Non-Naturalism, the opposite of Naturalism and the philosophy of Cosmic Humanism (the New Age), argues that everything is a part of God and in essence, spiritual. The things that we can see and feel are only a manifestation of spirit, and all matter will melt away when universal consciousness in achieved (Noebel 115). In other words, only the spiritual realm (in which everything in the Universe is One) exists, and the tangible, physical world is all an illusion. Essentially, it means that each one of us has a "God-force" within us. While Non-Naturalism may seem rather comforting to a lonely soul that feels disconnected from those around it, this philosophy is equally dangerous. That is, its absolute belief in the nonphysical world justifies one's abuse of the physical environment, or one's sinful actions within it, since the solid world is not actually "real". Further fundamental problems of Non-Naturalism are emphasized in the areas of truth, reality, and knowledge.
If asked what truth is, the Non-Naturalist's response would be, "What do you think?" David Noebel explains Non-Naturalism's beliefs of truth: "When we get in touch with the God-force within, we can intuitively know truth without limits...Each of us creates our own truth according to the principle if it feels like truth to you, it is" (Noebel 114-115). The problem with the Non-Naturalist approach to truth goes back to its principle that each one of us is part of the great universal God/God-force. If each one of us is God, and therefore control truth according to what we believe it to be, then due to the individual nature of each person there will be no solid Truth. Even for the most basic rules, like simple mathematical principles such as "one plus one equals two", it just takes one person who feels that it should equal ten to shake the foundations of mathematical knowledge (at least for that one person, since feelings create personal truth). Such a dangerous, illogical concept of truth threatens both stability and order in the world; if this is the price for attaining truth through godhood-consciousness, it would be absurd for anybody to either want the truth or achieve inner "God-ness".
Ultimately, Non-Naturalistic reality is derived from the spiritual dimension alone. Therefore, all reality must be God, "from a grain of sand to the Milky Way" (Noebel 114); some even go so far as to claim the Gaia theory, that the entire universe is one living organism. If this is so, then by nature, every living organism is a parasite. Plants steal energy from the sun and the earth itself, while heterotrophs, like Man and animals, eat both plants and each other. How can God steal from and consume Himself without ceasing to exist? Worst of all (and rather ironically), because each of us are apparently God, we have nothing to look forward to but our own destruction. In addition, trying to force everything possible into the spiritual realm and godhood ultimately exposes the person doing so to be stooping to flawed human philosophy. He or she is trying to feel religious and mysterious, as if he or she has a special connection to something beyond the rest of the world. Ultimately, this attempt at feeling "guru-esque" is the Non-Naturalist's biggest self-esteem booster; if they can "feel the God", then they can come to the truth much faster than before. The Non-Naturalistic approach to truth leaves no foundation for genuine humanity; rather, it fools a person into losing his or her humanity in exchange for a misplaced sense of control in his or her own life.
The Non-Naturalist sees knowledge as a continual progression into getting fully acquainted with one's higher self. Like truth, knowledge is an emotional, subjective experience rather than a solid set of reliable facts. In fact, "[k]nowledge does not contain the meaning of life" (Noebel 115). If this is true, then the purpose of knowledge, which is (obviously) to know truthful ideas, becomes meaningless because of its constantly changing nature. Neither emotions nor experiences remain the same for long; how, then, can a Non-Naturalist hope to know anything for sure? If nothing can be relied upon permanently, especially by people who have a portion of "God-ness" inside them, then God, also, is permanently ignorant. Perhaps, such a foundation-less approach to knowledge is precisely what Jesus was referring to as the House on the Sand.
Non-Naturalism takes the fundamental disciplines of truth, reality, and knowledge, and cuts the stable foundation away from each one of them. By reducing truth, reality and knowledge to subjective, emotional interpretations, Non-Naturalism renders human progress impossible because of its endless cycle of person-by-person disagreements and confusion. This also tears apart the Non-Naturalist concept of a Universal God. Since the term "universal" indicates a sense of obvious, accepted truth. The idea that each of us, who all make up one part of God at a time, have a constantly changing knowledge, shows that "God" has an incomplete understanding of the Universe He is supposed to keep alive and working. In conclusion, the over-spirituality of Non-Naturalism is no more fit to describe what the Universe is really like than is its opposite philosophy of Naturalism.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
"Philosophy blog 2" Response
The first step to forming a worldview is to take a position on theology. One begins this step by deciding whether or not there is a God. Those who believe in God's existence adhere to theism, while "atheism" denies the existence of God and prefers to rely on the physical world (typically) for finding truth. Two similar atheistic philosophies are Naturalism and Dialectical Materialism. Despite their similarities, however, Naturalism and Dialectical Materialism do have important differences that qualify them as separate philosophies for two different worldviews--Secular Humanism and Marxism, respectively.
