Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Faith’ Category

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.

Advertisements

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:

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2014/07/15/nasa-humans-will-prove-we-are-not-alone-in-the-universe-within-20-years/

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:

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/la-police-taser-father-attempting-rescue-3-year-old-son-house-fire-boy-dies/

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 the NAACP of Missouri condemned the actions of a Rodeo Clown who wore a “President mask” of President Obama and then asked the crowd if they would like to see the President run over by a bull.  The NAACP didn’t just condemn this as a tasteless act against President Obama, they declared it, “a hate crime”.

“I think a hate crime occurs when you use a person’s race to depict who they are and to make degrading comments, gestures, et cetera, against them,” said the Missouri NAACP President Mary Ratliff.

In fact the Missouri State Fair Commission has now mandated sensitivity training for the Missouri Rodeo Cowboy Association if they want to participate in the State Fair.

The clown didn’t say anything racist, he only wore a President mask.  Haven’t these guys ever seen Point Break?  The NAACP themselves are the ones being the racist here.  And mandatory sensitivity training?  You might as well come right out and say, “Thought Police”.

It’s one thing to condemn blatant racism.  But assuming racism simply because a mask correctly portrays the visage of the President?  If the clown had worn a George W. Bush mask, or a Reagan mask, would the NAACP be condemning anti-white racism on the part of the clown for simply wearing the mask?  I don’t think so.

I don’t like to use the term race because for every trait of human variation – from the amount of melanin in skin to the amount of curl in hair or the color of a retina – you can find some family, some individual somewhere on earth with features that are on average right in-between, so that you can’t draw a line and say, “This is the white race,” or, “This is the black race”, etc.  Ultimately there are no races, there is simply the human race.

Many of us on the Right tend to think in such terms automatically, despite the Progressive media effort to portray conservatives as being racists.  I do not know the content of the Missouri mandated sensitivity training, however most sensitivity training addressing racism is usually itself based in racist terms that define a true absence of racism as actually being racism itself.  For example, there are the racial definitions found on the University of Colorado’s Student Affairs website.  (Note: since the time of writing UC has removed the definitions.  You can still find some of them at Oberlin College’s Multicultural Resource Center.)  The wording is extremely common at many education and government sites providing official definitions for racism (just google or bing a few of the phrases).

Some of the definitions are:

Passive racism: Beliefs, attitudes, and actions that contribute to the maintenance of racism, without openly advocating violence or oppression. The conscious and unconscious maintenance of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that supports the system of racism, racial prejudice, and racial dominance.

Cultural racism (racism at the cultural level): Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label People of Color as “other,” different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as the great writers or composers.

White privilege: A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by white persons beyond the common advantage of all others; an exemption in many particular cases from certain burdens or liabilities; A privileged position; the possession of an advantage white persons enjoy over non–white persons.

Horizontal racism: The result of people of targeted racial groups believing, acting on, or enforcing the dominant (White) system of racial discrimination and oppression. Horizontal racism can occur between members of the same racial group (an Asian person telling another Asian wearing a sari to “dress like an American”; a Latino believing that the most competent administrators or leaders are white, Native Americans feeling that they cannot be as intelligent as Whites, Asians believing that racism is the result of People of Color not being to raise themselves “by their own bootstraps.”

Did you catch that?  These common definitions say that simply happening to have very little melanin in one’s skin unconsciously contributes towards maintaining a system of white racial dominance.  In other words – according to these definitions – to be “white” is to be “racist”.

Furthermore, planning for the future, being opposed to socialism and even just speaking proper English are defined as acts of “racism”.  So to have traditional American values – individual liberty, classical education and economic freedom – is to be racist.

This is an attack, by way of slander, on the very principles that our nation was founded on.  Shortly after our colonies experienced the American Revolution, the French were having their own socialist revolution based on collectivism.  The fruit of our American Revolution was ultimately the most personal liberty and the highest standard of living for the most people – regardless of individual gender, creed or color – of any nation in the history of the world.  The fruit of the French Revolution was rivers of blood emanating from Madam Guillotine in Paris, and the leaders of the Revolution themselves eventually lost their heads.  France has gone through multiple governments and Constitutions since that time.

Indisputably, the American Revolution was based on Judeo Christian values.  You can read them in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed…

In contrast, the French Revolution was based on schools of thought that ultimately coalesced into Humanism and Marxism.  Contrast the text from the American Declaration of Independence above to it’s counterpart in the French Constitution of 1793.

