Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Understanding why the Atheistic Darwinists cannot understand = Darwinism is just not logical

There are a few commenters who read a post and then ask a question that was answered in the post OR will ask a question unrelated to the post.   Perhaps it is because Logic and Reason have no place in the Darwinist Scenario.   If you truly believe in Darwism, then you must give up free will and you cannot depend on your own thoughts or judgements.   Is that reasonable?





The No-God Delusion

by Scott Youngren
Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the marketplace, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!" -- As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? -- Thus they yelled and laughed.  
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you.  We have killed him  -- you and I. All of us are his murderers.”
--Words of Friedrich Nietzsche, arguably the most influential atheist philosopher of all time, from his Parable of the Madman. Interestingly enough, Nietzsche spent the last 11 years of his life locked away in a mental institution.
-----------------
Robert M. Pirsig summarized how many atheists perceive theistic belief in his famous book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:
“When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a religion.”
Somewhat embarrassingly, Pirsig here fails to notice that atheism and agnosticism fit many of the diverse definitions of “religion” present within religious scholarship. But we can put that aside for a moment, and for the purpose of discussion, just accept the definition of religion as “those belief systems which are theistic”...since this is the definition most prevalent in modern popular “secular” culture.
The question then becomes whether or not belief in God could be classified as a “delusion.” Andrew Sims is a former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. In his book Is Faith a Delusion? Why Religion is Good For Your Health, he comments on the psychiatric definition of delusion:
“Although in the past, the word delusion could refer to being fooled or cheated, in modern speech it always implies the possibility of psychiatric illness. It has been appropriated by psychiatry and invariably implies at least the suspicion of a psychiatric diagnosis. If I am deluded, then I am necessarily mentally ill. In English law, delusion has been the cardinal feature of insanity for the last 200 years.”
“Posed as a statement, ‘faith is delusional,’ not only implies that faith is false, but that the believer is mad to believe it.”
In order to classify belief in God as “delusional,” then, it must be demonstrated that belief in God is indicative of mental illness, or at least poor mental health.
Some may be surprised to learn that---not hesitating to pull out the big rhetorical guns---certain outspoken atheists have gone so far as to suggest that belief in God is insane.  In his TV program titled The root of all evil? (which, of course, refers to theistic belief), the outspoken atheist biologist Richard Dawkins said:
“Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic?! So Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual? Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than barking mad!”
But, unfortunately for Dawkins and other atheists, it is actually DISBELIEF in God which correlates with negative mental health consequences.
Sims cites the Handbook of Religion and Health:
“Correlations between religious belief and greater well-being ‘typically equal or exceed correlations between well-being and other psychological variables, such as social support.’ This is a massive assertion, comprehensively attested to by a large amount of evidence.”
An August 9, 2013 Wall Street Journal article by Ari Schulman titled Does Faith Make You Healthier? comments on the correlations between theistic belief and mental health:
"A ream of recent scientific research has given the faithful reason to rejoice: Belief is good for you.
Consider a study of nearly two million Twitter messages sent by prominent Christians and atheists, published in June in the journal Social Psychological & Personality Science. It found that Christians were more content, if not happier. The authors came to this conclusion by analyzing the language tweeters used: Christian tweeters used positive words more often than atheists, and negative words less often.
In 2012, researchers led by a group at Yeshiva University analyzed the health outcomes of more than 90,000 women over an eight-year period and found that those who frequently attended religious services were 56% more likely than non-attending women to report high rates of optimism, and 27% less likely to report depression. Other studies of the same group found a 20% lower mortality rate.
Researchers at University College London found similar results in analyzing dozens of studies that examined the impact of religiosity among men and women. Numerous other studies by researchers at Harvard, Duke and other universities have found that religious identification and church attendance are associated with less social isolation, lower risk of substance abuse, lower rates of suicide, greater happiness and life satisfaction."
Many atheists have tried to argue that the strong correlations between theistic religious involvement and mental/physical health can be attributed to the social support system which church attendance provides. But as Sims’ above citation of the Handbook of Religion and Health attests, these studies consider religious involvement and theistic belief separately from social support.  Further, are we to believe that atheists and agnostics do not have their own structures of social support?
What then could be responsible for these correlations? Why is belief in God and religious involvement good for you? Some atheists have attempted to argue that belief in God evolved to provide survival advantages. As an NPR article titled Is Believing In God Evolutionarily Advantageous? theorizes, belief in God evolved to promote social benefits. But the atheist psychologists featured in the article fail to notice that they have caught themselves in a bind...a Catch-22:
If evolution has caused humans to adopt false beliefs in order to provide survival advantages, then why should we trust our ability to reason? If evolution selects for survival advantages, rather than for truth, why should we trust ANY of our beliefs?
