Posted on 05/21/2007 12:32:22 AM PDT by goldstategop
C.S. Lewis, the former atheist and famous Oxford scholar, once said "Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...."
There are a myriad of eminent scholars (like Lewis) who understand the folly of atheism. I will list a few others in this second part of my treatise to expose atheists' agenda to ban Christianity from the courts of culture. In my last article I discussed "step 1" of their plan. In this discourse I will address steps 2 & 3.
Step two: target younger generations with atheism
Atheists are making a concerted effort to win the youth of America and the world. Hundreds of web sites and blogs on the Internet seek to convince and convert adolescents, endeavoring to remove any residue of theism from their minds and hearts by packaging atheism as the choice of a new generation. While you think your kids are innocently surfing the Web, secular progressives are intentionally preying on their innocence and naïveté.
What's preposterous is that atheists are now advertising and soliciting on websites particularly created for teens. The London Telegraph noted that, "Groups including Atheists for Human Rights and Atheist Alliance International – ‘Call 1-866-HERETIC' - are setting up summer camps and an internet recruiting campaign."
YouTube, the most popular video site on the Net for young people, is one of their primary avenues for passing off their secularist propaganda. Another antagonistic and self-proclaimed "blasphemous" site even beckons youth to record their anti-Christian beliefs on it.
Even Oxford scientist Richard Dawkins is on personal campaign and militant quest to spread his name, books, and atheism all over the Internet by hoping young people will post his graphics on their MySpace page. Rather than question or critique his methods as slick marketing, young atheists are proud to post his links, follow and defend him like a religious sage, and cite his texts as infallible truth.
Step three: package and promote atheism as reasonable and scientific>/b>
Presenting atheism as scientific fact might be secularists' greatest plan and others point of greatest gullibility, in hope of winning the battle for the ultimate view of reality. And hailed as their chief advocates are men like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, Oxford University's ethologist and evolutionary biologist, with his book, "The God Delusion," atheists' newest "bible" or authoritative text.
So what credentials does a man like Dawkins have to discuss the presence or absence of God? Answer: He's "a scientist." And the fact is anyone in our age who is a naturalist professor or wears a white lab coat can virtually speak upon any issue (even God) and their words are received as gospel – unless of course they are a theist!
What's interesting is that atheists like Dawkins fall into the same snare they accuse of theists. While he might condemn Christians like me for not being educated enough to speak about theism or creation, his own expertise remains outside the realm of antagonism that defines his world crusade. To make dogmatic assertions about the absence of God and not possess expertise in cosmology, astrophysics, or even theology gives him no more of a credible platform than you and me, except to his devoted followers of course. He is an ethologist and evolutionary biologist – since when does that make one an expert on God? (Similarly, Sam Harris has a bachelor's in philosophy – since when does that make one an expert on the universe?)
Dawkins condemns Christians for being narrow minded and non-adaptive to other cultures which believed in Thor or Zeus, yet he is unwavering in disrespecting any other creation authority except Western science. What about the wisdom of African, Middle-Eastern or Far-Eastern sages, shamans, or religious figures? Just because science can explain many things in the natural realm, does that mean it owns the corner market on metaphysics and God?
Is it possible that the scientific worldview is inferior to reveal the truths behind the curtain of creation?
Even Paul Davies, the renown British-born physicist, agnostic, professor of cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology, said to Time, "Science, God, and Man," that no one can rightfully say there is no God. "Agnosticism – reserving judgment about divine purpose – remains as defensible as ever, but atheism – the confident denial of divine purpose – becomes trickier. If you admit that we can't peer behind a curtain, how can you be sure there's nothing there?"
John Horgan, a former senior staff writer for Scientific American and the Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, wrote a book titled, "The End of Science." In it he discusses the futility of men like Oxford's Dawkins, Cambridge's Hawking, and others pursuit to discover a "theory of everything." He agrees with Paul Davies in purporting that we must face the limits of science in the twilight of the scientific age, opting that the discovery of ultimate answers about the universe will not rely in rationale and empirical examination but possibly a metaphysical practice. (A striking similarity to the words in the Bible, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command...")