The aim of society is the general welfare. Government is instituted to guarantee man the enjoyment of his natural and inalienable rights. These rights are equality, liberty, security, and property.

Here is how De Tocqueville characterized the difference between the two philosophies:

Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

So the American Founding Fathers defined “equality” as equal opportunity and equal treatment under law.  The French and later Russian revolutions defined equality as equal social and economic outcomes which cannot be obtained aside from government control of individual’s lives and confiscation of personal property.

The equality of restraint in Socialism expresses itself in some of the arbitrary divisions which are taught in most sensitivity training.  “Classes” of people are arbitrarily defined and then pitted agasint one another with the goal of equalizing outcomes.  Members of some “classes”, regardless of individual economic income or condition, are declared as a group to be “opressors” or “haves” simply because of some trait like a lack of melanin.   Members of other “classes” are likewise declared as a group to be “opressed” or “have nots”.  If someone is a member of an “oppressed class” they receive differential treatment, even though differetial treatment is exactly what the Left claims to be trying to remedy.

It’s bad when arbitrary “classes” are defined based on a known trait such as skin color or biological gender.  It’s even worse when the “classes” are defined based on things that are matters of personal choice.  A person’s gender can be clearly determined by a simple DNA test, even if they are intersexed.  And a person’s general family can be determined genetically as well.  These qualities are what a person “is”.  But most sensitivity training would extend differential treatment to mattters of personal choice and positions of conscience.  For example, the State of California just passed a law allowing children as young as kindergarten (K-12)  to declare a “gender identity” different from what they actually are.  Should a 14 year old girl be made to shower after a volleyball game with a boy that has male genitals but “identifies” with being a girl?  In another example, in Washington State a florist is being sued because her Christian beliefs preclude her from knowingly selling flowers in support of a homosexual marriage.

The same University of Colorado website mentioned earlier also contains the following definitions, related to gender.

Sexism: A set of preconceived assumptions about the ‘proper’ roles, attitudes, and characteristics (especially physical) that men and women should have, typically working to the advantage of men over women; for example, the assumption that ‘a woman’s place is in the home’, or that men are ‘naturally aggressive’. Sexism can be identified by behaviour, speech, and the written word, and is criticized most strongly by feminists

Gender Expression: How one chooses to express one’s gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyle, voice, body characteristics, etc

Gender Identity: The gender with which a person identifies (i.e, whether one perceives oneself to be a man, a woman, or describes oneself in some less conventional way)…

Personally, I identify people based on thier biological gender even if they say they’ve adopted a different gender.  I refer to Chastity Bono as a “she” rather than a “he”.  According to the definitions above, I am sexist for doing so even though my convictions regarding gender come from my Judeo Christian heritage and the Bible (Genesis 1:27 NASB, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”)

What the Left is doing in mandating personal thinking – not simply condemning racism when it actually occurs, but assuming it and mandating Progressive re-education – is in principle the exact same thing that the Anglican Church did when it was by law the only church in England and the Catholic church did when it was the legal church of Spain.  It’s a shift backwards from Constitutional Republic to the Divine right of kings where the State assumes the role of declaring what personal thoughts are acceptable.

Indeed the State must assume all powers if social and economic outcomes are to be made equal.  Sadly, just as monarchical governments generally lead to a marjority of citizens being low income earners under a small ultra-rich set of lords, so socialist governments invariably lead to a majority of citizens being low income earners under a small ultra-rich set of social planners (usually with town-houses in Paris or personal “dachas” outside Moscow).  The only exception to this is socialist governments which have an unusual source of wealth (Norway’s oil) or governments which are squandering the still remaining fruits of past economic freedom and fiscal restraint (the first few years of the European Union).

Getting back to the rodeo clown and the Obama mask, in the U.S. the current trend towards government at all levels incorrectly adopting socialist language around racism and mandating sensitivity training is nothing less than a Progressive attempt to enforce a world-view which is clearly a respect towards religion.  You can’t control people economically and socially without trying to control their thoughts, which means favoring one world view over another.  With actions like these on the part of Progressives it has reached the point of being a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

What we’re seeing amounts to legislating an official religious national church of Secular Humanism, based on blind faith in Metaphysical Naturalism.

