Delusional Philosophy

The atheist Richard Dawkins authored a book entitled “The God Delusion.”  In it, he ridicules Christians specifically for believing God’s existence.  While Dawkins travels through a litany of stories, anecdotes, and diatribes, he never really gives a defense for his own position and why it ranks superior than that which he pegs as a delusion.  He simply pokes fun at the Christian faith, his primary goal as he stated at the outset.  However, stories, anecdotes, and ridicule are not defenses of one’s position.  Rather, they are irrational.

While Dawkins does refer to arguments of evidence, proof, and science, he provides little to defend his position of atheism from those arguments.  All he concludes in his reference to them is that they offer no reason to believe in God without providing syllogistic arguments in support from them.  His arguments are not from syllogistic reasoning but based on speculation and ridicule without support. Additionally, he spends an extensive amount of print on defining delusion while referencing other people’s claims and then making his own claim. He then meanders into a defense of his own claim by stating his book is “less shrill” and “tame” compared to other published works.  However, “less shrill” and ridicule remain shrill and irrational.  Shrill and ridicule are traits of intolerance and irrationalism.  Such traits not only show opposition to different ideas, philosophy, and religion, but they also engage in intentional acts to destroy these ideas, philosophy, and religious beliefs.  Today’s atheism delivers such actions by pursuing court actions, demonstrations, and in some cases violence against religious activity, specifically Christian beliefs.

Delusion consists of not only actions but thoughts.  A belief system and worldview guides thinking and behavior.  Consider the atheistic belief system.  It is the belief in the non-existence of God and regularly rails against God and those who believe Him.  How rational is it to believe in what a person alleges does not exist?  That equates to believing in magic and pixie dust.  In doing so, atheism affirms what it denies – God.  For one could not know what does not exists, for there is no knowledge in non-existence.  One cannot conjure up in one’s mind that which does not exist.  Try thinking of non-existence.  What would non-existence look like?  Can a person entertain non-existence in one’s mind if there is no knowledge of that which does not exist? If one thinks or speaks of God, that person affirms knowledge of God.  That is, one imagines what God or some god looks like and formulates it into a straw man when associating it with a particular religion or specifically biblical faith.  That straw man is formulating an argument based on what one believes another holds.

One cannot escape this logic by claiming that superman, trolls, or fairies do not exist, and one can imagine them.  These fictitious characters are extrapolations of what exist in the real world.  Someone simply imagined a man who could fly or a flying tiny human-like creature with wings one calls a fairy sprinkling pixie dust everywhere.  We witness wings on birds and imagine them attached to a small human form.  Humans are creative in their imaginations.  Movies and television exhibit this creativity.  However, creating out of imagination and believing that such created objects are actually real or that they become real when we imagine them is fantasy, child-like, or delusional.

Many have created gods in their imagination.  However, they have done so as extrapolations from what exist in the real world.  Virtually all of the Greek and Roman gods possess features of humans or animals.  One cannot find a god or gods in the world religions, except the Christian faith, not extrapolated from the real world and imposed on some god or gods.

Such a stance is a belief in alleged non-existence and non-knowledge.  Such thinking and actions are delusional and irrational.  It is a true leap of faith, because no basis exists at all for such belief.

The psalmist affirms the irrationality and delusion of those who refuse to accept God,

How long will you people turn my glory into shame?

How long will you love delusions and seek false gods?” (Psalm 4:2)

 The psalmist claims in rhetorical questions that seeking after that which does not exist is delusional.  Religious leaders in the nations surrounding Israel created gods extrapolated from the created order.  The Greeks did that as did the Romans in elevating gods they created from their imaginations after observing objects in the created order.  They glorified non-existence and non-knowledge.  It is one thing to create fiction by extrapolating characteristics of that which exist in the real world and admitting that it is fiction, but it is quite another to claim that such created fiction is real and then worship this fiction.

Atheism follows the same pattern as polytheism by continually thinking about and speaking of that which they claim does not exist.  Such thinking and acts are just as delusional as creating gods in one’s mind, which atheists must do to speak of them.  Atheism must imagine some sort of god to speak of the Christian biblical God, for it cannot think or speak from non-knowledge.  Atheism cannot speak of the biblical God without having read or studied God from the source – the Bible.  Quite frequently, atheists ignore the Bible in talking about the biblical God and thereby create a straw man god, and not the biblical God and ridicule it.  That is tantamount to a person continuously having a conversation with oneself as though that person’s other self actually existed or thinking of or speaking with an imaginary friend created in one’s mind.  Atheism creates in their own mind some god it believes Christians believe.  That is also a delusion.  The psalmist had such delusion in mind when he wrote his words.  A delusion is claiming that which is false true and that a person can think of or have a conversation with what one created in one’s own imagination, that is non-knowledge.

