Ray Hagins delivers a lively lecture in which he debunks the false doctrines introduced into Christianity by the false prophet Paul. Doctrines such as the original sin and atonement are exposed for their role in steering mankind away from true virtue.
Islam as an idea cannot be conflated with Muslims as adherents of the idea. Let me offer an example. In 1940 France was invaded and conquered by Germany. For the next four years, a French state was declared which has become known as the Vichy Regime. The Vichy Regime was the very antithesis of what it meant to be French. The members of the Vichy regime were cowards and collaborators with Nazism. No Frenchman today is proud of this shameful expression of “Frenchness” which the Vichy Regime represented.
Now to come to Islam. Islam is an idea that, at its heart promotes human freedom from bondage to anything but God, which is as absolute as you can define freedom. For if you define freedom as anything BUT God-given, then you reduce the sublimity of the concept. Muslims, on the other hand are a conquered people, and have been a conquered people since Napoleon first marched on the Pyramids in 1799, followed by Britain, and culminating in the carving up of the Ottoman Empire in 1919. As a conquered people, Muslims do not express Islam, any more than a caged bird expresses the beauty of flying.
Now the big mistake that Muslim apologists make when debating with members of the conquering fraternity, is to apologise for the wretched state of Islam, by justifying the wretchedness. The number one problem that precedes all debating issues is, how to free the Muslim peoples of the world. Muslim peoples are militarily subjugated by the West, with the help of local chieftains, such as the Saud family. The Muslim mind is subjugated by the scholars in service of these Chieftains. The likes of the squint minded Grand Priest Bin Baas of Saudi are a prime example of this intellectual rape of the collective Muslim mind. Not only are Muslims conquered, but they fight each other for the crumbs that fall of the table of the conqueror. So desperate is the state of Muslims, that, when a piece of earth is liberated, they delight in pleasing the conqueror through attacking those with the audacity to be free. Iran is an example of this. Even in Iran, is there a greedy priestly class of Akhunds that are standing by to take Iran back from its brief moment of freedom it has enjoyed since 1979.
Judging Islam by the state of Muslims today would be like judging the French as a nation under the Vichy Regime. No amount of apologising can make the rottenness seem nice.
Neo-Atheism is really about a few best sellers by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and some others. The essence of their discourse is far from scientific. A glance at their works, makes it more appropriately describable as pseudo-intellectual mockery of God and Religion. None of the best selling neo-Atheist authors have, to my knowledge, produced a published scientific work on their beliefs. In debate after debate (and I’ve seen close to a hundred of them), they cannot string together a proper argument to uphold a view that “God does not exist.” Instead, they argue that they have no burden of proof that “Belief in God is unfounded”. If belief in God is in their opinion as nonsensical as belief in the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny, why do they then not publish books on the unfounded beliefs in these too?The fact is that neo-Atheists, curiously, have religion and God to thank for the good sales of their books. They can literally thank God for their good fortune.
Mockery is an age-old practice that really amounts to drawing a crowd by making outrageous and insulting claims. It is akin to Madonna and Lady Gaga compensating for a lack of singing talent, by adopting an outrageous public persona. In a world where it becomes more and more difficult to stand out in the crowd, the usefulness of using shock as a technique becomes clear. The major book sales achieved by Dawkins and Hitchens, are none other than the “curious onlooker crowd” phenomenon. Have you ever driven past a horrible car accident, and noticed how all those who pass by, always slow down and try to catch a glimpse of the wreckage? Neo-Atheism is no different. A curiosity, with no real basis.
Where the fallacy of neo-Atheism really gains currency, is when it utilises everyday suffering of people to deny timeless values and principles. neo-Atheists agree that humanity exists in its current form for over a hundred thousand years. We all know that religion has only been around for about ten thousand of those years. This makes nonsense of the fact that religion has given rise to most suffering. Unless they believe that pre-religion societies experienced no murder or other forms of violent suffering. On the contrary, the advent of religion coincides with the advent of civilisation. The advent of religion coincides with the beginning of a universal moral code.
What do all neo-Atheists have in common? Two things, as I see it. Firstly, they hold an absence of belief in God, and secondly, they advance modern scientific causes to the existence of the universe. On other questions such as the existence of a moral code independent of human conception, there is no unanimity amongst them.