Science is grounded in reason. But in what is reason grounded? The theistic explanation is simple: Reason is grounded in the mind of God.  Atheism, however, provides no grounding for human reason, and therefore no reason to trust the reasoning behind our beliefs. If evolution guides our beliefs, then beliefs evolve to provide survival value, NOT truth. (Please read Why Atheism is Self-Defeating to explore this subject in more depth).
In his book Illogical Atheism, Bo Jinn incisively lays down the failure of atheism to provide a grounding for reason:
"Scientific facts cannot justify reason.  It is reason [that] justifies science.  But, then, what justifies reason?  The reliability of reason, just as the existence of morality and beauty is simply taken for granted by the atheist on purely pragmatic grounds.   There is no sufficient ontic referent for their actual existence.   Truth/value judgments can be supported by empirical facts, but at the very last instance they will always require a judgment from a personal agent.  And unless that judgment is made on the basis of an objective standard of truth, then the judgment is therefore meaningless.
...As we speak, there are atheists the world over insisting that atheism is a conclusion which intelligent people come to on the basis of reason.  But, if atheism is true, then human reasoning has no validity at all, because valid reasoning implies a standard of truth that can be reasoned toward and a sufficient reason for believing that human reasoning works in the first place.
...Theism reasons to and from an objective standard of ultimate truth grounded in an absolute mind (God) which gives validity to rational beliefs, and atheism reasons to and from a completely subjective standard that cannot give validity to any belief (ourselves). We cannot reason to the conclusion that our reasoning is valid, since it is as circular as the proposition B → B"
Considering that atheism does not provide an objective standard of truth that can be reasoned toward, why should we, for example, accept atheistic explanations for the origin of human beliefs? What evolutionary survival advantage did the belief that human beliefs evolved provide? Should this belief (or other atheist beliefs) be, for some reason, exempted from the rule that our beliefs evolved to provide survival advantages...and not truth? Atheist explanations are caught in circular incoherence...much like a dog chasing its tail.
What, then, is the theistic explanation for why belief in God and theistic religious involvement are beneficial to one’s physical and mental health? You guessed it: Because God is real and because pursuing a relationship with God fulfills a fundamental human need. C.S. Lewis put it best:
“The Christian says, 'Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or to be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage. I must keep alive in myself the desire for my true country, which I shall not find till after death; I must never let it get snowed under or turned aside; I must make it the main object of life to press on to that country and to help others to do the same.”
And why, then, do non-theist persons (such as atheists and agnostics) not have a need to pursue a relationship with God? Well, they do, but they try to artificially satisfy this need with things of this world that can never satisfy (this is not to suggest that Christians aren’t also frequently guilty of this). Timothy Keller discusses this topic in his book Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope that Matters:
"In the 1830s, when Alexis de Tocqueville recorded his famous observations on America, he noted a 'strange melancholy that haunts the inhabitants . . . in the midst of abundance.'  Americans believed that prosperity could quench their yearning for happiness, but such a hope was illusory, because, de Tocqueville added, 'the incomplete joys of this world will never satisfy [the human] heart.' This strange melancholy manifests itself in many ways, but always leads to the same despair of not finding what is sought.
What is the cause of this 'strange melancholy' that permeates our society even during boom times of frenetic activity, and which turns to outright despair when prosperity diminishes? De Tocqueville says it comes from taking some 'incomplete joy of this world' and building your entire life on it. That is the definition of idolatry."
In the modern world, “idolatry” (the worship of false gods) has not ceased, rather, it has merely changed forms. Keller notes that, in our society, idolatry usually comes in the form of taking a good thing (such as money, sex, recognition, power, etc.) and making it into an ultimate thing...a false god.  We often fall for the illusion that acquiring the good things in life that we want will make us happy.  This illusion, more than anything else, is responsible for the emptiness that so many people experience in their lives.
One only need examine the many case histories of lottery winners to realize that having one’s worldly desires satisfied does not bring lasting satisfaction.  Here is an article which attests to the train wreck that often results when an individual wins the lottery.
A CNN clip titled Lottery Winners’ Lives Ruined lists drug overdoses, depression, isolation, and guilt as a few common side-effects of winning the lottery. Suicide, divorce, drug addiction, and gambling addiction are other frequent side-effects of a lottery win.  This is not to suggest that lottery winners cannot be happy.  Rather, it is to suggest that the idea that having one’s worldly desires satisfied will bring one happiness is an illusion.
In conclusion, if delusion is correlated with poor mental health, then who is deluded? Hint: It is not Christians.
Scott Youngren | August 14, 2013 at 11:52 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p23b3I-1Rx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have an innate desire to know God.   Those who try to lead you away from God are leading you along with them to Hell.   They will also be living an illogical life with a completely unsupportable base philosophy.  Don't fall for the sucker play...We will be presenting information that blows Evolution up, but you need to have an open mind.  More to come... 

