John-Paul Sartre

 The existentialist thought of John-Paul Sartre was perhaps a result of the apparent failure of the enlightenment to deliver the progress so optimistically envisaged by the modernist movement. It was in the aftermath of World War II so soon after the first Great War that the mood of modern culture was becoming more sceptical, pessimistic and, conceivably, seeking answers to questions that could not be adequately answered by the empiricist, rational way of thinking that had been pervasive and still largely self-assured up until that time. Many saw these events as a consequence of rationalist ways of looking at the world. Totalitarian and absolutist explanations were regarded with the suspicion that these were merely ways a hierarchical structure exerted domination and control of the masses. It was within this ambiance that Sartre’s thoughts crystallized and was the catalyst for the popularisation of the existential movement. 

Imposing the stamp of “human nature” upon people was to deny (according to Sartre) the innate capacity for freedom and individuality of people. With Sartre’s idea of freedom from, or freedom to become, came the anguish of the thought “what shall I choose to be?” Having rejected all the prescriptive terms of naturalist determinism and traditional ethics, Sartre’s aim was to live the “authentic life” by choosing to create ones own identity and for which he must recognize his responsibility and by which he may justify his existence. Echoed in this thought is the statement of the Christian existentialist Soren Kierkegaard when he said, “the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die”.[1]

Sartre’s self-isolation and extreme individualism tend towards a sort of social entropy and relativism. How can there be a sense of community and order if all individuals see only their “own” reality? Freedom is idolized in Sartre and the effects of this thinking might well be epitomized in the hippie era of the sixties and seventies, which was marked, incidentally, by a slavish regard to the here and now, self-gratification and non-conformity (conformity of another kind!). He rejects absolute rationalism as the basis for philosophy and puts himself firmly in the romantic/sceptic camp.

The strength of his argument lies both in his rejection of absolute certainty (the fortress of empiricism) and his sense of individuality, freedom and responsibility by which he justifies his existence. To Sartre the “authentic” personality is the only aim in life that could, with any cohesion, dispel the angst that befalls those who live in “bad faith” In other words he might well be speaking against the self deception of hypocrisy, the conflict between the everyday needs and the deeper need to be true to your real identity. Paul Le Tournier speaks of the personage and the person. The former is the public identity we are known by, how we appear in our day-to-day life, and the latter is who we really want to be, the identity we are seeking to become; and this would correspond to Sartre’s authentic life. This corresponds closely with the Christian idea of a God-given identity or destiny/calling, the only obvious difference being that for Sartre it was something chosen by the individual himself but in the Christian, (though it remains true that it is his own personal, deep desire) he/she recognizes the giftedness of both the identity and the deep desire to reconcile the conflict between what we are now and what we wish to be. Sartre’s idea of success in the “authenticity” of our life in this light may be seen as not contradictory to the apprehension of a “heavenly calling” and the Christian idea of perfection.

By rejecting the fatalistic idea that humankind is largely like any other animal species with a pre-determined nature and instincts Sartre actually supports the idea (unintentionally) of a transcendent possibility. There is very real and widespread substantiation of humankind’s ability to transcend not only the bounds of his animality but also the narrow confines of his intellect leading to the admission of a creative, spiritual dimension to his being. It is to this freedom and choice that the philosophy of Sartre and the romantic/existentialists point.

The weakness of his thought lies in the complete absence of recognition of any knowledge outside of himself or rather, outside of his own subjectivity. Revelation, to Sartre, is a term without meaning. Like John Locke and Descartes he starts with the certainty of his own existence, but unlike them he pays no tribute to any sort of order or cohesion, the universe is entirely contingent. “Life is” Sartre might well say in the common idiom, “what you make it”, lived in a vacuum that we have the burden of filling, and, since there is no universal ethic, a completely arbitrary filling.

And it is precisely that thought that ultimately is the source of anxiety. “What shall I make it?” If the highest attainment of life can have no more value attached to it other than our own arbitrary self-chosen, self-determined ethic then why bother? It is only in the value system universally accepted and outside of ourselves that we find our deepest fulfilment, perhaps because we know deep down it is not merely arbitrary, and because this satisfies our deep sense of being in community, the shadow of a higher existence.

In steering clear of the Fortress of Rationalism to reach Port Freedom, Sartre has foundered upon the rock of Relativism and Meaninglessness. What point is there in this exaltation of freedom when this freedom finds no joy in its choices?

To someone who has imbibed deeply the spirit of rationalism, the thoughts of Sartre, (or to be more accurate, existential thought) is perplexing, even absurd. (At least this had been my experience initially) Take for example the story told in the book “A Shattered Visage”, by Ravi Zacharias[2]: ‘All this is reminiscent of the student at New York University who intimidatingly asked the question of his professor, “Sir, how do I know that I exist?” A lingering pause preceded the professor’s answer. He lowered his glasses, peered over the rim, and riveted his eyes on the student. His simple response finally came, “ And whom shall I say is asking?”

