Posts Tagged ‘value’

A Radically Unsustainable, Toxic Worldview: The Massive ‘Moral Injury’ Caused By Atheism And Secular Humanism

May 18, 2015

Reading on page two of the main section of the May 14, 2015 edition of USA Today, I came across the following words from the article “Voices: Moral injury is also a war wound” by Gregg Zoroya, that screamed out at me:

The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that nearly one in four Americans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan developed post-traumatic stress disorder. The VA has treated 640,000 mental disorder cases from the wars, more than half of them PTSD.

Yet the science behind this disease that so emotionally paralyzes is still evolving and there is a heated debate among scientists.

Is it triggered purely by sudden, fear-based trauma to a sexual assault or an bomb explosion or the gathering of body parts of comrades from a battlefield?

Or is there a strain of PTSD, maybe a cousin of it, that has less to do with fear than with the ruthless disassembling of knowing what is right from what is wrong?

War is rife with good people feeling shame or guilt for what they did, whether it is opening fire on a car full of innocents because a driver fails to yield at a checkpoint, surviving combat while friends die or parsing the appropriate measure of abuse to pull confessions from an enemy.

Scientists are calling it moral injury. Former Navy psychiatrist William Nash, writing the introduction to Edmonds’ book, explains: “Moral injuries are wounds to beliefs and secondarily, to the identity of the person holding those beliefs, inflicted by events that violently contradict them.”

Nash, who today is director of psychological health for the Marine Corps, says, “We need to believe that the world is a good place; that we, ourselves, are good; and that our lives make sense somehow, that they are not just random chaos … Lose your grip on even one of (those assumptions) and it’s a long fall.”

And that’s PRECISELY what atheism and secular humanism amount to: “a long fall” into moral chaos and nihilism.

According to the Judeo-Christian worldview, God created the universe for man and created man as the capstone of His creation in His very own image (Genesis 1:26-27).  Over and over again, God calls His creation – which amounts to His self-expression – as “good.”  And He calls it good seven times (see Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31), reflecting the sevenfold perfection and completeness of God.  Yes, there was a Fall, and man plunged into sin and creation itself was affected by this corruption.  But it began as “good” and as the good work of a holy, morally perfect God.

We can view the world as fallen, yet still bearing the stamp of the divine, just as we can see the divine within ourselves.  There IS good; we ourselves HAVE the capacity of goodness within ourselves; our lives DO make sense and are NOT just random chaos.

Now, consider the atheist/secular humanist worldview: how did it all get here?  By nothing more than godless, random chaos.  And we got here through a lengthy, random procession of chaos by which the most vicious, ruthless creature survived by killing off all the weaker or more inferior ones around it.  Only if the law of the claw is “good” can we call ourselves “good.”  On the story of atheistic evolution we can call ourselves “good” only because according to the results of atheistic evolution we proved to be better at wiping out all of our competitors than our competitors were at wiping us out in the struggle for survival.  And we continue to be “good” only because we continue to be better at murdering and exterminating our competition than any other creature under the sun.  Atheists are hypocrites who affirm “survival of the fittest” as a past fact only to claim to utterly renounce it as a present reality.  So no, on the secular humanist story of evolution, we are NOT “good.”  And do our lives make sense somehow?  Again, NOT.  Our lives mean NOTHING because we CAME from nothing and when we die we shall surely be NOTHING but the same meaningless dust of the ground that surrounds us.  And there IS no ultimate purpose, no ultimate destiny not only for you but for your entire family, your entire race, your entire nation, your entire species and in fact the entire universe itself as it all ultimately grinds to an end when the same random process that spat us out ultimately swallows us back up again in cold, cosmic death and nothingness.

I keep saying it: true science and any true or legitimate understanding of humanity SCREAMS OUT THAT THERE IS A GOD.

And ANY view that refuses to acknowledge God is the religion of wicked fools that amounts to fatal “moral injury” to the human race.

I want you to read this article – which was actually a lecture delivered by William Lane Craig – and then reflect on the wisdom of this Marine psychologist who deals with reality rather than the empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense of secular humanism:

The Absurdity of Life Without God by William Lane Craig, a lecture given at Biola University on 5 March, 2002

(Painstakingly transcribed from tape)

This a topic that is most serious and somber: the absurdity of life without God.

Loren Eisley writes, “Man is the cosmic orphan.He’s the only creature in the universe who asks, ‘Why?’Other animals have instincts to guide them, but man has learned to ask questions: ‘Who am I?’‘Why am I here?’‘Where am I going?’”Ever since the Enlightenment, when men threw off the “shackles” of religion, man has tried to answer those questions without reference to God.But the answers that came back were not exhilarating, but dark and terrible: you are the accidental by-product of nature – the result of matter, plus time, plus chance.There is no reason for your existence; all you face is death.Modern man thought that when he got rid of God he freed himself from everything that stifled and oppressed him; instead, he found that in killing God, he had only orphaned himself.For if there is no God, then man’s life becomes, ultimately, absurd.If God does not exist, then both man and the universe are inevitably doomed to death.Man, like all biological organisms, must die.With no hope of immortality man’s life leads only to the grave.Compared to the infinite stretch of time, man’s life is but a brief infinitesimal moment; and yet this is all the life that he will ever know.And therefore every one of us must come face to face with what theologian Paul Tillich has called, “the threat of non-being.”For even though I know that now I exist, that now I am alive, I also know that someday I will no longer exist, that I will die.I will no longer be.And this thought is staggering and frightening; to think that the person I call I, myself, will no longer exist, that I will be no more.It is an overwhelming thought that the majority of us encounter first as children.Most of us simply grow to accept the fact, as we all learn to live with the inevitable.But the child’s insight of horror remains true.As the French existentialist, Jean Paul Sarte, observed, “Several hours or several years make no difference, once you have lost eternity.”

And the universe, too, faces a death of its own, scientists tell us that the universe is expanding, and the galaxies are growing further and further apart.As it does so it grows colder and colder as its energy is used up: eventually all the stars will burn out, and all matter will collapse into dead stars and black holes – there will be no light at all.There will be no heat.There will be no life.Only the corpses of dead stars and galaxies, ever expanding into the endless darkness, and the cold recesses of outer space – a universe in ruins.The entire universe marches irretrievably toward its grave.So not only is the life of each individual person doomed, the entire human race is doomed.The universe is plunging toward inevitable extinction; death is written throughout its structure.There is no escape.There is no hope.

If there is no God, then, man and the universe are doomed like prisoners awaiting execution; we await our inevitable death. There is no God. There is no immortality. And what is the consequence of this? It means that life itself becomes ultimately absurd. It means that the life that we do have is without ultimate significance, value, or purpose. Let’s look at each one of these.

First, there is no ultimate meaning without immortality and God. If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies, then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life? Does it really matter whether he ever existed or not? It might be said that his life was important because it influenced others or affected the course of history. But that shows only a relative significance to his life, not an ultimate significance. His life may be important relative to certain other events. But what is the ultimate significance to any of those events? If all of the events are meaningless, then what can be the ultimate significance of influencing any of them? Ultimately it makes no difference. Or look at it from another perspective: scientists say that the universe originated in a great explosion called ‘the Big Bang’ about 15 billion years ago. Suppose the Big Bang had never occurred: what ultimate difference would it have made? The universe is doomed to die anyway; in the end it makes no difference whether it ever existed or not. And therefore it is without ultimate significance. The same is true of the human race; mankind is a doomed race in a dying universe. Because the human race will eventually cease to exist, it makes no ultimate difference whether it ever did exist. mankind is thus no more significant than a swarm of mosquitoes or a barnyard of pigs, for their end is all the same: the same cosmic process that coughed them all up in the first place will eventually swallow them all up again. And the same is true of each individual person; the contribution of the scientists to the advance of human knowledge, the researches of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the efforts of good people everywhere to benefit the lot of the human race, all these come to nothing; in the end they don’t make one bit of difference. Not one bit. Each person’s life is therefore without ultimate significance. And because our lives are ultimately meaningless, the activities that we fill our lives with are also meaningless. The long hours spent in study at the university, our jobs, our interests, our friendships, all of these are, in the final analysis, ultimately meaningless. This is the horror of modern man. Because he ends in nothing, he ultimately is nothing.

But it’s important to see that its not just immortality that man needs if life is to be meaningful. Mere duration of existence does not suffice to make that existence meaningful. Man and the universe could exist forever, but if there were no God, that existence would still have no ultimate significance. To illustrate one science fiction short story told of a space traveler who was marooned on a barren chunk of rock lost in outer space. And he had with him two vials: one containing a potion that would give him immortality, and the other a poison to end his life. Realizing his hopeless predicament, he gulped down the vial of poison. And then, he had discovered to his horror, that he had drunk the wrong vial; he had swallowed the potion for immortality. And thus he was doomed to exist forever in a meaningless, unending life. Now if God does not exist, then our lives are just like that. They could go on, and on, and on, and still be utterly without meaning. We could still ask of life, ‘So what?’ So its not just immortality that man needs if life is to be ultimately significant. He needs God and immortality.And if God does not exist, then he has neither.