Psalm 4 brings us back to reality by having the psalmist’s words correspond with reality, not gods that are false but the God of all existence, not gods created from the created order but the one true God separate and distinct from it and over it.

Advertisements

Bloviating from Irrationalism

When in an irrational state of mind, one cannot discern irrational thoughts and words. Such a stance makes it difficult to distinguish between truth and a lie.  A person suppresses such a means of making a distinction when one divorces the foundation of one’s thinking from the Creator.  We call speech from that foundation ranting or bloviating.  These expressions arise from irrationalism.  In the world of critical thinking, such irrationalism arises from logical fallacies or defective machinations based on falsehood.

Psalm 2 provides a perfect example of those who engage in bloviating from irrationalism.  Let us listen in on a conversation with such people,

The kings of the earth set themselves,

And the rulers take counsel together,

Against the LORD and against His

Anointed, saying,

“Let us break Their bonds in pieces

And cast away Their cords from us.” (NKJV)

Is there something wrong with this scene?  The irony is laughable.  In this scene these monarchs, powerful in their own defective thinking and self-aggrandizement, brandish arrogant words in their chains.  They spew out audacious curses toward the One who holds them captive with heavy chains [cords] while in complete denial of their imprisonment and the One who holds them.  They engage in futile conspiracy [counsel] in an attempt to strategize to break free.

While they recognize God’s personal name (Yahweh, [LORD]), they refuse to subject themselves to Him.  In their derangement and insanity, they believe in their own strength to free themselves.  They look at the cords wrapped tightly around them and lash out toward the LORD of all, thinking that they can break free from their bondage.  However, their strategy and counsel is futile, defective, and delirious while they believe they think from a sound mind.

The scene pivots from them to the LORD of hosts:

He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;

The LORD shall hold them in derision.

Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,

And distress them in His deep displeasure:

“Yet I have set My King

On My holy hill of Zion.”

Their Creator and Sovereign laughs at them derisively.   He dictates to them and not they to Him.  He holds them in contempt because of their rebellion and arrogance, and informs them that their kingships were temporary fantasies based on their foolish pronouncements and not His.  The LORD then, distresses them by pointing to His Son and declares Him as King.  This act is indeed distressful for these self-appointed kings, because God’s King usurped their thrones.

Today, many make self-declarations concerning their rule.  History demonstrates that such dictators and tyrants eventually fall.  They fade into infamy after the sword or a bullet lands a fatal blow.  Individuals believe they rule their own lives and determine their fate.  They adopt the philosophy of Frank Sinatra,

And now, the end is near
And so I face the final curtain
My friend, I’ll say it clear
I’ll state my case, of which I’m certain

I’ve lived a life that’s full
I’ve traveled each and every highway
But more, much more than this
I did it my way.” [From “My Way” by Frank Sinatra]

Those who deny God fail to recognize that He alone appoints leaders throughout history.  These deniers who refuse to even admit God’s existence return to the dust of the earth and await judgment from the righteous God.  Individuals who also deny God, want to live their lives like Frank Sinatra, that is, “my way.”  Regardless of their ideology or belief systems, those who oppose God and refuse to acknowledge His Son will face the same fate as the kings depicted in Psalm 2.

This psalm offers a way out from judgment.  It declares that those who serve the LORD will find hope.  Atheists, agnostics, and polytheists alike can find that same hope by turning from their futile faith in themselves and materialism to faith in God the Deliverer.

Are There Two Realities and Two Competing Explanations of Them?

Rabbi Breitowitz, former professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, recently gave a speech about the difference between religion and science. In it, he attempted to distinguish between two types of realities as explained from two perspectives: religion and science. However, he begins with a faulty premise by claiming that religion and science address two different types of realities: one the “what” (science) and one the “why” (religion). These types are vague claims and not knew. What is “type”?  Those who believe in evolution as the explanation of origins also make such a claim while using the claims of science. This claim creates a bifurcation with reality – that is what exists, and runs in conflict with Torah itself.

Here is the link to Rabbi Breitowitz’s speech video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hvrv94sl-Lw

At the beginning of Torah, its reads,

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

This claim is not a type of reality separate and distinct from the “type of reality” of science. Rather it is a true explanation of reality and does not run counter to science. It affirms:

  • The material world
  • The material world began and was not eternal
  • God existed before any time-space beginning
  • God created what exists

Science does not have its own reality nor addresses a particular type of reality. Science does not have the thinking capacity or will to address anything let alone reality. People think and will. Second, it is a false comparison to posit religion against science or more specifically Torah against science. God created both, not as two separate sources or explanations of two separate realities but as affirming one another.