The base of Secular Humanism's philosophy, Naturalism, states that reality is composed solely of matter and that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes, such as the law of gravity. Humanist Manifesto II puts its this way: "Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural" (Noebel 101). Naturalism utterly denies the existence of the supernatural realm; to the Naturalist, a Designer/Creator-God is nonexistent and quite a ridiculous concept that gets in the way of truly understanding the Universe scientifically. Science must be applied to all areas of life, "including the social and the moral" (Noebel 104). Finally, Naturalism views human progress as a process of evolution, in which we are constantly progressing towards a higher consciousness (Noebel 105). Evolution also applies to the rest of the Universe, which, according to Naturalism, is constantly in a state of changing (Noebel 103). Essentially, Naturalism is Man's method of using science to explain how the world, and (on a more personal level) how human minds and progress, work.
While Naturalism tries to explain the workings of life in the world, Dialectical Materialism is "the Marxist-Leninist approach to understanding and changing the world" (Noebel 107). The goal of Dialectical Materialism not only attempts to explain how the world works, then, but is also a kind of "instruction manual" to bring about Mankind's progress (not just describing how Man can change through evolution, like Naturalism does). "Dialectical Materialism itself is the belief that in everything there is a thesis (the way things are) and an antithesis (an opposition to the way things are), which must inevitably clash. The result of the struggle and merging that comes from the clash is the synthesis, which becomes the new thesis. A simpler example of this is like a hammer striking a nail (the clash of thesis and antithesis), resulting in a new thesis (the struck nail), before being pulled back for another blow (building a new antithesis). This new thesis will eventually attract another antithesis, and produce a new synthesis" (Noebel 109). Marxists use Dialectical Materialism to explain the gigantic series of clashes they believe history is composed of, such as the class struggle (Proletariat v. Bourgeoisie). The concept of the clashes between theses and antitheses, then, creates a hopeless world where the definition of "progress" (endless clashes) is impossible to attain. Therefore, Dialectical Materialism also denies the existence of the supernatural through its hold on their epistemology, which is highly influenced by Marxist dialectics because Marxists use dialectics to replace metaphysics in the field of philosophy. Dialectical Materialism, then, basically adds another layer to Naturalism. While Naturalism's main ideas revolve around evolution, Dialectical Materialism's focus on the thesis-antithesis clash emphasizes "evolution and revolution" (Noebel 112), and as a painful struggle rather than painless progress. Furthermore, "[w]hile many philosophies are chiefly theoretical, Marxism is concerned with theory and practice" (Noebel 112). That is, Marxism's Dialectic Materialism puts its adherents in a position that forces them to put out the actions that inspire revolution and evolutionary struggle, rather than just passively "surviving" change, as is the case with Naturalism. Indeed, Dialectical Materialism's major difference with Naturalism is its violent sense of progress.
The differences between Naturalism and Dialectical Materialism lie in the ways they define "change" for each of their worldviews. Naturalism simply seeks to explain life scientifically by introducing progress through Mankind's evolution, whereas Dialectical Materialism demands that both evolution and social change in general must be brought about by an endless series of struggles, or a clashes, between a thesis its antithesis. In conclusion, both of these worldviews place Man in a dark universe with neither purpose nor a bright future. By throwing God out of reality, both Naturalism and Dialectical Materialism simply make each person a piece of flesh whose only purpose is to live until dying, and nothing more than that--an utterly pointless existence.
The base of Secular Humanism's philosophy, Naturalism, states that reality is composed solely of matter and that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes, such as the law of gravity. Humanist Manifesto II puts its this way: "Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural" (Noebel 101). Naturalism utterly denies the existence of the supernatural realm; to the Naturalist, a Designer/Creator-God is nonexistent and quite a ridiculous concept that gets in the way of truly understanding the Universe scientifically. Science must be applied to all areas of life, "including the social and the moral" (Noebel 104). Finally, Naturalism views human progress as a process of evolution, in which we are constantly progressing towards a higher consciousness (Noebel 105). Evolution also applies to the rest of the Universe, which, according to Naturalism, is constantly in a state of changing (Noebel 103). Essentially, Naturalism is Man's method of using science to explain how the world, and (on a more personal level) how human minds and progress, work.
