If There Is No God (Dennis Prager On The Consequences Of Secularism Alert)

Townhall.com ^ | 8/19/2008 | Dennis Prager

[goldstategop]

The consequences of secularism in the West and the subsequent demise of religion has brought about many dire consequences as Dennis Prager warns. The two most pernicious are the belief in nothing - there is nothing higher than one's self and no awareness of moral conundrums that exist and the substitution of Man as the ultimate authority in the place of The Creator. Nothing can prove the existence of God as the author admits; but without God we have neither true existence nor any rights to speak of that come from a Source Higher Then Us. If there is truly no God, then we will be consumed by every evil in the world.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[livius]

This is an excellent article. He looks at the question from a different perspective, and I don’t think there’s a thing he says that could be contradicted.

[TheWasteLand]

Thank you for the article.

I would add that the religious impulse in essentially universal, present in even the most zealous secular humanists, where, bereft of humility and conscience, it finds form in horror, a twisted perversion of itself.

[bpjam]

Just think - if there is no God then why bother with AIDS in Africa since it will just wipe out the population and we can then take it over and plunder the resources. We don’t need to worry about the poor or the diseased since they take up so much of the Federal budget.

And we sure don’t need to drop a dime in foreign aid or bother trying to stop drug use - or put up with Madonna music!!!!

Hell, let’s just become atheists and destroy the democrat party!!!!

[Soliton]

and I don’t think there’s a thing he says that could be contradicted

Of course you don't. People of faith will believe anything. You didn't notice that all of these statements were statements of opinion, not fact? I could rattle off a similar list for Christians. Here's one. 1. Christians cannot be said to be moral because they act not out of objective ethics, but out of fear of divine punishment or out of desire for divine reward.

[xzins]

People of faith will believe anything.

Irrational comment. Of course they won't believe "anything."

[chrisser]

"objective ethics"

Do you have any links that you recommend to describe this system? My anecdotal experience shows it to be oxymoronic, but I don't want to evaluate it based solely on what I've observed from self-described secularlists/aetheists.

[Lucky Dog]

Cogito ergo sum ---Descartes

From Descartes’ assertion, I conclude, like Descartes, that I exist. Similarly, I also conclude that which I unambiguously observe through my senses also exists.

One of the first axioms of logic is that “nothing comes from nothing,” or stated otherwise, there is a cause for all observed phenomena. Therefore, logically, since there is an observation of “existence,” it has a cause.

This bit of logic disallows, atheism and agnosticism. Consequently, the only remaining arguments possible are Theism and Deism. However, let me reinforce the point with some additional support:

Most people today think of Thomas Aquinas' writings when discussing traditional arguments for God's existence, embodied in his famous Five Ways, which argue:

• from motion to an Unmoved Mover
• from effects to a First Cause
• from contingent being to a Necessary Being
• from degrees of perfection to a Most Perfect Being
• from design in nature to a Designer of nature.

Philosophers recognize many arguments for the existence of God with varying degrees of seriousness. The major categories include:

• Moral (axiological) arguments
• Teleogical arguments—that is, design arguments
• Ontological arguments—the most controversial, lately revamped by Plantinga and others
• Cosmological arguments—from a first cause
• Historical arguments—for example, argument from miracles
• Arguments from religious experience
• Practical arguments—for example, Pascal's wager

If you accept from any one, or any combination of the arguments above, that God, in deed, does exist, the only remaining argument is concerning the nature of God. This argument is a entirely different subject.

[2banana]

To liberals:

Without God - I can do what I want and not feel guilty about it!

[tpanther]

Soliton’s confused...I think instead of “anything”, he means “nothing”.

Oh wait, that’s what HE beleives, nevermind.

[ripley]

“christians cannot be said to be moral because they act not out of objective ethics, but out of fear of divine punishment or out of desire for divine reward.”

atheists/secularists cannot be said to be moral because they act not out of objective ethics, but out of fear of punishment by those around them who would be victimized by their hubris, condescension and arrogance.

[Soliton]

One of the first axioms of logic is that “nothing comes from nothing,” or stated otherwise, there is a cause for all observed phenomena. Therefore, logically, since there is an observation of “existence,” it has a cause.

That is a false statement

[Soliton]

Of course they won't believe "anything."

Please name something that faith would rule out

[Lucky Dog]

That is a false statement

If you wish to play the game of gratuitous assertions, I will oblige.

Your statement is false.

[Brouhaha]

Hi Soliton,

Could you please help me understand why you have written that this is a false statement?

1) “One of the first axioms of logic is that ‘nothing comes from nothing’...”

Are you saying that this is not one of the first axioms of logic?

2) “or stated otherwise, there is a cause for all observed phenomena.”

If 1 is true, are you saying that this is an incorrect paraphrase of 1?

3) “Therefore, logically, since there is an observation of ‘existence,’ it has a cause.”

Are you saying that this conclusion does not follow from 1 as paraphrased in 2?

[xzins]

“People of faith will believe anything.” is what you said.

I can think of lots of things that I will not believe. (And, although your statement was future...”will”... I can think back through history of others who have not believed just anything.) And I know that of those living today that I can offer each of them something that they will not believe.

Your accusation applies to each of the people of faith. If each of them has something they will NOT believe, then it is falsified that they will believe “anything.”

[Soliton]

I stand by what I said. Faith is a flawed methodology for establishing truth.

People of faith I know believe in ghosts, demons, evil spirits, magic, virgin birth, resurrection of the dead after a thousand years or more. All of this seems normal to them in spite of the complete lack of evidence for any of it.

These same people are confident that other people’s religious beliefs are fale. They think the Muslim heaven full of virgins is ridiculous. They call the ancient religious stories of other religions “myths”.

People of faith will believe any kind of nonsense if it helps them with the difficulties of life. This is true of Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and Mormons.

The good news is that for the most part it has no effect. Religious countries are no more moral in action than those that are more secular. The United States has one of the highest percentages of people who claim belief in God and we have one of the highest murder rate too.

[xzins]

And those very same people each have something “they will not believe.”

You said they will believe anything.

You need to rephrase.

You might want to say that people of faith have believed lots of strange things.

[Soliton]

I said that they would believe anything, not that the would believe everything.

[jincarolina]

We don’t believe you in you.