20th century man came to understand this fact. Read Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett; during this entire play two men carry on trivial, mind-numbing conversation, while waiting for a third man to arrive, who never does. And our lives are like that, Beckett is saying. We just kill time waiting – for what, we don’t know. In a tragic portrayal of man Beckett wrote another play – Breath – in which the curtain opens revealing a stage littered with junk. And for 30 long seconds the audience sits and stares in silence at that junk; and then the curtain closes. That’s all there is. The French existentialists Jean Paul Sarte and Albert Camus understood this as well. Sarte portrays life in his play No Exit as hell. The final line of the play are the words of resignation, “Well, let’s get on with it.” And thus Sarte writes elsewhere of the “nausea” of existence. Camus also saw life as absurd. At the end of his brief novel The Stranger, Camus’ hero discovers in a flash of insight that life has no meaning, and that there is no God to give it one. The French biochemist Jacques Monot seemed to echo these sentiments when he wrote in his work Chance and Necessity, “Man finally knows that he is alone in the indifferent immensity of the universe.”Thus if there is no God, then life becomes ultimately meaningless.Man and the universe are without ultimate significance.

Secondly, there is no ultimate value without God and immortality. If life ends at the grave, then ultimately it makes no difference whether one has lived as a Stalin or as a saint since one’s destiny is ultimately unrelated to one’s behavior. You may as well just live as you please; as the Russian writer Dhostyevsky put it, “If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted.” On this basis a writer like Ayan Rand is absolutely correct to praise the virtues of selfishness. No one holds you accountable; you might as well simply live totally for self. Indeed, when you think about it, it would be foolish to do anything else since life is too short to jeopardize it by acting out of anything but pure self-interest. Sacrifice for another person would be stupid. Kai Nielson, an atheist philosopher, who attempts to justify the viability of ethics without God, in the end admits, “We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one; reflection on it is depresses me. Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.”

But the problem becomes even worse. For regardless of immortality, if there is no God, then there can be no objective standard of right and wrong. All we are confronted with, in Jean Paul Sarte’s words, is “the bare, valueless fact of existence.” Moral values are either just expressions of personal taste, or else the by-products of socio-biological evolution and conditioning. In the word of one humanist philosopher, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion.” In a world without God, who is to say whose values are right, and whose are wrong? Who is to judge that the values of an Adolf Hitler are inferior to those of a Mother Theresa? The concept morality loses all meaning in a universe without God. As one contemporary atheistic ethicist points out, “To say that something is wrong because it is forbidden by God is perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong, even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable. The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain, but their meaning is gone.” In a world without God, there can be no objective right and wrong, only our culturally and personally relative subjective judgments. But that means that it is impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise love, brotherhood, or equality as good. For in a universe without God, good and evil do not exist. there is only the bare, valueless fact of existence. And there is no one to say that you are right, and I am wrong.

Thirdly, there is no ultimate purpose without immortality and God. If death stands with open arms at the end of life’s trail, then what is the goal of life? To what end has life been? Has it all been for nothing? Is there no purpose at all for life? And what of the universe? Is it utterly pointless? If its destiny is but a cold grave in the recesses of outer space, then the answer must be yes. It is pointless. There is no goal, no purpose, for which the universe exists. The litter of a dead universe will just go on expanding and expanding forever. And what of man? Is there no purpose at all for the existence of the human race? Or will it simply peter out someday, lost in the indifference of an oblivious universe? The English writer H.G. Wells foresaw such a prospect. In his novel, The Time Machine, Wells’ time traveler journeys far into the future to discover the destiny of man. And all he finds is a dead earth except for a few lichens and moss orbiting a gigantic red sun. The only sounds are the rush of the wind, and the gentle ripple of the sea. “Beyond these lifeless sounds,” writes Wells, “the world was silent. Silent? It would be hard to convey the stillness of it. All of the sounds of man, the bleating of sheep, the cries of birds, the hum of insects, the stir that makes the background of our lives, all that was over.” And so, Wells’ time traveler returned. But to what? To merely an earlier point on the same purposeless rush towards oblivion. One reading this might exclaim, “No, no! It can’t end that way!” But this is reality in a universe without God. There is no hope; there is no purpose. Reflect on T.S. Elliot’s haunting lines:

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

And what is true of mankind as a whole, is also true of each of us individually. We are here to no purpose. If there is no God, then your life is not qualitatively different from that of a dog. That may sound harsh, but it’s true. As the ancient writer of Ecclesiastes put it, “For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust. (Ecc 3:19-20). In this book that reads more like a piece of modern existentialist literature than a book from the Bible, the writer demonstrates the futility of pleasure, wealth, education, political fame, and honor, in a life doomed to end in death. His verdict? “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity!” (Ecc 12:8). If life ends at the grave, then we have no ultimate purpose for living.

But more than that, even if life did not end in death, without God life would still be without purpose. For man and the universe would then be mere accidents of chance thrust into existence for no reason. Without God the universe is a result of a cosmic accident, a chance explosion. There is no reason for which it exists. And as for man, he’s nothing but a freak of nature, a blind product of matter, plus time, plus chance. There’s no more purpose in life for the human race than for a species of insect – for both are the result of the blind interaction of chance and necessity. As one philosopher has put it, “Human life is mounted upon a sub-human pedestal, and must shift for its self alone, in the heart of a silent and mindless universe.” And what is true of the universe and of the human race is also true of us as individuals. We are here to no purpose. We are the results of certain combinations of heredity and environment. We’re victims of a sort of environmental roulette. Psychologists following Sigmund Freud tell us that our actions are really the result of repressed sexual tendencies. Sociologists following B.F. Skinner argue that all of our choices are really determined by conditioning so that freedom is an illusion. Biologists like Francis Crick regard man as an electro-chemical machine which can be controlled by altering its genetic code. If God does not exist, then you are just a miscarriage of nature, thrust into a purposeless universe to live a purposeless life. So if God does not exist, that means that man and the universe exist to no purpose (since the end of everything is death), and that they came to be for no purpose (since they are only blind products of chance). In short, life is ultimately without reason.

Do you understand then the gravity of the alternatives before us? For if God exists, then there is hope for man. But if God does not exist, then all we are left with is despair. Do you understand why the existence of God is a question that is so vital to man? As one writer has aptly put it, “If God is dead, then man is dead too.” Unfortunately, the mass of people do not understand this fact. They continue on as though nothing had changed. Consider the story told by Frederick Nietzsche of The Madman, who in the early morning hours burst into the marketplace, lantern in hand, crying, “I seek God! I seek God!”Since many of those standing about did not believe in God, he provoked much laughter.‘Did God get lost?They yelled.Or, is He hiding?Or, perhaps He’s gone on a voyage, or emigrated!And thus they yelled and laughed and taunted the madman.And then, Nietzsche writes, the madman turned in their midst and pierced them with his eyes.“Whither is God?” he cried.“I shall tell you!We have killed him!You and I!All of us are His murderers!But how have we done this?How were we able to drink up the sea?Who gave us the sponge to wipe up the entire horizon?What did we do when we unchained this earth from its sun?Whither is it moving now?Away from all suns?Are we not plunging continually backward, sideward, forward in all directions?Is there any up or down left?Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing?Do we not feel the breath of empty space?Has it not become colder?Is not night and more night coming on all the while?Must not lanterns be lit in the morning?Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God?God is dead!And we have killed Him!How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves?”The crowd stared at the madman in silence and astonishment.At last he dashed his lantern to the ground.“I have come too early!”He said.“This tremendous event is still on its way.It has not yet reached the ears of men.”People did not truly comprehend what they had done in killing God.And yet, Nietzsche predicted that some day, people would realize the implications of atheism, and this realization would usher in an age of nihilism that is the destruction of all meaning and value in life.“This most gruesome of guests”, he said, “is standing already at the door.Our whole European culture is moving for some time now with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade as toward a catastrophe, restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect.”Most people still do not reflect upon the consequences of atheism, and so, like the crowd in the marketplace, go unknowingly on their way.And yet, when we realize, as did Nietzsche, what atheism really implies, then his question presses hard upon us: “How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves?”

About the only solution which the atheists can offer is that we just face the absurdity of life bravely and live valiantly. Bertrand Russell, for example, wrote that “we must build our lives upon the firm foundation of unyielding despair. Only by recognizing that the world really is a terrible place can we successfully come to terms with life.” Camus said that we should honestly recognize life’s absurdity and then live in love for one another.” But the fundamental problem with this solution is that it is simply impossible to live consistently and happily within the framework of such a world view. If one lives consistently, he will not be happy. If he lives happily, it is only because he is not consistent. Francis Schaeffer explained this point well, saying, “Modern man lives in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God. Here life is absurd (as we have seen). In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes that there is no God. But because he cannot live consistently and happily in such a world, he therefore makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm that life has meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has absolutely no right to since man and the lower story does not believe in God. Modern man is totally inconsistent to make this leap because these values cannot exist without God, and man and the lower story does not have God.”