While Naturalism tries to explain the workings of life in the world, Dialectical Materialism is "the Marxist-Leninist approach to understanding and changing the world" (Noebel 107). The goal of Dialectical Materialism not only attempts to explain how the world works, then, but is also a kind of "instruction manual" to bring about Mankind's progress (not just describing how Man can change through evolution, like Naturalism does). "Dialectical Materialism itself is the belief that in everything there is a thesis (the way things are) and an antithesis (an opposition to the way things are), which must inevitably clash. The result of the struggle and merging that comes from the clash is the synthesis, which becomes the new thesis. A simpler example of this is like a hammer striking a nail (the clash of thesis and antithesis), resulting in a new thesis (the struck nail), before being pulled back for another blow (building a new antithesis). This new thesis will eventually attract another antithesis, and produce a new synthesis" (Noebel 109). Marxists use Dialectical Materialism to explain the gigantic series of clashes they believe history is composed of, such as the class struggle (Proletariat v. Bourgeoisie). The concept of the clashes between theses and antitheses, then, creates a hopeless world where the definition of "progress" (endless clashes) is impossible to attain. Therefore, Dialectical Materialism also denies the existence of the supernatural through its hold on their epistemology, which is highly influenced by Marxist dialectics because Marxists use dialectics to replace metaphysics in the field of philosophy. Dialectical Materialism, then, basically adds another layer to Naturalism. While Naturalism's main ideas revolve around evolution, Dialectical Materialism's focus on the thesis-antithesis clash emphasizes "evolution and revolution" (Noebel 112), and as a painful struggle rather than painless progress. Furthermore, "[w]hile many philosophies are chiefly theoretical, Marxism is concerned with theory and practice" (Noebel 112). That is, Marxism's Dialectic Materialism puts its adherents in a position that forces them to put out the actions that inspire revolution and evolutionary struggle, rather than just passively "surviving" change, as is the case with Naturalism. Indeed, Dialectical Materialism's major difference with Naturalism is its violent sense of progress.
The differences between Naturalism and Dialectical Materialism lie in the ways they define "change" for each of their worldviews. Naturalism simply seeks to explain life scientifically by introducing progress through Mankind's evolution, whereas Dialectical Materialism demands that both evolution and social change in general must be brought about by an endless series of struggles, or a clashes, between a thesis its antithesis. In conclusion, both of these worldviews place Man in a dark universe with neither purpose nor a bright future. By throwing God out of reality, both Naturalism and Dialectical Materialism simply make each person a piece of flesh whose only purpose is to live until dying, and nothing more than that--an utterly pointless existence.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
"Philosophy 1" Response
Imagine a world devoid of vision, hearing, or expression--a terribly bleak place in which the whole world in general is unreliable and dangerous. Without help from an unseen protector, the citizens of this world would be rendered completely defenseless. Such is the world of people such as Hellen Keller, perhaps the most iconic picture of a physically disabled human being success story. However, the vulnerability of her situation, no matter how well she overcame it, was dangerous because the reality of the physical world was unavailable to her through any normal means, like sight or hearing. Secular Humanists, however, apply this concept to philosophy. However, there are major problems with this way of thinking in the areas of reality, truth, and knowledge.
Secular Humanism adheres to naturalism, also known as materialism. Naturalism states that reality is composed solely of matter and that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes. This theory automatically denies the existence of anything supernatural, from a mind or heart (as opposed to a physical brain), to God. Secular Humanism also holds to Man's constant evolution. The major problem with this view of reality is that it restricts what is real to physical matter in such a dogmatic way that allows nobody to even consider God's existence. Therefore, what happens when things go wrong within matter, such as diseases in the human body? Acknowledging matter as the sole reality portrays reality as flawed and in a constant physical decline. This brings up a contradiction against Secular Humanism's other main argument--evolution, which argues that we are only improving as organisms through random, physical mutations within the genetic matter of an organism. Even then, mutations can still end up hurting an organism genetically more than helping it--that is why they are called mutations. They are unpredictable, and typically mistakes. In addition, "Naturalists are especially unwilling to believe in a universe that exudes too much design because this design could be construed as evidence for a Designer. The naturalist cannot accept a Designer or a personal First Cause" (Noebel 102). Naturalists' unwillingness to believe in the existence of the supernatural simultaneously implies that there is another alternative (belief in the supernatural) that requires no more faith (willingness to believe in it) than Naturalism.
