Atheists, Unicorns and Narwhals

"God is a myth like the unicorn." 

"Prove to me that an invisible pink unicorn does not exist and I'll prove to you that there is no God." 

The unicorn is a common symbol for atheists. Atheists love to compare God to unicorns.

In his book, Illogical Atheism, Bo Jinn exposes the fallacious thinking of atheism. Bo includes a memorable discussion on the unicorn as it relates to the discussion on God:

"There is a theory that the myth of the unicorn first came about when ancient nomadic people of Europe discovered strange objects washed up along their shores. These objects were long, pointed conical and had the weight and texture of bone. So, the nomads inferred that they must have been the horn of some kind of animal. The only animals they knew of with horns were land animals like the antelope and the elk. But these horns looked like they could not belong to either. The ancient nomads would have proposed the best possible explanation for what animal the horns might have belonged to, by observing their own surroundings and reasoning things out. So, they concluded that the best explanation was that the horns must have belonged to a large and powerful species of horse that roamed some far away land. If one considers the position of the ancient nomad, one might appreciate that this is hardly an illogical explanation. A horse was a land creature, it was large enough and strong enough to bear the weight of the big horn and since the horns were found washed up on shore one may assume that these large horses died at sea, their bodies were devoured by sea beasts and that the horns floated to their coastal waters. And that is how the myth of the unicorn came about." (Bo Jinn, Illogical Atheism: Book II, chapter 5).

The horn of course is the tusk of a narwhal.

Bo uses this story to make the following two points:

First: The unicorn is not a random concoction of some imaginative ancient person but rather a possible explanation for the horn. 

Let's add to this scenario. Suppose another nomad comes along and disputes the idea that the horn came from a horse-like creature. Perhaps this nomad has some additional evidence that suggests that the horn comes from a sea creature. Maybe he's seen a walrus and thinks that the horn is a tusk that came from a similar type of animal. Let's imagine a few more nomads arrive and argue about the origin of the horn. Most of them agree that it came from a creature that died at sea. They may not know that the horn is actually the tusk of a narwhal but the nomads have correctly concluded that it came from an animal that died at sea.

Now compare the nomads to practitioners of different religions. Does the existence of many religions indicate that there is no God as some atheists presume? Hardly. The many religions of this world are a testament to the fact that God has left knowledge about himself in the natural world. More evidence, however, is needed. Christians would point to the additional evidence in the prophetic scriptures which center around God's Son who became one of us poor nomads and then resurrected from the dead.

Second: The unicorn hypothesis was not refuted by saying that there was a lack of evidence but by new evidence that the horn was a tusk that belonged to a narwhal. Atheists have yet to find their narwhal!

When an atheists refutes a theistic position they will often claim that they are doing so due to a lack of evidence. They will go so far as to say that there is no evidence at all and that faith in God is blind and tantamount to believing in an invisible pink unicorn. The problem for the atheist is that while they claim that God is not the explanation to the universe they are unable replace God with a substitute explanation.

Bo Jinn adds to the nomad scenario by proposing the arrival of another nomad who tells the others that they are all wrong. This nomad claims that there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the horn came from an animal. Naturally, the other nomads press him for an alternative explanation of the horn. The dissenting nomad offers one of two explanations: 1. "The horn popped out of nothing." 2. "The horn has always been there." Obviously, this nomad would not be taken seriously by the others. What he's advocating is unreasonable and more incredible than a miracle.

Atheists have a similar problem. Their explanation for the universe is that it has either always been there or it popped out of nothing. For this reason, out of all the belief systems in the world atheism is the most illogical. Atheism is also the most exclusive of all faiths in that it shares nothing in common with other views. The nomads could all agree that that the horn came from an animal. Most religions agree that there is at least one higher power.

If God is not the proper explanation to the universe then what is? The atheist should not ridicule the notion of God and offer nothing to replace it. The atheist ought to admit that they simply don't want there to be a god. As Thomas Nagel put it, "I don't want the universe to be like that." At the heart of atheism is not evidence or the lack thereof but a stubborn and rebellious heart.