Let us look again, then, at each of those three areas in which we saw that life was absurd without God, to show how modern man cannot live consistently and happily with his atheism.

First, the area of meaning. We saw that without God life has no ultimate meaning. And yet, philosophers continue to live as though life were meaningful. For example, Sarte argued that one may create meaning for his life by freely choosing to follow a certain course of action. Sarte, himself, chose Marxism. Now this is utterly inconsistent. It is inconsistent to say that life is objectively meaningless and then to say that one can create meaning for his life. If life really is absurd, then man is trapped in the lower story. To try to create meaning in life represents a leap to the upper story. But Sarte has no basis for this leap. Without God, there can be no objective meaning in life. Sarte’s program is thus actually an exercise in self-delusion – for the universe doesn’t really acquire a meaning just because I happen to give it one. This is obvious. For suppose you give the universe one meaning, and I give it another. Who is right? Well, the obvious answer is neither one. For the universe without God remains objectively meaningless no matter how we happen to regard it. Sarte is really saying, ‘Let’s pretend that life and the universe have meaning.’ And that is just fooling yourself. The point is this: if God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless. But man cannot live consistently and happily as though life were meaningless. And so in order to be happy, he pretends that his life has meaning. But this is of course utterly inconsistent; for without God, man and the universe remain without any real significance.

Turn now to the problem of value.Here is where the most blatant inconsistencies occur.First of all, atheistic humanists are totally inconsistent in affirming the traditional values of love and human brotherhood.Camus has been rightly criticized for inconsistently holding both to the absurdity of life, on the one hand, and to ethics of human love and brotherhood on the other.The two are logically incompatible.Bertrand Russell, too, was inconsistent.For although he was an atheist, he was also an outspoken social critic, denouncing war and restrictions on sexual freedom.Russell admitted that he could not live as though ethical values were simply a matter of personal taste and that he therefore found his own views, and I quote, “incredible.”“I do not know the solution,” he confessed.The point is that if there is no God, then objective right and wrong do not exist.As Dhostovesky said, “All things are permitted.”But Dhostovesky also showed that man cannot live this way.He cannot live as though as though it’s perfectly all right for soldiers to slaughter innocent children.He cannot live as though it’s perfectly acceptable for dictatorial regimes to follow systematic pograms of physical torture of political prisoners.He cannot live as though its all right for dictators like Stalin or Pol Pot to ruthlessly exterminate millions of their own countrymen.Everything in him cries out to say that these acts are wrong, really wrong.But if God does not exist, then he cannot.And so, he makes a leap of faith to affirm values anyway.And when he does, he reveals the inadequacy of a world without God.

The horror of a world devoid of value was brought home to me with new intensity several years ago as I viewed a BBC television documentary called “The Gathering.” It concerned the reunion of certain survivors of the Holocaust in Jerusalem where they shared experiences and rediscovered lost friendships. Now I had heard stories of the Holocaust before and even visited camps like Dachau and Buchenwald. And I thought I was beyond being shocked by further tales of horror. But I found that I was not. One woman prisoner, for example, a nurse, told how she was made the gynecologist at Auswitzch. She observed that certain pregnant women were grouped together by the soldiers under the direction of Dr. Mengele, and housed in the same barracks. Some time passed and she noticed that she no longer saw any of these women. She made inquirees: “Where are the pregnant women who were housed in that barracks?” she asked. “Oh, haven’t you heard,” came the reply, “Dr. Mengele used them for vivisection.” Another woman told how Mengele had had her breast bound up so she could no longer suckle her baby. The doctor wanted to learn how long an infant could survive without nourishment. And desperately this poor woman tried to keep her baby alive by giving it bits of bread soaked in coffee. But to no avail. Each day the baby lost weight – a fact which was eagerly monitored by Dr. Mengele. Finally a nurse then came secretly to this woman, and said to her, “I’ve arranged for a way for you to get out of here. But you cannot take your baby with you. I’ve brought a morphine injection which you can give to your child to take its life.” And when this woman protested the nurse said to her, “Look, your baby is going to die anyway. At least save yourself.” And so this poor woman took the life of her own child. Mengele was furious when he learned he had lost his experimental specimen, and he searched among the corpses of the discarded babies until he could find the body to have one last weighing.

My heart was torn by these stories.One rabbi who survived Auswitzch summed it up well when he said “It was as though a world existed in which all of the Ten Commandments had been reversed: Thou shalt kill, thou shalt lie, thou shalt steal, and so forth.Mankind has never seen such a hell.”And yet, if God does not exist, then our world IS Auswitzch.There is no absolute right and wrong.All things are permitted.But no atheist, no agnostic, can live consistently with such a view.Nietzsche himself, who proclaimed the necessity of living beyond good and evil, broke with his mentor, Richard Waugner, precisely over the issue of the composer’s strident German nationalism and anti-Semitism.Similarly, Sarte, writing in the aftermath of the second World War, condemned anti-Semitism.He declared that a doctrine that leads to extermination is not merely an opinion or a matter of personal taste of equal value with its opposite.In his important essay, “Existentialism is a Humanism,” Sarte struggled vainly to elude the contradiction between his denial of divinely pre-established values in his urgent desire to affirm the value of human persons.He could not live with the implications of his own denial of ethical absolutes.

A second problem is that if God does not exist and there is no immortality, then all the evil acts of men go unpunished.And all the sacrifices of good people go unrewarded.But who can live with such a view?Richard Wombrandt, who was tortured for his faith in communist prison, wrote, “The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil.There is no reason to be human.There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man.The communist torturers often said, ‘There is no God.There is no hereafter.No punishment for evil.We can do what we wish!’I have even heard one torturer say, ‘I thank God in whom I don’t believe that I have lived to this hour when I can express all of the evil in my heart.’He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners.”

The English theologian Cardinal Newman once said that, “If I believed that all of the evils and injustices of life throughout history were not to be made right by God in the afterlife, why, I think I should go mad.”Rightly so.And the same applies to acts of self-sacrifice.A number of years ago a terrible mid-winter air disaster occurred in Washington, D.C.A plane leaving Dulles Airport smashed into a bridge spanning the Potomac River, plunging its passengers into the icy waters.And as the rescue helicopters came attention was focused on one man, who again and again pushed the dangling rope ladder to other passengers rather than be pulled to safety himself.Six times he passed the ladder by, and then when the helicopters came again, he was gone.He had freely given his life so that others might live.The entire nation turned its eyes on this man with respect and admiration for the selfless and good act that he had performed.And yet if the atheist is right, that man was not noble; why he did the stupidest thing possible.He should have gone for the rope ladder first, pushed others out of the way if necessary in order to reach it.But to give his own life for other people for whom he had never even known, all the life he would ever have, what for?For the atheist there can be no reason.And yet the atheist, like the rest of us, instinctively reacts with praise for this man’s selfless action.Indeed I think one will never find an atheist who lives consistently with his system.For a universe without moral accountability and devoid of value is unimaginably terrible.

Finally let’s look at the problem of purpose in life. The only way that most people who deny purpose in life manage to live happily is either by making up some purpose for their lives, which amounts to self-delusion, as we saw with Sarte, or else by not carrying out their view to its logical conclusions. Take the problem of death, for example. According to psychologist Ernst Block, the only way that modern man lives in the face of death is by sub-consciously borrowing the belief in immortality which his forefathers held to. Even though he himself no longer has any basis for this belief, since he does not believe in God. Block states that the belief that life ends in nothing is hardly (in his words) sufficient to keep the head high and to work as if there were no end. The remnants of a belief in immortality, writes Block, modern man does not feel the chasm that unceasingly surrounds him, and will most certainly engulf him at last. Through these remnants he saves his sense of self-identity. Through them the impression arises that man is not perishing, but only that one day the world has the whim no longer to appear to him. Block concludes, “This quite shallow courage feasts on a borrowed credit card; it lives from earlier hopes and the support that they have once provided.” But modern man no longer has any right to that support, since he rejects God. But in order to live purposefully, he makes a leap of faith to affirm a reason for living.

We often find the same inconsistency among those who say that man and the universe came to exist for no reason or purpose but just by chance.Unable to live in an impersonal universe in which everything is the result of blind chance these people begin to ascribe personality and motives to the physical processes themselves.It’s a bizarre way of speaking – and it represents a leap from the lower to the upper story.For example, the brilliant Russian physicist, Zodovitzchen Novakoff, in contemplating the universe, asks, “Why did nature choose to create this universe rather than another?”‘Nature’ here has obviously become a sort of ‘God substitute,’ filling the role and function of the Creator.Similarly, Francis Crick, halfway through his book “The Origin of the Genetic Code” begins to spell ‘nature’ with a capital ‘N’ – and speaks of natural selection as being “clever” and “thinking” of what it will do.similarly Fred Hoyle, the English astronomer, attributes to the universe itself the properties of God.For Carl Sagan, the cosmos, with which he always spelled with a capital letter, obviously fulfills the role of a God-substitute.Though all of these men profess not to believe in God, they smuggle in a God-substitute through the back door because they cannot bear to live in a universe in which everything is the result of impersonal forces.