Science cannot affirm or dis-affirm any reality, because science (or a better term “the sciences”) consists of mechanisms or tools man created to examine the material world and to make sense of it through interpretation. There are many sciences (meteorology, archaeology, anatomy, biology, etc.). Each deals with a segment of existence.

A large part of science is the human mind, because without it there would be no means for developing the tools, mechanisms, and methods used as science to explore and interpret what exist. That is, science would not exist apart from the living being known as man or woman. Science is often used in a vague manner as THE way individuals explain what exist. However, the explanation and interpretation of data does not come from science but from individuals. Therefore, science (or the sciences) does not explain anything or interpret data. People do. However, frequently, pseudo-scientists or even scientists misleadingly conflate the mechanism and the interpreter, making them one and the same. This is a false approach.

Second, it is false to set up religion versus science and then claim they address two realities. There is only one reality – that which exists. Religion and science are not true opposites addressing two realities. To make them so is a logical fallacy. Just as science does not address a reality, in that it cannot think, religion cannot do this either. Religion, just like science, is not a living and thinking being but simply a metaphor known as a metonymy. That is, it represents that which it describes.

For example, people often speak of a head of a nation as the “crown.” The head of a nation is not a crown, but the crown is a representative symbol for that person – a metonymy. However, those who refer to science or religion as being able to do this or that or give evidence or claim certain things as true naively fail to distinguish the thing from the symbol (metonymy) that represents it. In doing so, they raise a deception and a logical fallacy while misleading people into accepting the thing itself as an authoritative living entity (that is, science is the living authority). The deception is that the one who commits this fallacy is setting himself up as the unquestioned authority. In doing so, there are no hypotheses, theories, speculations, or guesses but simply unquestioned fact.

Third, religion and science both have their origins in and through the minds of individuals. People examine specific areas of what exist and give that discipline a name, such as anatomy, biology, astronomy, and so on. Those names did not exist prior to the minds of individuals. It is false to claim that because the material world existed before humanity, that the sciences that described it existed in tandem. Individuals created the mechanisms and methods of discovery.

They did not suddenly appear with the material world. Therefore, to make the claim that science proves something or that science proves God does not exist or cannot prove God exist is conflating a metaphor and the individual interpreter and in essence makes
the individual an impersonal metaphor.

Rabbi Breitowitz commits this fallacy by positing religion and science as opposites and as describing two separate realities. In doing so, he makes two separate claims, one a false opposite fallacy (religion versus science) and the other a false view of what exists. If there are two realities and we live in one, where and what is the other? There is no other if the Rabbi holds to Torah’s beginning and the claims this beginning statement makes,

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

Many atheistic scientists reject God and retreat to evolution.

However, evolution is not another reality but a separate explanation of origins. It is no more than a symbolic name associated with origins.  It is an explanation that rejects God as the originator of all that exists in the material world.  Two explanations actually pose true opposites – that which is true and that which is false or reality and non-reality or fact and fiction. That which is true and that which is false cannot both exist as true, because that would violate the law of non-contradiction, that is, A does not equal non-A.

The difference between the explanations from Torah and a scientific textbook is really that of genre and not different realities. Learned critics often confuse (falsify) or conflate opposites. Genre is the type or form of literary work appropriated. Torah’s genre is narrative and story of historical reality while scientific textbooks are descriptive interpretation of observable historical data. They have one thing in common: historical fact.  These approaches are very different but are not in conflict as some theological or scientific critics who reject the Bible wish to lead people to believe. These genres can support one another, such as in anthropological science: relics supporting history. They have indeed done so in biblical archaeology and anthropology.

When reading or listening to a critic of religion or science, such as Rabbi Breitowitz, examine his or her premises and the language used. Are the premises sound? Do they use metaphor or plain speech? Remember, even seemingly plain speech is metaphor, because it seeks to explain something through representation. For example. the crown is only a symbol for the authority it represents. It is also a name given to a combination of metal and jewels, and that name represents that combination. Is the user of specific words applying them correctly or falsifying reality by these words? Deception can arise from falsification. Do not be deceived.  The Apostle John wrote,

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

False prophets do not have to be religious.  They can also pose as scientists, psychologists, or philosophers bringing a false perspective of reality and attempt to falsify truth.

An Invitation to Discuss Published Articles on this Website

As a source of writing and publishing on issues related to biblical faith and its defense, this website is open to all who wish to respond to these issues regardless of their faith or philosophical persuasion.  This means those from any religion or denomination or even atheists may reply to articles.  However, all written responses are moderated.  Such an invitation calls for a dialog of respect.  This means that those who seek to engage in accusations, abuse, name-calling, slander, and related behaviors will not be able to post messages in response to written articles.  People can disagree and support their side without being abusive.

Thank you,

Action Faith Books Press