Naturalism's fundamental idea of truth follows along these lines: Mankind is continually evolving with other organisms without the aid of God (He does not exist); therefore, truth is limited to what can be scientifically, and "objectively" observed through matter. The problem with this approach to truth is that matter is unfeeling; it is dead, and can therefore be manipulated as a part of the nonliving environment. Or, if dealing in terms of science, objective data can still be skewed by the input of false information, the usage of which may be intentional or completely accidental. Truth can be manipulated to create the "objective truth" one wants to be able to see. In a world made of matter, the spirit of truth and true morality is lost in favor of cold scientific formality. Such a view of truth is in danger of becoming subjective rather than objective, and losing any credit as a foundation for any kind of theory. This is especially dangerous for Secular Humanism and Naturalism, as the basic tenets of these philosophies advocate a totally objective worldview. In response to Naturalism's view of truth, it is best for the Christian to rely on Christ's words in John 14:6--that He is the only Way, the only Truth and the only Life.
In the area of knowledge, Naturalists some other specific problems that arise from their interpretation of what our theory of knowledge (epistemology) should be. Their epistemology also reaches out to the discipline of their metaphysics. The first of these problems arises from the depth of Naturalism's passion for and adherence to science and evolution as Man's key to the future. For instance, David Noebel statest hat "belief in science as the ultimate means to knowledge (truth) requires as much faith as belief in the existenc e and truth of the supernatural." He goes on to quote Carl Sagan, a Naturalist/Secular Humanist, who "announced, '[S]cience has itself become a kind of religion'" (Noebel 104). Furthermore, Victor J. Stenger, when discussing the human evolution into a "higher consciousness", decides that "Perhaps, as part of this new consciousness, we will become God" (Noebel 105). Naturalism's borderline-religious exaltation of science and evolution "precludes the existence of knowledge about anything supernatural" (Noebel 104), yet the deep devotion with which Naturalism attends to the scientific world is simply a misplaced effort to find the God we all know exists. Another flaw with the Naturalists' approach to knowledge is their simultaneous acceptance of Man's progress (evolution) and road to our own form of scientific godhood, as Stenger pointed out. If Man is always evolving, then he is obviously flawed to begin with. There is no area of his life in which he exempt from possible improvement. Therefore, postulating that Man may someday evolve into the god of his own life is a contradiction, because God is supposed to be perfect and holy. The next problem posed to Naturalism's view of knowledge is the Mind/Body Problem, "which asks Does the mind exist solely within nature, just as the body does, or is the mind more than matter?" (Noebedl 104). The mind, Naturalism would argue, is what we use to comprehend the physical world. Logically following, then, the mind must be a form of existence that exists outside of the physical realm, in order that it can teach us things about matter. Physical matter can never be understood by another piece of physical matter, as Naturalism states the mind is. Rather,Naturalism's views, if true, would simply lead to confusion and a perpetual lack of knowledge.
Referring back to our Hellen Keller example, Naturalism's physical "reality" turns out to be invisible and nearly useless. This is exactly why the Christian worldview is correct in contrast to Naturalism. While it acknowledges that Man is stumbling about in a physical world, Christianity does not claim evolution as they key to escape our ignorance. It calls upon the invisible Hand of a supernatural God Who exists outside of the physical realm, and Who sustains our mind and body. Just like how Hellen Keller learned how to function and deal with the world by the aid of people she could only trust and not see, in the same way Mankind must learn to trust God and His sovereignty to guide him through life when the material world and science lose their usefulness.