Fortunately or otherwise, some things in life are just undeniable.’  

Or as J.K. Chesterton writes, in his book Orthodoxy[3]:

‘Considered as a figure, therefore, the materialist has the fantastic outline of the figure of the madman. Both take up a position at once unanswerable and intolerable.

        Of course it is not only of the materialist that all this is true. The same would apply to the other extreme of speculative logic. There is a Sceptic far more terrible than he who believes that everything began in matter. It is possible to meet the sceptic who believes that everything began in himself. He doubts not the existence of angels or devils, but the existence of men and cows. For him his own friends are a mythology made up by himself. He created his own father and mother. This horrible fancy has in it something decidedly attractive to the somewhat mystical egoism of our day.’

However, in all seriousness, the redeeming feature of Sartre’s work is the persistent reference to human freedom. In his book “The Adventure of Living”[4] Paul Le Tournier makes repeated reference to freedom and Jean Paul Sartre and others like him. He refers to Professor Arthur Jores of Hamburg with regard to human illness, the fundamental need for fulfilment in contrast to animals. “The animal, impelled by instinct, cannot fail to fulfil itself. But in the case of man, the price of his liberty is that he can spoil his life and fail to fulfil himself. The frequent result is that he falls ill, not only psychically but organically.” Seen in these words is the scary thought that there is reality in the premise that we are a result of our choices. In the chapter on “The Psychology of Failure” is a direct quote from Sartre[5]. ‘This is what Sartre maintains when he “accuses failure of being a free choice of failure”’. I.e., that our freedom is so innate that even our failures are engineered by our own choice albeit at a less conscious level. “Where” (says Tournier) “is the frontier between success and failure?……What can we take as the criterion of success?……we are condemned to choosing it ourselves, arbitrarily as Sartre maintains.”[6] This is perhaps the Achilles heel of the whole argument. The need for fulfilment and success is a part of the human condition, but if that is so then there follows a reasonable conclusion that maybe the goal is not as arbitrary as these thinkers suppose. Christ’s life was the epitome of success and fulfilment, particularly triumphant at the cross (though this remains largely unseen), and all as a result of his own choice and freedom; and yet paradoxically, his was a pre-determined life.

Listening to new Member of Parliament Paul Adams, who spoke in our town recently, reminds me of some interesting facets of Sartre’s philosophy. Paul Adams has been a successful businessman, sportsman and outspoken Christian ,and now newly elected M.P. and the success has perhaps carried down the line as he announced (if memory serves correctly)the nomination of his daughter as Miss New Zealand. What particularly caught my attention were these words that he spoke emphatically on that occasion: “We are a product of our choices” Apparently those who espouse an existential philosophy are often leaders in business etc.

There is merit in Sartre’s attack on rationalism. The world or life as he rightly alludes cannot be reduced to a merely rational system or natural law. Life is not lived by mathematical equation but in response to relationships both externally; with other persons, and internally with who we are on a day-to-day level and whom we really are on that deeper level in which lays our authenticity and with whom we must learn to cultivate a healthy respect. Speaking on a personal level this may well be the answer to the conundrum we label “mid-life crisis”, a profound sense of unrest and unfulfilled desire even in the face of an outwardly successful life.

Post-modernism rejects the notion knowledge brings truth and freedom, through sad experience. Knowledge is power. Subsequently knowledge loses its reputation for bringing reality and freedom, but the ideal of freedom remains. The agents of freedom and equality in the post-modern world now see hierarchy as the enemy of freedom, and because culture has instituted hierarchy, culture must be subverted, thus the anti-cultural movement known as post-modernity. Hierarchy and truth become the scapegoats for the unhappiness caused by absolutism and lastly culture also became guilty.

“Faith stands in need of reason in order to eliminate superstition. Reason stands in need of faith in order to achieve certainty.” - L.T. JEYACHANDRAN

KERRY CAMPBELL 26/05/2003

---

[1] The Midnight Hour p141, “A Kierkegaard Reader: text and narratives” Edited by Roger Poole and Henrik Strangerup. Fourth Estate Ltd. London 1989

[2] Ravi Zacharias, ‘A Shattered Visage’ (Hodder & Stoughton,1990)Climbing in the Mist, p116

[3] G K Chesterton, ‘Orthodoxy’ (House of Stratus, 2001) The Maniac p14

[4] Characteristics of Adventure, p88,“The Adventure of Living” by Paul Tournier. Highland Books 1983, translation by Edwin Hudson, 1966

[5] J.-P Sartre, L’Etre et le Ne`ant, Gallimard, Paris,1943

[6] J.-P Sartre, Existentialism and Humanism,  translated by Philip Mairet, Methuen London, 1948

The Philosophy of Ayn Rand Under the Microscope of John Robbins

As an observer of culture, society and trends it is always gratifying to hear where some of these movements originate. As it is written in Ecclesiastes- there is nothing new under the sun and Malcolm Muggeridge reiterated "There is no such thing as new news, it is just old news happening to new people". From Aristotle to John Locke to Ayn Rand- John Robbins traces the historical framework upon which Ayn Rand builds her systematic philosophy. And also convincingly dismantles it!

