Archive for the ‘Atheism’ Category

Stephen Hawking has recently suggested that the danger to the world of a rogue, all-power Artificial Intelligence (AI) could be mitigated if nations would go in for one-world government.  His comments appear in a recent article in the U.K. Independent:

[Hawking] suggests that “some form of world government” could be ideal for the job [of controlling malice and aggression and the danger of an AI’s response to them], but would itself create more problems.

“But that might become a tyranny,” he added. “All this may sound a bit doom-laden but I am an optimist. I think the human race will rise to meet these challenges.”

Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist and a lousy philosopher.  As a modern Humanist / Atheist he refuses to admit to the selfish nature of mankind and believes in the altruism of social planners.  But every attempt at Humanist utopias in the past 220 years has proven such projects not simply unworkable, but downright hellish and lethal.  The push among those on the Left for a one-world government is just another such attempt.

A better plan for mitigating mankind’s darker proclivities comes from James Madison in Federalist Paper #51:

….Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself….

Madison had formerly explained the reasons a one-world government could never work – it is impossible to give all people the same opinions, passions and interests.  Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #10:

….There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests….

Hawking doesn’t understand mankind’s selfish nature because he has been indoctrinated into the flawed utopic philosophy of the Left.  He doesn’t realize that any attempt at a one-world government could, even if only partially successful, be what winds up paving the way for something like an all-powerful AI. One which could – in the mold of the Marxist government it serves – unwittingly destroy humans in an attempt to make it’s own little utopia.

Read Full Post »

In a recent headline scientists are now hopeful that a new experiment happening at a large collider may give them a glimpse into a parallel universe. The story is at: http://secondnexus.com/technology-and-innovation/large-hadron-collider-scientists-hope-make-contact-parallel-universe

Multidimensional theories of self-generating universes (and theories of self-generating life) are at this point not science but philosophy attached to science.  For example, the theoretical work of Hawking is entirely philosophical, not scientific, in so far as it proposes things beyond science and beyond detection or proof.  Hawking’s work is also philosophical in that it arbitrarily projects a single religious world view – blind-faith Metaphysical Naturalism – onto evidence and facts which could equally (and arguably better) be considered support for Design.  It is also philosophical because it deals with singularities – events which only occur once and can therefore only be directly (scientifically) understood in terms of evidential proof and historical proof. We have only ever observed a single universe, appearing to be governed by principles of relativity and finely tuned to support the existence of stars, galaxies and life.

What scientists are doing in making a prediction of observing parallel universes would be directly analogous to proposing in 1977 that if Pluto had a moon it would be proof of the existence of green unicorns, and then when Charon was proven to exist in 1978 saying, “Hah, we were right! Green unicorns do exist!”

There’s definitely more we need to understand about the quantum world of physics but I tend to reject the basic Copenhagen “spooky” view of matter because that view still has it’s roots in belief about measuring equipment and not about matter itself. Obviously particles interact at a distance but the mechanism is entirely unknown at this point.  And string theory up to this point has really just amounted to a bunch of conflicting hearsay, as any honest quantum physicist will tell you.

The bottom line is that part of the reason many modern quantum physicists want to have blind faith in alternate universes is because they desperately want the findings in their field to match their Socialist, Metaphysical Naturalist intellectual ideology.

And the findings simply don’t.

Read Full Post »

NASA predicts that we will find extra terrestrial life in the next 20 years.  Who knows, we may.  But there is a problem with their motivation.  In terms of NASA’s current position, this is not science, it’s philosophy based on blind faith in an ex nihilo self-generating universe or multiverse and in random abiogenesis, neither of which has ever been observed.

If you bring this up, they would probably respond with two philosophical propositions, both of which are logic fallacies.

“Well, we’ve never seen God directly so therefore there is no God.” This is a non-sequitur. As I point out above, we’ve never observed multiverse or abiogenesis.  We’ve also never observed phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium; neither in nature, the fossil record or the lab.  Bacteria becoming bacteria, moths becoming moths and finches becoming finches are all simply examples of trait dominance shift within existing genetic pools.

“There are multiple mutually exclusive explanations for God (such as “Spaghetti Monster”), therefore none is correct and there is no God.” This is argumentum ad logicam- assuming that just because one theory is spurious therefore every theory is spurious.

If they further said God cannot be proven, that is equally true of all the theories I mention above.

The fact is ~any~ position regarding God or unknown questions of origins is philosophical at this point, ~not~ scientific.

But Secularists in our government continue to promote and outright legislate the world view of Metaphysical Naturalism (the blind faith assertion that, “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be”) and Humanism, never seeing that to the degree they have unthinking devotion and blind faith in a mythical, self-creating universe and self-generating life, they are not pursuing science but philosophy.