Secular Humanism adheres to naturalism, also known as materialism. Naturalism states that reality is composed solely of matter and that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes. This theory automatically denies the existence of anything supernatural, from a mind or heart (as opposed to a physical brain), to God. Secular Humanism also holds to Man's constant evolution. The major problem with this view of reality is that it restricts what is real to physical matter in such a dogmatic way that allows nobody to even consider God's existence. Therefore, what happens when things go wrong within matter, such as diseases in the human body? Acknowledging matter as the sole reality portrays reality as flawed and in a constant physical decline. This brings up a contradiction against Secular Humanism's other main argument--evolution, which argues that we are only improving as organisms through random, physical mutations within the genetic matter of an organism. Even then, mutations can still end up hurting an organism genetically more than helping it--that is why they are called mutations. They are unpredictable, and typically mistakes. In addition, "Naturalists are especially unwilling to believe in a universe that exudes too much design because this design could be construed as evidence for a Designer. The naturalist cannot accept a Designer or a personal First Cause" (Noebel 102). Naturalists' unwillingness to believe in the existence of the supernatural simultaneously implies that there is another alternative (belief in the supernatural) that requires no more faith (willingness to believe in it) than Naturalism.
Naturalism's fundamental idea of truth follows along these lines: Mankind is continually evolving with other organisms without the aid of God (He does not exist); therefore, truth is limited to what can be scientifically, and "objectively" observed through matter. The problem with this approach to truth is that matter is unfeeling; it is dead, and can therefore be manipulated as a part of the nonliving environment. Or, if dealing in terms of science, objective data can still be skewed by the input of false information, the usage of which may be intentional or completely accidental. Truth can be manipulated to create the "objective truth" one wants to be able to see. In a world made of matter, the spirit of truth and true morality is lost in favor of cold scientific formality. Such a view of truth is in danger of becoming subjective rather than objective, and losing any credit as a foundation for any kind of theory. This is especially dangerous for Secular Humanism and Naturalism, as the basic tenets of these philosophies advocate a totally objective worldview. In response to Naturalism's view of truth, it is best for the Christian to rely on Christ's words in John 14:6--that He is the only Way, the only Truth and the only Life.
In the area of knowledge, Naturalists some other specific problems that arise from their interpretation of what our theory of knowledge (epistemology) should be. Their epistemology also reaches out to the discipline of their metaphysics. The first of these problems arises from the depth of Naturalism's passion for and adherence to science and evolution as Man's key to the future. For instance, David Noebel statest hat "belief in science as the ultimate means to knowledge (truth) requires as much faith as belief in the existenc e and truth of the supernatural." He goes on to quote Carl Sagan, a Naturalist/Secular Humanist, who "announced, '[S]cience has itself become a kind of religion'" (Noebel 104). Furthermore, Victor J. Stenger, when discussing the human evolution into a "higher consciousness", decides that "Perhaps, as part of this new consciousness, we will become God" (Noebel 105). Naturalism's borderline-religious exaltation of science and evolution "precludes the existence of knowledge about anything supernatural" (Noebel 104), yet the deep devotion with which Naturalism attends to the scientific world is simply a misplaced effort to find the God we all know exists. Another flaw with the Naturalists' approach to knowledge is their simultaneous acceptance of Man's progress (evolution) and road to our own form of scientific godhood, as Stenger pointed out. If Man is always evolving, then he is obviously flawed to begin with. There is no area of his life in which he exempt from possible improvement. Therefore, postulating that Man may someday evolve into the god of his own life is a contradiction, because God is supposed to be perfect and holy. The next problem posed to Naturalism's view of knowledge is the Mind/Body Problem, "which asks Does the mind exist solely within nature, just as the body does, or is the mind more than matter?" (Noebedl 104). The mind, Naturalism would argue, is what we use to comprehend the physical world. Logically following, then, the mind must be a form of existence that exists outside of the physical realm, in order that it can teach us things about matter. Physical matter can never be understood by another piece of physical matter, as Naturalism states the mind is. Rather,Naturalism's views, if true, would simply lead to confusion and a perpetual lack of knowledge.
Referring back to our Hellen Keller example, Naturalism's physical "reality" turns out to be invisible and nearly useless. This is exactly why the Christian worldview is correct in contrast to Naturalism. While it acknowledges that Man is stumbling about in a physical world, Christianity does not claim evolution as they key to escape our ignorance. It calls upon the invisible Hand of a supernatural God Who exists outside of the physical realm, and Who sustains our mind and body. Just like how Hellen Keller learned how to function and deal with the world by the aid of people she could only trust and not see, in the same way Mankind must learn to trust God and His sovereignty to guide him through life when the material world and science lose their usefulness.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
"Theology #2" Response
In order to properly respond to Sarah and Mark, I would need to understand how each of their worldviews define God, not just how they as individuals do. For example, leading Secular Humanist Corliss Lamont states that "Humanism...considers all forms of the supernatural as myth" (Noebel 60). Lamont also declares that "intellectually there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost for philosophy by positing a supernatural Creator or First Cause behind the material universe...the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods" (Noebel 60). Marxists also hold to atheism. In fact, "God is considered an impediment, even an enemy, to a scientific...outlook" (Noebel 65). Now that both Secular Humanism's and Marxism's ideas about God have been firmly defined, I can now proceed to formulate a response to Sarah's and Mark's ideas.
