Loading...
Menu

Deist Check Off List

DEIST CHECK OFF LIST

 

 

By

Edward E. Rochon

 

 

 

Shakespir EDITION

 

 

  • * * * *

 

 

PUBLISHED BY:

Edward E. Rochon on Shakespir

 

 

Deist Check Off List

Copyright © 2016 by Edward E. Rochon

 

 

 

Thank you for downloading this eBook. This book may not be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, unless prior permission is given by the author.

 

Your support and respect for the property of this author is appreciated.

 

 

 

 

Some Other Works by the Author

 

[Axioms & Theorems: An Essay
Contra Pantheism (Atheism): An Essay
Contra Nominalism: An Essay
Cubics: A Numbers Essay]
[EMF Banding Model
Global Warming: An Essay
American Theodicy: An Essay
The JU Engine
Pest Control: An Essay
Pollution Solution: An Essay
Pollution Soup Cook: An Essay
Seven Month Pregnancy: An Essay
Atheism & Fraud: An Essay
Unified Field Theory: An Essay
__]

 

Reading Material

 

  • * * * *

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

Title Page

Preface

Chapter 1: The Arguments and Terms

About the Author

Preface

A distillation of arguments used elsewhere in several essays comprises the substance of the check off list, along with some new material. The list notes the unwillingness of atheists to admit the irrationality of their premise that they suppose is based on reason, their deliberate ignorance of the irrational motivations behind atheism from time immemorial. They dish out the self-serving motives of the believer while ignoring their own self-serving motivations. They note that faith has no foundation in reason while basing their own argument on belief as opinion, or belief as superstitious willfulness, or belief simply as faith while denying the faith behind a pretense of reasons.

It is not my intention to promote religion in this essay, but to promote truth against a lying cult that impedes, and must impede, the advancement of the arts and sciences, the commonwealth of man, the integrity of the human soul.

 

 

 

Chapter 1: The Arguments and Terms

Metaphysics:

Physics as the material world of space, time and matter subjected to reason and observation where the conclusions and suppositions are definite, provable or disprovable by mathematics with sufficient data, comprises physics. Metaphysics is generally beyond physics, therefore immaterial, a psychic, spiritual or otherwise conscious state, or reflection within that state, often indefinable other than by a process of logical exclusion in verbal or mathematical form. The physical world includes motion. Many have found the existence of motion, as an attribute of nature, to be without mathematical justification, logical coherence. Since motion clearly exists as a natural phenomenon, the answer has been to posit an interface between immaterial or supernatural power acting upon the natural world. Some have suggested the answer is that a world of parts and motion is simply an illusion (Parmenides & Zeno of Elea) according to Aristotle. This is hardly convincing whatever the mathematics indicates. I might add that ‘meta’ as prefix often implies change as in metamorphosis. This fits in with the metaphysical or supernatural world effecting changes to perception in the natural world. So we have metaphysics as both beyond physics and changing physics from beyond nature (or coexistent with nature.)

Deism:

A general affirmation of the existence of God. More distinctly, the general form is to assert that the proposition is based on reason, that it is independent of ritual, other cultic attributes and free from dependence upon revealed texts or myths. Another word is theism to cover this matter. It is not a religion in general but supposes God’s existence has some, and should have some, effect upon human nature.

Atheism:

An opinion that God does not exist, generally supposed to be based on some evidence. It also has the connotation of being against God, his adversary. In the latter case, you could accept the existence of God but deem him an enemy to be opposed. Amoral people often disapprove of ethics as well as deny the existence of ethics. An apolitical man could be against politics while hardly claiming the political culture does not exist.

Evidence of the Immaterial: Mathematical:

We start with whether a mathematical continuum in the sense of a number line, number theory is reasonable and provable. A mathematical continuum is at present generally accepted along with notions of Georg Cantor, irrational and transcendental numbers, the infinitesimal as a valid argument in the Calculus, converging infinite series, and endlessly approaching an asymptote (or termination point as a curve approaching a limit in the form of a line or value.)

In effect, these notions interject the infinite into mathematics, a science that deals with numbers that are in fact distinct increments that cannot converge into a continuum without logical contradiction. These contradictions are easily shown by simple arithmetic and refute a mathematical continuum. We feel no compunction in denying the underlying foundation of the calculus, while accepting algorithms that generally work. By the way, Newton was hesitant to equate the infinitesimal with an actual infinity of diminution but merely suggested that it was very small beyond perception, unlike Leibniz. But Newton did accept infinite series, that are patently false, even though the algorithms work. Why is that? Because the values are so small as to be beyond noticeable detection, because good enough is good enough, because infinitely small means no quantity at all, if it means anything, and nothingness cannot be operated upon in physics or mathematical calculations. To be sure an empty set is an empty set. Take elements out and you end up with nothing, but each element must be distinct, definite and quantifiable. Zero is only quantifiable by convention. It is in fact not a quantity but absence of a quantity.

Argument Against Finite Series:

If a finite line is broken into many parts, those parts are finite and add up to a finite sum equal to the length of the line (number line.) An infinite series must converge to a point. These points on the number line would be the start and end points of each and every segment you care to imagine. The start and end points would converge at the supposed infinity of diminution. This would mean that each infinitesimal segment was in fact a point. Now, a point has no extension, is simply a relationship with respect to the extension of the line and/or any other lines, planes or volume intersecting with, coincident with or contained in the lines, planes and volumes.

This means that all the infinitesimal segments are points without any extension between them. They are a continuum. But this continuum is one point, not the line that we started out with (the number line.) The line has magically disappeared and the points are ‘pointless’ without reference to some extension(s), because points are merely relationships in space. What I mean by relationships is the difference between the side of an object and the object. The side is merely a termination point (a plane surface) of the object. It is the discontinuity (note the word as discontinuous) between the external world and the object. This side does not exist without the object and the external world juxtaposed to it. It is defined as the intersection between them, as a relationship between them.