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." - Psalm 14:1

Intricacies of Psalm 23

Yahweh

-Yahweh (LORD) is the first word of the psalm

-Yahweh (LORD) is mentioned twice in the psalm, once at the beginning and once at the end.

- The center of the psalm is the phrase "for you are with me." There are 26 words before the phrase and 26 words after the phrase. 26 is the numerical value of the Hebrew word for Yahweh. The four consonants are also the numbers 10, 5, 6 and 5. 

Chiasm

A. Going home with the Lord. No lack

      B. Leads me

           C. Still Waters, Green Pastures

                D. Restores my Soul

                     E. Shadow of Death

                          F. No Fear

                              G. You are with me, Your Rod, Your Staff

                          F. Comfort

                     E. Presence of my Enemies

                 D. Prepares a Table 

           C. Oil, Cup

      B. Follow me

A. At home with the Lord. Forever

A Chiasm of 7 Verbs

He Shepherds

     He Makes Me

          He Leads Me

               He Restores

          He Leads

     He Prepares

He Anoints

He and You

Notice how at the climax of the psalm the pronouns for God switch from he to you. Now that the author knows that God is with him the psalm becomes more personal. He's not being directed rather he is being doted upon by God. It's almost as if the valley of the shadow of death caused him to turn toward his shepherd. Notice also the triple "you" in the climactic phrase. God is often described in threes throughout the Scripture. 

Echoes of Exodus

"The LORD is my shepherd, I lack nothing."

     Exodus 16:18 - Everyone had gathered (manna and quail) just as much as they needed.. 

     "I lack nothing" is the same word as "as much as they needed."

"He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters."

     Exodus 15:13 - In your strength you will guide them to your holy dwelling. 

     "He leads me..." is the same word as "you will guide."

     Exodus 15:23 - "Bitter Waters" ME MARAH

     Numbers 20:13 - "Troubled Waters ME MERIBAH 

     Psalm 23:2 - "Quiet Waters" ME MENIHOT

"He restores my soul"

     Exodus 14 - The word for "restored" is used to describe how God restored the waters of the Red          Sea.

"Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil. For you are with me. Your rod and your staff they comfort me. 

    Israel travels through the Red Sea with a wall of water on the right and on the left. Moses stretched     his staff out over the Sea to split it. 

"Surely goodness and mercy will follow me all the days of my life."

     Exodus 14:19-20 - The Angel of the LORD, and the pillar of cloud moved behind Israel as                  they crossed the sea. 

"And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever

     Exodus 13 - Describes Israel's condition in Egypt as living in the House of Slavery

Psalm 23 in the Broader Context of the Psalms

- Psalms 15-24 are often taken as a group. 

- A chiasm is evident

A. Psalm 15: Who may live on God's holy mountain?

     B. Psalm 16: Trust

          C. Psalm 17: Cry for help

               D. Psalm 18: God Delivers

                    E. Psalm 19 - Creation Praises God

               D. Psalm 20-21: God Delivers

          C. Psalm 22: Cry for help

     B. Psalm 23: Trust

A. Psalm 24: Who may live on God's holy mountain?

Psalm 23 and Psalm 16 are in parallel positions. They also have similarities.

     Psalm 16:1 - Yahweh is my Lord

     Psalm 23:1 - Yahweh is my Shepherd

     

     Psalm 16:5 - "You alone are my portion and cup"

     Psalm 23:5 - "My cup overflows"

     

     Psalm 16:10 - "You will not abandon me to the grave (Sheol)"

     Psalm 23:4 - "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death."

     Psalm 16:11 - "Eternal pleasures at your right hand."

     Psalm 23:6 - "I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever."

     Psalm 16:11 - "Path of life"

     Psalm 23:3 - "Paths of righteousness"

Stop Saying that You Believe in Science

"I Believe in Science!"

