Machen Foresaw Dawkins Clearly in 1923

J. G. Machen's little book, Christianity and Liberalism, written in 1923, was prophetic in that it predicted accurately the course liberalism would take in the future. It ends with Richard Dawkins wanting to make belief in God illegal - or at least handing on that faith to the children of believers.

Here is Machen:

"Admitting that scientific objections may arise against the particularities of the Christian religion - against the Christian doctrines of the person of Christ, and of redemption through his death and resurrection - the liberal theologian seeks to rescue certain of the general principles of religion, of which these particularities are thought to be mere temporary symbols, and these general principles he regards as constituting 'the essence of Christianity.'

It may well be questioned, however, whether this method of defence will really prove to be efficacious; for after the apologist has abandoned his outer defences to the enemy and withdrawn into some inner citidal, he will probably discover that the enemy pursues him even there. Modern materialism . . . is not content with occupying the lower quarters of the Christian city, but pushes its way into all the higher reaches of life; it is just as much opposed to the philosophical idealism of the liberal preacher as to the Biblical doctrines that the liberal preacher has abandoned in the interests of peace. Mere concessiveness, therefore, will never succeed in avoiding the intellectual conflict. In the intellectual battle of the present day there can be no 'peace without victory;' one side or the other must win. (p. 6)

How can anyone deny that things have played out just as Machen predicted in the 90 or so years since he wrote this book?

Islam and Communism are great threats to the survival of our culture, yet the materialism of a Dawkins is a greater threat still - mainly because it emanates from within the heart of the culture rather than from the outside. And if Machen is right, only one side will emerge victorious in the culture wars. If the conservative side loses - as it very well might - then the bright flame of liberty and justice that has flashed across the sky in the West will dim and burn out.

In that case, God and His Church will stand forever, but in Africa and Asia, not in the West.

The Reductionist Fallacy

It is hard not to be condescending and sarcastic when confronted with a story like this one from the Daily Mail sent along by a reader who thought I might want to blog about it. Sure, like I want to bang on about this dreary village atheist stuff.

This is really basic village atheist stuff, so make sure you get it and you won't be taken in by sophistry.

The article is titled: "Scientists discover moral compass in the brain which can be controlled by magnets." Ooh . . . wow! You can control a person's morality with magnets! It was "discovered" and by "scientists" so it must be 100% true.

Listen to the writer, who obviously gets a tingle up his leg just contemplating the possibilities:

"Scientists have discovered a real-life 'moral compass' in the brain that controls how we judge other people's behaviour.

The region, which lies just behind the right ear, becomes more active when we think about other people's misdemeanours or good works.

In an extraordinary experiment, researchers were able to use powerful magnets to disrupt this area of the brain and make people temporarily less moral.

The study highlights how our sense of right and wrong isn't just based on upbringing, religion or philosophy - but by the biology of our brains."

So here we clearly have an entry in the "Stupidist Argument to Get Published This Year" contest. We have a perfect example of why reading newspapers makes you less intelligent.

So what do we have here?

1. The brain is affected by powerful magnets.

Of course it is also affected by electric shocks, alcohol and LSD. But let's stay with the argument; this is a "discovery" after all.

2. A certain region of the brain gets active when we think about moral evaluation.

Well, you wouldn't expect the brain to be utterly inactive when thinking, would you?

3. The scientists were able to use magnets to disrupt brain activity and cause abnormal behavior.

Again, one wonders if these "scientists" have ever been to a bar. Brains get disrupted by all sorts of stimuli and wierd behaviour results. It happens every night of the week. Did they get a grant to discover this? But so far, this has been relatively lucid, if banal, and a true statement of facts. But now it suddenly gets utterly loopy.

4. The study highlights how our sense of right and wrong isn't just based on upbringing, religion or philosophy . . .

Say what? The fact that you can use some sort of physical force (from a magnet to a club to a perfume to a sight to a whatever) to alter brain activity and cause unusual behavior means what again? That morality is not inscribed on our brains by upbringing, religion or philosophy?

OK, this is totally off base. First, of all, my upbringing involved a swat side the head from time to time that inscribed on my brain some pretty basic morality involving not torturing smaller siblings pretty effectively. So the magnet thing is not exactly much of a surprise. I'm quite sure if my mother had had magnets she would have used them too. Second, the fact that a malignant, foreign force acting on your brain makes you act funny has nothing whatsoever to do with how you acted prior to the magnet - alcohol - LSD or whatever hit you. And it has nothing to do with the origin of the moral beliefs you held.