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

"unless that judgment is made on the basis of an objective standard of truth, then the judgment is therefore meaningless"

What is the objective standard by which we can know that such an objective standard of truth exists?

radar said...

The Word of God is Truth.

God made man to be able to comprehend the world around him and use it. Even though everything is actually made of tiny particles that behave in mysterious ways and even though scientists find that Quantum Mechanics is, well, mysterious, we see things as solids and liquids and gas. The world was designed to be viewed and understood by man and man was designed to see and understand the world.

When you know that God made the world and it was made so that the Solar System was designed to make the Earth a human habitat and also a great place from which to view the Universe, you understand that you do, indeed, exist and your thoughts have meaning and your life does as well. Life is not a dream and nothing about your phenomenal brain is a mistake or an evolved set of misconceptions.

If the idiocy of Darwinism had been cast aside, we would probably already have a certain cure for cancer and would be finding ways to try to fight the deleterious accumulation of mutations in our genomes. We would have not murdered and sterilized so many non-whites and racism would have been cast aside long ago. We would NOT have surgically removed so many tonsils and other organs and glands once labeled "vestigial" by foolish Darwinists.

Anyway, once you know you were made to be who you are and that your ability to sense the environment around you is correct, then science will be channeled towards learning again and resources wasted will be put to an end. We do think, we do live, this is not a dream and we have not been evolved to think, we have been MADE to think and we need to be thankful to our Creator.

Anonymous said...

Leaving aside the various internal contradictions and logical problems included in what you just said, could you please try to answer the question?

What is the objective standard by which we can know that such an objective standard of truth exists?

Anonymous said...

"If the idiocy of Darwinism had been cast aside, we would probably already have a certain cure for cancer"

Why don't the creationist institutions have a cure for cancer?

Anonymous said...

"The world was designed to be viewed and understood by man and man was designed to see and understand the world."

Then how come that man doesn't see and understand the world, and how come man sees so little of the world around him/her, and how come various "lesser animals" see/perceive more of the world than humans do?

Anonymous said...

"We do think, we do live, this is not a dream and we have not been evolved to think, we have been MADE to think and we need to be thankful to our Creator."

How did you conclude the first three items? ("We do think, we do live, this is not a dream")

How did you conclude the last three items? ("we have not been evolved to think, we have been MADE to think and we need to be thankful to our Creator")

radar said...