If you suppose an infinite line, you end up with more nonsense. Any two finite values or any set of finite values must add up to a finite sum, and that is not an infinite line or infinite anything. If you attempt to bisect an infinite line, we see that the two parts cannot be finite due to the above, since any finite quantity doubled is just a finite sum of twice the size. Since infinite is boundless, a boundary cannot be exceeded and infinity cannot be added to, divided, multiplied or subtracted from. We see that the infinite is and must be coexistent with the finite world, not composed of it and beyond it.

Moreover, numbers are increments by definition. The use of the one as a synonym for the all is simply a double usage of the same term for different purposes. (More on this further down.) The infinite One (or oneness or unity) is not analyzable or subject to mathematical computation or determination. By definition, the infinite cannot be defined. Infinity is a tag word that simply indicates: not definite.

[We see that an infinite number of points cannot create or add to a finite line or any line.
We see a finite line magically reduce to a point with infinitely large math operations attempted.
We would see areas and volumes disappear to points by similar attempts, an absurdity.]

Mathematics can exist only in the finite realm of analysis with one exception. We can show the infinite as logically valid by exclusion, logical exclusion.

Affirmation of Infinity by Logical Exclusion:

For a line to exist it must cut across an extent such that there is one side of the line and another. A plane must cut across an extent such that there is one side of the plane and another. A volume must mark off an extent such that there is an inner extent and an outer extent. Any number can be added to, any extension can be added to, so there is always something beyond any finite limit. This is not to say that this additive property proves the existence of an infinite series of cardinal numbers or of any other type of number (ordinals can be excluded from this.) On the contrary, an indefinite extension can never come to an end, and so cannot come to infinity. There is not an ‘at infinity’ to come to. This ‘at infinity’ would imply a boundary that is explicitly excluded from an infinite series.

However, we can say that this additive property absolutely requires that a number line, or a space coordinate grid cannot have a limit. Therefore, space and the number line must be able to extend into any amount or extension. This requires no limit on boundaries, so the void must be without boundaries, and that is the same as infinitely expansive, whatever that means.

Now, this is a tricky problem that has confused many. What is this difference between the additive property of indefinitely extending the number line or space grid that we assert can never reach the infinite, and our assertion that by exclusion that the expanse that the line and grid project into must be boundless or infinite? The answer is that the additive property is a positive projection into space and along the number line or the set of numbers. We must do something, conceive something, suppose something in sequence, one particular action multiplied a number of times. There is indeed a difference between doing and not doing. When we do act: we do something specific. When we do nothing, we nevertheless have innumerable possibilities of what we can do. But we have done nothing. So the infinite is indefinite, but so is zero or nothing. The all and nothingness (zero) share this trait in common. Neither one is definite. Zero is simply the absence of a count and is not a definite quantity of anything. And infinity is the absence of a count by reason of not being able to conceptualize or realize that count, since we can always one more and another, etc. So we have a count for the finite, but no count for zero and infinity. We simply say what they are not. They are not finite, though otherwise completely different in nature.

By logic, I am forced to say that cardinal number sets can never be infinite, while at the same time asserting that this very additive attribute of numbers and extensions, demands the infinite continuation of the expanse of whatever the quantities or extensions must fill up, though this infinite is forever uncountable by numbers and unattainable by extension. There can be no positive count of the infinite and no exclusion of the infinite by that inability. On the contrary, the continuous expansion of the number count demands the endless expanse of infinity.

This is all rational stuff and not satisfactory for the inner yearning of the soul for the ultimate union with, or understanding of God and existence. It says nothing about Ezekiel and his visions, ethics or anything of that sort. We stay here within the confines of the argument. Ezekiel’s vision is specific and historical. The cosmos is immanent, immediate and always present for observation and thought.

This shows the mathematical evidence for the infinite, that must be immaterial in nature by a process of exclusion, and lays the foundation for the transcendence of God. I did not expand on the relationship between motion and the supernatural here, but that adds to the deist cause as well. Now we go on to consciousness.

Consciousness and the Immaterial:

We know that atheists are invariably materialists from Epicurus to Richard Dawkins. We are told directly or indirectly that modern science disproves religious convictions, meaning affirmation of God and the supernatural in particular. Let us look at this:

The Atheist admits that he sees trees on the Oxford Campus, we suppose. The Theist admits that he sees trees round about Virginia Beach. The Bible says the material world exists. The Atheist, being a materialist, says it exists. Both accept the trees as real we suppose. Antiquity had questions about light due to absence of equipment and various other reasons to study it. We still have questions about its nature. We sort of agree that the eye is passive and that light travels at 300,000 km/sec. We agree that eyes pick up light from the tree’s reflective properties, I guess. The eye is like a movie/TV camera that we make in factories in many respects, same principles. Let us agree that the brain cells of the brain correspond to the electric circuitry of television and camera.

What else do we need? We need movie projectors and screens, TV screens to see what the camera senses. The screen puts the images together in a way that conforms to the source image. We cannot see electrical potential states in the brain or equipment. And even if we could, that would not be what we see in the picture screen or our mind. The synapses of the brain correspond to transistors, but only consciousness corresponds to the television screen. (There is or might be a visible image in the eye itself that an outside observer could see with his eye or you in a mirror, but this is clearly not what the brain processes, but rather electrical impulses converted from light shining on photosensitive cells.) This screen is not to be found in the brain. This is where the material mind supposition breaks down. Now I want to add a notion of Jean-Paul Sartre, French Marxist, atheist and materialist.