As a novice, I am trying to make sense of what they say. I should not be ruled out of order for trying to make sense of their claims. After all, certainly they do not expect one to be a registered scientist to understand or accept their arguments. If they indeed belittle me for trying to make sense of neo-Atheism, then they are calling on me to believe their arguments without question; the operative word here being “believe”. If neo-Atheism calls on us ordinary people to have “belief” or “faith” in their highly complicated theories and hypotheses, then I cannot see how this differs from religious forms of intellectual priesthood. So I insist that I, as an ordinary person, with only a basic undergraduate degree in science should have the right to question the arguments of neo-Atheism.
Neo-Atheism has assumed a profound new confidence, and in fact much arrogance with the advent of modern new discoveries in science over the past century. Most important of these discoveries, I think is the discovery of Quantum Physics in the past century. There is also the discovery of new cosmological facts, such as the size and the nature of the universe, that offers neo-Atheists new tools to explaining their arguments to the origin of the universe. The theory of the Multiverse or the theories around quantum fluctuations are often now used by men like Stephen Hawking in this regard.
My first question to them is what their Frame of Reference is for advancing their scientific explanations around the origin of the universe? If one is for example going to explain the existence of Black Holes, then your Frame of Reference can certainly not be defined as the planet Earth, or Newtonian physics. Planet Earth is too narrow a spacial Frame and Newtonian Physics is too narrow a philosophical and scientific frame within which to argue for the existence of Black Holes.
Neo-Atheists have made modern Quantum Physics and our own Time-Space contexts their frame of reference. This, I believe is an absurdity. If time, space and Quantum Physics are natural phenomena, or better put, paradigms, then how do we explain a paradigm by using the paradigm itself as its own paradigm? Would this not be like explaining the sea tides by making the Earth our paradigm? (And we know that the forces of gravity exercised by the Moon and the Sun on our Earth are really behind the phenomenon of sea tides on Earth. ) So my first problem with Scientism as articulated by neo-Atheists is their narrow frame of reference. I wish to argue that any explanation of the origin of space, time and nature as a whole, must transcend space, time and nature. In other words, the Frame of Reference must supra-spacial, supra-cosmic, non-time bounded (or timeless), and super-natural.
The absurdity committed by modern neo-Atheists therefore becomes very familiar, when compared to other fallacious and arrogant theories that arose in history. I in fact do not see much difference between neo-Atheists and the first man who discovered fire, and then went on to ascribe wonderful supra-cosmic powers to fire. In a hundred thousand years’ time, Quantum Physics may even turn out to be as mundane a reality as is fire as a natural phenomenon.
So neo-Atheism, after all is not as different from the first cave man, who, after discovering fire, goes on to, with a new-found arrogance goes on to preach fire as the ultimate explanation to the existence of his narrow intellectual realm.
My second question to neo-Atheists is, to refer me to a formally scientifically published version of their theories. As far as I know, it is non-existent. This means that their arguments do not constitute scientific theories and facts, but rather speculation and intellectual and philosophical theorising. Which in turn places it outside of the realm of scientific discourse. Which in turn means that it cannot claim to speak for science. Which means, that, when they appear on podiums or in book shops, they should enjoy the same status as any other non-scientific philosophical or social discourse. Why then do Richard Dawkins, and others like him don the cloaks of science when they debate against the existence of God?
Lastly, I wish to posit another definition of God, as, not only the ultimate explanation, but also the ultimate authority in the universe. Seen in this light, one can then see the cause of the existence of fire-worshippers, sun-worshippers, Science-worshippers and any other person that calls to the acceptance of a natural phenomenon as the ultimate explanation of nature and the universe. A call to explain nature through natural phenomena and causes is really a call away from a supra-cosmic, transcendent supreme reality. Which is a call away from timeless and supra-cosmic truths. Which is a call to the mundane, and even the profane. The statement “All humans are free”, is such a transcendent truth. The job of the detractor of transcendence is an age-old call that culminates in the questioning of the very freedom of human beings. In our times, the wonders of Quantum Physics are employed to lead us to the same age-old path of cancelling or denying our timeless and transcendent rights. Or otherwise put, our God-given rights.