February 26, 2015

In Their Own Words XXVIII: Suit On A Corpse

Sometimes the rabid God-hating atheism of some people is staggering in the depths of haughtiness that it unwittingly plumbs. God-haters attempt to take dominion and authority that they don’t deserve nor understand properly…or they wouldn’t have made such pretentious or conceited comments. These statements don’t just come from men either...they can come from prideful women too. In an artistic hispter kind of way I present an awe-inspiring comment from novelist Rebecca N. Goldstein. The awe I speak of isn’t good either, it is an awe of disbelief of her naiveté. Instead of an awe of God from her I see only boastfulness.

“Math . . . music ... starry nights . . . These are secular ways of achieving transcendence, of feeling lifted into a grand perspective. It’s a sense of being awed by existence that almost obliterates the self. Religious people think of it as an essentially religious experience but it’s not. It’s an essentially human experience.”  – Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, philosopher and novelist

Again, this unbeliever misses the point totally. She totally misses the forest for the trees. The assumption that things just exist without cause is illogical thinking. Math and its order and absoluteness. Music which is essentially math in audible form. She speaks of a Creation that has organization supposedly arisen out of meaningless chaos. The improbability of it is beyond comprehension.  Newberger even speaks of the stars themselves. Starry nights she says are secular ways of transcendence. This of course begs the question. Transcendence of what or to what. Who created the stars? Did they accidently coalesce? Who created man to observe these transcendent moments? Did they just accidently evolve? Statistically, the probability of sentient man evolving from stardust is statistically impossible.

This woman will have us all to believe that existence and the universe is nothing more than mere chance and circumstance. The fact is the universe either took an unimaginable amount of creative energy to bring all this energy and matter into existence or it all came from nowhere. Which is more plausible to a rational mind? Seriously...answer the question.

This all points back to the Anthropic Cosmological Principle or the idea that the Universe appears “fine-tuned”. It is “dialed in” in such a way that it is nearly impossible that the order that now exists in the universe couldn’t have possibly arose out of the chaos of the Big Bang. How suited is the universe for the existence of mankind? The universe operates in accordance to exact physical laws. These physical laws allow man to calculate exact planetary orbits and exact properties of metals. It seems as if the universe was specifically created to allow for inductive study. It doesn’t have to be this way. Why is it that natural laws also allow us to predict when the moon will cause a solar eclipse? 

Strangely science will concede that the universe has order but will not concede that it is design because design will require an intelligence that could design something as massive as the universe. It requires that they concede that there is a God.

It is a universe that is about 20 billion light-years in diameter. There are approximately 100-200 billion galaxies in the Universe (Lawton, 1981), and an estimated 25 sextillion stars or a 25 followed by 25 zeroes (25,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). The Milky Way galaxy alone contains over 100 billion stars. Traveling at the speed of light it would take 100,000 years to cross its diameter. Again, what is amazing is that all the matter in the universe this vast behaves in accordance to the same physical laws that lend themselves perfectly to human inductive study (or dominion). It totally begs the question of why?

Since we’re discussing numbers let’s look at her beloved math. She believes in the absolute certainties of math but she denies God. That is like believing in fish without believing in water. Why? Philosophy generally says that mathematics is true without reference to our physical/mental reality. The knowledge of mathematics (as opposed to the knowledge created by mathematics) is a priori which I have written about profusely. It is known without reference to reality. In other words it is true without having experienced it through our senses. Just as God is. It is claimed that mathematics is a higher form of knowledge. That even if the world around us doesn't exist, mathematics is still true. Just like God. That it is a form of knowledge that we can be certain of, even if we deny reality. Just like God. Our dear Rebecca here is being epistemologically bias. She will believe in one form of a priori knowledge (the truth of mathematics) without believing in another (the truth and knowledge of God).

It is known better as: “Picking and choosing” to suit one’s self. It is also called being logically and philosophically inconstant.

I think I know why too. I believe the clue to Goldstein’s ideological and intellectual perspective is exposed in her statement, “These are secular ways of achieving transcendence, of feeling lifted into a grand perspective.” It looks like a megalomaniacal perspective too. She is making herself her own highest authority. An authority that is even allowed to deny logic and reason to ignorantly maintain an inconsistent view. With “a grand perspective” she is claiming a position or vantage point reserved for only God or an omniscient being. She assumes from her human throne of observation that she, sitting on the throne, has a grand perspective from which to make observation and pass wisdom judgments about the Creation (even though they are inconsistent and bias). She is usurping God’s throne here in a really dangerous way. How do I know she is trying to take God’s throne? How do I know that she is trying to replace God on his own seat of power and authority? She told us she was indirectly.  What did she just say?

She said she is trying to achieve transcendence without a transcendent being. She is trying to lift herself to a grand perspective through her own thinking and actions. This assumes she can even get there. What has the Bible told us? Who does this sound like? I don’t know about you but this following verse sounds like Mrs. Goldstein is in really poor company.

Isaiah 14:13 ~ “You said in your heart, "I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."

Sometimes the claims the godless make transcend the mundane and reach to the seat of absurdity. This is just another case of that transcendent stupidity that has been taking place since Lucifer fell from Heaven in his own pride and it is a dreadful shame. Her words are laced with grandiloquence and flowery language but they are nothing more than a nice suit on a corpse. Visually and aesthetically pleasing on the surface but deep inside, they're quite dead.

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...