Location of Mind:

Jean-Paul Sartre in a short work on phenomenology (La Transcendance de l’ego: Esquisse d’une description phénomenologique, 1936) described the consciousness or mind of man as being out there in the world. As a materialist, he disapproves of the idealism of people such as Bishop Berkeley who see the world as immaterial, all in the mind (called solipsism too.) This is curious. Since nothing but matter exists to a materialist, how can the consciousness of a man be out there in the world? Just what did he mean? Well, “M. Sartre, he dead.” You can read his books if that helps. I have long noted the binding force (similarities) between Materialists and Idealists. One calls the totality of existence immaterial; the other calls the same thing material. In the case of Bishop Berkeley and David Hume, they have the same basic mindset. Sartre wants to avoid solipsism (Idealism, all in your mind) and uses language that sounds quite like solipsism. If your consciousness is out there in the world, and your own ego is an external object of awareness to you in that world, maybe your mind encompasses the world after the fashion of solipsism? I am a Dualist (both immaterial and material are real to me), in conformance with the Bible and much of human thought throughout history, but this is an interesting point. As a dualist, I see consciousness, mind, soul and spirit as immaterial. I have no problem with ideas and thinking being immaterial. However, admitting that, in what sense can I say that consciousness of any being can be both in and outside of his body? And isn’t it? Doesn’t it depend on your point of view, a view that can change as all points of view do? What I mean is that you can change your point of view to one or the other perspective or both views simultaneously.

When I look out at my room, I am conscious of the things in my room outside my brain and body. It is true that I can close my eyes and not see the room. But there are still sounds, smells, vibrations that I might feel. Eliminate them too. My consciousness by continuous experience (and the very nature of the boundaries of any body immediately impressing these boundaries on the conscious psyche) knows that closed eyes do not put an end to the outer world. I can imagine the world with eyes closed and invariably do while awake. At night, I can feel my way around in pitch darkness without touching things, if I have taken in my room setting sufficiently. I close my eyes but the outside is still there in my consciousness. And the fact is, when I move about, I do not think of (conscious of) lamps and chairs in my eye pupil, or brain cells. I am conscious of these things out there in the world. So why isn’t my consciousness out there with them? Materialism says I am only in me? But this is a bad argument that I will continue to attack. I have no doubt as to the immaterial nature of consciousness. If this opens up astral projection (out of body experience), so what? Many men dream outside of themselves at night. Other people dream generally from their own perspective as if awake. The immaterial mind allows both. And this is part of our empirical perception of the world that materialism does a piss poor (hopeless) attempt to rationalize away. This J. P. Sartre aside is just a footnote on a materialist, atheist, Marxist getting himself in hot water trying to abstract himself from solipsism. But I move on.

Before dealing with ideas, we note that the immaterial nature of the mind, that an Idealist such as Bishop Berkeley must admit, by that very immateriality would be free from material limitations. So it would be able to encompass the material world outside of it, though from the perspective of its body. This being the case, what value are Berkeley’s clever ideas about only seeing things in the mind? Since our mind under dualism, is reasonably free of the body, it can encompass these things, in effect, resulting in the same perspective as the Idealist imagines. Add to this, all the empirical and rational arguments for the independent existence of objects of perception, whether as matter or ideas, and his notions disappear as a vapor. All his arguments are compatible with outreaching, immaterial mind of the material body. It is a good question why men see the world from the perspective of the body, but this is the fact, the state of affairs at our birth. The question does not exclude the immaterial nature of the mind under dualism. We might ask what the deal is about astral projection, the dream world, why it occurs and so on to be sure.

Ideas:

Everybody knows that the idea of an elephant is not the same as an elephant, that it is not the same as a picture of an elephant, not the same as the Chinese pictograph(s) of an elephant, the English, French, German terms, written or spoken, for an elephant. We all know that the idea unites all these through the universal nature of the idea. We all know this, but try telling that to idiots called Nominalists? Even if you accept that some of the material manifestations of the idea must always be present when the mind dwells on the idea, it is still plain that the ideas are distinct things, or where is the dualism coming from that says the object and idea must be perpetually joined in the mind. (Are elephants both idea and object? What nonsense! Then there is no difference between an idea and the thing defined? The definition of an elephant is the elephant? How does the elephant get into your dictionary? Are the letters and words in your dictionary the parts of an elephant? Why are the letters different in Russian? Russian elephants and Anglophone elephants? What rubbish!) This dualism of the Nominalist skirts the question and matter.

You cannot weigh an idea in the mind, touch it or sense it other than in thought. All men know the difference between thought processes and sensory images, the difference between words from the mouth of self and others and words perceived in thought, the flushing of shame in the cheeks and the emotion that causes the shame perceived in consciousness. Illusion supposes a knowledge of this difference, though tricked by certain physical, neural and memory factors, otherwise the assertion of illusion is meaningless, without context, without definition. The idea perceived is not electro-chemical impulses, these merely mirroring the mind/body connection in order to speak, write, merge into the current inertial framework that the man finds himself in. We concede the dualism and mirroring between physical action and thought where applicable.

There is absolutely no evidence that ideas are anything other than immaterial. Invisible atoms bouncing around, microscopic magnetic waves are not germane. These are not objects of consciousness as such. While some elevated consciousness my be able to delve into these matters, the typical thinker has no perception of this in thinking. And this higher consciousness would surely note the distinction between the brain processes and the results.

We are informed by Bishop Berkeley and David Hume that it is impossible for universals to exist because we can only think of one thing at a time, not many things at once. This is a curious conclusion, since a universal is just that, one mental construction that pertains to all manifestations of it in natural imagery, imagination, or any fusion of the two. It is clear that the concept of the number two lies behind each manifestation of it in all languages that form a word for it, behind visual observation of twosomes, sets, couples of any sort.

Socrates’ notion was archetypes, the same concept as universal for the most part. He wondered if these should apply to crude things like hair combs. Parmenides, a better philosopher, told him he was foolish to exclude such, if he took archetypes seriously. Parmenides will get no argument from me on his rebuke. By the way, is not a man’s body composed of many distinct parts? Can one not think of a universal conception of finger, toe, leg, eye, nose, teeth? Of course you can. We see these together all the time in the observation of one human being. We have sets of universals and ideas, and must have to explain and mirror our complex world in the mind. So, in fact, we always observe more than one concept when observing any set of these universals.