From Robbins' thoughtful explication of Rand's view of what it means to be a "man" (translated as person-hood in contemporary thought) as delineated by the teachings of Aristotle, and re-affirmed by Locke; we see that the logical consequence of thinking this way has brought us to the position we are in today whereby people are not considered "human" aka "persons" until and unless they are rational beings.

It is, if I'm not mistaken, a logical certainty that having accepted these axioms, people like Peter Singer can, on the basis of the aforesaid- "legitimately" argue for such things as "post-birth" abortions. How anyone cannot see past this oxy-moron is beyond me! Again the words of Muggeridge come to mind, "having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keels over a weary, battered old brontosaurus and becomes extinct.” I believe this was said over 40 years ago.

Why should we be interested in Ayn Rand? Because apparently around 43% of the American public attend some sort of religious service once a week, but, and this is staggering if you think on it; the second most popular book, after the Bible in this same society vote Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" as their next choice. The problem becomes clearer when we read the title of her most succinct philosophical work: "The Virtue of Selfishness"

NB The video I had here has been pulled by YouTube so I offer instead a critique of Rand and Robbins appraisal of her "Objectivism" here: 

Without a Doubt: A Partial Review of John W. Robbins’Without A Prayer. By Richard Bacon.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas All!

Sandy Hook Elementary School Newtown, Connecticut

“Every happening, great and small, is a parable whereby God speaks to us, and the art of life is to get the message.” Malcolm Muggeridge

As I watch in disbelief from my part of the world at the events that unfolded at Sandy Hook Elementary school I cannot but wonder if all of this is a symptom of the madness that was foretold by the German philosopher Nietzsche who said in THE MADMAN:

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!" -- As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? -- Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him -- you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us -- for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars -- and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"


Jill Carattini of Ravi Zacharias International MInistries wrote on October 24, 2012: Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky once observed that when God is dead anything is possible. It is a most potent statement, sadly confirmed throughout history and the present. When God is dead, the fences of the good, the true, and the beautiful are merely suggestions, easily plowed over by a new suggestion.

A haunting book comes to mind, written about the Holocaust and the men who carried out its murderous plan. Suggestively titled Ordinary Men, the book conveys that these men were not the psychologically crazed bullies that we would like to imagine, but average, everyday, ordinary people. They were ordinary men, yet they were men who committed murder for Hitler. When God is dead anything is possible.

Ravi Zacharias tells a story about a man who approached him after he finished speaking. The man said bluntly, “If I told you all the horrible things I have done in my life you wouldn’t even want to be seen standing next to me. There is almost nothing I haven’t done. I am not sure even God can forgive me.” Ravi comments that at the time he had to wonder what all was couched between those words. Still, the words that came to his mind in response were those spoken by the prophet Isaiah long before him:

“Seek the Lord while he may be found,
call upon him while he is near;
let the wicked forsake their way,
and the unrighteous their thoughts;
let them return to the Lord, that he may have mercy on them,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon” (Isaiah 55:6-7).

When God is dead, the possibilities are unfathomable. This man’s life had been guided by the whims of that certainty. Fyodor Dostoyevsky was likewise one who saw the devastating reality of that truth lived out. But it was the reverse of this truth that changed his life forever. Dostoyevsky’s story is one which reminds us to wonder with all the depth of imagination. If anything is possible when God is dead, what then is possible when God is alive?

In prison and facing death, Dostoyevsky discovered the parable of the prodigal son. In that story of homecoming, God was resurrected in his mind. The parable of the prodigal son transformed Dostoyevsky’s mind, soul, and body. Having the parable read to him was the last request on his deathbed, and it was the story that touched every story that brilliant author ever wrote. He was sublimely aware that the story of this homecoming is our own.


In fact, his awareness would reach another soul who eventually saw the beauty of the prodigal son worked out in his own life. Describing his own quite reluctant conversion, C.S. Lewis exclaimed, “Who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance to escape? The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation.” (C.S. Lewis "Surprised by Joy")

Carattini finishes with:"We live in a world where liberation is often thought of as the absence of any fence that might hold us back from wherever we would like to go. Ordinary men and women of history suggest the need for a far better liberation. If anything is possible when God is dead, what is possible when God is alive?"
It was the wry wit of Malcolm Muggeridge who said:

“So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over--a weary, battered old brontosaurus--and became extinct.” 

