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.'"
I did answer. I agreed with dmz's post.
Folks who want to talk about science should have some knowledge of science.
But you go on to state that those doing science need to listen to religious folk. Hence my claim that religious dogma has never led to a scientific discovery.
Did I say religious dogma led to scientific discovery? I don't think I did.
Hmmm....I don't know...maybe religious belief has led to scientific discovery...I certainly don't want to spend any more time researching this now.
Since this is sch an important issue for you, you could start a thread on it. See what other posters have to say about your assertion.
See my post that suggests you start a thread on the topic you are interested in.
Whew!! This is a big topic and you keep enlarging it.
Your statement/questions deserve a thread of their own.
God can nether be proved or disproved by science so either position is an act of faith... at least the believers are honest in there position in saying there is in fact faith
I'm only saying that science and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They can (possibly) enhance one another.
Scientists don't throw away their "non-scientific" knowledge of, say, language or history, when they work in their labs.
My brother didn't give up his love of languages when he worked at Argonne many years ago. He still loves learning languages like Japanese and Arabic, even though his work days are filled with solving computer-related issues in Boston.
My daughter is an artist and a soon-to-be-graduate in biochemistry. Can her skills in sculpture and her artistic imagination contribute to her work in the genetics lab?
Folks who want to eradicate religion from science seem a tad limited to me.
Chuck Norris BUMP!!
I didn't say you did. I was trying to explain my thinking.
I guess I'd better give up posting to you. Sorry about all the misunderstandings.
But again, what one considers 'convincing evidence or proof' another does not. So it is still a step of faith.
I've never understood the concept of proof that a deity does not exist.
Perhaps. But there are others who proclaim that the evidences pointed to for evolution prove God does not exist, or that the troubles in the world prove that God does not exist. While you and I might disagree with their stances, it is what they have chosen to believe and no amount of evidence or proof to the contrary will convince them.
But generally in any debate it is the responsibility of the person claiming the existence of something to supply proof.
Ah, but once again, what one person considers proof, another will choose not to accept. Ultimately, we all choose what we will believe.
Sigh!
I’m not making an argument for anything. I was only pointing out the original argument could be used equally to argue for or against the the belief in God, and therefore was not an argument at all.
I have no objection to your belief in God. Look at all the scientist who believe in GUT (grand unified theory of everything). As far as I’m concerned there is as much reason to believe in GUT as there is in God, I’m unconvinced of either, but plenty of bright people are convinced. As long as we’re all free to believe and live by what our best reason convinces us is true, that’s all the matters to me.
Hank
Does a bartender rely on faith when he rejects the teenage kid's ID as fake? That ID may have been 'convincing evidence or proof' of age to a less experienced bartender.
But there are others who proclaim that the evidences pointed to for evolution prove God does not exist
Like I said, I've never understood that. One simply has to define a deity as being able to set up everything to look like evolution happened. The religious have the advantage in that they get to define whatever they want.
or that the troubles in the world prove that God does not exist
Same there, but that one is because Christians have chosen to define their deity as being all-good and therefore have to do some logical gymnastics that are unacceptable to many in order to get around the problem of all the troubles in the world. It's not a problem with the existence of God, but of the definition.
While you and I might disagree with their stances, it is what they have chosen to believe and no amount of evidence or proof to the contrary will convince them.
Their logic is just faulty for the argument. The problem comes from one side using logic and the other using faith. Those with faith get to move the goalposts and redefine the situation to get around any logic. So those atheists are really fighting a battle that can't be won on that playing field.
Ah, but once again, what one person considers proof, another will choose not to accept.
True, but it does not necessarily involve faith. I'd probably be fooled by the fake ID above, accepting it as proof. But that's just my ignorance.
Now many people do have preconceived ideas, closed minds and/or a stake in the matter, and therefore won't accept evidence because of the larger implications. Those of us who don't accept man-made global warming are often falsely accused of this, and in some cases probably rightly accused. Does this mean we have faith that man-made global warming isn't happening? I think we're looking for ulterior motives, not faith.
Yes, the bartender makes a choice what he/she will believe about the ID. (The exception, of course, would be if the bartender knew this kid all his life, in which case, the kid is just stupid.)
Same there, but that one is because Christians have chosen to define their deity as being all-good and therefore have to do some logical gymnastics that are unacceptable to many in order to get around the problem of all the troubles in the world.
So it seems logical to you to argue that since people do bad things, God couldn't be all good? That doesn't seem logical to me, but it seems logical to others.
The problem comes from one side using logic and the other using faith.
As has already been shown in this post (and others), logic is in the eye of the beholder.
True, but it does not necessarily involve faith.
What one chooses to accept or reject as evidence is generally based upon what one has decided to place their faith in (God or natural processes or whatever).
Now many people do have preconceived ideas, closed minds and/or a stake in the matter, and therefore won't accept evidence because of the larger implications.
We have all closed our minds around certain ideas. That is not to say we can't chose to later open our minds to something else, but it is a choice to do so. If there is no God, then there is nothing good or bad about opening or closing one's mind. It just is what it is.