'

The statement I believe in science is not a scientific statement. When a person says that they believe in science what they really mean is that they believe in philosophical materialism. Philosophical materialism is the belief that matter is all that exists. This is not scientific but speculative. Since the dogma of philosophical materialism is equated to science it often goes unquestioned and unexamined. Philosophical materialism reduces everything to matter rendering things like thought, memory, values, free-will, freedom, equality, good, evil, morality, meaning, and love as illusionary possessions of a bunch of duped robots. Philosophical materialism is existentially bankrupt, narrow-minded and woefully inadequate in its ability to explain the human experience.

The statement I believe in science is used as a personal attack to cut off debate or to silence critics. The statement is often employed as an ad hominem that paints the other person as ignorant and uneducated. If I watched a video of Bill Nye rambling about abortion and I said that he was wrong because he's a clown, I would be committing an ad hominem logical fallacy. Bill Nye being a clown has nothing to do with the truthfulness of his statements on abortion.

The statement I believe in science is committing a categorical error. When we look at the context of how this phrase is used, belief in science is often juxtaposed to belief in God. Science and God are in two completely different categories. The former describes nature and the latter explains why nature is there or why we are even able to describe nature (science!). Responding to belief in God with the statement I believe in science is like saying I don't believe in Picasso, I believe in art!

The statement I believe in science is self-refuting when used in an epistemological sense. Scientism is a relatively new term which refers to the belief that science is the only source of knowledge. While philosophical materialism limits the state of being (ontology) scientism places limits on knowing (epistemology). Scientism is self-refuting because scientism cannot be verified scientifically! Scientism can also be turned against science since many of the assumptions behind science cannot be proven scientifically.

The statement I believe in science is really a belief in the infallibility of  the scientific establishment. This is ironic since much of history's scientific heroes were people who went against the scientific establishment by questioning their assumptions. Today's science has become dogmatic and authoritative. I guess when you ignore the history of science you are doomed to repeat it.

A Church that Reads the Koran

A few years ago Luther's church in Germany began their Reformation service with a call to worship from an Islamic minister. A lone German woman protested from the balcony. Her testimony is in the video clip below:

The disease has apparently spread to Scotland where an Episcopalian cathedral celebrated the Epiphany of Jesus with a reading from the Koran. The lector read about the annunciation of Jesus from the Koran in Arabic. Within the Koran's annunciation of Jesus is the anti-Christian teaching that Allah (God) could not have a son. The Koran also describes Jesus talking as an infant, a tradition which Mohammad inherited from the Gnostic sects that inhabited the once diverse area of Arabia.

This church is not interested in the teachings of Christ but in cultural acceptance. Their goal is more political than spiritual and it spills over into their sermons. An excerpt from the Christmas sermon likened King Herod to Donald Trump:

But Herod didn’t manage to kill the Christ child, didn’t manage to kill hope, didn’t manage to wipe out love either.And neither will Trump. Nor Putin. Nor any of the putative far right big men (or big women, that’s not impossible either) be able to wipe love out either.Love always wins.

The midnight mass sermon also began with a mention of Trump and Brexit.

I believe that people of Europe have three options: Christianity, Islam, or nationalism. I think that nationalism will check the Islamic surge and that it will be godless and brutal. Christians have stepped aside and in their eagerness to be agreeable to secularism they have rendered themselves irrelevant in Europe. Their desire to be acceptable will only allow evil to flourish. 

Perhaps it won't be nationalism. Perhaps apathy and inertia will allow Islam to finally take over Europe. If Europe becomes an Islamic continent the culture, languages, and rich history of Europe will disappear under Islam's heavy yoke. The cathedrals will become mosques and diversity will be a thing of the past. 

I think about the Hagia Sophia, that beautiful domed mosque in Istanbul. Was it built by Muslims? Was it designed to be a mosque? 