Every observation or fact offered up as evidence for those two beliefs (speed of light, red-shift, similarity of features and re-use of DNA among life forms, etc.) could just as easily be interpreted as supporting a belief in design.

The Secularist push to promote Metaphysical Naturalism and Humanism within government is also directly responsible for the recent rise in paganism, the occult and animism among our youth, because what passes for modern science these days – at least in terms of cosmological and ontological theory – is nothing more than a step backwards to looking at nature and life as being mythical and self creating.

This Secularist view of the world informs an indoctrinee’s thoughts in origins, daily decision making and morality, which means it inherently ~is~ a form of religion. It effectively constitutes an officially sanctioned religious paganism in our schools and government funded scientific circles.

We’ve been searching the skies for 30 years for a binary radio signal from space which could be taken as a sign of intelligence.  And yet to this day most scientists refuse to consider the possibility that a quaternary programming language capable of coding everything from a blade of grass to Gisele Bundchen could have been the product of intelligence.

I say we don’t have to wait 20 years to see a sign of extra terrestrial intelligence.

The news story regarding NASA’s prediction of finding intelligent life is at:


Read Full Post »

Recently progressive comedian Bill Maher expressed the view that progressives have won the culture war, and took the same opportunity to refer to the Bible as a “dumb book”:


Here’s the reality:  Judeo Christian values have been winning the culture wars for 2,000 years and show no sign of stopping.

The Christian church is, “an anvil that has worn out many hammers,” and Judeo Christian values (the Ten Commandments) are the basis of the modern Western understanding of ethics and law.  If you don’t believe that, try going out and killing someone in the U.S. for any reason other than self defense.

The Roman Empire tried to redefine marriage.  It didn’t last.  I mean the Roman Empire.

Every generation rejects the values of previous generations and thinks, “Ah, this time, we’ve finally gotten it right!”  But the only consistent value systems that have lasted over centuries are systems directly tied to major world religions or religious philosophies.  And only one of those value systems gave birth to the highest level of individual liberty and prosperity in the history of the world.  It eliminated slavery.  It gave women power to vote and represent themselves legally.  It wound up saving Europe and the world from expansionist tyrannies on three separate occasions.

I’m not talking about enlightenment Humanism – on the contrary, Humanism originally sought to eliminate some “races” through eugenics and to this day tries to divide people into arbitrary groups, plundering one for the profit of another, but really taking the money to enrich it’s own leaders.

No, what led directly to a 5,000 year leap was the idea of constitutional republic grounded in Judeo Christian values.  It was Christians who believed that God is separate from creation and that nature could be looked at and studied objectively apart from myth.  It was Christians who popularized the radical idea that secular governments should not impose a state religion.  It was Christians who led the effort to abolish slavery.  It was Christians who won women the right to vote (the fight was led by the Women’s Christian Temperance Union).  And it was Christians who led the civil rights struggle of the 50’s and 60’s.

Everywhere Humanism and subsequent collectivism has been tried, it has led to servitude and poverty.  Individualism and Judeo Christian values have led to freedom and prosperity.  Most people who grow up in the U.S. simply cannot appreciate how special and rare this is in the history of the world.

Sadly, progressives like Maher want to muzzle free speech and attack people who don’t agree with them.  They have declared war on America and American values.  They want to enforce collectivism and uniformity of thought under the threat of law.  They want to put their fellow citizens in tyranny under social planners that wield the atheist equivalent of “Divine Right of Kings”.

They are the ones trying to drag this country backwards.

Read Full Post »

Just watching Episode 1 of the new “Cosmos” series. The first words of the series is a faith-based statement by Carl Sagan.  “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”  The statement is based in blind-faith regarding an unobserved singularity, the beginning of the universe.  It is purely philosophical, not scientific, because evidence is inconclusive and we cannot go back to the beginning of the universe and treat it with the scientific model:  Observe it several times, record data, and then use the data to test theories.  Carl’s voice trails off and says, “Come with me…”  The very next words in the new Cosmos series are from the narrator.  He says, “A generation ago the astronomer Carl Sagan stood here and launched hundreds of millions of us on a great adventure, the exploration of the universe revealed by science.”  Did you catch that?  The new series begins with a statement based on blind faith which sums up the message of the original Cosmos series.  But it calls this position “science.”  There are two logic fallacies that naturalists fall into when insisting that non-theism is a rational position for science.  The first is non-sequitur (something which does not logically follow).  “We’ve never observed God directly, therefore there is no God.”  Well, we’ve never observed abiogenesis or spontaneous, ex nihilo universe formation.  The second logic fallacy is argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic, assuming a theory is false just because one proof put up on it’s behalf can be proven false).  “There are multiple, mutually exclusive explanations for what God could be, like the ‘Spaghetti Monster’ theory, so therefore no theory is correct.”  The sad thing is that the philosophical position these logically flawed statements support is unquestionably accepted in many modern academic circles and then incorrectly labeled as being “science”.  This matters.  A blind-faith belief about one’s origins informs a person’s day to day decision making and their perception of morality.  It ultimately ~IS~ their religious world view of the universe.  In the case of Naturalism, it is the worship of nature as the self-creating whole.  Consider Carl Sagan’s words again.  “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”  That blind-faith belief has huge implications regarding the sanctity of life, belief in individual rights to life, liberty and property and personal moral conduct.  In a word, it is inherently religious.  And yet this position is being taught to our children in public schools as the unquestionable truth, after all the proponents say, “it’s science.”  If you watch the new Cosmos series enjoy it.  I’m sure there will be lots of cool mind-blowing facts, and a lot of truth.  But just as much as that – if the previous series was any indication – there will be a host of philosophical, faith based positions and beliefs incorrectly presented as also being facts.  If you want to be objective, you’ll want to keep that in mind.