And it’s interesting to see many thinkers betray their views when they are pushed to the logical conclusions.For example, feminists have raised a storm of protest over Freudian sexual psychology because, they say, its chauvinistic and degrading to women.And, some psychologists have nuckled under and revised their theories.Now this is totally inconsistent.If Freudian psychology is really true then it doesn’t matter if its degrading to women.You can’t change the truth because you don’t like what it leads to.But the problem is that people can’t live consistently and happily in a world where other persons are devalued.And yet, if God does not exist, then nobody has any value.The only way you can consistently support women’s rights is by belief in God.For if God does not exist, women have no more rights than a female goat or a chicken has rights.In nature, whatever is, is right.IfGod does not exist, then natural selection dictates that the male of the species is the dominant and aggressive one.In nature, whatever is, is right.But who can live with such a view?Apparently not even Freudian psychiatrists who betray their theories when pushed to their logical conclusions.

Or take the sociological behaviorism of a man like B.F. Skinner.This view leads to the sort of society envisioned by George Orwell in his novel “1984,” where the government controls and programs the thoughts of everybody.If Pavlov’s dog can be made to salivate when a bell rings, so can a human being.And if Skinner’s theories are right, there can be no objection to treating people like the rats in Skinner’s rat boxes – they run through their mazes coaxed on by food an electric shocks.According to Skinner all our actions are programmed anyway.And if God does not exist, then no moral objection can be raised against treating people like human guinea pigs – because man is not qualitatively different from a rat.For both are the result of matter, plus time, plus chance.But again who can live with such a dehumanizing view.

Or finally take the biological determinism of a man like Francis Crick.The logical conclusion is that man is like any other laboratory specimen.The world was horrified when it learned that in camps like Dachau and Auswitzch the Nazis had used prisoners for medical experiments on living human beings.But why not?If God does not exist there can be no moral objection to using people as human guinie pigs.A memorial at Dachau says, “Nie vida,” never again.But this sort of thing continued to go on.It was recently revealed, for example, that in the United States after the war certain minority group persons where injected unbeknownst to them with a sterilization drug by medical researchers.Must we not protest that this is wrong?That people are more than just electro-chemical machines?The end of this view is population control, in which the weak and the unwanted are killed off to make room for the strong.But the only way that we can protest this consistently is if God exists.Only if God exists can there be purpose in life.

The dilemma of modern man is thus truly terrible. And in so far as postmodern man (so called) denies the existence of God and the objectivity of value and purpose, this dilemma remains unrelieved for postmodern man as well. Indeed it is precisely the awareness that modernism issues inevitably in absurdity and despair that constitutes the anguish of postmodernism. In some respects postmodernism simply is the awareness of the bankruptcy of modernity. The atheistic world is insufficient to sustain a happy and consistent life. Man cannot live consistently and happily as though life were ultimately without meaning, value, and purpose. If we try to live consistently within the framework of the atheistic view, then we shall find ourselves profoundly unhappy. If we manage to live happily, it is only by giving lie to the worldview of atheism. Confronted with this dilemma, man flounders pathetically for some means of escape.

In a remarkable address to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science in 1991, Dr. LD. Rue, confronted with the predicament of modern man, boldly advocated that we deceive ourselves by means of some “noble lie” into thinking that we and the universe still have value.Claiming that the lesson of the last two centuries is that intellectual and moral relativism is profoundly the case, Dr. Rue muses that the consequences of such a realization is that one’s quest for personal wholeness or self fulfillment, and the quest for social coherence, become independent from one another.This is because on the view of relativism the search for self fulfillment becomes radically privatized.If each person chooses his own set of values and meaning, Rue says there is no final objective reading on the world for the self.There is no universal vocabulary for integrating cosmology and morality.If we are to avoid what he calls “the madhouse option,” where self fulfillment is pursued regardless of social coherence, and if we are to avoid what he calls “totalitarian option,” where social coherence is imposed at the expense of personal fulfillment, then, he says, we have no choice but to embrace some “noble lie” that will inspire us to live beyond our selfish interests and so achieve social coherence.A noble lie, he says, is one that deceives us, tricks us, compels us beyond self interests, beyond ego, beyond family, nation, and race.It is a lie because it tells us that the universe is infused with value – which is a great fiction.Because it makes a claim to universal truth when there is none, and because it tells me not to live for self interest – which is evidently false.But, says Rue, without such lies, we cannot live.

This is the dreadful verdict pronounced over modern man.In order to live, he must live in self deception.But even the noble lie option is, in the end, unworkable.For how can one believe in these noble lies while at the same time believing in atheism and relativism?The more convinced you are of the necessity of a noble lie, the less you are able to believe in it.Like a placebo, the noble lie only works on those who believe it is the truth.Once we’ve seen through the deception, the lie has lost its power over us.And thus ironically, the noble lie cannot solve our human predicament for anyone who has come to see that predicament.The noble lie option only leads, therefore, at best, to a society in which an elitest group of Illuminati deceive the masses for their own good by perpetuating the noble lie.But then, why should those of us, who are enlightened, follow the masses in their deception?Why should we sacrifice self interests for a fiction?If the great lesson of the past two centuries is moral and intellectual relativism, then why, if we could, pretend that we do not know this truth and live a lie instead?If one answers, “Well for the sake of social coherence,” one may legitimately respond, “Why should I sacrifice my self interest for the sake of social coherence?The only answer the relativist can give to this question is that social coherence IS in my best interest.But the problem with this answer is that self interest and social coherence do not always coincide.My interest and the interest of the herd are not always the same.Beside, if out of self interest I do care about social coherence, the totalitarian option is always open to me.Forget the noble lie, and simply maintain social coherence, as well as my own self fulfillment, at the expense of the personal wholeness of the masses.Generations of Soviet leaders – who extolled proletarian virtues while they rode in limousines and dined on caviar on their country dachas – found this alternative quite workable.

Now, Dr. Rue would undoubtedly regard such an option as morally repugnant.But therein lies the rub; Rue’s dilemma is that he obviously values – deeply – both social coherence and personal wholeness for their own sakes.In other words, they are objective values – which according to his philosophy do not exist.He has already leaped to the upper story.The noble lie option thus affirms what it denies – and so refutes itself.

But if atheism fails in this regard, what about biblical Christianity? According to the Christian worldview, God does exist, and man’s life does not end at the grave. In the resurrection body man may enjoy eternal life and fellowship with God. And biblical Christianity therefore provides the two conditions necessary for a meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life: namely, God and immortality. Because of this, we can live consistently and happily. The Bible affirms that life is ultimately significant because we have eternal life which is the knowledge of God forever. This is the fulfillment of human existence, it is what we were made for. moreover, moral values are rooted in the nature of God Himself, and God’s moral commandments constitute for us our objective moral duties. Moreover the moral choices that we make in this life have an eternal significance because we will be held accountable for them by the holy God. The purpose of life, as the Westminster Catechism states, is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever. And thus biblical Christianity succeeds precisely where atheism breaks down.

Now, I want to be perfectly clear that none of this shows that biblical Christianity is true. But what it does show, I think, is to spell out clearly the alternatives. If God does not exist, then life is futile. If the God of the Bible does exist, then life is meaningful. Only the second of these two alternatives enables us to live consistently and happily.

And therefore it seems to me that even if these two options were absolutely equal, the rational person ought to choose biblical Christianity. That is to say, it seems to me positively irrational to prefer death, futility, and despair to hope, meaningfulness, and happiness. As Pascal said, “we have nothing to lose, and infinity to gain.” The cosmic orphan can come home.

No God means no meaning, no value and no purpose.  Period.  End of story.  DEAL WITH IT.

I simply state it as a categorical fact: if there is no God, there is no “good.”  And we ought to be pursuing the correct understanding of the ONLY kind of “good” we can be by murdering and raping one another as fast as we can until we stand on a mountain of skeletons as the Darwinian “fittest” specimen – having successfully killed off everything else around us.

We are seeing as we speak the toxic effect of Islam: the ONLY way you can have an Islam that is “the religion of peace” is to bow down before Allah and acknowledge your Muslim masters according to the harsh dictates of sharia law.  Because Islam is NOT the religion of “peace”; it is the religion of SUBMISSION.  And “submission” by as much force and violence and terror is necessary to MAKE you submit.  Because ANY legitimate understanding of “Islam” entails living out the religion according to the life and revelation of its Prophet, Muhammad.  And Muhammad was a man of war and violence and conquest and slavery and genocide.

ANY understanding of Islam that does not accurately and honestly reflect the murderous, vicious life of the Prophet Muhammad is a perversion and a lie of history.  And it is refuted by history and by reality no matter how sincere the perverter of history’s motives might be to fabricate a religion that avoids the murderous viciousness of its founder and Prophet.

