Read my blog : Dictatorship Of Relativism And Difference Of The Left And Conservatives 18 Jan 2021
In this misguided ‘enlightened’ era, Religion comes under attack. More specifically, the Bible comes under attack, for Westerners generally lack courage to criticise Islam and lacks knowledge of other great religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism etc. Christian dogma and Bible is the punching bag for unfettered Liberals to justify their amoral worldview. If one wants to be a pedophile, or connoisseur of the flesh, there better be no God after one is done with this world.
What Liberals never acknowledge or have gratitude for, is the Age of Enlightenment that started in the 16th century was birthed on Christendom. From the crucible of knowledge out of the church, came new ways of looking at and understanding the world. Instead of relying on traditional authorities, namely the church, papacy, or monarchs, deductive reasoning and evidentialism was preached. It was a new way of examination on humans and the world, moving away from the preoccupation of wondering about the nature of God.
A natural development is the contest of ideas amongst Western great thinkers on the existence of God. There was Nietzsche running through the village square with lighted lamp in bright daylight shouting “God is dead”. We get René Descartes and his famous “cogito, ergo sum" or in English "I think, therefore I am ". On the other hand, we have David Hume who argued that miracles were, in their nature, unrepeatable, they were also unprovable, and so should be excluded from any rational explanation of the world. And Blaise Pascal, who said “The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart."
Read my blog : Ist Gott Tot ( Is God Dead ) 21 April 2019
In the current world, neolibs thrash God, Jesus, and the Bible with contemptuous vulgarity. These are in the main from the non-scientific world. At the forefront are Hollywood celebrities such as Ricky Gervais, a comedian who cannot construct a joke without using the ‘F’ word. To paraphrase the Bible – forget, these voices, for they know not what they say. It is to the intellectuals whose anti-God views are propounded as ideas and thus a challenge worthy of one’s attention. And there are many. For example:
Voltaire : “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
Too bad Voltaire preceded Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot or he will have lots of explanation to do.
Christopher Hitchens : “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Hitchens is wont to apply Occam’s Razor in his God debates. Here he applies the ‘onus of proof’, oblivious that same applies to one who takes the absence of God position, and unwary that ‘onus of proof’ is something that judges disfavour.
Neolibs and neo-atheists all believe in Stephen Hawkin’s Big Bang Theory which presupposes the absence of a Creator. All these non-scientific anti-God voices have no idea Hawkin’s was not the first to come up with this theory. Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître was first to theorize and wrote of an expanding universe in 1927 which was observationally confirmed by Edwin Hubble 2 years later and came to be called Hubble’s Law. Lemaître also proposed the "Big Bang theory" which he called "hypothesis of the primeval atom", or "the beginning of the world". Lemaire’s theory received no support. Even Einstein was not impressed. And the reason had to do with who Lemaire was. Lemaître (17 Jul 1894 – 20 Jun 1966) was a Belgian Catholic priest, theoretical physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. Accepting Lemaire’s theory means having to accept Time had a beginning and therefore a Creator behind the big bang. In 1940s the atheist Stephen Hawkins proposed his "Big Bang theory" and the idea took off. The universe was formed from the big bang. There is no Creator.
Today’s loud neolibs and neo-atheists profess they believe in science but are not aware they actually stand on the very natural laws that Christians understand came from a Creator. Scientists have discovered all these natural laws but none the wiser where they came from. Of course Science has to assume these natural laws simply existed. Ditto the Faithful believes God simply existed. These non-scientific non-believers have no idea what the real world of science believes.
Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) : “I have long felt that there was a general impression in the non-scientific world, that the scientific world believes Science has discovered ways of explaining all the facts of Nature without adopting any definite belief in a Creator.”
The Bible vs Science arguments have occupied great thinkers and intellectuals for centuries, brought about by the trial of Galileo Galilee (1633) and Darwinism (1859). Galileo promoted Copernicus’ idea of heliocentrism, ie our universe revolves around the Sun, which countered the Church's belief Earth is the centre of the universe. Copernican system included arguments that were philosophical, scientific, and theological, which brought the Spanish Inquisitors after him. Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory went against Creationism. Actually almost all foul-mouth God-deniers never even realise that Darwin never discussed evolution of humans. It was Thomas Henry Huxley, grandfather of Aldous Huxley, who brought in the idea of apes-to-man. The two incidents of Galileo’s trial and Darwinism largely accounted for the preponderance of opinions that Bible and Science never can meet.
This conflict theory came mainstream in late 1890s after papers published by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. Draper and White took the view Bible and Science conflict because both operate in the same fields. However, the theory was eventually discredited and today the scientific world has long since abandoned this conflict debacle. The consensus is complexity of issues in Bible-Science arguments requires a better model, of which 3 has been written about – Independence model (which holds that religion and science explore distinct fields, which pose distinct questions), Dialogue model (proposes a mutualistic relationship between science and religion, a common ground exists between science and religion, perhaps in concepts, presuppositions and methods), and Integration model (there is integration in natural theology, the theology of nature and the philosophy of processes).
Today’s neolibs and neo-atheists attack dogma and scorn the Bible professing their belief on - the altar of science with absolutely no idea the scientific world does not share their views. The archangel of neo-atheists, Richard Dawkins, who wrote the best seller God Delusion in 2006, was quickly taken to task by David Brewenski, an atheist, who wrote in 2008 The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.
“In summary, (Brewenski) asserts that some skeptical arguments against religious belief based on scientific evidence misrepresent what the science is actually saying, that an objective morality requires a religious foundation, that mathematical theories attempting to bring together quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity amount to pseudoscience because of their lack of empirical verifiability, and he expresses doubt towards Darwinian evolutionary theory”...Wikipedia.
A parting shout out :
Plato said:
“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
If you like what you read here and feel it matters Singaporeans know stuff like this, please click and share with your social circle. This makes my effort worthwhile.
This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like
blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the
button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs
there. Thanks.