Does this mean we have faith that man-made global warming isn't happening?
Yes, just as those who claim it is happening have chosen to have faith that it is.
I think we're looking for ulterior motives, not faith.
A person's ulterior motives, if and when discovered, would reveal something about that person's true faith.
There is no choice involved at all on the part of the bartender. Absolutely zero. The law is he must reject a forged document. Given that, he doesn't choose to believe or not that the hologram on the license is missing. He instead observes that it is missing, compares it to the fact that the hologram should be there, and rejects the license based on the evidence. See? No choice, no belief, no faith.
Well, there could be a choice, but it's more along the lines of whether to accept the $50 bribe to ignore the forged license.
So it seems logical to you to argue that since people do bad things, God couldn't be all good?
It's especially clear when bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own or of other people. They call them "Acts of God" for a reason. And those acts are usually bad.
As has already been shown in this post (and others), logic is in the eye of the beholder.
To an extent. There is logic, and then there is logic twisted by an agenda. A person of faith must subordinate logic to his faith. This is visible in the "creation scientists" who say all evidence must fit their faith, twisted logic is used to eliminate any that doesn't.
What one chooses to accept or reject as evidence is generally based upon what one has decided to place their faith in (God or natural processes or whatever).
If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you have faith, everything looks like faith. You are projecting.
We have all closed our minds around certain ideas. That is not to say we can't chose to later open our minds to something else, but it is a choice to do so.
It is a choice about whether to honestly look at the evidence. Faith or being closed-minded, or having an agenda or ulterior motive can influence this choice. It is not faith to honestly evaluate and then reject unconvincing evidence.
Yes, just as those who claim it is happening have chosen to have faith that it is.
For some, I'm sure. For others, not. I accept Evolution based on the evidence. I don't believe in it. I don't have faith in it. Others accept global warming based on the evidence. I admit the global warming evidence looks fairly convincing, but the multiple agendas behind it call into question the credibility of the evidence and its presentation to the public. Others don't realize the agendas exist, so they accept the evidence out of ignorance and/or a lack of caution.
Yet others accept global warming only because they're environmentalist whackos who think humans are evil, they get big research grants off of it, they make boatloads of money off the carbon credit scam, or they're someone like Gore who gets to stay famous off of it instead of sliding back into obscurity.
A person's ulterior motives, if and when discovered, would reveal something about that person's true faith.
See what I mean? Everything boils down to faith. There is no concept of rationally looking at evidence, basing opinions on past experience and knowledge, accepting or rejecting things based on credible evidence or lack thereof, without any faith involved. I think you are covering several different words and concepts with the word "faith."
BTTT
He has a choice whether to believe the document is forged or not.
He instead observes that it is missing, compares it to the fact that the hologram should be there, and rejects the license based on the evidence. See? No choice, no belief, no faith.
He still has to have faith that no one has figured out how to forge the ID and that his assessment that the person pictured on the ID is the person standing before him. Governments change the format of IDs (and money) all the time because someone HAS figured out how to replicate the old format. People change their appearance all the time (hair, glasses, beard/no beard, plastic surgery, etc), and bars are not exactly lighted brightly.
It's especially clear when bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own or of other people.
Again, this shows that logic is in the eye of the beholder. It seems illogical to me to assume God is not all good because bad things happen. To you, it appears to be a logical conclusion.
There is logic, and then there is logic twisted by an agenda.
And naturally, the people on each side of an issue think those on the opposing side are the ones twisting logic.
A person of faith must subordinate logic to his faith.
Perhaps, but that would include those who have faith in their position that God does not exist. ;)
If you have faith, everything looks like faith.
So you can prove your position as regards the existence of God without a doubt to anyone? No, of course you can't. Therefore, you have faith, just like everyone else.
I accept Evolution based on the evidence.
You have faith that the interpretations of the evidence given by scientists are correct.
I don't believe in it. I don't have faith in it.
Perhaps your faith is in the scientists, and the belief in evolution is the byproduct of that. But you believe it based on faith.
There is no concept of rationally looking at evidence, basing opinions on past experience and knowledge, accepting or rejecting things based on credible evidence or lack thereof, without any faith involved.
People may use those things you've listed as they are deciding what they will believe. But ultimately, they choose to have faith in something or someone for whatever reasons they choose.
I think you are covering several different words and concepts with the word "faith."
Perhaps that is what you have chosen to believe. ;)
He cannot be honest, do his job and still make a choice. Either the ID meets the requirements according to his knowledge, or it does not. The determination of validity flows from the facts and his knowledge, not a choice on his part. In this sense, he is operating as a machine, accepting input, matching it to criteria, and giving the resultant output. You would have to say the machine has faith and "believes" the ID is real. That either can be fooled is irrelevant.
He still has to have faith that no one has figured out how to forge the ID
For the rest of this, you are still using the word "faith" to cover many other terms. You would say I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. You probably personally do, as to you everything is faith. Back in reality it is a reasonable expectation based on experience and knowledge.
Have you always been an atheist?
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.