5. The study highlights how our sense of right and wrong isn't just based on upbringing, religion or philosophy - but by the biology of our brains.

So morality is "nothing but" brain chemistry because a part of our brain is involved in the thought process of moral discrimination. Isn't that kind of like saying that making the winning move in a chess game is "nothing but" the physical process of tendons and muscles causing the hand to pick up a Queen and put on another square? Really? It is nothing but brain chemistry? Just because we use our brains to think about morality?

Some poor scientists out there are so desperate to prove there is no God or natural morality that they go into spasms every time we discover a new fact about the way God designed us or a new way to re-wire and screw up the well-designed human body. Why? Because they think that as long as we have a comprehensible material and efficient cause for something, we are justified in ignoring the formal and final cause of it.

I refuse to think about final cause. Hum, hum, hum . . . I can't hear you.

Very deep.

A Creation Myth for Young Materialistic Atheists - by Joe Carter

Joe Carter at First Things has an excellent little creation story for young materialistic atheists at the First Thoughts Blog. It shows how nihilism comes from nothing.

"In the beginning was Nothing and Nothing created Everything. When Nothing decided to create Everything, she filled a tiny dot with Time, Chance, and Everything and had it explode. The explosion spread Everything into Everywhere carrying Time and Chance with it to keep it company. The three stretched out together leaving bits of themselves wherever they went. One of those places was the planet Earth.

For no particular Reason—for Reason is rarely particular—Time and Chance took a liking to this wet little blue rock and so decided to stick around and see what adventures they might have. The pair thought the Earth was intriguing and pretty, but also rather dull and static. They fixed upon an idea to change Everything (just a little) by creating a special Something. Time and Chance roamed the planet, splashing through the oceans and scampering through the mud, in search of materials. But though they looked Everywhere there was a Missing Ingredient that they needed in order to make a Something that could create more of the same Somethings.

They called to their friend Everything to help. Since Everything had been Everywhere she would no doubt be able to find the Missing Ingredient. And indeed she did, hidden away in a small alcove called Somewhere, Everything found what Time and Chance had needed all along: Information. Everything put the Information on a piece of ice and rock that happened to be passing by the former planet Pluto and sent it back to her friends on Earth.

Now that they had Information, Time and Chance were finally able to create a self-replicating Something which they called Life. Once they created the Life they found that it not only became more Somethings it began to become Otherthings too! The Somethings and the Otherthings began to fill all the Earth— from the bottom of the oceans to the top of the sky. Their creation, which began as a single Something eventually became millions of Otherthings.

Time and Chance, though, where the bickering sort and were constantly feuding over which of them was the most powerful. One day they began to argue over who had been most responsible for creating Life. Everything (who was constantly eavesdropping) overheard the spat and suggested that they settle the debate by putting their creative skills to work on a new creature called Man. They all thought is was a splendid plan—for Man was a dull, hairy beast who would indeed provide a suitable challenge—and began to boast about who could create an ability, which they called Consciousness, that would allow Man to be aware of Chance, Time, Everything, and Nothing.

Chance, who had always been a bit of a dawdler, got off to a slow start so it was Time, who never rested, that was able to complete the task first. Time rushed around, filling the gooey matter inside each Man’s head with Consciousness. But as he was gloating over his victory he noticed a strange reaction. When Man could see that Everything had been created by Time, Chance, and Nothing, his Consciousness would fill with Despair.

Chance immediately saw a solution to the problem and used the remaining materials she was using to make Consciousness to create Beliefs. When Chance mixed Beliefs into the gray goo, Man stopped filling with Despair and started creating Illusions. These Illusions took various forms—God, Purpose, Meaning—but they were almost always effective in preventing Man from filling up with Despair.

Nothing, who tended to be rather forgetful, remembered her creation and decided to take a look around Everything. When she saw what Time and Chance had done on planet Earth she was mildly amused but forbid them to fill any more creatures with Consciousness or Beliefs (which is why Man is the only Something that has both). But Nothing took a fancy to Man and told Time and Chance that when each one’s Life ran out that she would take him or her and make them into Nothing too.

And that is why, my young friends, when Man loses his Life he goes from being a Something created by Time and Chance into becoming like his creator—Nothing."

Some Darwinists dislike having their religion exposed for what it is. They like to imply that something like the above is true and then brazenly claim that it is all based on empirically verifiable science.

I especially like the clear implication that nihilism is the logical outcome of believing in nothing.