We are seeing hell on earth unleashed by those who would follow in the example of the Prophet Muhammad and his wicked religion of Islam.  And the people who are carrying out that hell are the most faithful adherents of how Muhammad lived his own life and commanded his followers to live their lives.

And it is the identical same way with atheism and secular humanism.   These worldviews are one thing and one thing only: a boot stamping on a human face forever.

I recall a haunting quote from a man who experienced the direct result of atheism and its ramifications:

If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instincts, heredity, and environment, we feed the despair to which man is, in any case, already prone. I became acquainted with the last stages of corruption in my second concentration camp in Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the Nazis liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.
—Viktor E. Frankl, Holocaust survivor and Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry, University of Vienna Medical School; from his book, The Doctor and the Soul

Ideas have consequences.  And the consequences of atheism and secular humanism are hell on earth.  FAR more people have died – and died miserably and without any dignity whatsoever – as the result of communism (I.e. official state atheism) than have died as the result of every other worldview COMBINED.

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao and the worst mass murderers of history were ALL self-acknowledged atheists and godless evolutionists.  And their atheism entailed genocide on a scale that the human race had never so much as imagined prior to the rise of atheism as a legitimate worldview.  And I simply defy any atheist or secular humanist to explain to me how Hitler, Stalin and Mao were “bad evolutionists” or “bad atheists” the way we would ascribe to someone who fails to live up to the teachings of Jesus (e.g. “the Sermon on the Mount”) as being “bad Christians.”  I defy you to explain to me how evolution Darwinism proscribe the genocide of a competitor for the scarce resources that YOUR people want “in the struggle for life” (as Darwin himself called it in the title of his famous work).

Atheists conveniently forget that fact.  And oh, yes, there is a damn good reason for that.  “Favoured Races .”  You know, just like the Aryan race that Hitler envisioned.   The “Struggle for Life,” because in order to be the “fittest” I have to eat you before you can eat me.

And that is the ONLY “good” and the ONLY way for your life to “make sense” given any genuine acceptance of godless evolution.

I have the Ten Commandments from God; you have your precious atheist-based Darwinism.  One of them produces morality, the other eradicates it and crushes the dignity of the human spirit by “fundamentally transforming” us into creatures who descended from bugs.  I’ll take my God-morality over your bug-morality any day.

Karl Marx’s international socialism and Adolf Hitler’s national socialism were both based on the new modern “science” of evolution.  As I point out in a past article, Nazism was applied Darwinism for the very simple reason that Darwinism entails social Darwinism and if the theory is truly sound, we ought to live our lives by its obvious implications.

Do you want meaning?  Do you want value?  Do you want purpose?  You WON’T find it in evolution unless you’re a pathological hypocrite who perverts the obvious, just as you won’t find “peace” in Islam unless you pervert the obvious truth about Muhammad and the world’s most intolerant religion that he fabricated and which enslaves a billion souls today.

Rather, if you truly do want meaning, value, purpose and peace, you can only find these in the Prince of Peace, who said “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life,” Who said that He came to give “life to the full.”

 

The Three Fingers Pointing Back At Atheists When Atheists Point A Finger At Christians About Evil And Judgment

March 24, 2011

You’ve probably heard that expression, “When you point a finger at me, three fingers are pointing back at you.”  Let’s work with that today.

I recently wrote an article with the deliberately provocative title, “Atheist Country Japan Smashed By Tsunami.”

It generated quite a few cross postings to atheist blogs and forums.

One recent example attacked Christians as being “happy” that Japan was stricken by disaster, and, in linking to my blog, said:

Of course, maybe it’s because of all teh gay [sic] in Japan, or because the Japanese are all atheists. Or maybe it’s because they worship demons.

What a nasty, horrible God is the one in which they believe. What nasty, horrible sentiments they have expressed in the wake of so much suffering by their fellow human beings. What a nasty, cynical thing they do to promote their own religion by using this tragedy and other recent catastrophic events to “win converts” for Jesus.

Naming them charlatans and hypocrites does not do justice to the utter lack of compassion that resides in their hearts.

And the blogger cites my blog as an example of a fundamentalist who argues that God struck Japan “because the Japanese are all atheists.”

Well, first thing, did I actually even say that?  I quote myself from that article:

But is Japan’s unbelief the reason why Japan just got hit with an awful tsunami?

My answer is, “How on earth should I know?”

I cite passages of Scripture that clearly indicate that a disaster does not necessarily mean that God is judging someone, such as Luke 13:1-5.  I could have just as easily also cited passages such as John 9:1-3 about Jesus’ distinction between suffering and sin.  I could have cited 2 Peter 3:9, describing God’s patience with sinners rather than His haste to judge.  These passages aren’t at all out of tune with what I was saying.  And I actually DO single out by name for criticism men like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who have immediately pronounced the wrath of God following some disaster.

I begin my article saying, “That headline is a deliberate provoker.  But please let me explain why I used that headline before you erupt one way or another.”  Then I proceed to state two undisputed facts: that Japan is atheist, and that Japan got hit by a disaster.  I urge someone to actually read the article and reflect on the possibilities.  But Boomantribune is an example of most of the atheists who cross-posted or commented to my article by NOT being someone who wanted to read or reflect; he or she is someone who refused to look beneath atheist ideology and immediately began demonizing the other side to “win converts” for his religion of atheism.  [And let’s get this straight: atheism IS a religion.  “Religion” does not need to depend upon belief in God, or Buddhism would not qualify as a religion.  The courts have ruled that atheism is a religion, and it is a simple fact that atheism has every component that any religious system has].

You can’t have a valid argument with someone like Boomantribune, I have learned.  They are either too ignorant, or too dishonest, or both to accurately represent the other side’s position or arguments.  They create straw men and then demolish claims that Christians like me aren’t even making.

Boomantribune viciously attacks me as harboring the “nasty, horrible sentiments they have expressed in the wake of so much suffering by their fellow human beings.”  But I end my article on Japan by saying:

You need that gift of divine grace.  I need that gift of divine grace.  And the people of Japan desperately need it today.

I pray for those who are in Japan.  I pray for their deliverance from both the tsunami and from their unbelief.  And I will join with many other Christians who will send relief to the Japanese people, with prayers that they will look not at me, but at the Jesus who changed my heart and my life, and inspired me to give to others.

It is also a simple fact that religious people are FAR more giving than atheists:

In the US, anyway, they don’t. Here’s just one study, done in 2003: The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions…Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so…The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times.

And this is “secular” people who aren’t particularly religious.  A lot of people rarely ever go to church, but still believe in God (basically 90% of Americans belive in God).  Since the evidence is rather straightforward that the more religious one is, the more giving one is, it is justified to conclude that atheists who are less religious than the merely “secular” are even LESS giving.

And, guess what?  My church has already taken its first of several offerings for Japan, and I have already given – and plan to give again.

I would also point out a couple of historical facts:

Christians actually began the first hospitals.

More hospitals have been founded by Christians than by followers of every other religion – including atheism – combined.

That said:

Atheist doctors are more than twice as likely to pull the plug on someone than a doctor who believes in God.

So just who is being “horrible” here?

Here’s another example of an atheist attack on me that backfired, followed by the dishonest atheist “cutting and running” from his own attack:

For what it’s worth, I have never withdrawn a single post:

Also, unlike too many blogs – particularly leftwing blogs, in my experience – I don’t delete anything. When the Daily Kos hatefully attacked Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol and claimed that Bristol Palin had been impregnated by her own father with a baby, and that Sarah Palin faked being pregnant – only to have that hateful and vile lie blown away by Bristol giving birth to a child of her own – they scrubbed it like nothing had happened.

I’m not that despicable. Every single article I have ever written remains on my blog. And with all due respect, I think that gives me more credibility, not less: I don’t hit and run and then scrub the evidence of my lies.

If I post something that turns out to be wrong, I don’t destroy the evidence; I stand up and take responsibility for my words.  I apologize and correct the record.  As I did in the case above.

That, by the way, is the first finger, the finger of moral dishonesty pointing back at these atheists. 

That’s not the way the other side plays.  History is replete with atheist regimes (e.g. ANY of the officially state atheist communist regimes) destroying the record and any debate; history is replete with atheist-warped “science” making one claim after another that turned out to be entirely false.  As examples, consider Java Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man and the various other hoaxes that the “scientific community rushed to embrace in their rush to falsify theism.  In some cases “scientists” created an entire community – or even an entire race of people – around totally bogus evidence in “It takes a village” style.  There was the bogus notion of “uniformitarianism” by which the “scientific community” ridiculed creationists for decades until it was proven wrong by Eugene Shoemaker who documented that the theory of “catastrophism” that they had advanced for millennia had been correct all along.  And then all of a sudden the same evolutionary theory that had depended upon uniformitarianism suddenly morphed into a theory that depended upon catastrophism. It morphed so that it was equally true with both polar opposites.