Socrates imagined archetypes as germane to such things as piety, beauty, ethics, etc. This is nonsense. These attributes are indefinable. We know what they are by immanent and immediate understanding. They cannot be learned. What is indefinable cannot have an archetype. The words we use to describe these are tag words attached to indefinable concepts. What do I mean by this? Is bringing chocolates and flowers for your date love? What about the scoundrel who wants to seduce and despoil the wealth of his romantic target? That is not love. Descriptions must take in motivations, and it is worse or better than that. One man’s beauty is ugly or plain to another. I suppose you can acquire a taste for something you dislike at first, but this does not pertain to the aesthetic sense behind the change. At first a homicide may appear to be a crime, more facts might support self-defense which is not a crime. The facts are weighed by the method, and the method conforms to an indefinable notion of right and wrong.

It is absurd for people like John Locke to suppose that love, justice, esthetics, the ability to reason can be learned. We only learn the words that describe such things. (Even then, the understanding of axioms must rest on immanent, immediate understanding. That is why we say they are self-evident, and rightly so.) We learn the terms to reason with, but the faculty is innate. Reason must stand outside of the nature of things to truly be reason, and so metaphysical or supernatural in origin, though quite capable of studying the natural world. This all supports the immaterial nature of mind and supports deism.

While our technology improves over time, our philosophy is actually decaying. That weighty (sic) genius, David Hume, explains to us that the old method of looking for form behind content and action, that is, the ultimate or even mediate reason why things are what they are, is outmoded. David Hume is a man of action. This explains why the 300 lbs tub of lard put on so much weight, the action of stuffing his face with claret wine and dainties or not. We all know how obesity induces us to an active life, or does it? Unlike this writer, Hume was a man of even temperament. But then I do not stuff my face or douse wine to slake off troubles, nor lie to get tenure and an income, and least not recently. And for the record, Hume was not an atheist officially, though often cited as such. This is likely a case of Richard Dawkin’s assertion that just about all great men are atheists but lie about it to avoid troubles. Likely true in the case of mental midgets such as Locke, Hume, and Adam Smith. Hardly likely in the case of greater men such Newton, Descartes or even that scoundrel, Leibniz.

As for men of action, the fact is that even for athletes form is just about everything. The tennis player becomes great by working on his form. What about action and power? To maximize his strength he must use good form or risk injury, and so weakness. As for action, that is a given and an animal function. We know that tennis requires movement. Dah! We also know we pee, poop, fart from time to time. Good form helps there too. To know why a food is good or bad for us, it is very helpful to understand its form and nature within itself and compared to other foods. Again, the fact that the chemists, nutritionist or dieter must test, think about and analyze in general the food: is a given. It is the form of science that is the substance of science. And this man’s views, Hume, is a product of modern science? Now if some moron tennis pro and Hume groupie tells me I am wrong about how to be a good tennis player? I say goonie birds fly well, but it need not follow they are experts on aerodynamics. I do not need to know a lot about tennis. I am right and you are a good tennis player by happenstance that happens to be a moron as well.

Look where materialism is leading us? More good reasons to get back to God. Praise the Lord! It would not hurt for an explanation of this hell whole, whore world, or near facsimile to it. But that is what being a sage is all about. We figure things out for ourselves.

We see the value of immaterial ideas in helping us with the mundane as well as spiritual.

Faith & Scepticism:

We are told by the atheist that religion is the opium of the people, that it promotes despair, resignation to injustice. This may be true in some cases. We note that the atheists often consider the engineers of these religious swindles to be cynical atheists that oppress the folks through their intellectual dishonesty. So they admit that it is atheist scoundrels who are more often than not the culprits. How odd, atheists! You would think such objectively virtuous and scrupulously honest people would be above all that! It makes one wonder that if deists were the leaders of religions, things would be so much better, men of principle that believed their own spiel.

For the record, with respect to Christianity, there is nothing in the scriptures to support this notion of religious drug addiction. It readily condemns corrupt plutocracy, urges men to work diligently and honestly, to strive for a good life on both this planet now and in times to come. Jesus even promised the disciples who preached that they would do all right for themselves financially now and in the future, if they were faithful and true.

The atheist promotes scepticism, saying, “What does faith prove?” Why? It is not founded on faith. “What does doubt prove?” Nothing; if it were proven, it would not be doubt. And such matters of transcendence that atheism mocks, the charges are not provable by empirical means. Scepticism limits a man’s possibilities; faith opens up potential doors. Faith can never be disproven. What needs proof is not faith and is faithless in the attempt. How does this prove faith? Oh, yes, you cannot disprove a negative, the atheist says! Some men say 2+2=5; I say no; and they say you cannot disprove a negative. Oh, yes I can, but the scoundrels will not accept the proof, which proves nothing other than that they are scoundrels.