The first ideas I will address belong to Sarah and Secular Humanism, as well as Marxism's and Secular Humanism's shared belief that Man created God himself. Again, Secular Humanism sees the possibility of the existence of a spiritual realm as nonexistent because of the fact that Man is the one who imagined the existence of God or gods in the first place. According to this logic, since Man can create God, Man becomes the beginning and ultimate end of all reality. If this is so, then, why is there evil and suffering in the world? Is Man not capable of fixing these problems with his brilliant imagination and borderline divine efforts? Obviously, this is not true, as international conflicts such as the wars in the Middle East and even areas like Libya have still torn these areas to shreds with global peace organizations' best efforts to ameliorate it all (i.e. the United Nations). This fact makes it even more depressing that Man is the answer to everything in the universe. We cannot rely on our own brains and imaginative faculties to "save ourselves," as atheistic views call for. This idea can be summed up in the image of a group of puzzle pieces that have come to life. Even though each puzzle piece would be capable of thought, speech, etc., they cannot see the whole picture they are meant to fit into. Their limited knowledge, therefore, stops them from solving their problem of fitting in a way to make a whole picture. Logical thinking would show that obviously, the puzzle pieces would never be able to successfully create (even within their own minds, no matter how hard they tried) the puzzle maker who can fit them together and see the whole picture from a higher vantage point. This is the situation with Man and his relation to God. If Man's imagination cannot even solve the planet's various problems, there is no possible way that a holy and righteous God can be fully thought out and invented by the human mind.
In response to Mark's assertion about evolving past our "need" for God, I have several examples to counter Marxism with that even coincide with the world of science--the "god" of Marxism. As stated before, Marxism sees God as an impediment to an "objective" scientific worldview. Mark gets his idea of "evolving" past our need for God from Darwinian evolution, a major scientific viewpoint that exists today as the antithesis of Creationism. Needless to say, evolution is one of the key principles of Marxist science. In response to this, I would say that Man himself has not "evolved", or even improved, in the mental realm, to the point of being able to fully control his own body. For example, it is impossible for scientists to create a cell from anything other than preliminary cell cultures that came from another living being, not the lab. Even if they could create cells, these scientists would never be able to give the cell life, whereas God breathed life into Adam, the first man. Plus, even if evolution were true, and humankind is ultimately descended from random chance and some inorganic chemicals, that would mean raw probability and some dead particles are still more intelligent than any man alive. Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that God is the only One capable of keeping scientific balance in both our bodies and the world at large, something that Man cannot claim to ever be able to do. Therefore, it is impossible for a Designer/Creator God to not exist. Now, for a more serious example. Let us assume, for a moment, that Mark had been stricken with cancer, a so far incurable disease. Because of his "evolution past the need for God", Mark has nothing to rely on but mathematical figures that could still be inaccurate. On top of that, he has no source of comfort for his own mind except for the hope that the statistics might be wrong and he could be part of one of the percentages of cancer victims that survive. But since Man and his secular version of science cannot perform miracles either, Mark is still hoping in vain on this point. Ultimately, Mark would be forced to rely on inaccuracy to save him, which, for the Marxist, is unthinkable and probably even comparable to believing in a religion.
Atheism causes its victims to feel better about his or herself, on account of him or her being "God", or at least capable of manipulating His existence for their benefit. This gives atheists a false sense of control for their own life, which really centers around the real "puppet master"--Satan. For people such as Sarah and Mark, who hang on to atheism and reject any spiritual reality, I have one final question: Is the pride that atheism gives you so great that you are willing to forfeit your soul to eternity away from God in Hell, even if you were to find out that there is even a one percent chance of its existence?