Then there’s this:

Ann Coulter pointed it out with the false claim that evolution was “falsifiable” versus any religious claim which was not. Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” And Ann Coulter brilliantly changed a couple of words to demonstrate what a load of crap that was: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

In any words, evolution is no more “scientifically falsifiable” than even the most ardent young earth creationist claim. Their standard is impossible to prove. I mean, you show me that God “could not possibly have” created the earth.

The whole way they sold evolution was a lie.

There is NEVER an admission of guilt or an acknowledgment of error by these people.  They simply suppress or destroy the evidence, or “morph” their argument, or anything but acknowledge that just maybe they should be open-minded and question their presuppositions.

There is the extremely rare admission:

For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. -Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

But those are extremely rare, indeed.  The rest of the atheist-assuming “scientific community” is all about saying, “Move on, folks.  Nothing to see here.  Why don’t you look at our new sleight-of-hand display over in this corner instead?”

Phillip Johnson, in a very good article, points out how the “bait-and-switch” works:

Supporting the paradigm may even require what in other contexts would be called deception. As Niles Eldredge candidly admitted, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing it does not.”[ 1] Eldredge explained that this pattern of misrepresentation occurred because of “the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection operates in nature, but that we know precisely how it works.” This certainty produced a degree of dogmatism that Eldredge says resulted in the relegation to the “lunatic fringe” of paleontologists who reported that “they saw something out of kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and patterns of change in the fossil record on the other.”[ 2] Under the circumstances, prudent paleontologists understandably swallowed their doubts and supported the ruling ideology. To abandon the paradigm would be to abandon the scientific community; to ignore the paradigm and just gather the facts would be to earn the demeaning label of “stamp collector.”

[…]

Naturalistic philosophy has worked out a strategy to prevent this problem from arising: it labels naturalism as science and theism as religion. The former is then classified as knowledge, and the latter as mere belief. The distinction is of critical importance, because only knowledge can be objectively valid for everyone; belief is valid only for the believer, and should never be passed off as knowledge. The student who thinks that 2 and 2 make 5, or that water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen, or that the theory of evolution is not true, is not expressing a minority viewpoint. He or she is ignorant, and the job of education is to cure that ignorance and to replace it with knowledge. Students in the public schools are thus to be taught at an early age that “evolution is a fact,” and as time goes by they will gradually learn that evolution means naturalism.

In short, the proposition that God was in any way involved in our creation is effectively outlawed, and implicitly negated. This is because naturalistic evolution is by definition in the category of scientific knowledge. What contradicts knowledge is implicitly false, or imaginary. That is why it is possible for scientific naturalists in good faith to claim on the one hand that their science says nothing about God, and on the other to claim that they have said everything that can be said about God. In naturalistic philosophy both propositions are at bottom the same. All that needs to be said about God is that there is nothing to be said of God, because on that subject we can have no knowledge.

I stand behind a tradition that has stood like an anvil while being pounded by one generation of unbelievers after another.  That tradition remains constant because it is founded upon the unchanging Word of God.  My adversaries constantly change and morph their positions, all the while just as constantly claiming that their latest current iteration is correct.

That is the second finger of intellectual dishonesty which so thoroughly characterizes atheism and anything atheism seems to contaminate with its assumptions.

Lastly, there is the finger of ethical dishonesty that is the ocean that the “walking fish” of atheism swims in.  [Btw, when I see that fish riding a bicycle I’ll buy their “walking fish” concept].

Basically, for all the “moral outrage” of atheists who want to denounce Christians for their God’s “evil judgments,” atheism itself has absolutely no moral foundation to do so whatsoever.  And the bottom line is that they are people who attack the five-thousand year tradition of Scripture with their feet firmly planted in midair.

William Lane Craig provides a devastating existential ethical refutation of atheism in an article I posted entitled, “The Absurdity of Life without God.”

To put it simply, William Lane Craig demolishes any shred of a claim that atheism can offer any ultimate meaning, any ultimate value, or any ultimate purpose whatsoever.  And so atheism denounces Christianity and religion from the foundation of an entirely empty and profoundly worthless worldview.  Everyone should read this incredibly powerful article.  I guarantee you will learn something, whatever your perspective on religion.

The thing I would say is that atheists denounce God and Christians from some moral sort of moral posture.  Which comes from what, exactly?  Darwinism, or more precisely, social Darwinism?  The survival of the fittest?  A foundation that comes from the “secure” footing of a random, meaningless, purposeless, valueless and entirely accidental existence?

As atheists tee off on God and at Christians for being “nasty” and “horrible,” what is their foundation from which to judge?

First of all, what precisely would make one a “nasty” or “horrible” atheist? 

Joseph Stalin was an atheist:

“God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived. If God existed, he’d have made the world more just… I’ll lend you a book and you’ll see.”

Mao Tse Tung was an atheist:

“Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?”  [Mao Tse Tung, Little Red Book, “Self-Reliance and Arduous Struggle chapter 21″].

Hitler was an atheist:

Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

Joseph Goebbels, a top member of Hitler’s inner circle, noted in his personal diary, dated 8 April 1941 that “The Führer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.”  Now, one may easily lie to others, but why lie to your own private diary?

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.”

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Albert Speer, another Nazi in Hitler’s intimate inner circle, stated that Hitler said, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion… Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Now, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao were terrible, despicable, evil people.  But what made them ” bad atheists,” precisely?

When Mao infamously expressed this attitude

“The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.” [Annie Dillard, “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s from January 1998].

– or when Joseph Stalin was similarly quoted as having said:

“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

– were these men who were responsible for some 100 million deaths of their own people during peacetime expressing anything that violated some principle of Darwinian evolution, or the morality that derives from the ethic of survival of the fittest?

Mao put his disregard for human life and the lives of his own people to terrible work:

LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to 1961 was the so-called “great leap forward” which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.

And they came to him after the first year and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”

Did that somehow disqualify him from being an atheist?  How?  Based on what foundation?

Let me simply point out that the most evil human beings in human history and the most murderous and oppressive political regimes in human history have the strange tendency to be atheist.  It would seem to me that these atheists should frankly do a lot less talking smack and a lot more shutting the hell up.  But two verses from Scripture illustrate why they don’t: 1) The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1) and 2) “A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind” (Proverbs 18:2).

Let’s talk about “evil” for a few moments.  I have already begun addressing the “third finger” that points back at atheists when they denounce Christians or God.  But the idea of “evil” makes that “finger” the middle one.

Christians talk about evil.  A lot of people do.  Even atheists routinely do.  But what is their foundation for evil?  What is “evil”?  Most give answers such as, “Murder or rape is evil.”  But those would at best only qualify as examples of evil – not a definition that would allow us to make moral judgments.  Christians have an actual answer.  They point out that “evil” is a perversion from the way things ought to be.  But what “oughtness” is there in a random, purposeless, meaningless and valueless universe that was spat out by nothing more than pure chance?

Let’s just say at this point that the atheists are right in what is in reality a straw man attack of God?  So what?  I ask “so what?” because even if what they were saying were somehow true, by what standard would either God or Christians be “nasty” or “horrible”?  What is the objective, transcendent standard that stands above me, that stands above every Christian on the planet, that stands above the entire human race across time and space and holds it accountable, such that if Christians or even God do X or say Y, or believe Z they are “nasty” or “horrible”?

It turns out that they don’t have one.  And in fact, their very worldview goes so far as to literally deny the very possibility of one.  At best – and I would argue at worst – we are trapped in a world in which might makes right, and the most powerful dictator gets to make the rules.  Because there is nothing above man that judges man and says, “This is the way, walk in it.”  There is only other men – and men disagree with one another’s standards – leaving us with pure moral relativism. 

And if moral relativism is true, then the atheists STILL lose.  It would be a tie, given that atheists have no more claim to being “good” than any other human being or group of human beings, no matter how despicable and murderous they might be.  But they would lose because there are a lot fewer atheists (137 million) than there are, say, Christians (2.3 billion).  And it only remains for Christians to disregard their superior moral and ethical system just long enough to rise up and annihilate all the smart-mouthed atheists, and then say afterward, “Boy, we sure feel guilty for having done THAT.  Let’s pray for forgiveness!”  And the only possible defense atheists would have would be to abandon their “survival of the fittest” mentality and embrace superior Christian morality and cry out, “Thou shalt not kill!”

Even if Christians don’t wipe out the atheists physically, most would readily agree that the Christian worldview is still far stronger than the atheist one.  Dinesh D’Souza makes a great argument to illustrate this on pages 15-16 of What’s So Great About Christianity that shows why religion is clearly the best team.  He says to imagine two communities – one filled with your bitter, cynical atheists who believe that morality just happened to evolve and could have evolved very differently; and one filled with Bible-believing Christians who embrace that life and their lives have a purpose in the plan of a righteous God who put His moral standards in our hearts. And he basically asks, “Which community is going to survive and thrive?”