Moreover, the Bible is filled with suspicions of the motives of men, rulers and slaves alike. What do you suppose original sin is about? Have you never read the Psalms and its dim view of human friendship? Did you not read the Gospels and Jesus’ dim view of men’s motives? It is only God that one should trust unreservedly, according to the Bible. True, you might give people the benefit of the doubt, but benefit includes a qualification, reservation does it not? Test every spirit as Saul of Tarsus enjoins us? Suppose this is bad advice, to trust God? What could you do against a transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent God? You could only hope for eternal truth to come into your mind to ameliorate your woes. Is it true that God is evil, has no divine plan to justify human suffering? You can know nothing of the sort for certain on this matter. Why not assume the best by seeking the truth and not lying to yourself, that you are sure of what you are not sure of? Or do you believe God is evil as an article of faith? You can deal with dishonesty in men, not with perverseness in divinity, other than to seek the truth. Faith opens up possibilities that only a moron would close off, morons like sceptics who doubt and know little or nothing of what they doubt. The fool, Socrates (that is right, a fool) spent is whole life philosophizing to know nothing about truth by his own assertion. No wonder why the practical American would rather make a few bucks to buy a beer, pay the rent. And Socrates was full of it to boot; he knew something about Greek, who Plato was and some of his mannerisms, etc. Oh, yes, a hyperbole on the idiot’s part! To what point, this hyperbole? We concede that a man deemed wise by some and knows but little of the sum of truth would be well advised to view himself a fool in his own conceit. But a man knows what he knows, however little that may be, and he should avoid foolish hyperbole to the contrary so as to make himself look humble, whether in his own eyes, those of others, or of both parties.

A Parable:

Two men were lost in the wilderness, one a sceptic and one a man of faith. It looked hopeless. The man of faith wanted to push on but the sceptic wanted to die as restfully and peacefully as possible. An acquaintance came along. He offered to guide them out. The sceptic said he knew the nearly impassable mountains well. They did not have enough provisions and would die horribly from hunger, frost and exposure. The third man told him he knew of a short cut that had been recently discovered. The sceptic, an old backwoodsman did not believe him, a story to encourage the hopeless, he thought, by one of those incorrigible optimists. The sceptic remained alone there to die. The other two took the new route that seemed to be a fantasy to the sceptic and made good time with little suffering. So scepticism resulted in error and death. A man of some convictions would have done better. It is true that the bringer of good news was a man, but good came of it. How much more would an omnipotent and omniscient God be able to help?

I have shown here that atheism is not founded on reason, but is a belief system. It is irrational and condemns believers in God for what it is itself guilty of by its own standards, that is belief in an unprovable assertion.

Impulsive Reasons to Be an Atheist:

The atheist wants us to believe that the faithful are invariably motivated by irrational and perverse emotions, explaining why they believe without reason. They fail to point out why sceptics doubt without reason. Disbelief is not proof as noted above. I want to point out how people can achieve emotional satisfaction by disbelief, and this sheds light on why so many professed believers go through periods of doubt, from Martin Luther, to the Apostles to the whole world of faith from time to time.

There is evil in the world. Why doesn’t God stop it if he is good? Is it better to believe in an evil God or in a world of happenstance and evil men, though perhaps not all evil, you for example? Nobody but a fool wants to believe that God is evil. But where is the evidence that God is good? Because Jesus died on the cross? Where is the proof that this event two thousand years ago was God crucified as man, that Jesus was God? Do not the Muslims deny his crucifixion, and the Jews deem him a whore’s son? And what does the bloody spectacle have to do with anything? Why not stop evil? Prevent evil men from committing their deeds. Let them suffer internally. Leave the righteous in peace and to enjoy the fruit of a good world. This requires faith. Where does faith come from? If you lack it, can you buy it at the store like rice pudding, make it yourself? What is the recipe? No God is better than an evil God in the end.

Here is another example: Oh, I am an ignorant man and thoughts pop into my head. Occult forces may be preying on me. A gypsy witch has cursed me? Voodoo is at work? The devil is tempting me? What do I know about telepathy? How can I understand such things. I feel overwhelmed. Oh, wait a minute. It is only random daydreaming, synaptic outbursts. I do not know how to control it, but it is explainable in theory by biochemistry. Put my faith in chemistry, though I cannot prove this. I feel better now. I am not as ignorant as before, because I wished away diabolically clever opponents. There is no spirit world, no God. Or have you made yourself less ignorant by wishful thinking, and so more ignorant? Remember, the unknown or unverifiable is more fearful than the known or potentially verifiable.

Another example: You are a man of faith and may suffer for your convictions: torture, exile, execution, poverty. Your emotions go to work. If not believing gets your thumb out of an imagined thumbscrew, your feelings want to do what is required, feel whatever needs feeling to stay healthy and pain free. But emotions are irrational. They react to stimuli but not evidence, except that stimuli are also evidence. The atheist claims that faith is emotional. In fact, faith has more to do with hope. Now hope is an indefinable state of mind akin to aesthetic experience and ethics, but I do not see it as an emotion such as fear, hatred, erotic desire, anger. You can hope through fear, hatred, desire and whatever. True, you can have mixed emotions as the common idiom states. But hope is a background state of mind. Moreover, the higher love has really more to do with duty than desire. The mother proves her love by getting up at 3 AM to feed a crying baby, change its diapers, not when baby is a living doll, smiling, quiet but for some giggling moments, someone to show to your friends. The believer says, my fears cannot control either my reason, nor my faith, nor my duty to God. It does not matter what my gut feelings want. They will tell me anything to avoid the cross. I must keep the faith and think of other ways to escape the cross, or face death with a clear conscious. For all mortal men face death and the pain of one thing or another. I should keep my dignity and self-respect. Your feelings will tell the opposite of what you have thought and even felt your whole life. The consolation of God made you feel good in good times? Now that bad times are here, something else arises. But conviction is not a feeling. It is based on individual integrity (not a feeling), a sense of duty (not a feeling), and also whatever the source of faith is: God inspired, hope rising to the sublime. In the end it is indefinable and cannot be analyzed by reason, nor by feeling. Reason cannot disprove faith, and feelings tend to lie to get what they want without guilt. After all, most feelings are of an animal nature and amoral. They do not matter in the balance of the question of faith in God.

The conceited man says that he is one of the elect and believes. The conceited man says that he is one of the elect and does not believe. We all know the sense of moral superiority that atheists sneer out at before believers. How we all love to have a high opinion of ourselves, to be above the hoi polloi. And what does our opinion of our self prove? Nothing. This works with atheism as well as with the imagined elect. But they (atheist) want it one way.