No, it was a church, a product of Christianity which was converted into a mosque in 1453. The dome architecture of Islamic mosques is not original to Islam but to an ancient, eastern Christianity which today is but a shadow of its former self and a warning to what will happen to a Christianity that compromises. 

   

Pseudomodernism: A Fake New World

By the mid-nineties we tossed the last few shovelfuls upon Truth's grave and looked about the grim reality that Americans possessed everything and yet at the same time had nothing. Science and technology had bequeathed history's bloodiest century. The Soviet Union dissolved. Our aspirations for space travel petered out with the Challenger explosion. Utopias had become as unreachable as the stars. Global-warming alarmists prophesied doom. Reckless presidents dabbled in the Mideast and philandered with interns. Seattle grunge and the Midwest melancholy existential musings of the Smashing Pumpkins echoed postmodernism's postmortem of the enlightenment. From Kurt Vonnegut to Kurt Cobain the message was clear - the truth is that Truth was dead. Truth had been deconstructed, dismembered, and disemboweled - never to be disinterred. Only ignoramuses in the hinterland held on to a bygone absolutism.

Then, some jetliners pierced our existential fog eliminating New York's lofty pillars. We ran about like disoriented farm animals in a hail storm. We needed Truth but we had buried her. Our golden eggs were threatened and the mangled carcass of the goose lay on our dinner table. Then, a strange and unexpected deus ex machina descended upon us; the internet sprinkled its benevolent digital pixy dust upon the corpses of Truth and her children. The grim reality of our world was replaced by a new world, an undiscovered country. Our whirling compasses finally settled on a direction. All the needles pointed back to their operators.

The postmodern world eliminated truth and then gave us the digital tools we needed to create our own truths. We became the standard bearers. We became masters of a new universe that lay quite literally at our fingertips. Search engines and social media fed our preferences. We no longer had to be meaningless pawns in a chaotic universe; rather, we were given Brahman-like power to create one of many universes where our avatars can run amok. Welcome to the pseudomodern world.

The first dozen years of the new millennium had a pleasant veneer. We clicked and voted through our mobile devices controlling reality stars and elevating nobodies to prominent positions. We recognized the great interconnections of all things and if our codes and timing were correct we could tap into power, a power similar to the power wielded by ancient Shamans who sought to control their world through mantras and spells. Like Zeus we could cloud ourselves in the elements of our new universe and sow our wild oats in disguise. We could assume even more power through endless social pantheons by advertising ourselves through various "upvotes" "likes" and "followers." The thrill of power caused a lust for more. Something else happened, all the unpleasant failings and character flaws of the former world no longer needed to haunt us. We filtered, edited, selected and morphed. Like chameleons we could adjust to the demands of our surroundings. Gender, religion, sexuality, education, history and marriage were uprooted from their absolute moorings and placed upon a digital smorgasbord. We could feast without restraints.

Vestiges of objective Truth remained, threatening the autonomy and authority of a billion new gods and goddesses. Once the dust of the twin towers settled we looked skeptically at religion. Christianity closely resembled the Truth that the West had deconstructed. Secularists placed pressure on her from the outside like a horde of elitist Romans while the Judases of subjective spiritualism continued the onslaught from within. Like parasites they feasted upon the Christian worldview, using the sustenance to attack the host. If the parasites were to emerge they would need a new religion, a meta-narrative that would provide meaning, hope, goals, morality and value. The secular vultures left their religious prey, combed their feathers, and embraced a new, secular religion that advocated social justice, diversity, inclusion and permitted a divinity that could be found only within. Universities became temples where a secular priestly caste of professors preached dogma ensconced in a flowery perch of terminology known only to the enlightened. The media functioned as their prophets and the culturally elite regurgitate their platitudes. They walk on two legs like Orwell's pigs, scorning their roots, and we follow blindly choosing the path of least resistance.