As a Christian, I don’t have all the answers (although I can certainly answer the question immediately above).  I am a human being and my mind cannot contain the infinite plan of an infinitely complex and holy God.  But I have placed my trust in a God who made the world and who has a plan for His creation which He is bringing to fruition.  And that worldview doesn’t just give me explanatory powers that atheism by its very nature entirely lacks, but it gives me a strength that I never had before.  Even when evil and disaster and suffering befall me beyond my ability to comprehend, I can say with Job – the master of suffering:

“But as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, and he will stand upon the earth at last.  And after my body has decayed, yet in my body I will see God!  I will see him for myself. Yes, I will see him with my own eyes. I am overwhelmed at the thought!”  Job 19:25-27 (NLT).

Fearfully And Wonderfully Made: From Conception To Birth

October 30, 2010

“For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Your works are wonderful,
I know that full well” — Psalm 139:13-14

Does human life begin as worthless “byproducts of conception”?  Does human life only have value if someone is working and producing? (watch out, liberals!  Because most of the Democrat base would be exterminated on a ‘yes’ response!).  Or is human life of incommensurably precious value?

Please watch this six minute Youtube video.  I strongly suggest you turn down the volume level!

If your life began as something that is so valueless that your own mother can destroy you like a disease while the defied State smiles down benevolently, then why do you think that your life has any value whatsoever now?

You were once an embryo.  And if your mother had aborted you, you would have died.

My life has value not because of what I have done, but because of what I am: because I am a human being.  My human dignity is not utilitarian; it is ontological.  Which is why Jews, people on welfare and senior citizens shouldn’t be marched off to the gas chamber.  Nor am I any more “human” today than I ever was as an embryo, as an infant, as a teenager.  When I was in my mother’s womb, I was “human” by virtue of my parents, and a “being” by virtue of the fact that I was a living thing.  Now and from the moment of conception, I am and have been a human being.

Here is a 21-week old “product of conception” reaching out of his womb during surgery to grasp the finger of his surgeon:

Today, that “product of conception” is 11-years old and goes by the name Samuel Armas:

Had Samuel’s mother chosen to abort him rather than choosing surgery to cure his spina bifida in utero, Samuel would have died.  He never would have had a chance to live and play and win medals for swimming:

Here’s another “product of conception” who actually survived an abortion.  This one-time aborted fetus is now 33 years old and calls herself Gianna Jessen:

Gianna wouldn’t be here today if her murder-attempt-by-abortion had succeeded.  She would have been killed by her own mother.  As it turned out, forgiveness of what was done to her is part of her beautiful human spirit.

Don’t be “pro-choice.”  Hitler was pro-choice.  Only Hitler didn’t wipe out nearly as many human beings as the fifty-two million innocent babies annihilated by the abortion movement in America.

Celebrate life.  Cherish life.  Celebrate and cherish the dignity of the human spirit.  Stand with me against the culture of death otherwise known as abortion.

It’s Official: Palestinians Recognize One Jew Is Worth One Thousand Palestinans

December 21, 2009

What’s a Jew worth these days?

According to Hamas, a Jew is worth one thousand Palestinians.

Israeli Cabinet ministers debate whether to trade 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for lone soldier

By AMY TEIBEL , Associated Press
Last update: December 21, 2009 – 2:44 PM

JERUSALEM – Negotiations for an Israel-Hamas prisoner exchange entered a crucial stage Monday, with Israeli Cabinet ministers huddling to decide whether to accept Islamic militants’ demand to swap 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for a lone Israeli serviceman.

A decision to pay that lopsided price for 23-year-old Sgt. Gilad Schalit could reshuffle Mideast politics in unpredictable ways and possibly ease a punishing blockade of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

Netanyahu and six Cabinet ministers convened again after nightfall Monday, the latest in a series of sessions over the past two days in a frenzy of activity that suggested a deal could be close. The group was divided, however, with some ministers opposed freeing Palestinians convicted in fatal attacks, arguing they could kill again.

It seemed likely the prime minister would bring the final decision to a vote in his full Cabinet. As the Monday evening meeting began, Netanyahu’s office issued a statement saying, “The prime minister will continue to protect Israel’s security and the lives of its citizens as the most important factor” in a decision over the soldier, a possible hint that he was leaning against approval of the deal.

A Palestinian close to the negotiations said a German mediator carrying a proposal approved by Hamas has set a Wednesday deadline for Israeli action. The Palestinian, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said there would be no further negotiations. […]

That’s not very good for Palestinians, to be worth only one-one thousandth of a Jew.

I mean, it’s not just sub-human, it’s sub sub-human.

I suppose if they are willing to officially acknowledge this, then I should, too.

I also suppose it could forge a new understanding in Israeli-Arab relations: for every single Jew killed, one thousand Arabs should die to balance the scales.

It is beyond a moral crime that Palestinians have so little regard for the value of their own lives that they send their children out to blow themselves up to murder other lives.

Human beings and legitimate governments value the lives of their citizens.  That’s why Israel would even consider this crazy and frankly evil one-sided trade.  And it’s why a loathsome and vile terrorist state would issue such immoral demands recognizing the total lack of value for their own people.

Wall St. Journal Bursts The Obama Bubble: ObamaCare Is All About Rationing

August 19, 2009

Reading through this article, you begin to come to two conclusions: 1) the problem with the costs of health care is NOT that there is too LITTLE government involvement in health care, but rather too MUCH, namely due to stupid government regulations that end up raising costs by undermining individual responsibility; 2) the people who most stand in the way of legitimate health care reform that would really work is Democrats and their special interest allies, such as organized labor.

ObamaCare Is All About Rationing
Overspending is far preferable to artificially limiting the availability of new procedures and technologies.

By MARTIN FELDSTEIN

Although administration officials are eager to deny it, rationing health care is central to President Barack Obama’s health plan. The Obama strategy is to reduce health costs by rationing the services that we and future generations of patients will receive.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June explaining the Obama administration’s goal of reducing projected health spending by 30% over the next two decades. That reduction would be achieved by eliminating “high cost, low-value treatments,” by “implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would adopt,” and by “directly targeting individual providers . . . (and other) high-end outliers.”

The president has emphasized the importance of limiting services to “health care that works.” To identify such care, he provided more than $1 billion in the fiscal stimulus package to jump-start Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and to finance a federal CER advisory council to implement that idea. That could morph over time into a cost-control mechanism of the sort proposed by former Sen. Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama’s original choice for White House health czar. Comparative effectiveness could become the vehicle for deciding whether each method of treatment provides enough of an improvement in health care to justify its cost.

In the British national health service, a government agency approves only those expensive treatments that add at least one Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) per £30,000 (about $49,685) of additional health-care spending. If a treatment costs more per QALY, the health service will not pay for it. The existence of such a program in the United States would not only deny lifesaving care but would also cast a pall over medical researchers who would fear that government experts might reject their discoveries as “too expensive.”

One reason the Obama administration is prepared to use rationing to limit health care is to rein in the government’s exploding health-care budget. Government now pays for nearly half of all health care in the U.S., primarily through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The White House predicts that the aging of the population and the current trend in health-care spending per beneficiary would cause government outlays for Medicare and Medicaid to rise to 15% of GDP by 2040 from 6% now. Paying those bills without raising taxes would require cutting other existing social spending programs and shelving the administration’s plans for new government transfers and spending programs.

The rising cost of medical treatments would not be such a large burden on future budgets if the government reduced its share in the financing of health services. Raising the existing Medicare and Medicaid deductibles and coinsurance would slow the growth of these programs without resorting to rationing. Physicians and their patients would continue to decide which tests and other services they believe are worth the cost.

There is, of course, no reason why limiting outlays on Medicare and Medicaid requires cutting health services for the rest of the population. The idea that they must be cut in parallel is just an example of misplaced medical egalitarianism.

But budget considerations aside, health-economics experts agree that private health spending is too high because our tax rules lead to the wrong kind of insurance. Under existing law, employer payments for health insurance are deductible by the employer but are not included in the taxable income of the employee. While an extra $100 paid to someone who earns $45,000 a year will provide only about $60 of after-tax spendable cash, the employer could instead use that $100 to pay $100 of health-insurance premiums for that same individual. It is therefore not surprising that employers and employees have opted for very generous health insurance with very low copayment rates.

Since a typical 20% copayment rate means that an extra dollar of health services costs the patient only 20 cents at the time of care, patients and their doctors opt for excessive tests and other inappropriately expensive forms of care. The evidence on health-care demand implies that the current tax rules raise private health-care spending by as much as 35%.

The best solution to this problem of private overconsumption of health services would be to eliminate the tax rule that is causing the excessive insurance and the resulting rise in health spending. Alternatively, Congress could strengthen the incentives in the existing law for health savings accounts with high insurance copayments. Either way, the result would be more cost-conscious behavior that would lower health-care spending.

But unlike reductions in care achieved by government rationing, individuals with different preferences about health and about risk could buy the care that best suits their preferences. While we all want better health, the different choices that people make about such things as smoking, weight and exercise show that there are substantial differences in the priority that different people attach to health.

