Alex Rosenberg is a philosopher of science at Duke University whose book The Atheist’s Guide to Reality begins by asking the following statements:
Is there a God? What is the nature of reality? What is the purpose of the universe? What is the meaning of life? Why am I here? Does prayer work? Is there a soul? Is it immortal? Is there free will? What happens when we die? What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? Why should I be moral? Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don’t like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? What is love, and how can I find it? Can you imagine this guy’s Valentine’s Day card? Does history have any meaning or purpose? Does the human past have any lessons for our future?
Yet, Alex Rosenberg not only begins with these questions but answers them. Thus, let us consider his Q&A with himself one by one.
You will note that his answers are obviously based on his Atheistic worldview and thus represent that which I term dogmatheism. You will also note that the answers range from monosyllabic to one liners as it is the rest of Alex Rosenberg’s book wherein he seeks to elucidate the following assertions. Yet, these are his answers nevertheless and they appear to be much too honest, with regards to his Atheistic worldview.
Is there a God? No.
This demonstrates to which denomination or sect of Atheism he adhere as this is a positive affirmation of God’s non-existence. Since he is not merely playing the mere lack of belief in god(s) card but is claiming to actually know that God does not exist then he must be called to prove his assertion.
What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
Firstly, it is utterly impossible that the nature of reality is what physics says it is because physics is not a being, has no personhood and thus, no mind, no volition and therefore says nothing whatsoever. Rather, he means to say that the nature of reality is what physicists say it is.
Of course, this brings us to another issues such as that what physicists tell us is their interpretation of observed phenomena, their interpretation of mathematical models, their interpretations of their philosophical constructs, their biases, that which they conclude based on their theory’s template, etc., etc., etc.
Also, the answer to what is the nature of reality is answerable on various levels via various sorts of answers. For example, chemists would offer answers, philosophers would offer others, biologists others still, etc., etc., etc. Thus, physicists can only offer us a certain kind of, sort of, form of, option for an answer. This answer (or, their answers) must then be collected along with all others so as to form a fuller and most coherent fully orbed answer.
What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
Here again we run into his dogmatheism and the issue of there being various manners whereby to answer. However, I could see why he would opt for declaring that there is no purpose to the universe as this is one of Atheism’s consoling delusions. You see if the universe has no purpose then there is no reason to think that it was created and that whatever happens therein is simply meaningless amoral interactions of the stuff of the universe: whether it is two asteroids knocking into each other or two bio-organisms doing the same.
What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
See what I mean? The purposeless universe assertion leads to the meaningless life assertion. Now, of course, various neo-pop-Atheists claim the same but claim this as a badge of honor or rather, they take pride in proclaiming that life is meaningless we get to concoct our own meaning to our own lives. And yet, since the universe is purposeless and life is meaningless then you can feel free to be the next Mother Theresa or the next Adolf Hitler—it is your amoral choice after all.
Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
This reminds me of my Atheists joke: an Atheists walks into a bar, the bartender asks, “Hey, how did you get here?” to which the Atheist replies, “I’m just here and that’s all.”
Now, just as with some of the question above, the answer to why am I here could be answered in various ways. Of course, a purposeless universe leads to a meaningless life and thus life is merely the result of a long series of happy accidents. And since you are the result of dumb luck and I am the same then it will be merely bad luck for you if you have something I want and I happen to be fitter than thou.
Does prayer work? Of course not.
Well, the answer is not surprising but again, the question is multifaceted. For example, does prayer work for point us to something or rather, someone higher than ourselves? Indeed. Does prayer work for have us recognize our dependence on someone beyond ourselves? Indeed. Does prayer work when we recognize our need for forgiveness? Indeed.
And yet, these are categories about with which Alex Rosenberg does not interact due to his claim to know that God does not exist. Moreover, I chose these on purpose so as to show another of Atheism’s consoling delusions: Atheists do not want there to be someone higher than themselves, their dependence on someone beyond themselves (within a transcendence context), do not think they need forgiveness, etc., etc., etc.
Is there a soul? Is it immortal? Are you kidding?
Well how is that for dismissive? The fact is that even Atheists will sometimes redefine “soul” as “consciousness” or some such a thing. Yet, in any case however one may define it, it will turn out that soul is conceived of as being immaterial. Even if it is the result of bio-chemical neural reactions such as Atheists would claim is consciousness it is still immaterial. Thus, a soul, by any other name, could be defines as being immortal.
Genesis 2:7 states the following about the creation of Adam, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
The following is a quote from a book I hope to publish soonish:
Metaphorically correlating a computer with a human, we may note that a computer is composed of hardware into which software is installed and yet, none of it functions without electricity. The human body is like the hardware, the soul is the software and the spirit is the electricity. Now, the electricity gives the soul the ability to express itself and the body gives it a vehicle through which to express itself.