But a tension lingered unexamined. We embrace new truths after deconstructing Truth. We embrace new moralities after deconstructing morality. We elevate ourselves to godhood after deconstructing life to blind mechanistic forces of zero value. We vocally give our approval and distaste but our pronouncements have no force because their foundation is nothing but preference.  We hurdle about in a moral vacuum driving ourselves mad because we have no firm ground to push off of and nothing to orbit. We have climbed into God's throne and we have found that we do not fit. Our wings melt off as we strive to achieve his brilliance.

And so when there is nothing left to consume we must consume ourselves.The parasite has tried on the costume of its host but a parasite without a host will cannibalize itself.  In our goal to become like God we become less that human. Our utopias become hell. Our desire to become like the ancient stars results in black-holes, the gravitational pull of which there is no escape. We can bide our time by pulling and tugging on our fellow man, climbing and clamoring over his shoulders but soon we'll be consumed. The pseudo-secular dam is about to burst and the coming deluge is prophetically reflected in the vacant eyes of the opioid addict who wanders around a land flowing with milk and honey.

Postmodernism removed fences and we embraced the freedom without considering why the fences were there in the first place. We have forgotten that the greatest thing we need protection from is ourselves. Nations rise and fall. Their eventual demise comes not from the outside but from a decay within. We mask the decay with progressive semantics but one day a passerby will walk by the wall and put his hand through it realizing that it is brittle paper mache. He will then urge his friends to walk through the wall and gorge upon the ruins of the gods.

The "Set Apart" God

When I was in Sunday School the thought of ancients worshiping items of wood and stone baffled me. The practice seemed common and the Old Testament Jews couldn't help but be drawn to it. God delivered his chosen tribe from Egypt and the next thing they do is worship a golden bull-calf. How stupid.

Pagan idol worship no longer strikes me as a historical oddity. Today, a college-educated young woman might mix some herbs next to a statue of a Babylonian goddess that she prays to. Later that night she'll meet some acquaintances in the forest around a fire where they will lift their hands toward the moon in prayer and praise.

At the heart of idol worship, nature worship, astrology and a host of other pagan practices is pantheism. Most non-Christian religions share a pantheistic worldview. Pagans, Wiccans, Hindus, New Agers, mystics, and many others view God as immanent. God is one and the same with the universe. God, humans, and creation are all interconnected and therefore it's reasonable to worship the deity through rocks and trees. For the pagan, deity is not transcendent, only immanent. A transcendent deity is distinct from creation, can act upon creation and can hold creatures accountable. Many pagans believe in gods and spirits that might be offended by humans or hold humans accountable, but even these deities are extensions or emanations of a greater, impersonal deity reminiscent of the Force in Star Wars. The great draw to this mindset is that deity lies within. Idols, spirits, gods, spells, worship, prayer and praise are not relational expressions between the creator and the created but are rather tools that are used by the worshiper to manipulate their environment.

The Christian God is both immanent and transcendent. He is immanent in that he is in all things. Paul says in Acts 17 that in God "we live and  move and have our being." The Bible also teaches that God is transcendent. He is exalted, he is above all things, and he is holy. The word "holy" relates to the transcendence of God. The word in the Hebrew is qodesh and means "to be set apart." The "set apartness" of God leaps off the page throughout the Bible. Sin, or a lack of holiness, caused Adam and Eve to be banished from God's presence. On Mount Sinai the Israelite were not allowed to go near the mountain because God was there. The focal point for much of the Old Testament is the tabernacle in the wilderness and the temple in Jerusalem. Multiple boundaries and barriers set God apart from his people in the tabernacle and temple. Priests were set apart. The firstborn were set apart. The seventh day was set apart. Certain foods were set apart. Circumcision demonstrated that the Jews were set apart. The prophets envisioned a time when the Messiah would bring man and God back together. Immanuel means "God with us." A blessing that Christians have through faith because Jesus was abandoned by God the Father. The apostle John begins his gospel by describing Jesus as the Word who was with God, became flesh and made his dwelling (tabernacled) with us. Redemption and atonement through Jesus thus make a loving relationship between the Creator and the created possible. If God is not transcendent then love can only be self-directed since loving the deity is tantamount to loving yourself.