Read the article before commenting so you make a reasonable comment.

Darwinism concludes that we have evolved to react to the environment, do not actually "think" per se but just react as evolved. Know your own hypothesis, please.

Creation and ID scientists are pretty busy trying to overturn the massive monolithic Darwinist mindset so that science could concentrate on things like curing cancer. We have to kill off the idiocy of Darwinism in order to get on the same page and get things done. If you car has four flat tires, you must fix or replace the tires before you can drive effectively.

Organisms have highly sophisticated sensory systems depending on the environment they were designed to inhabit and the function they fulfill. God made several kinds of organisms to fit the various niches in the ecosystem. Mankind would not do well with Mantis Shrimp eyes because we do not live on the ocean bottom seeking other bottom-dwelling organisms to eat. We do not have echolocation hearing because we do not fly at night at high speeds seeking insects to eat. We do not have nerves that sense organisms within the water because we do not live in the water and hunt within the water.

Our brains are incredibly sophisticated and our senses are designed to allow us to observe the entire Universe and try to comprehend how it works. We have learned much about how our eyes and other senses comprehend the world, and while these ways allow magicians to fool us with sleight-of-hand tricks, they also give us an advantage in seeing anomalies in a forest or field that could be a dangerous animal or potential prey...or our lost pocket knife.

Since Darwinists think their brains have evolved, I can never figure out why they bother to try to reason with anyone, since they are evolved (in their opinion) to think what they think and they have no basis for any standard from which to argue. Darwinists think that thought and actions are all the result of random mutations and natural selection from mutated features. Bizarre, impossible and ridiculous, but you believe it. So why bother to argue when you cannot help what you think?

Creationists invented modern science. Now pagans rule the roost and they are making a real mess of things. Junk DNA? Nope. Vestigial organs? Nope. Transitional forms? Nope. Has anyone observed one kind of organism evolve into another? Nope.

Have experiments shown that rapid speciation occurs using genetic material that is already within the genome? Yep. Has observation shown that the mother always makes a copy of her own kind during reproduction? Yep. Have we humans learned to breed out genetic material to get specific features using the genetic material already in existence? Yep.

Can Darwinists explain irreducible complexity, CSI, the massive amounts of information in organisms and the myriad systems that are inter-dependent, thus precluding separate evolution? Nope. Can they give a plausible scenario for the life cycle of the Monarch Butterfly or the Bombardier Beetle, to name just two? Nope.

Can they explain the myriad anomalies of the fossil record I have pointed out for years? NEVER have they EVER done it.

Anonymous said...

"Read the article before commenting so you make a reasonable comment."

Obviously I read the article. That's why I quoted from it.

If you have no objective standard by which to judge what the objective standard for truth is, then you are proceeding from a subjective standard initially. You have no objective standard by which to judge that God is the objective standard for truth.

Proceeding from your own subjective perspective outward, what is the first point you get to where you can agree with others that an objective reality exists?

Would it perhaps be where we can agree that a physical world exists and that our senses reflect that world?

If not, what would it be?

"our senses are designed to allow us to observe the entire Universe"

If only. I won't insult your intelligence and instead I'll go on the assumption that you know this isn't true. Our senses can only perceive a very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum and the sound frequency range.

"Creation and ID scientists are pretty busy trying to overturn the massive monolithic Darwinist mindset so that science could concentrate on things like curing cancer."

That's pretty misguided. Why don't they cure cancer instead?

Prediction: if a cure for cancer is ever invented, it won't be by a creationist.

radar said...

Our senses sense the things we require to observe the entire Universe and find out that there are parts of the light spectrum (for one example) that we do not see. We have the intellect to discover the world of subatomic particles. Perhaps our sense of smell, hearing and touch are not as heightened as some organisms, but then again we would be overwhelmed by the flood of sensory information if we had the best sight, hearing, smell, touch and other senses like magnetic sensing...too many pieces of information would boggle the brain.

We sense exactly what we need to comprehend the world.