The initial breath of life into Adam was the electric charge which thereafter, Adam passed on via genetic batteries (continuing with our computer metaphor). The batteries come packaged within the hardware and the animated hardware contains the individual and unique software (the individual soul).
A computer can sustain damage to the point that the hardware breaks and the software can no longer express itself through it. Yet, this does not mean that the software does not or no longer exists but only that it cannot express itself through that particular piece of hardware. At death, the body becomes like the broken computer’s hardware.
Keeping in mind that all metaphors eventually break down because they are, after all, just that; metaphorical, note that one could remove the software from the hardware and install it into another computer/hardware so that it may express itself. What happens at death is that the hardware/body is broken, the software/soul goes to be with God and then God creates new resurrected hardware/body into which He installs the software/soul (a 2.0 body).
Is there free will? Not a chance!
Well, he could not help but stating as much as he had no free will to do otherwise. Yet, again we are left wondering to what he is referring as, for example, some theologians such as Calvinists would deny “free will” but only with regards to one single issue which is soteriology. Now, you may wonder what an apparently all encompassing denial of overall free will means to morality, for example, well Alex Rosenberg will get to that.
What happens when we die? Everything pretty much goes on as before, except us.
As true as this is it is another example of a question that could be answered in various ways. Do note, however, that within the context of Atheism and theology his reply is another Atheist consoling delusion as he is seeking to assure the Atheist that there is no life after death, no continued life that is, and or course no judgment about which to be concerned.
What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them.
Now we are getting right down to one of Atheism’s bottom lines when it comes to the real world of real people: Atheism is about guilt free do what thou wilt. Within an accidentally and temporarily existing purposeless universe there are accidentally and temporarily existing meaningless bio-organism who exist due to dumb luck and have no free will thus, there is no moral difference between right and wrong, good and bad—may the fittest win!!!
At this point I would like to point out that both Alex Rosenberg and I have been employing the term morality but I do believe that there is a difference between morality and ethics—see, Ethics vs. Morality.
Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral.
There are various issues involved herein.
He is asserting that we should be moral which means that he is asserting an imperative: but, pray tell, who is he to demand that we be moral? And what, pray tell, is morality in a purposeless this with a meaningless that and a dumb luck the other?
He certainly knows which button to push. In this case, he is appealing to the Atheists’ ego, pride, etc. by appealing to their selfishness. But how is telling us why we should be moral selfish? Because his reason is the selfish reason of feeling better about yourself and not for example, to help others.
Also, he is merely presuming that it makes us feel better than being immoral but if immorality did not feel good then hardly anyone would do it. Many would simply state Why should I be immoral? Because it makes you feel better than being moral.
Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don’t like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? Anything goes.
The claim that anything goes denotes the logical conclusion of as well as the utter lunacy of Atheism—as well as its appeal. So, if you want to make a living by brutally murdering millions upon millions of beautiful, defenseless, healthy and innocent human baby for money in an inhuman, inhumane and subhuman manner—and sell the dismembered body parts for even more money—then feel free to do so: oh wait, you may feel free but you have no free will.
I can certainly guarantee you one thing: Alex Rosenberg does not, I repeat does not believe that anything goes. Want proof? Simply take his wallet and see what happens.
What is love, and how can I find it? Love is the solution to a strategic interaction problem. Don’t look for it; it will find you when you need it.
Can you imagine this guy’s Valentine’s Day card? “Will you be the solution to a strategic interaction problem on this Valentine’s Day? XXOO.” I suppose that this is as romantic as a guy gets when he considers his one and only biological purpose in life to be propagating his DNA.
Does history have any meaning or purpose? It’s full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing.
Well, here again we are within the realm of multiple answers. However, it is telling that for example, he consider the Nazi holocaust of 6 million Jews and 6 million others to be signify nothing. No wonder that in the most secular century in history Atheists mass murdered circa 200 million people—see, Atheist wars vs. Religious wars (and no, I am not even counting Nazism along the ranks of Atheism—see here.
Does the human past have any lessons for our future? Fewer and fewer, if it ever had any to begin with.
Well, what can one say but that this has deteriorated into utter idiocy?
And yet, this is not about mere idiocy but rather, Atheism—besides being an anti-Christian support group—is a modern day version of temple prostitution. Nothing has changed since Julian Huxley stated the following during a televised interview, “I suppose the reason why we leapt at the Origin of Species was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.”
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.
Twitter: #Atheism, #AlexRosenberg, #Christianity
Facebook: #Atheism, #AlexRosenberg, #Christianity
Continue reading →