The first ideas I will address belong to Sarah and Secular Humanism, as well as Marxism's and Secular Humanism's shared belief that Man created God himself. Again, Secular Humanism sees the possibility of the existence of a spiritual realm as nonexistent because of the fact that Man is the one who imagined the existence of God or gods in the first place. According to this logic, since Man can create God, Man becomes the beginning and ultimate end of all reality. If this is so, then, why is there evil and suffering in the world? Is Man not capable of fixing these problems with his brilliant imagination and borderline divine efforts? Obviously, this is not true, as international conflicts such as the wars in the Middle East and even areas like Libya have still torn these areas to shreds with global peace organizations' best efforts to ameliorate it all (i.e. the United Nations). This fact makes it even more depressing that Man is the answer to everything in the universe. We cannot rely on our own brains and imaginative faculties to "save ourselves," as atheistic views call for. This idea can be summed up in the image of a group of puzzle pieces that have come to life. Even though each puzzle piece would be capable of thought, speech, etc., they cannot see the whole picture they are meant to fit into. Their limited knowledge, therefore, stops them from solving their problem of fitting in a way to make a whole picture. Logical thinking would show that obviously, the puzzle pieces would never be able to successfully create (even within their own minds, no matter how hard they tried) the puzzle maker who can fit them together and see the whole picture from a higher vantage point. This is the situation with Man and his relation to God. If Man's imagination cannot even solve the planet's various problems, there is no possible way that a holy and righteous God can be fully thought out and invented by the human mind.
In response to Mark's assertion about evolving past our "need" for God, I have several examples to counter Marxism with that even coincide with the world of science--the "god" of Marxism. As stated before, Marxism sees God as an impediment to an "objective" scientific worldview. Mark gets his idea of "evolving" past our need for God from Darwinian evolution, a major scientific viewpoint that exists today as the antithesis of Creationism. Needless to say, evolution is one of the key principles of Marxist science. In response to this, I would say that Man himself has not "evolved", or even improved, in the mental realm, to the point of being able to fully control his own body. For example, it is impossible for scientists to create a cell from anything other than preliminary cell cultures that came from another living being, not the lab. Even if they could create cells, these scientists would never be able to give the cell life, whereas God breathed life into Adam, the first man. Plus, even if evolution were true, and humankind is ultimately descended from random chance and some inorganic chemicals, that would mean raw probability and some dead particles are still more intelligent than any man alive. Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that God is the only One capable of keeping scientific balance in both our bodies and the world at large, something that Man cannot claim to ever be able to do. Therefore, it is impossible for a Designer/Creator God to not exist. Now, for a more serious example. Let us assume, for a moment, that Mark had been stricken with cancer, a so far incurable disease. Because of his "evolution past the need for God", Mark has nothing to rely on but mathematical figures that could still be inaccurate. On top of that, he has no source of comfort for his own mind except for the hope that the statistics might be wrong and he could be part of one of the percentages of cancer victims that survive. But since Man and his secular version of science cannot perform miracles either, Mark is still hoping in vain on this point. Ultimately, Mark would be forced to rely on inaccuracy to save him, which, for the Marxist, is unthinkable and probably even comparable to believing in a religion.
Atheism causes its victims to feel better about his or herself, on account of him or her being "God", or at least capable of manipulating His existence for their benefit. This gives atheists a false sense of control for their own life, which really centers around the real "puppet master"--Satan. For people such as Sarah and Mark, who hang on to atheism and reject any spiritual reality, I have one final question: Is the pride that atheism gives you so great that you are willing to forfeit your soul to eternity away from God in Hell, even if you were to find out that there is even a one percent chance of its existence?
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Understanding the All (or Lack Thereof)
After watching this with Nathan, and recovering from my initial shock and nausea, I would proceed to counter the philosophy of the All with three points made about it by Mr. Seralius in the video. Then again, it was probably useless of me just now to identify who made the video, seeing that whoever it was is just part of the All anyway. The first portion of the video introduces the All by explaining how the physical earth (gravity, gases, water, etc.) all work together as part of the All to sustain my body. However, the video also states that these factors keep me alive outside of my actual body with its "required" and "obvious" components, such as a brain, a heart, and a digestive system. However, the fact that the All is shown to not have provided me with my own body and its parts essentially cuts this theory's feet out from under it. Logically speaking, one cannot simply go on to explain the nature of the universe without beginning on a smaller level, such as the human body. It is like trying to build a boat without its bottom. In this case, then, the origin of the body and its parts must be attributed to something such as a Creator God before explaining the properties of the universe. I would then introduce Psalm 139:14, the "I am fearfully and wonderfully made by God" verse, to Nathan, showing him that Biblical Christianity can provide a chronological basis for the body before proceeding to discuss topics as large as the universe.