All my friends are atheists and sceptics, I must make amends. I work with scumbags at the university. I know where respect is lacking, advancement and kind words are too, however hidden behind false polity. In a world of growing scepticism, believers can be under pressure to conform. It is not for nothing that totalitarian governments that are overtly or practically godless, communism (overtly), fascism (indirectly hostile), promote indoctrination in school, media and environment. It is not just the religious who indoctrinate.

A final example: A man has a guilty conscious and suffers from cancer in pain. If the mind ceases at death, no worries about guilt and no more pain. I have little or no faith for whatever reason, so I ‘believe’ this because I want to without proof. Ah, yes, the man in the foxhole opines maybe God can get my young man ass out of this. And why take a chance in more trouble after death in penance for my sins? Better safe than sorry. Why is this not reasonable, atheist sceptic? Admit it, it is reasonable. But you see the sickly manner has little conviction under duress, but the soldier has a bit more and more common sense to boot. Why is that? Maybe the chronic pain of cancer wears on the psyche more, makes in more hopeless than the soldier’s psyche under fire. Who knows where faith comes from? But why is the cancer patient the sensible one? The soldier is clearly the more prudent judge of the situation. So lack of conviction compensates for settling for a conviction requiring less effort in the view of the cancer patient, strongly spurred by a desire to end his ennui and pain. He has lost faith in recovery but not in the annihilation of the soul, something he knows nothing about.

Other Matters:

Subtleties of Language:

We divide language into the literal and metaphorical. The literal is the concrete or literal description of things. Metaphor uses parallelisms of comparing one concrete thing to another concrete thing: rosy cheeks are roses, for example. Some people think that when Jesus calls himself a door, the bread of life, the vine, he is speaking metaphorically. I do not agree. There are in fact three types of linguistic forms: literal, metaphorical and metaphysical.

The metaphysical differs from metaphor in that the metaphor is poetic usage that could be dispensed with if desired. You cannot state the case literally when speaking of metaphysical, undefinable attributes, because undefinable states have no literal manifestation in the material world, or even concrete archetypal definition in thought. In the metaphysical form of speech, you must use concrete terms to describe undefinable abstraction, because you have no choice.

In a movie, Lady Jane Grey (Helena Bonham Carter), one time Queen of England, mocks the Papist priest for claiming the words of Jesus Christ substantiate transubstantiation of the Eucharist into the body and blood of Christ. Grey takes the metaphorical position. The priest takes the literal. I deem them both wrong. When Jesus says that he is the door, he means just what he says. Is it a door as we find with houses, barns and arenas? No, but it is a door of a spiritual type, a spirit world that Jesus absolutely affirms as literally (note the literal) existent along with all true believers. He must use a concrete term, because he could not explain himself in any other manner in language. You may question the value of language in such matters, but you set yourself up as judge and arbiter of what Jesus can say. The faithful must believe he has his reasons. You may say that a smile is an opening door to friendship by one human to another. That is a metaphor, but you could say the same thing in a literal sense. Not so with a spiritual door. But the door is real: a real spiritual door, understood by spirit. Christ told Nicodemus he must be born again. He evidently did not refer to reincarnation or any other type of reentering the womb of his mother. He spoke of spiritual rebirth. He could have used different concrete terms to express it equivalently. But he would still need concrete manifestations to get the spiritual, indefinable point across. Some words like justice and beauty are indefinable by nature, but we have tag words that people learn to associate with these qualities of life.

Do I support Lady Jane or the priest on Holy Communion? I support neither. Both are wrong but do not wish to discuss the matter other than to note I take the metaphysical third way of speaking on this Christ revelation.

I bring up the third way of linguistic expression to support the existence of the immaterial world. Descartes noted that we could not speak of such things as God and spiritual attributes unless they existed in some sense that does not mean they are firmly understood. The sceptics have jumped on his assertion with mealymouthed objections. But in essence he is correct. In other works I have noted that any general statement of a possible theory, if possible in theory, is true by that very fact due to its general nature. I distinguish this from a particular theory, that while possible, may turn out to be false with more information. So a theory of the nature of light may be logically coherent, but certain predictions may be shown to be untrue, new information may discredit the theory to the extent that the author of the theory may reject his own theory, though men are loath to refute their own views. A viable particular theory may or may not be true. A viable general theory is always true by that fact. Just what is meant by general is a problem. I have dealt with this in other essays but will avoid the complexity here. But the fact that people have always spoken of indefinable traits as reality lends support to the existence of the immaterial side of existence parallel to the material world, as all dualists must maintain to be dualists. And most people have been dualists in history, which proves nothing, but does make one have to deal with why that is so. Prove they are wrong. It just annoys me that atheists use the Vladimir Lenin trick of calling his party the majority party when they are the minority party. To be sure, the totalitarian set have virtually made atheism the state religion of America by default under the pretext of separation of church and state, a separation that was never meant to exclude appeals to the divine in a general sense, but only to banish mandatory tithes, loyalty oaths to particular creeds and similar enforced restrictions and discrimination. Their hope is to brainwash the children to scoff at any argument refuting their bug colony materialism based world view.

Polytheism as Middle Ground:

The problem of evil and God, the problem of Job and his misery torments the biblical world, the Jewish soul and all monotheists. One is tempted to get a perverse God off one’s back by simply going over to the atheist bad luck view. At least bad luck is not by design. There is some comfort in randomness. Perhaps I can improve my luck by being in the right place at the right time, knowing when to hold the cards dealt to me by life and when to fold, learning how to play a winning game by minimizing losses and maximizing winning hands.

