in private seems to think of themselves as great defenders of the truth. However, the only truth they stand for is truth that is convenient and non-offensive. This all becomes quite obvious, when you look through Face book and see an amazing absence of any real content posted by preachers. Most of the posts that are submitted about the corruption of politicians and government are posted by laypeople. Little is said by the clergy about anything that is controversial. So the Christian movement has become an army of foot soldiers with its officers hiding behind the wall of separation between the church and state. By the way, that wall was erected by a corrupt politician, Senator Lyndon Johnson in 1954, and then voted in by a bipartisan ballot in Congress. Just think, large corporations can do anything they want politically and yet nonprofits like churches, American Legion and veterans organizations have no say, less they lose their tax-free status.
The consequence of this withdrawal from the real world is that the church and its leadership have ceased being the light of the world and the salt of the earth. They are more like sugar and spice and everything nice. The result is; the world, western culture, and the church, are filled with corruption and decay. My counsel to the clergy is for them to take their heads out of the sand. Stop speaking platitudes to the choir and get your holy hands dirty and engage the world. If you haven’t noticed there is a war going on.
Religion Poisons Everything Or Does It?
Religion Poisons Everything Or Does It?
In the August first edition 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 sunk 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 and poisons everything.
This study seems to support the idea that religion has contributed to the creation of morality and unity 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.
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.
A Letter to a Liberal about the Muslim Faith
A Letter to a Liberal about the Muslim Faith
(please read the footnotes)
I would like to share a correspondence that I had with a person about a number of issues pertaining to Islam and the liberal[1] Western response to it. I have found it difficult to find a general expression that would tell the reader where that person was coming from, e.g., liberal, conservative, or progressive. So, let me just give you some facts about her. She is middle-aged, white, middle-class, well-educated with at least a Master’s degree and not overly religious. These are the facts. It is my opinion that she is probably a conservative liberal in her political and social philosophy.
Our correspondence began when I sent her a well-documented article (by someone else)on the violence committed by some of those who claim to be Muslim. The article was tasteful with full documentation which was beyond question. In response to my letter, I received a short, curt reply[2] which simply compared what the article showed about the numerous acts of terrorism committed by those affiliated with the Muslim faith with two acts of violence done by Christians in the United States. Of course, it was completely overlooked by the person that the two acts of violence by so-called Christians had nothing to do with their religion and the acts of violence were not done in the name of God. The following is my response to my middle-class, white American conservative liberal:
“You said you were surprised that I would tolerate what you call ‘that stuff.’ Well, I’m equally surprised how tolerant you seem to be of the Muslim religion. Would you be as tolerant if it were the Christian religion doing the killing and suppressing people’s rights around the world? I did note some prejudice toward Christianity in your short remarks[3]. I also noted a judgment made without any evidence on what you call ‘that stuff.’ Now is that tolerance? If a man is wrong, tell me how he is wrong, and I will consider the evidence. To belittle someone’s thinking by calling it ‘that stuff’ would presuppose that you have a great number of facts to back up your opinion. I would sincerely be interested in seeing those facts. I’m very much into facts.
I would like to refer you to the meaning of tolerance in the dictionary. Tolerance by its very nature includes a negative judgment on the subject in view. I tolerate people who I disagree with, yet because of other principles or considerations, I remain in a relationship with them. A good friend of mine is a womanizer, and yet I tolerate him hoping he will change through my influence on him. The time might come when my tolerance wears thin, and I tell him to take a hike. Today when people use the word tolerance, they have taken the idea of a negative judgment out of it, which means that what they’re talking about is no longer tolerance but something else. If you can articulate what that something else is, please let me know (sincerely). When it comes to Muslims, I can tolerate some easier than others. My level of tolerance depends on their level of commitment to their faith, that is, their prophet and their book. I’ll say more about this later. (If you are reading this and fancy yourself as a progressive, I really would like your definition of tolerance. My friend never answered.)
I personally have done a good deal of research on the subject of Islam[4]. My conclusion is that it is a bad religion. Therefore, I have an obligation to speak out against it. However, I still tolerate the Muslim people in the true sense of the word. I wish the Muslim people only the best, which would entail their deliverance from their bad religion. As a true liberal America, I do not tolerate the Muslim prejudice and hate speech toward the Jews or other religious groups, nor their practice of polygamy, as well as much of their cultural view of women in general. Their lack of tolerance for religious freedom and free speech borders on that of the Nazis and Communists. I have little tolerance for such behavior. On the other hand, I can tolerate and even agree with some of their religious beliefs, traditions, and culture and at the same time disagree with them on other things. Tolerance does not mean that one has to pretend that you accept everyone’s beliefs as equal to your own. This includes religious beliefs. In order to do that, you would have to be a complete relativist and a perfect egalitarian. I am neither.
