Saturday, September 12, 2015

All Scientists Should be Militant Atheists


My friend Tom replies, a chemist and a Christian:

This article is a pitiful display of ignorance.  It is most often the physicists who are the vocal atheistic minority among the scientific community, for physics is perhaps the branch of the physical sciences with the most amount of assumptions behind it and the one with the least opportunity for hard experimentation, because of its great expense.  It is also these few scientists who are the most difficult to give up on an idea, they have built their careers upon; even though, they are often dead wrong.  Of course, there is no way to do the experiment because of the high cost or impossible circumstance.   The high-energy physics experiment of late is the best example in the search for the “God” particle.  I do not remember the details, but the outcome was very clear.  There were two opposing camps of high-energy physicists with each theory predicting the energy of the “God” particle.  After much hailed experimentation, cost, and public attention, the energy of the particle was determined, and low-and-behold, its energy did not support either of two major theories (or any other theory for that matter).  It was an energy altogether different than predicted.  I remember a Nobel prize-winning scientist speaking to commentators saying his entire life’s work was for nothing, and that he did not know what to do but retire and go fishing.  No physicists had any idea why they were all wrong.    The point is that atheism is a religion in-and-of-itself, and those who believe in it try to hide behind a science that cannot be tested easily with tenacious ignorance, and not accept any other idea but their own.


There are false assumptions throughout the article; the most obvious is that we live in a secular society.  Well, if that is true, then why do 90% of people in surveys in the U.S. say the believe in a God?  The fact is one does not live in a secular society; unless the culture has been made that way by atheistic socialist doctrine.  Religion is historically an integral part of all cultures.   Only by socialist governments in modern times has religion been removed, degraded, or presumed to not exist.  


Another false assumption is that the universe is in chaos.  All evidence today is that the universe is remarkably “fine tuned” in a manner that could not have possible by random occurrences.   This is indisputable!  The author, in his ignorance, holds onto the random-chaos theory, which has been demonstrated otherwise.  Why does he do this?  Because he has no other answer, and it trashes all his theories.  Every atheist has a God; it is himself.  He will defend that God at all costs.


The only problem that is “self-evident”, is that the framers of the Constitution failed to define religion.  Since the only thing that existed in their domain at the time was Judeo-Christian, they thought it was “self-evident” that any religion to be concerned about in their domain was simply a difference of interpretation within the framework of the Judeo-Christian ethic.  They had no idea of how the world was going to change in the two hundred years.  The concept of an acceptable “religion” needs to be defined.  It goes without saying, that any theocratic governance that might  “…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Amendment XIV, Section 1.) is not a “religion” under the Constitution; so it is absurd to suggest that such would be protected by the Constitution as a “religion”.     


The other problem is that Amendment XIV precedes the statement above with “…nor shall any State…”, meaning that States have the right under the Constitution to enact laws that are not covered by Congress enacting others, and that the Supreme Court does not have any right under the Constitution to create new law by review or judgment.  It is only by repeating this false assumption over and over again and manipulating the court system to act as if the Supreme Court had the authority to make law by redefining the scope of a statement in the Constitution that liberals say the Supreme Court has this power, when in fact it does not.     


I normally express my opinion in letters to my congressman in the form of hypothetical Constitutional Amendments, and limiting the power to the Supreme Court was one of them.
Post a Comment