This brings me to my next point: only a living God can create people with unique souls so completely thought out and carefully created, that they must be able to be fully understood by Him, the Planner, in every detail. However, Seralius has asserted that our existence is essentially that of the All, which is trying "to perceive itself, understand itself, and know itself". If the All can supposedly keep the universe functioning, how is it possible that it cannot even comprehend the creatures under its control, or even use creatures inferior to it to try and understand itself? This would be like a forty-year-old man setting up an ant farm, breeding the ants' larvae, and then trying to use them to understand his own philosophies.
Finally, Seralius declares that each person is "forever unique" because of his or her individual perspective on the All (because of course, the All is too complex to be fully understood). However, he follows this statement by saying that deep down (especially emotionally) we are really all the same, in the All's overarching existence. If this is so, then the most genuine philanthropist is really the same as Adolf Hitler. If this is especially true at an emotional level, the situation becomes even worse. However, I would respond to this idea by pointing out that each person's individual personality (which is still acknowledged by the pantheist in this video) decides how he or she will handle his or her own emotions, no matter how common those emotions are. For example, will I allow my emotions to control the way I live, or does my personality grant me sufficient self-control to keep my composure, even in the presence of emotion? Obviously, living solely by emotion will ultimately place a person into a painfully unpredictable life without stability. I would then take this opportunity to show Nathan Bible verses such as Ephesians 4:26-27, in which God tells us to not let the sun go down on our anger, lest we sin. There is a right way and a wrong way to handle our emotions, no matter how common they are to all people. I would argue that the way Christians handle their emotions presents a calm, rational picture of the God we serve, and that conforming to the "All" by handling our feelings just like everybody else would lead to chaos--an endless circle of uncertain sentiment. If the ways we handled our emotions were really all part of one All, then the All must be comparable to a bipolar person whose conflicting feelings and personalities (in the people through which it is manifested) will cause its downfall. In conclusion, the All is not some accumulation of endless, logical principles as stated by the video. Rather, it provides an excuse for people with no backbone to feel better about themselves, without putting in the effort to form their own person by telling them that such work is pointless.
This brings me to my next point: only a living God can create people with unique souls so completely thought out and carefully created, that they must be able to be fully understood by Him, the Planner, in every detail. However, Seralius has asserted that our existence is essentially that of the All, which is trying "to perceive itself, understand itself, and know itself". If the All can supposedly keep the universe functioning, how is it possible that it cannot even comprehend the creatures under its control, or even use creatures inferior to it to try and understand itself? This would be like a forty-year-old man setting up an ant farm, breeding the ants' larvae, and then trying to use them to understand his own philosophies.
Finally, Seralius declares that each person is "forever unique" because of his or her individual perspective on the All (because of course, the All is too complex to be fully understood). However, he follows this statement by saying that deep down (especially emotionally) we are really all the same, in the All's overarching existence. If this is so, then the most genuine philanthropist is really the same as Adolf Hitler. If this is especially true at an emotional level, the situation becomes even worse. However, I would respond to this idea by pointing out that each person's individual personality (which is still acknowledged by the pantheist in this video) decides how he or she will handle his or her own emotions, no matter how common those emotions are. For example, will I allow my emotions to control the way I live, or does my personality grant me sufficient self-control to keep my composure, even in the presence of emotion? Obviously, living solely by emotion will ultimately place a person into a painfully unpredictable life without stability. I would then take this opportunity to show Nathan Bible verses such as Ephesians 4:26-27, in which God tells us to not let the sun go down on our anger, lest we sin. There is a right way and a wrong way to handle our emotions, no matter how common they are to all people. I would argue that the way Christians handle their emotions presents a calm, rational picture of the God we serve, and that conforming to the "All" by handling our feelings just like everybody else would lead to chaos--an endless circle of uncertain sentiment. If the ways we handled our emotions were really all part of one All, then the All must be comparable to a bipolar person whose conflicting feelings and personalities (in the people through which it is manifested) will cause its downfall. In conclusion, the All is not some accumulation of endless, logical principles as stated by the video. Rather, it provides an excuse for people with no backbone to feel better about themselves, without putting in the effort to form their own person by telling them that such work is pointless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)