From your remarks, it seems that you believe that Muslim terrorism is a small isolated problem similar to that of Tim McVey and Waco. I’d have to agree that Waco was an act of terrorism, but I’m not sure who the terrorists were, the cult or the government. I respectively disagree with your comparison of Tim McVey, Christianity, and Muslim extremists. There is absolutely no comparison to a few acts of violence committed by a handful of men in a small cult, with what is happening throughout the world by the hands of thousands of Muslims, possibly hundreds of thousands or even millions. If you’re worried about offending people, I would worry about offending Christians with that comparison. You cannot point to one predominantly Muslim country where Christians and Jews are not being persecuted by Muslims. In India, they seem to like to target Buddhists and Hindus as well. By the way, this information is suppressed to a large degree by the media in the West. It would make an interesting intellectual pursuit to understand why the media is so blind to the violence of this religion. Could it be a progressive ideology that blinds them to the fact that pluralism is nothing more than a myth? Of course, the media and academia were blind to Hitler and the Communists, as well.
In fact, the only places that have true religious freedom are Western Europe and the United States, countries that have been influenced by Christianity and classic liberalism and have not yet been brought under the spell of atheistic communism and Islam. I say this to point out that freedom is rare and should be protected from all that would destroy it. It is quite obvious that the common denominator among the nations where people are persecuted for their religious faith and speaking out for freedom is where either the majority is Muslim or the oligarchy is atheist. There is every reason to believe that when the numbers of Muslims or atheists reach a large enough number in any country, persecution of other religions and beliefs will start. In Europe where Muslims number 15% to 20% of the population, people are already being intimidated by threats of death if they speak out against Islam. There’s no reason to think it will not happen in our future. In fact, at their present birth rate Muslims will be one of the biggest political groups in the country by 2050. Some estimate the number as high as 40 to 50 million.
I have read the Koran and found the flaws in Islam are not so much in its followers as in its founder and its holy Book. There are at least 100 verses in the Koran telling Muslims to kill the people of the Book (Christians and Jews)[5]. These passages have been softened in some English versions of the Koran. Mohammad himself was a polygamist, pedophile[6], and a terrorist (of course, you may try to excuse this on cultural grounds). To say this in any Muslim country publicly would cost me my life[7]. For a Muslim to build bridges with Christians and Jews, it would involve them denying their own Holy Book and their prophet. Now that is a real possibility. We have an example of this happening with numerous Christians who deny much of the New Testament because of the secular brainwashing they have received in our public schools. I personally don’t think the Muslim community is going to buy into that brainwashing; one thing that I respect about Muslims is the level of their commitment to their faith. I based the above opinion on the fact that they have not assimilated into Western culture in Europe.
Let me also point out that there is a huge difference between Christianity and the Muslim faith. In Christianity, the flaw is with the followers and not with the leader (Jesus) or with the message of the book (New Testament). However, the very opposite is true of the Muslim faith. The flaw is not only in some of the disciples or followers but rather with the prophet and the revelation (the book).
Let me hasten to point out that I am no more friendly toward some Christian sects than I am toward some of the Muslim sects. The Calvinists of the Middle Ages were a mean lot and some Roman Catholics did some harm during the Inquisition. However, most of this abuse has been greatly embellished by atheists and secular folks to bring reproach on Christianity. I would also say that most organized religion is a form of idolatry, and I include the Christian religion. Therefore, I have very little love for most organized religion. Jesus said the truth will set you free. He did not say that religion would set you free. All religions should be watched for abuses; this includes the Christian religion. One sect of the Muslim faith, the Baha’i is a very peaceful religious sect, and I can fully tolerate their beliefs and would, from a human point of view, grade their religion as being good. However, they have been viciously persecuted by their own Muslim brothers in every country where they exist.
Before we start building bridges, I think it would be good to do some real research and have some real debate on where we are building those bridges to. In the 1930s, many were saying that we should be building bridges with the Nazis and then in the 1940s they were saying we should be building bridges with the communists. If the 30s and 40s proved anything, they demonstrated that Americans are naïve and gullible. We should learn from history to watch ourselves. Bridge building is fine if you mean by it a dialogue. I’ll dialogue with anyone who will speak in good faith and carry on an honest debate, but at the same time I’ll be watching what they do and not just listening to what they say.
Now, in this I am not saying that the Muslim people as a whole are evil. I have a number of Muslim friends who are good people. However, like most ethnic groups and ideological groups, they all tend to support the same ethnic and ideological groups that they are members of. Most of the Germans in the 30s and 40s were not Nazis and by human standards the majority of them were nice people. Nevertheless, when it came to the war, they supported the Nazis. Most people are like sheep that will follow the leader. Many of the Muslim leaders have a will to power and are evil. Yes, I still believe in evil. Because people are like sheep and follow their leaders, you should not judge a movement, ideology, or a religion by what the average person believes or does, but rather by the foundational beliefs and the goals of its leadership. In the case of the Muslim faith, there are a large number of their leaders who want to destroy the Jews and every other religious faith that will not bow the knee to Mohammad. I personally don’t feel any obligation to tolerate these leaders, to accept them, or to ignore their behavior or speech. To me, this would border on insanity.