Atheists will often group the Christian God with other pagan deities. The phrase, "I simply believe in one less god than you," is common among atheists. This fallacious thinking is a categorical error. The pagan concept of deity is far different than the Christian concept. The "set apartness" or transcendence of God also has an effect on the way we look at universe. For the pagan all things have a supernatural explanation since God is immanent. For the atheist there are only naturalistic explanations since the supernatural does not exist. For the Christian there are both natural and supernatural explanations. Christianity is often criticized for being anti-science. I would contend that a scientific view of the world is difficult to have without the transcendent notion of God. When God acts upon creation we expect law and order. Scientific progress flows naturally from the assumption that the universe is a system governed by laws and by extension governed by a Lawgiver (aka God) who is "apart." The atheist and pagan must borrow this assumption. Left on their own devices pagan and atheist worldviews must conceive of a universe that is inexplicable, random, chaotic, eternal and lawless.

Worldviews matter.

Toxic Masculinity

The University of Wisconsin Madison is sponsoring a new program called the Men's Project which "aims to explore masculinity and the problems accompanied by simplified definitions of it."

According to the University's website:

The UW Men’s Project is a six­-week program open only to men-identified students that kicks off with an overnight retreat where the group or groups will talk about what “masculinity” means to them.

“A key element of the program is intersectionality. There isn’t just one masculinity, there are many,” says Sam Johnson, a violence prevention specialist at University Health Services (UHS), one of the campus offices organizing the program. She explained that other components of one’s identity—including religion, sexual orientation, and race—all contribute to individual perceptions and experiences of masculinity.

The "introspection" through "questioning" and the project's goal of exposing participants to "different types of masculinity" is designed to deconstruct the "toxic masculinity" that Social Justice Warriors believe is part and parcel to the Patriarchy. This is not education but rather indoctrination into the social justice narrative. Young men ought to be warned.

“We know that men are underrepresented on campus when it comes to campus leadership roles and getting needed medical and mental health services,” Johnson says. “They’re also overrepresented in acts of violence and use of drugs and alcohol. With this program, we want to find out why this is and how we can change that culture campus-wide to encourage healthier expressions of masculinities.”

Sam Johnson is one of the organizers of this program and was a former coordinator of the "Sex Out Loud" tuition-funded club which probably holds the world record for most pictures of condoms on a Facebook page. Sam observes how men are underrepresented on campus and campus leadership roles. Well Sam, if an institution labeled femininity as toxic they would probably avoid it too. The fact of the matter is that from little on boys will get good grades if they behave like girls.

The program operates on a transformative model of social justice allyship. First, facilitators ask students to consider how the students’ opinions about masculinity affect their own perceptions every day. Second, they consider how those opinions affect the people around them. Finally, the program examines how those perceptions affect the whole campus community, and that’s where facilitators and the Men’s Project program coordinators from the UW Division of Student Life, UHS End Violence On Campus, and UW Housing hope to learn the most from the experience.

The program is somewhat similar to an existing course available to men in the Greek community at UW-Madison called "Greek Men for Violence Prevention.“ A two-credit course in the School of Social Work, that class has been available to qualifying students for over ten years.

The goal is pretty clear: deconstruct masculinity and get young men to accept and promote social justice causes. Notice also the correlation in the article between masculinity and violence. Blaming violence on masculinity is like blaming abortion on femininity.

In a previous post I created a glossary of words that Social Justice Warriors use. Social Justice words and catch phrases found in this article include intersectionality, individual perception, vulnerablity, gender-based, diverse, gender-based, and social justice allyship, Knowing the terminology will create valuable red-flags when SJW narrative pops up in a school, church, occupation, institution or program near you.