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 »

Bill Nye The Science Guy recently posted an impassioned plea on YouTube, entitled “Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children“, in which he says that belief in evolution is fundamental to human progress.  He goes on to say, ” [if grownups want to] deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them.” 

This statement is astounding to me because evolution is not consistent with everything we observe in the universe; evolution is a theory based on a philosophical position which trys to explain what we observe in the universe.  From that standpoint, evolution is no more or less plausible than belief in an intelligent designer is plausible.  In fact, I have a hard time processing how many intellectuals – people who are smart and well-meaning – don’t make the connection that faith in evolution is just like other type of religious faith.

OK, before you stop reading because you think I’m nuts, let me explain where I’m coming from. 

The scientific method is to formulate a hypothesis, test it several times in a controlled environment, record data and then draw a conclusion. With historical events this isn’t possible and so one must approach things evidentially. Some things we can know directly – there is a trilobite. It’s encased in sandstone. To go too much further though one must start making logical assumptions in order to extrapolate more data. The rub in in which assumptions are considered “scientific”. Remember, science only deals with the known, the observable, the factual. From that standpoint we really concretely have no idea how things happened with the origin of life. All we know is that DNA based life forms have an incredible similarity. What is the origin of the similarity? Frankly any speculation on that point is purely philosophical and not scientific. Again, I would argue that arbitrary faith in no God, or in no intelligent influence on the origin of life or of the universe, is at this point in our understanding just as philosophical of a proposition as the assertion that there is a God or an intelligent designer.  Science should not be concerned with either possibility, period. So as a person of faith it is maddening to hear people call the one assumption “scientific” and the other “not scientific.”

Why do many intellectuals arbitrarily assume no intelligence is at play in cosmology and ontology? I’ve heard two things consistently. One is that with so many theories regarding the nature of God, several of which are mutually exclusive, that therefore none can be true. The other is that we supposedly see no direct evidence of God or intelligence in the universe. On the first point, it is an instance of the logic fallacy “argumentum ad logicam” or “argument to logic” – the assumption that just because one argument put in place for a theory is incorrect, that therefore the theory itself is incorrect. On the second point, it is an instance of the logic fallacy “petition principia” or “begging the question” – assuming that one’s thesis is true as part of the evidence in support of the thesis itself. To know there is no God one would have to know everything in the universe and be in all places at once – omniscient and omnipresent – which would make one’s-self God. But more than this, the assumption is questionable because it is applied so arbitrarily. For example, SETI is searching the skies for a binary radio signal from space as a sign of intelligence. What if I told you I could point towards a quaternary programming language that can be used to program a living organism? If the first is indicative of intelligence, how much more should the second be?

Again, all of this to say that science does not enter into the equation of any proposition based on assumptions about universe that can’t be tested.

And yet the modern scientific community is predisposed towards several unproveable theories that only exist to try to explain away the order we observe in the cosmos. If the ratios of the mass of protons to electrons, or the ratios of strong and weak nuclear forces to themselves and to electro-magnetism, or the rate of expansion of the universe, or the seemingly finely-tuned unevenness of the distribution of matter from the big bang as indicated by cosmic background microwave radiation – if any one of these factors was off by 5% or even less we would not have galaxies and stars to bake heavier elements necessary for life. And so theories considered “scientific” to address these observations include anthropomorphic principle (man will one day be intelligent enough to go back in time and create himself), panspermia (the seeds of life are literally ‘wafted across the cosmos’ by an older and wiser race – never mind the time it would take for two generations of galaxies in order to bake heavier elements), multiverse theory (there are so many random unverses we simply won the lottery with ours), etc.  These theories don’t come across to me as examples of scientific objectivity.  Instead they appear to be philosophical attempts to explain away – not buttress – what we observe in the cosmos.

On a final note, if someone watches Carl Sagan or reads Jean Auel’s Clan of the Cave Bear, and feels a deep wonder and mystery at being a part of so great and long a process of the cosmos – a literal bit of stardust become self-aware in the universe – then I would argue that the experience they are having, given our limitations of knowledge at this time, is innately religious, not scientific or objective. And I think if they are a person dedicated to reason and knowledge, they need to consider this seriously.

As for Bill Nye’s assertion that creationism is not appropriate for children?  Considering  the fact that both creationism and evolution are faith-based propositions, if we ban creationism then we must equally say that evolution is not appropriate for children.

Read Full Post »