It is extremely important for our culture in order to stay free to label and resist any religion or ideology that would rob us of freedom. Just because a group calls itself a religion does not give it the right to be insensitive to the feelings and emotions of others. They may have a right under the Constitution to build a mosque on Ground Zero, but the same Constitution gives those whom their offending the right to protest their building of that mosque. I find it very strange that a religion, which says it wants to build bridges of peace and healing, would be so insensitive that when hearing that 70% of the people don’t want that mosque built there, would not immediately change their plans.
I would invite you to read and study some good books on the Muslim faith before building too many bridges. I purposely did not use the Bible to discredit the Muslim faith because I believe that it is self-evident that Muslim beliefs contradict much of the teachings of Jesus. Please excuse me for any “rambling on” that may be in this letter. I realize there are many other points that I could expound on that would clarify my beliefs on this topic even more, if time would allow. If you cannot tolerate my opinions, I will take you off my mailing list if that is your wish. It is not my purpose to offend or upset people but just to present facts to thoughtful people who may be seeking the truth.”
Following is a list of a few books you might be interested in:
The Hidden Origins of Islam (An academic book that researches the origin of Islam)
Islam and Terrorism (by Mark A. Gabriel Ph.D., former professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar University Cairo, Egypt.)
The Unseen Face of Islam.(by Bill Musk)
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran (by Robert Spencer. This book is a critique of the Koran in comparison to the teachings of the Bible and Christianity.)
The Koran (Islam’s Holy Book)
[1] When I use the word liberal I am using it to denote those people that have embraced the ideology of liberalism.
[2] This is a typical response of the liberals I have encountered. Not much content.
[3] Liberals in general have a negative biased towards Christianity. One reason for this is that Christianity rivals Liberalism for the high ground of morals and ethics and is it sole competitor on the stage of ethics and intellectual rigor. In essence, Christianity is liberalism’s chief competitor in the world of ideas.
[4] I do not consider myself an expert on Islam. However, I have read a number books on Islam and the Koran.
[5] Sometimes it is hard to determine who the Koran is referring to as unbelievers. Some Moslems believe that it is only talking about people who attack Islam.
[6] Mohammed married a nine-year-old girl and consummated the relationship. For some this can be justified culturally. I leave it up to the reader.
[7] In contrast Christianity has tolerated attacks on its belief system and its founding documents since the time of the Enlightenment. They have defended themselves not with violence but with intellectual argument.
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
Dogma?
“Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human. When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined skepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded” C.K. Chesterton.
The world is filled with ideas, and many of those ideas could be classified as dogmas. Now, a dogma is an idea that has hardened to a point that is no longer thought about but just accepted on authority. The word dogma is not used as much today, this may be because it sounds too religious for a secular age, which itself has accepted the dogma of secularism. However, we do have a word or idea that is very close to it. It is the word presumption. A presumption is an idea that we take for granted without much thought or for the most part, without any or little thought.
In view of the above it is a self-event truth that all men have and live by dogma to some degree. One thing that can be said about the religious man is that he has accepted parts of his faith as dogma while the secular man is still in a state of denial, believing he is living by reason alone or in some neutral zone free of presumption or dogma. He has reached the unconsciousness of grass and he glories in it calling it tolerance or enlightenment.
Of course, there are some men who have very little dogma. Some of these folks fancied themselves as skeptics. Skeptics claim not to live by or believe dogma according to their dogma. The only dogma that they can believe is the dogma of skepticism. According to them, you must doubt everything except skepticism. Then you have the agnostics who believe nothing because they believe that it is impossible to be certain about the truth. Of course, they are certain agnosticism is true. We should not leave out the relativist which believes everything and nothing, and that everyone is right except the person that believes others are wrong. Of course, they believe that the skeptics, and the agnostics are right. The only person that they do not agree with is the dogmatist. They do not seem to like people who think they know something which is true.
Out of all of the above, the relativist is the one most likely to be tossed about by every wind of teaching that comes along, for they lack a foundation of truth by which to judge any new ideas. As it has been said, “a man who believes nothing will believe anything.” In fact, the relativist really does not believe in objective truth. What they believe in, is personal truth, i.e. truth is what you believe. What makes it true is that you believe it. Most of these folks belong to the same cult, the cult of personal opinion.
The relativist are also the most likely to become fanatical and completely out of balance. Many progressive folks fall within this group always moving forward without knowing which direction is forward; always seeing a cause to give their meaningless life purpose. To me, the really progressive person is the one that when traveling in a direction that is not working turns around and goes in a different direction, like back. Of course, if you are a relativist you don’t know which way is back.
It may be time for all of us to ask some serious questions about some of our new dogmas. Question like, are they really taking us forward or are they simply getting us deeper into the woods. So, deep that we will never find our way out. Why not try putting some of your dogmas, or the lack of it to the test? Start with your religious assumptions using the Bible as an objective standard to judge your ideas. You do not have to believe it, but simply use it as a source of information to compare your personal dogma with. You also might try the same exercise politically with the Constitution and other founding documents. In doing this you might find these source documents truly refreshing and challenging.
Lyle Duell 