For readers who are not used to the commenters? They deny the basics of their own religion, and make no mistake, Darwinism is a religion and not science! By their own hypothesis they can only "think" and "act" in ways that they are evolved to do and they really have no control over themselves. They do not like to admit this.

As I said in a recent post, I am too busy to do much blogging or commenting right now. But the fact that we need creation science and ID science is just like the secret capitalists who worked behind the iron curtain or, in an earlier age, the men like Hus and Tyndale and Calvin and Luther who risked life and limb to bring the Bible to the people and break the hold of the church/state during the Middle Ages.

I could also list men like Grossteste and Bacon and others like them, priests who invented modern science while being weighed down by the church/state. Funny thing, the unholy alliance between the media and academics and governments and secular scientific organizations is looking more like the Holy Roman Empire every day. The secrecy, the blatant attack on Christianity, the perpetuation of a false religion (the unholy papacy then, the unholy evolutionism now), the censorship and the lockstep thinking and blackballing of those who disagree? Machiavellian and evil in the extreme.

Christians are murdered in other places around the world. They are simply being targeted in the USA for investigation and the laws are being aligned to throw us in jail for our beliefs. No Torquemada yet...but who knows?

I consider Darwinism an evil influence taking humanity backwards to the paganist past. We are already sacrificing our babies and glorifying sexual deviancy and setting up a surveillance system that reminds me a lot of the Thought Police. Dystopia is being built by the Socialists and the Darwinists. People who do not know their history must indeed be doomed to repeat it. Goodbye, USA, you were once so great. If OBamacare is fully funded the beginning of the end is here. Watch and see...

The only hope is that the young people will see the idiocy of Darwinism and Socialism and rebel as did our Founding Fathers and turn the tide. My generation has done their best to screw it all up.

radar said...

Once you understand that God made mankind and the Universe and told man what truth is, then you either accept this truth or go out on your own.

God said the world was created for man to have dominion over and to populate the Earth. Man rebelled and therefore sin and death and of course deterioration/devolution have been a problem ever since. (You guys just have to flip your myth upside down and it works...)

Since God created the world, it is real and since He said He would put an end to it at some point, we believe this as well. As God made the world for us to observe and use, we can trust our senses to believe what we see is real and useful and yet we have the ability to look under the hood of things to view what is not at first seen. Yet even as we discover new things at the macro and micro level we have the ability to comprehend them.

The problem is that man continues to rebel and disobey. The idiocy of Darwinism requires a drumbeat of propaganda and censorship to protect it from genuine inspection. If Darwinism was true, they would not need to use courts and black-balling and censorship and propaganda to keep the myth going.

Darwinism would crumble and fall apart if it was not protected. That is why it needs protecting. I dare Darwinists to allow open discussion in classrooms and scientific organizations for just ten years...that is all it would take to tear your fairy tale to shreds!

Anonymos said...

So this supposedly objective standard of truth of yours is actually based on a completely subjective supposition. There is no objective standard by which we can judge what the objective standard for truth is. Someone else might say, with the same justification, that something else is the objective standard for truth. Some other religion, for example.

And that's where it becomes obvious that there's nothing objective about it at all.

radar said...

Since God did create all things, His version of truth is objective and unassailable. Even most of the ancient philosophers recognized the idea of a creator god was the logical solution to the existence of all things and considered those who did not agree to be crude individuals. However, they did not know who that god was...

The God of Adam and Noah and Abraham and Jesus Christ is the God and Creator - He made all things and He makes the rules. I trust that His Truth is truth.

Anonymos said...

"Since God did create all things"...

Your initial premise is based on a subjective supposition, and so it can not be the basis for any objective standard of anything.

AmericanVet said...

Everyone begins with an initial premise. There is no worldview without a premise, just as there is no journey without a starting point.

The evidence of history and science leads me to believe that God created and did establish fundamental truths. One of those truths is that man was meant to populate the planet and also to rule over it. In other words, learn how to use the raw materials and organisms of the world and learn how to harness your senses to learn how things work.