Although there has been some talk in Congress about limiting the current health-insurance exclusion, the administration has not supported the idea. The unions are particularly vehement in their opposition to any reduction in the tax subsidy for health insurance, since they regard their ability to negotiate comprehensive health insurance for their members as a major part of their raison d’être.

If changing the tax rule that leads to excessive health insurance is not going to happen, the relevant political choice is between government rationing and continued high levels of health-care spending. Rationing is bad policy. It forces individuals with different preferences to accept the same care. It also imposes an arbitrary cap on the future growth of spending instead of letting it evolve in response to changes in technology, tastes and income. In my judgment, rationing would be much worse than excessive care.

Those who worry about too much health care cite the Congressional Budget Office’s prediction that health-care spending could rise to 30% of GDP in 2035 from 16% now. But during that 25-year period, GDP will rise to about $24 trillion from $14 trillion, implying that the GDP not spent on health will rise to $17 billion in 2035 from $12 billion now. So even if nothing else comes along to slow the growth of health spending during the next 25 years, there would still be a nearly 50% rise in income to spend on other things.

Like virtually every economist I know, I believe the right approach to limiting health spending is by reforming the tax rules. But if that is not going to happen, let’s not destroy the high quality of the best of American health care by government rationing and misplaced egalitarianism.

Mr. Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan, is a professor at Harvard and a member of The Wall Street Journal’s board of contributors.

So it’s not private insurance companies’ “excessive profits” that are to be demonized, but the government’s tax rules.  As is usually the case, the reason we’ve got high costs is because government is too involved, and is making things worse.  And again, who is the biggest obstacle to finally fixing the tax rules in a way that will lower costs?  Big labor, a key Democrat ally.

Having Democrats “fix” the system is like having foxes “guard” the chicken coop.

A further culprit in our skyrocketing medical costs are still another powerful Democrat special interest: the trial lawyers.  In exchange for the millions of dollars the trial lawyers give to Democrats, Democrat politicians continue to protect the system that allows lawyers to file frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit.  A simple “loser pays” system – such as the U.K. offers – would cut billions out of the costs of health care.  Instead, not only are doctors’ malpractice insurance costs exorbitant (which doctors must then pass on to patients), but fear of lawsuits leads to a practice known as “defensive medicine.” When 93% of physicians admit to ordering tests, prescribing drugs, or performing procedures to protect themselves from potential lawsuits rather than help their patients, something is just incredibly wrong.

Doctors are literally leaving medicine over the insane costs of medical malpractice.  In certain specialized fields, such as Ob/Gyn, whole regions are losing their doctors.  Insurance premiums for Ob/Gyn doctors are running $250,000 a year – and between higher insurance costs, lower government deductibles, and always high medical school costs, vitally important family care doctors are finding themselves netting less than fast food restaurant managers.

Alan Miller explains another reason why private insurance is absolutely vital to our health care system – and why a government “public option” would be disastrous:

Medicare reimbursements to hospitals fail to cover the actual cost of providing services. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an independent congressional advisory agency, says hospitals received only 94.1 cents for every dollar they spent treating Medicare patients in 2007. MedPAC projects that number to decline to 93.1 cents per dollar spent in 2009, for an operating shortfall of 7%. Medicare works because hospitals subsidize the care they provide with revenue received from patients who have commercial insurance. Without that revenue, hospitals could not afford to care for those covered by Medicare. In effect, everyone with insurance is subsidizing the Medicare shortfall, which is growing larger every year.

If hospitals had to rely solely on Medicare reimbursements for operating revenue, as would occur under a single-payer system, many hospitals would be forced to eliminate services, cut investments in advanced medical technology, reduce the number of nurses and other employees, and provide less care for the patients they serve. And with the government in control, Americans eventually will see rationing
, the denial of high-priced drugs and sophisticated procedures, and long waits for care.

When we consider that – all protestations aside – some 88 million Americans will be shifted out of their employer-paid private insurance into a “public option” under the Democrats’ plan, we should be very, very worried.

Democrats aren’t doing ANYTHING to reduce the costs of healthcare.  All they are offering is total government control as fiscally-responsible panacea; and that is simply a lie.  Government bureaucracy is not more efficient; it is unimaginably LESS efficient.  The government has never been more efficient at delivering services (remember the $435 hammers? the $640 toilet seats? the $7,600 coffee makers?).  You want efficiency and economies of scale?  How about the government overpaying 618%.  Big government is inherently bureaucratic, inefficient, and corrupt.  And as their costs go up and up and up, the only way they will be able to bring their costs down will be to ration care.

Don’t just listen to me: listen to the man Obama chose to be his health policy adviser, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who said this year:

“Many have linked the effort to reduce the high cost of death with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide…. Decreasing availability and increasing expense in health care and the uncertain impact of managed care may intensify pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide” and “the cost effectiveness of hastened death is as undeniable as gravity. The earlier a patient dies, the less costly is his or her care.”

And:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuatedThe Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

Please don’t be so stupid not to think that rationing care – particularly to senior citizens who have already “lived their complete lives” – that rationing won’t be essential to government care.  And we will GET government care unless we rise up now to stop it.

Pre/Post-Election Poll Craziness: Media Rewriting Its Propaganda

November 20, 2008

Okay.  Six weeks and one Presidential election apart.  Two articles reporting on two polls from the same source (CNNMoney): one titled “Poll: 60% say depression ‘likely’” and one titled “76% say Obama can fix economy – poll.”

Am I the only one who sees a contradiction?

Let’s backtrack a little bit.  Since election day, the Dow has lost 21% of its value, from 9625 on November 4 to today’s close of 7552.  It was 9525 on October 6, the day that 60% of Americans believed that a depression was “likely.”

The CNNMoney story from October 6 begins:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Nearly six out of ten Americans believe another economic depression is likely, according to a poll released Monday.

And it ends:

And [Economic Cycle Research Institute director of research Anirvan] Banerji said that the increasingly grim view of the economy will by itself lead to cutbacks in spending by both consumers and businesses. That in turn will result in greater job losses and more economic pain.

“The fact that the majority of people believe we are going into a depression ensures that the recession will get worse,” Banerji said.

The market has lost over one-fifth of its value since Barack Obama was elected President.  That is a rather stunning display of a complete lack of confidence in his leadership and in his policies.  Such an abandonment from the market following a presidential election is historically unprecedented.  And we are supposed to believe that now 76% of Americans believe Obama can “fix” the economy?

Because Obama has done what, exactly?

First of all, I have to ask: is it THESE people who believe Obama can fix the economy?  Is it the nearly 60% of Obama voters who – on crucial issues such as which party has been in charge of the Congress for the last two years – are dumber than monkeys, but get to vote anyway?

It sure isn’t THESE people, investors or chief executive officers, the people who actually invest and who actually run things.  You poll the CEOs, and you find out that “74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.”  You find out that CEO’s believe that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.”

Barack Obama is being portrayed by the media as the new FDR, superintending the “new new deal.”  That should frankly terrify you, if you had a clue.

Let me tell you what’s going on here: exactly what I and others have been saying would happen.  The same media that has been demonizing the economy as a narrative device to attack Republicans will begin to assure everyone that things will be okay now that Barack Obama is in charge.  Most Obama voters didn’t know that Democrats have actually been in charge of both the House and the Senate for the past two years because the media didn’t want them to know that.  Widespread awareness of such a fact would have undermined the media narrative that Republicans were responsible for the tanking economy.  Better to run one story after another trashing Sarah Palin.

John McCain was portrayed as some kind of older-than-retarded out-of-touch fool for claiming that the fundamentals of the economy were strong when they were at a time when they were ACTUALLY FAR STRONGER THAN THEY ARE NOW (you know, before Obama got elected and the market lost over a fifth of its value).  But you will begin to see “here comes the sun” articles building up the economy now that the election is over and Democrats came out on top.

The media has been so blatantly biased throughout its election coverage that it is completely accurate to say that we are now in a propaganda state.  There is no possible way that Republicans can win in this media climate: whether you look at the Media Research Center, or at the Project for Excellence in Journalism (or again at their brand new study), or at the University of Wisconsin’s Wisconsin Advertising Project, there is widespread agreement with one longtime ABC journalist that the media is dangerously biased.  Pew Research discovered that Americans believe by a 70% to 9% margin that the media is biased in favor of Obama and against McCain.  The media now represents a fifth column of government – a propaganda wing – that attacks conservatives and celebrates and defends Democrats and their ideology.  Democracy is going extinct in the country that founded democracy, because no free society can survive such a climate of propaganda.

Are the two polls from CNN contradictory?  Of course they are.  But they are the product of two agendas: agenda #1 was to undermine confidence in the economy in order to get Obama and Democrats elected; agenda #2 is to reinforce confidence in the economy in order to help them be successful.

The problem is that the people who actually invest and who actually run businesses aren’t as stupid and naive as the brainwashed public that voted for Obama and a Democrat super-majority.  That’s why the smart money is bailing our of the economy like rats off a sinking ship so that they can actually keep what little profit they have before the Democrats can begin to start “spreading the wealth around.”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 582 other followers