Of course for men like Harris, Dawkins, and other atheists, the thought that science cannot provide these ultimate answers must be a horrifying reality to face, as their whole lives depend upon the western-scientific paradigm of reality. Their predicament reminds me of the words of Robert Jastrow, American astronomer, physicist, and cosmologist, from his work, "God and the Astronomers"
The universe has a beginning….This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth….For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
Once again the Bible is proven correct, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no god.'"
Uh, since the Christian states he/she does not believe in Thor, I would say that would be evidence that he/she is NOT a Norseman. Perhaps that is what you meant to state.
At any rate, yes, no matter what position on takes as regards to God, it is a step of faith. Some positions have more evidence than others, but it is a step of faith none-the-less.
So does that mean atheists and agnostics can't rest because they don't know everything? If they can rest, what is it they rest in the belief of?
"Rest," as in to be at ease, in peace. Some people need to know everything, or know that it is at least known by someone, others don't have that need.
Under these criteria, it takes just as much faith for a Christian not to believe in Thor as it does for an atheist not to believe in God.
At any rate, yes, no matter what position on takes as regards to God, it is a step of faith.
Not really. An outlook is to say that it doesn't exist unless the existence is shown sufficiently. Almost any adult will state that Santa Claus as a person doesn't exist because of lack of proof and simple logical analysis of the claims. Same thing with some atheists.
Okay - not sure why you feel compelled to reiterate what I've already said.
Almost any adult will state that Santa Claus as a person doesn't exist because of lack of proof and simple logical analysis of the claims. Same thing with some atheists.
Actually, there is proof both ways, but neither side will admit that what the other presents is real proof. So. . .it's a step of faith either way.
Whatever floats one's boat. . .
Just accepting without being troubled by it. I don’t know what I’m going to eat for dinner tomorrow either, and I’m not worried about that.
If you ascribe faith relating to God to the atheist who denies him, then you should also ascribe faith relating to Thor to the Christian who denies him. But most Christians would probably take offense at being told they have faith relating to another religion.
Actually, there is proof both ways
There is? Last I checked, there have never been any anonymous presents under the tree for my kids. I know where each one came from, and it wasn't Santa. Are you seriously telling me you still believe in Santa?
I already did. Perhaps I wasn't clear in doing so. No matter what position one takes on God, it is a step of faith.
There is? Last I checked, there have never been any anonymous presents under the tree for my kids.
LOL Okay - let me clarify again. There is proof on both sides of the question of whether God exists or not, but neither side will accept the other's proof as proof.
You brought up the "science based on religion" argument, not I.
What a funny question to ask out of the blue like that.
You inferred that, incorrectly.
Since when are your eyes the sole source of your ability to experience the reality of something? You’re basing the nonexistence of God on the fact that He’s invisible?
weak.
Do our needs determine reality?
How about the general skeptical worldview that you don't accept anything as existing absent convincing evidence or proof? It applies to God, Thor and Santa. The greater the claim, or the greater the consequences of the claim, the higher the standard of required proof. I might easily believe a friend who said he caught a fish "THIS BIG," but I'm going to demand proof if I had $500 riding on it.
There is proof on both sides of the question of whether God exists or not, but neither side will accept the other's proof as proof.
I've never understood the concept of proof that a deity does not exist. The adherents merely need to ascribe to the deity attributes that cannot be known and omnipotency, and the existence will fall outside the bounds of any possible disproof.
but neither side will accept the other's proof as proof.
But generally in any debate it is the responsibility of the person claiming the existence of something to supply proof. Absent proof, the point dies on its own.
However, you're kind of missing the point if you'll only accept God based on proof.
I have to thank you for motivating me to compile a list of renowned scientists who were religious. What amazing men!!
I’ve bookmarked this thread so I can refer to these religious scientists in the future.
Thank you again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.