If you deny God and claim that evolution is true, then you have no basis to trust your own thoughts since you believe random chance "built" you and your brain. As an evolved being, you have no control over your thoughts or actions, they evolved to lead you as you have been evolved. Therefore your argument is flawed from the start, since you have no absolutes to stand on.

I have absolutes. I stand on them and view the world from that position. God created, made man capable of comprehending the Universe to a great extent and expected us to learn. However, we also rebelled against Him and we need to restore our relationship with him lest we be dead spiritually and experience eternal death after this brief life is over.

Anonymos said...

"Everyone begins with an initial premise. There is no worldview without a premise, just as there is no journey without a starting point."

You're conceding that your starting point is subjective, if I'm understanding you correctly. Do you understand that it is then impossible to build an "objective standard" or an "absolute" on this subjective basis? It would still just be a subjective standard, even if you claim an (unprovable) all-powerful being as its "authority".

Not that that necessarily makes your values "wrong". It just makes them not objective or absolute.

"The evidence of history and science leads me to believe that God created and did establish fundamental truths."

With all respect, I think that that is something on which reasonable persons can disagree. One can look at the scientific evidence and come to very different conclusions than the ones you subscribe to. And in fact the vast majority of scientists do exactly that - practically all of them within the respective fields.

Note that this doesn't mean that the fundamental truths you subscribe to as a result of that belief are necessarily wrong.

"One of those truths is that man was meant to populate the planet and also to rule over it. In other words, learn how to use the raw materials and organisms of the world and learn how to harness your senses to learn how things work."

I think that that particular "truth" to an extent is something one can also glean simply by looking at our current role and presence on this planet. We can make use of the resources at our disposal, but we also need to keep sustainability in mind, of course. That is something one can conclude whether one believes or doesn't believe in God.

Anonymos said...

"If you deny God and claim that evolution is true, then you have no basis to trust your own thoughts since you believe random chance "built" you and your brain. As an evolved being, you have no control over your thoughts or actions, they evolved to lead you as you have been evolved. Therefore your argument is flawed from the start, since you have no absolutes to stand on."

You're engaging in a number of false claims and suppositions about other people's beliefs here - as well as some very questionable logic. For example, the claim that "Darwinists" claim that "random chance built" something verges on a strawman argument. The fact that random chance is a factor in a particular aspect evolution doesn't mean that our thinking process itself is random or completely unreliable.

What you're suggesting is quite illogical and has nothing to do with current understanding of biology and evolution. It is such a fundamentally flawed piece of logic that this makes me question how much of the theory of evolution you actually understand. Evolution doesn't result in organisms or organs that behave completely randomly - there is hardly ever any genuine evolutionary "fitness" value in that.

Evolution has resulted in a brain that can perceive and reason, and that has certain instincts and that can feel certain emotions. That lines up perfectly with natural selection under almost all circumstances favoring organisms that can do exactly that.

As for free will: as a human being on planet Earth, we have a rather limited set of options. We have a semblance of free will, seeing as we generally make choices in the situations we are given. Yet in the end, most of us behave exactly as we have evolved to behave: we form groups (families etc.) to aid our survival, we find mates, we reproduce, we look after our young, etc. The free will we actually exhibit - should I choose this mate or that mate, should I pursue my livelihood in this fashion or that fashion, should I pleasure my senses this way or that way - actually has a very limited range, and it takes quite a strong belief in an unprovable supernatural entity to conclude that making these decisions requires special permission from such an entity.

Anonymos said...

"I have absolutes. I stand on them and view the world from that position. God created, made man capable of comprehending the Universe to a great extent and expected us to learn. However, we also rebelled against Him and we need to restore our relationship with him lest we be dead spiritually and experience eternal death after this brief life is over."

As noted above, you have no absolutes. You have values, but they are subjective, just like everyone else's. You subjectively picked a supposition ("the God of the Christian Bible exists") and to an extent that has dictated your choices.

Keep in mind that "knowing objectively" and "strongly believing in something" (which I have no doubt you do) are not the same thing at all.