Read Full Post »

Just read a tragic story about police tasing a father who was simply trying to get into a burning building trying to save his three year old son:


Here is why this happened –

In the mind of enlightenment thinking in general, and Marxist socialism in particular, people are simply “the masses”.  They are only products of evolution and genetics because there can surely be no God (after all, we’ve never seen evidence of Him!  We’ll accept a binary radio signal from space if we find it but we’ll discount a quaternary programming language capable of programming a human being!).  Therefore all powers reside with the State, period.  The State allows people to have rights or not.  In this world view, nobody is guilty of crimes because they are the product of society.  So all of society must pay for crime, not the criminal.  In the same way, people are not allowed to perform heroics or acts of self defense, because that is only the role of the State.  If people try to resist crime, or defend themselves, or be heroes, they MUST be prosecuted and thrown in jail.  After all, they are bucking the system, and that’s dangerous!  Meanwhile, people die as victims of crime, they die from not being able to protect themselves, and they die waiting for police and fire responders who, if a situation looks remotely dangerous, will many times just wait on the sidelines and sort out the bodies afterwards.  In a very real way, it’s like playing God. You know the old phrase, “Let God sort them out”?  If pure humanism and naturalism is all that informs one’s belief of an original cause and decision making,  and is the only  standard for one’s ethics, then they are in effect worshipping mankind and nature.  That is what functions in the place of religion in their life.  So it’s only natural that they would believe the State gets to play God.  Many people in positions of leadership in the government these days effectively do believe government is equal to what we would consider God, having all assumed powers and rights over individuals, as well as having assumed responsibility for imposing morality over people.  There couldn’t be a more stark contrast between this view and the Judeo Christian values our nation was founded on, that,  “…all men are…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness …”  People should have liberty to oppose criminals, defend themselves and try to protect others.  If the current logic of the police were played out in the situation with the burning house and the three year old, on 911 the police would have stood outside the World Trade Towers and tased the people trying to go inside as first responders.   Think about that.  When the State plays God, people are coerced into a role of standing by and watching other pepole die.

Read Full Post »

Recently evangelist Ray Comfort came out with a documentary movie, Evolution vs. God, in which he traveled around world and spoke to evolutionary scientists asking them for proof of evolution.  What Comfort found was quite interesting:  Everyone he interviewed swore that evolution is now proven, and yet no one could provide him with any proof.

The trailer for the movie is here.

Then just this week reporter Virginia Heffernan came out with an opinion piece in which she says she believes in Creationism.  While Ms. Heffernan didn’t give the most empiric or logical defense of her position, what she wrote was fairly objective.  Of course since the article came out she has been ridiculed and spurned by others in the popular media.  Several of the negative responses to her piece are documented in the middle of this article from The Blaze.

Here’s my take.

The problem with evolutionists is that they insist evolution is proven but when you ask them for scientific proof they point towards consensus opinion (argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad numerum), or the preponderance of circumstantial evidence (non sequitur and argumentum ad nauseum), or an insistence that God Himself has not been proven (argumentum ad ignorantium), or the opinion of scholars (argumentum ad verecundiam), or a geologic column which doesn’t exist anywhere and is postulated by using fossils and parent/daughter isotope relationships defined on a per formation basis to somehow verify and confirm each other (circulus in demonstrado) or they insist that because we observe the same DNA sequences across many different species, or because we observe trait dominance shift within static gene pools, that therefore all beings must have gradually evolved from a single cell organism on a beach somewhere (cum hoc ergo proctor hoc and dicto simpliciter).  They insist on these things even though we have never seen non-living organic material becoming life and we don’t observe transitional forms, either in the lab or in the fossil record.  Finally, if anyone points out these failures in logic, evolutionists simply accuse the person of being a stupid creationist (argumentum ad hominem, red herring and  straw man).

In other words, the so-called proof of evolution reads like a veritable exhaustive list of logic fallacies.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »