Evolutionism and God-denial – Pot calling kettle black
I had read something quite nice (not great or good, but just “nice”) that was meant to be said by a guy, some comedian, called Bill Hicks about life just being a ride. It seemed pleasant enough, although a bit idealistic, so, after a recommendation from someone I regarded as a friend, I thought to myself that rather than judge this snippet of his words on their own, in a void, I would instead listen to the whole comedy routine that included these words. He had a routine called “Revelations” so I watched the whole thing. Aside from noticing how little I laughed (and I can laugh at certain comedians, even godless ones, ’til I sound like a little girl hysterically laughing), I noticed certain overt traits, characteristics, that rear their ugly heads whenever people who reject God and/or religion speak about morality or history. Of course it had an adverse impact on how I saw that quote of his that had first spurred me to give him the time of day, but the taint of those ugly character traits were still stained in my mind.
This led me to watch another video. On my facebook page I had shared a snippet of another comedian because it appeared to echo some of my thoughts on government. I had even favorited such snippets on my youtube channel. The comedian’s name is George Carlin. Since I had only shown and had seen the snippet, I thought I would once again look at the whole context of his message. Again, this guy wasn’t even that funny to me, although he may be to others. And those same old character traits reared their ugly head and again I could see the patterns I had seen in Bill Hicks.
Now some may say “David, these are just comedians! You can’t take such people seriously!” But the problem is that these comedians aren’t innovating anything. There are not showing anything different to what I’ve seen in many an atheist, an evolutionist, a God-denier and Torah-hater. The reason why they could raise such crowds to see their shows is because they could plug into something that already exists in society, an attitude that gives me the impetus to write this post.
So what’s this attitude that I’m talking about?
It’s a sneering, scornful arrogance of a person who “knows” what is “correct” from what is just myth. It’s the pride that produces insults at the views of a person that doesn’t respect the conclusions of scientists about the universe, its nature and history. He or she and his/her clan, whichever band of scientists (s)he has chosen to put their faith in, are the rule of law when it comes to what science or truth really is. To such people, anything other than their belief is a total joke, a focus of ridicule, a reason to look down on a person and see them as primitive and backwards.
What is weird is that such people don’t see the religiosity in their own views. They are quick to point the finger at those “backwards and stupid creationists”, “people who [supposedly] accept the bible blindly” and, unsurprisingly, they cannot treat their own material, their own conclusions with a similar scrutiny. It would be scary to imagine what they would do to themselves if they did. In fact, I shouldn’t insult religion by equating what it has with what such God-rejecters are putting forward because, where it counts, what evolutionists and God-rejecters tend to do has a totally different quality to it than what those of a “religious” worldview do. And the difference isn’t that one is rational and the other is not, as some of the ignorant promote. The conceit of the God-rejecter, God-denier, and evolutionist becomes very clear when they try to assert that they alone are being rational and all who disagree are not.
So what is this difference in quality between what a God-denier puts forward about morality and history and what his enemies and opponents put forward? Now I can’t speak for all religions, so it is safer for me to just stick to what I know. So again, what is the difference between what a God-denier puts forward about morality and universal history and what the Torah-affirming God-convinced person forward?
No real morality
When a person denies or rejects God, who is the only source of objective truth, all of their demands, condemnations, ukases, whatever they deem to be right and good loses all power, loses all authority.
One reason why the God revealed in the Jewish Bible is the source of objective truth is that he is truly outside of and above us. He is not like a human, plagued with our limitations in perspective, brain capacity, slavery to desires, etc. In fact, God is the foundation of reality itself and it is by his will that the whole thing even exists. So yes, with God, at least there is room for objective truth, objective morality and firm and sure knowledge.
But when it comes to the God-denying worldview … what? What do they really have in terms of morality? Remember that the evolutionists amongst them think that our brains are simply a result of chemical reactions, chemical reactions that are restricted to that space and time, and is the end product of a unintelligent, mindless, brute and blunt natural process. Each brain is limited to each human being and there is no way to impose one stupidly-cobbled-together brain’s resulting fuzzle and fizz (a thought or conclusion) upon another. This reality is based on survival and the reproduction of similar genetic material. In this world, “good” and “evil” are just resultant fuzzles and fizzes produced by those masses of unintelligently-made chemical get-togethers. And since everyone’s brain is slightly different to each other’s, then whatever is “good” and “bad” is limited to that infinitesimally small glob of matter. In real terms, there is really no good and bad in any objective way, so there is nothing wrong with loving someone or murdering them. For all we know, it could be the same damn thing.
So in a God-denying world, especially a naturalistic, materialistic, evolutionist world, what are they doing when they then condemn religion for anything? If they were really true to their God-denying evolutionist worldview, they would understand that they’ve said and done essentially nothing. In fact, they’re actually betraying and back-stabbing their own worldview. They feel enough to condemn someone else’s brain fizz and resultant actions which have as much weight as any other action in the materialistic universe, and they condemn it as if their words have some objective moral truth, something which doesn’t exist in a God-denying universe. What sense does that make? I guess in that worldview it doesn’t have to make sense. It doesn’t have to be consistent. It’s just mental and verbal diarrhea which is essentially puffs of air molecules. More meaningless fizz.
“BUT IT HAS MEANING TO ME!” You may hear one shout. And to be consistent to that same worldview, the answer would be this: “So what?”
It’s an utter joke to have a worldview that can never be true because it has no concept of objective truth. So if God-denying is “true” in many of its forms, like forms of evolutionism, or the philosophy that nature is all there is and science is the highest form of knowledge, to be consistent, it can also be false because there is no truth. It has as much right to exist as God-affirming. What a messed up worldview!
I know, I know. Some will say it’s all about degrees of possibility and plausibility. But take that to court and see how a lawyer can make the plausible more doubtful or impossible, and make the impossible seem certain. Unfortunately it’s all about perception, which is subjective, and choice, which is subjective. And I don’t need a reason to reject what is plausible because, in that worldview, it’s all about the brain-fizz, nothing more, nothing less.
Word of advice: if a God-denier chooses to condemn religion or any other act or belief or thought, take it for what it is in his worldview: only his subjective opinion, a bundle of chemicals and a puff of air. If he wants to push it further, then it is fair to question them on why they are betraying the necessary conclusions of their worldview.
Self-ridicule and self-denial
You can just see the sneering look on their faces as they spit out what they see as “creationist” or “unscientific” or “pre-scientific” conclusions. Or the way they laugh about it. For them it is impossible for the world or universe to be 6000 years old or any other age significantly smaller than the ages given by their chosen gurus and priests, those scientists that embrace by faith naturalism. As they bow in reverence to godless scientists and pay homage to human knowledge (with all its limitation), they condemn the heretics and the know-nothings for believing some ancient backwater primitive book of vengeance and blood when it says that some deity made the world and how by counting the generations in that book you get an age far different than the removed-from-human-limitations scientists calculate and conclude. Damn, we must be stupid, right? Right?
I’ve been listening to a man called Marc Stevens who wrote a book called “Adventures in Legal Land”. He’s speaking of law and the tyranny and mobster-like activity of government, its police force, and its courts of commercial extortion … sorry, I mean courts of law, and he emphasizes the importance for a non-lawyer who has to deal with such a gang to differentiate between fact and opinion, between fact and fiction. Although he was talking about law it can be justly be used in other parts of life. Now remember, the God-denier is bold and brash in ridiculing the “fairy tales” of those who accept the words of the Torah. But if we use this method of differentiating between fact and opinion when it comes to claims of evolutionists, especially those who claim it is true and the true record of our origin and development, I wonder what we would get. For now, we’ll take “fact” to be what is seen and experienced by humans, and “opinions” as whatever is drawn or deduced from those facts. You will note that, looking at it from the outside, this is really all the God-denier has. I won’t even go into how, in that worldview, the facts aren’t really factual, but still subjective human perception. Another way of looking at this is that we are trying to separate the fact from the interpretations as much as possible.
Just think about it with me. Really think. If we just dealt with the facts, what humans have experienced – tell me, please – do God-deniers really and factually have a history? Or do they just have an opinion-based story, something that has nothing to do with what really and factually happened, but just the opinions and interpretations people choose to accept? Let me give an example. The people who claim that the world and universe are billions of years old, do they have facts or opinions to back this up? What facts, what bits of human experience, do they have to back up this claim so much that they can use the media and the education system to force it down the back of our throats so far that it is easy to feel like they are literally fisting our brains (i.e., punching their fists into our brains)? What will they use? The layers in the ground? The ratio of radioactive elements in certain rocks? Can you see the factual problem with using those things as evidence? Let me help. Layers in the rocks are factual. They are the fact. But opinion and interpretation is what you draw from that fact using whatever mental processes you’ve been conditioned to use, and not everyone’s mental processes are the same which again makes one scream out “subjective!!!!” Again, the radioactive elements in the rock and their ratio are the fact, but what those radioactive elements mean is again opinion. Point to any – any – purported fact an evolutionist puts on the table and you’ll hit on the same brick wall. Factually speaking, they have nothing. Opinion-wise? Well, it would appear that they are full of themselves and their opinions and fictions.
Now add that to the fact that in a God-denying universe, all you have is subjectivity and no truth, no morals, no real knowledge (only brain-fizz), and tell me again if God-deniers have a history beyond any intelligible writing left to us from other humans. They have nothing but their own inferences and speculations which they then call science.
[ASIDE: Wow, I didn’t even realise how similar what scientists do and what governments do are so similar. Just like certain scientists make their own speculations science, government “authorities” make their own cravings for the wealth of the people into acts and statutes and make it enforceable law. The government has the police to enforce their law. And those certain sect of scientists have the media and education system and teachers to promulgate and indoctrinate their opinions on everyone. I guess there are many types of oppression, right?]
So when they tell me “the earth was formed as a molten mass around 4.6 billion years ago” or that some unknown, unknowable, unseen, never experienced single celled life form with very little genetic information diversified and almost magically increased in complexity over billions and billions of years into fish and then amphibians, and then mammals and then some monkey type creature and then us, when they tell me all this, mentally all I need to do is grab some popcorn and soda, sit back, and give this story the same credibility as a fictional movie. I don’t need to invest much in such subjective opinions and speculations about what happened in a hypothetical time that nobody was there to verify.
Another thing to note is that nobody put their hand back in time and scooped up what happened in the past. All the evidence evolutionists have exclusively and only comes from the past 200 or so years of “scientific” endeavour. None of the evidence is literally from the past; it is taken from the present, the only place science can more securely deal with. It is only then their interpretations that would have us join Doctor Who, hop in a time machine, and do mental time travel and imagine what happened in a past we can never interact with at all. This is the arrogance of humanity: they take us mentally up light years away to look down on the supposed shape of our galaxy; they mentally take us back into a time that never factually existed; they make us “witness” things too small for the eye or any piece of equipment to see; and then they bold-facedly tell us this is truth when it’s all been a journey in the mind.
Who then is telling us fairy tales or believing in them?
To those who do believe …
I know! I know! Some one who actually accepts Torah will come to me and declare that evolution must be true, that I haven’t understood the “facts” (LOL!), having already accepted what the atheistic-minded (even theists can be atheistically-minded) scientists have told them and then added God and Torah to it. Who knows, they may then tell me that this rabbi or that rabbi calculated that the universe is also billions of years which just happens “surprisingly” to be something similar to what atheistically-minded scientists have concluded. And my response?
If I know what the story of mega-change:mega-time is with regards to fact and opinion, would a sprinkling of rabbinical calculation do anything to change my view? Do the calculations of a few rabbis somehow sanctify the mega-change:mega-time story and make it true? I somehow doubt it. I’ve read enough about the rabbinical view on it to see that it is unwise to make such absolute and categorical statements about Jewish tradition agreeing with what scientists today are saying. [If you know anything about the history of the human endeavour using science, you’d be cautious before you try to fit Torah into modern or popular theories and stories of scientists. One day, this is scientific “truth”. The next day that “truth” is disproved and now that is “truth”.] If you wanna believe in it, have your cake and eat it. Enjoy the icing! There is nowhere enough truth in it for me to give it the time of day. And I don’t feel the need to please the God-deniers when in their own worldview all they are doing is putting so much, no, too much faith in their own opinions, a made-up story, a story that can never be true because they have no truth without stealing the concept of truth from a theistic worldview where absolute or objective truth is at least possible.
In a way, I feel sorry for the God-denier. In too many instances, he ends up firing his verbal or literal bullets at the views of others as if he is in the right when he is in fact showing his own delusion in thinking he has any right or truth or real moral basis at all. He condemns “creationism” or “religion”, however he wishes to define them? And on what basis? His own subjective opinion! Or the subjective opinions of those he chooses to venerate! For a person who is concerned about truth, not just opinion, this should be less than someone throwing a speck of dust on your shoulder. Should I even bother to flick it off?
But the problem is, like so many other things in this world, the majority of people have invested their lives in an illusion, whether it be government, tv programs and movies, video games, money, prestige, celebrity, naturalism, scientism … We gentiles were warned against literal idolatry, active worship to a power other than God maybe to teach us the difference between what is real, really real, and what is illusion. And yet here were are, living almost totally in the world of illusion. That why things like having such faith in opinion, regardless of whether a scientist said it or not, why things like that trouble me. It is the symptom of a deeper problem, the craving to have ourselves as the Boss, to dictate what is really real, to form gods in our own image, regardless of where that leaves the true God. But we are less than a speck of dust on His “shoulder” (speaking metaphorically). Wouldn’t take much to flick us off, would it?
I’ll end with the following quote:
“The idea that the worship of man will be the last idolatry before the advent of the Mashiach is cited in the name of the Vilna Gaon … in putting forth this concept, Rabbi S. R. Hirsch of course had in mind the modern age, in which man and his reason and judgment have become the supreme arbiter and authority in the world. Secularism, naturalism and scientism (the belief that science and only science can furnish the answer to all questions) are some of the approaches that have replaced mankind’s seeking of God’s guidance. The failure of the twentieth century to solve any of the basic problems of humanity—achievement of international peace, agreement on accepted standards of morality and interpersonal relations, mental health requirements, alleviation of poverty and famine, protection of our environment, etc.—certainly justifies the author’s remark about ‘the havoc wrought by human violence and human folly.’ Ultimately, the ‘worship of man’ is disastrous, because man’s insight cannot arrive at a clear knowledge of moral law.” Elias, Nineteen Letters, 101. – quoted on page 415 footnote 3 of Secular By Design, A Philosophy of Noahide Laws and Observances, by Alan W. Cecil