But there has never been any evidence to support atheism or materialism. The evidence goes the other way. God explains the order of things and the immaterial seems evident to the mind. Now the polytheistic world is full of perverse beings that share many traits in common with humans. As with humans, you can play off one god against another, suck up to them in ways that would not do for a transcendence manifested to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that demanded absolute moral perfection, though also showing mercy in a manner not understandable to the limited minds of men. Where is the God coming from? Why does he allow his own prophets to be persecuted and killed? His ways are not our ways. But the ways of Isis, Osiris, Jupiter and Juno seem more human and comprehensible. The assault on reason demanded by atheism is too much for the common man and the bulk of the reflective minds. And isn’t evil and perverseness easy to understand with so many perverse demonic gods. Manichaeism also has its comfort, a good god and an evil god at war. The evil god is not a rebellious flunky that God could easily control. Monotheism is a harder road to follow in the short run though more reasonable road to follow in reconciling all things.

Deism Does Not Promote Evil:

Religious wars and persecution are used to justify atheism. Most men have reasonably accepted the influence of divinity and supernatural forces throughout history. In some cases in the past and certainly in modern times, we see atheism as quite proficient in promoting war and persecution. Communism persecuted millions in Russia, enslaved millions by arbitrary means, murdered millions, deprived farmers of property under pretext of helping the poor, only to see commissars from Stalin to minor officials living in palaces, dachas, summer homes, special privileges, turning the masses into virtual slaves, complaining about capitalist cartels while amassing wealth under the control of an even smaller and more tyrannical oligarchic elite. They spoke of democracy while undermining it by promoting the rule of a small elite, supposedly superior to the ignorant masses, in effect a new ruling class in a classless society. Unspeakable horrors occurred in Cambodia at a higher rate of slaughter as a percentage of cruelty and death in that small country.

We are told the USAF was the main culprit though they only bombed the country because North Vietnam violated Cambodian neutrality to better kill American troops. They grossly overestimate the numbers killed by American bombing and by troop incursion into sparsely settled areas. They ignore that Prince Sihanouk, this vestige from the past, was guilty of this to a large extent for not vehemently protesting the violation of his officially neutral country. This made it difficult to get rid of them after they had time to dig in, reconnoiter and set up infrastructure. It was for this reason that his own ministers turned on him in spite of sentimental attachment to the old ways in this backward country. The anti-war protesters did not protest this invasion of a neutral country, only Richard Nixon’s attempt to protect his military.

We later saw this prince in North Korea, proclaiming his royal liberation group, and also in China of Chairman Mao. How odd. Or not odd, when we note that North Korea has turned into a virtual hereditary monarchy. We note the fat pig, lecherous, punk, Chairman Mao through central planning starved 13 million or so Chinese to the point of cannibalism. It is said a dutiful husband starved himself to death to allow his wife and children to eat him for sustenance. We later see the fat, lecherous pig swimming the great river of China with no indication of malnutrition. Under the pretext of decentralization to prevent the endemic corruption of over-centralization that has plagued Chinese history in the past, he centrally controlled (hypocrisy) this decentralization with disastrous results hardly worse and generally worse than the policies of emperors in the past. The Cultural Revolution killed millions more to the insatiable maw for calamity of the worker’s paradise. Mao admitted that he thrived on strife and trouble, the typical trouble making thrill seeking punk that uses daring and violence to sate his addiction to adrenaline rushes. A punk indeed! All these atheist regimes created cults of personality: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, in Romania, North Korea. Lenin hypocritically complains about cults of personality that he engendered. After all he was the leader of the elite vanguard of the revolution! How could he not be far above the wretched masses, a superman?

I bring up matters such as Cambodia to make the lie of the atheist, elitist arguments that religion is the source of violence among mankind. I actually heard the late Chalmers Johnson claim that Salvador Allende of Chile was not a Communist, though he was by admission, a Marxist. By any definition of Marxism, it is Communist. And this because Allende did not belong to the current Chilean Communist Party, so called official party. Well, he was a Communist, and he was not really democratically elected by the people. Chile was parliamentary government in form; he came to power by parliamentary maneuvers. The majority of the Chilean people never supported him. At most, he had the support of about a third of the country. Henry Kissinger stated he was more radical than the official Communist party. And this was congruent with the mess Kissinger and Nixon were dealing with in Cambodia. Might we not suppose a similar fate in Chile? Kissinger admitted offering aid to Allende’s enemies in Chile to a minor extent. Look at it in context: the vast slaughters in the Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, the ongoing mess developing in Cambodia, all atheist fantasy schemes for worker paradises.

Henry Kissinger claims that the numbers killed by B-52 bombings are vastly exaggerated by the leftist elite in the US and elsewhere. The evidence supports this. They ignore that the ultimate fault for the mess rested on Prince Sihanouk, a hypocritical vestige from the past not compatible with the republican government of the US and in collusion with Communist atheist dictatorships, the North Vietnamese for invading Cambodia in violation of international law and rudimentary justice, whether you think US troops should have been in Vietnam or not. Cambodia had no troops in Vietnam, was officially neutral while actually sympathetic to the North Vietnamese in the person of Prince Sihanouk. Does anyone deny this? And then millennarian Communists inflicted a horrific slaughter on the Cambodian people that only ended when their ally, North Vietnam, decided it was too offensive in moral hypocrisy, cruelty and in the eyes of world public opinion to allow to go on.

How is this the fault of Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, In God We Trust America, who merely wished to defend their own troops and allies against an illegal violation of Cambodian neutrality that was also used as a shield to protect the Communists from retaliation by the (sic) neutrality of Cambodia? Why, to draw attention away from the effects of Atheism and attendant bug colony credos that were the real miscreants, that is why. We hear about the horrors of Pinochet. We can imagine the much greater horrors inflicted by Allende let loose. I am no fan of Henry Kissinger nor supporter of the deal with dictators crowd. But we must be reasonable in viewing the world scene.

Let us concede that most wars have been fought by societies with religious cults. Let us also concede that most men have found atheism unreasonable. Considering the relatively short time Atheist regimes have held sway in modern life, they have a bad track record. The cruelties and excesses of the French Revolution can also be blamed in part on Atheism. The anti-clerical forces replaced the totalitarian control of Papists with their own brainwashing techniques, went off to oppress and slaughter colonial populations and used a more subtle form of indoctrination.

I have never been much of a fan of the countervailing view that belief in God prevents vice. Fear of retribution is a deterrent when immanent, but crime is caused by lust. Lust deludes the mind. The horny pious man far from home at war or overseas is blinded from qualms of adultery and consorts with the whore. He might even say, “God forgive me”, and start humping. He will justify it after the fact or not. If the immanent hand of God is not present, it will not matter. In point of fact, lust conjoins thieves and murderers to use moral law to justify their crimes. This is why we have so many religious wars, hypocrisy, not deism and its justification. Lust blinds men to their own convictions. And since the atheist is forever accusing the priests of fraud, not believing their own dogma, should we not conclude these cryptic atheists are both atheists and criminal? So much for the virtue of atheism upon the morals of men.

The atheistic fraud is despicable and the world will only grow worse by his hypocrisy.

In Summary:

There is not a shred of evidence to support the atheist position that things come from nothing, or that eternal matter simply forms incredible complexity by happenstance that is then maintained by happenstance. All evidence is to the contrary.

There is not a shred of evidence that consciousness, thought, ideas, abstractions of concrete things, indefinable attributes such as justice are any thing other than immaterial in nature. All evidence supports the immaterial assertion.

There is not a shred of evidence to support that the material world is merely a part of the infinite, or perhaps that the infinite cannot exist, leaving only the finite material world that comes from nothing or exists eternally without a coexistent immaterial eternity. All evidence refutes this.

There is not a shred of evidence that the affirmation of God in any way makes men evil, more inclined to war and injustice, defeatist or any of the other atheist arguments. Belief in God either has no effect on these human vices or actually ameliorates them. And the belief that he will ultimately end them after some inscrutable divine purpose is obtained is encouraging and life enhancing. The assertion that vengeance is mine, leaving men not to take the law into their own hands except in self-defense is conducive to whatever order can be had in the world. Ignorant men would only make things worse by presuming to play God each in his own turn. Although, it is quite true, in some sense all men are final arbiters of their own standards. This is unavoidable and in conformance with man as the image and likeness of God. But vengeance is mine puts a brake on excesses and supports a better world, not a poorer, more violent world. Back to Table of Content

#####

 

 

Other Works by the Author

[(*]Available online[)*]

Collected Poems I
Collected Poems II
Elements of Physics: Matter
Elements of Physics: Space
Elements of Physics: Time
Unified Field Theory: An Essay
Space as Infinity II
Golden Age Essays
Golden Age Essays II
Golden Age Essays III
Golden Age Essays IV
Golden Age Essays V

 

About the Author

My current biography and contact links are posted at Shakespir.com/profile/view/EdRochon. My writings include essays, poetry and dramatic work. Though I write poetry, my main interest is essays about the panoply of human experience and knowledge. This includes philosophy, science and the liberal arts. Comments, reviews and critiques of my work are welcome. Thank you for reading my book.

Back to Title Page


Deist Check Off List

A brief preface describes the scope of the work. We note the difference between the physical world and the metaphysical world. I go on to mathematical forms to show that the finite and infinite coexist, that the infinite conforms to deist notions. It goes on to show that the evidence supports what most men have accepted throughout history, that consciousness is immaterial and in conformance with the evidence, both empirical and logical. Next, note that an immaterial mind could be seen as both within and without the body, conforming to solipsism in outward form while still affirming the material world. I even bring Jean-Paul Sartre to bear to suggest that consciousness can logically be seen to exist outside the brain by common perception and reasonable assertions. I forcefully advance the evidence that ideas must be independent of the things they describe and so more evidence of immateriality and so of God. We attack David Hume, Bishop Berkeley and John Locke in several ways. I go on to show that scepticism is a foolish path as opposed to faith. A man of faith is less prone to delusion, irrational motivations than a sceptic, that in fact scepticism is not founded on logic, or moral courage, but only on stupidity and cowardice. We note that Christianity cannot be shown to justify defeatism, acceptance of evil, poverty or superstitious opinions in this world. In answer to atheist charges that faith is motivated by wishful thinking, ignorance and the like, I point out the many reasons why atheism can be comforting to many people for otherwise irrational or at any rate unprovable reasons. Using other supports, we assert there are three basic linguistic modes. In addition to the literal and metaphorical, we posit a metaphysical mode. This last mode is forced to use concrete imagery from nature due to the indefinable nature of the immaterial. The metaphor uses other concrete images to poetically describe other concrete things and events, while the writer would still be able to use literal prose. But metaphysical language has no such option. The concrete must be used of necessity to describe what is indefinable. The speaker must rely on the human capacity to grasp the indefinable. It is observed that polytheism helps lay a middle ground in dealing with the problem of evil as in the Book of Job. Gods are more like men and easier to comprehend and dicker with. A transcendent God makes the suffering of Job harder to understand. Atheism is hard to support by reason, so polytheism has often been a middle course. The next part deals with the accusation that Deism promotes evil. I note the recent atheist regimes have committed horrendous crime under the pretext of their ideologies in France, Russia, China, North Korea, and Cambodia. I note that lust is the cause of evil that deludes the mind to justify it, so am sceptical of the notion that belief in God is necessary to directly promote ethical behavior. My view is that affirmation of Deism is necessary to promote truth in life, science and art, and so indirectly promoting good through that avenue. My work ends with a brief summary of my main points. Several areas covered by me previously in support of Deism are omitted other than by brief mention.

  • Author: Edward E. Rochon
  • Published: 2016-09-01 23:35:08
  • Words: 9669
Deist Check Off List Deist Check Off List