Richard Tarnas: The Passion of the Western Mind

The more modern man strove to control nature by understanding its principles, to free himself from nature’s power, to separate himself from nature’s necessity and rise above it, the more completely his science metaphysically submerged man into nature, and thus into its mechanistic and impersonal character as well. For if man lived in an impersonal universe, and if his existence was entirely grounded in and subsumed by that universe, then man too was essentially impersonal, his private experience of personhood a psychological fiction. In such a light, man was becoming little more than a genetic strategy for the continuance of his species, and as the twentieth century progressed that strategy’s success was becoming yearly more uncertain. Thus it was the irony of modern intellectual progress that man’s genius discovered successive principles of determinism — Cartesian, Newtonian, Darwinian, Marxist, Freudian, behaviorist, genetic, neurophysiological, sociobiological — that steadily attenuated belief in his own rational and volitional freedom, while eliminating his sense of being anything more than a peripheral and transient accident of material evolution.

"His private experience of personhood a psychological fiction."

Are we living in an age when more and more we believe less and less in the reality of our own personhood?Are we being systematically dehumanized?

This piece is strongly reminiscent of C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man-

“Mans conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of consummation, to be Nature’s conquest of Man”
“…as soon as we take the final step of reducing our own species to the level of mere nature, the whole process is stultified, for this time the being who stood to gain and the being who has has been sacrificed are one and the same. This is one of the many instances where to carry a principle to what seems its logical conclusion produces absurdity. It is like the famous Irishman who found that a certain kind of stove reduced his fuel bill by half and thence concluded that two stoves of the same kind would enable him to warm his house with no fuel at all, it is the magician’s bargain: give up our soul, get power in return, But once our souls, that is, ourselves, have been given up, the power thus conferred will not belong to us. We shall in fact be the slaves and puppets of that to which we have given our souls.”

 The more we acquiesced with the whole gamut of secularism, that is the more we listened to the voices telling us that we were no more than highly developed organisms dancing to our DNA the less human we became, is it any wonder? 

Even now this message has no doubt come too soon for the people of Newtown, Connecticut, it is just too raw... however for those further afield who already have begun the soul searching that invariably follows please give some consideration to the thoughts represented here...

Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Newtown, Connecticut.

A LETTER FROM RAVI ZACHARIAS

The tragedy that shook Newtown, Connecticut, and indeed the entire nation, defies analysis. What must have gone on in the mind of this young man for him to walk into a school of little children and wreak such devastating carnage numbs the soul. At the same time this was happening, I was under the surgeon’s blade for minor surgery. When I left the recovery room and returned home, among the first pieces of news on my phone was the news of this mass killing. Something within me hoped that I was still not clear-headed, but I knew deep inside that I was reading an unfolding story of horror and tragedy.  What does one say? What is even appropriate without violating somebody’s sacred space and their right to scream in protest?
I am a father and a grandfather. I simply cannot fathom the unbearable weight within a parent’s or grandparent’s heart at such a personal loss. It has often been said that the loss of a child is the heaviest loss to bear. I have no doubt that those parents and grandparents must wonder if this is real or simply a terrifying nightmare. My heart and my prayers are for them and, indeed, for the family of the assassin. How his father will navigate through this will be a lifelong journey.
When a mass-killer like this ends by taking his own life, there is an even deeper sense of loss. Everyone wants to know, “Why?” Not that the answer would soften the blow but it would at least give some clue, some release to speak, to hear, to try to work through. But all we are left with is twenty-eight funerals and lifelong grief. To all of those who have suffered such loss, may the Lord carry you in His strength and bear you in your grief. You will be in our thoughts and prayers.
My own attempt at saying something here is feeble but carries a hope that somebody listening will make this world a better place. My heart goes back to Angola Prison in Baton Rouge where I met such people whose savagery took them to that destination. It was interesting to see a Bible in every cell and to hear many talk of how it had become their only means of life and hope. Someone with me said, “If we had more Bibles in our schools maybe we would need less of them here.” To the skeptic and the despiser of belief in God, I know what they will respond. I am quite convinced that the one who argues against this ends up playing God and is ultimately unable to defend any absolutes. Hate is the opposite of love and while one breathes death, the other breathes life. That is what we need to be addressing here. The seeds of hate sooner or later bear fruit in murder and destruction. Killers are not born in a moment. Deep beneath brews thinking and the animus that in a moment is uncorked. We are living in a society that nurtures hate on many sides with the result that lawlessness triumphs.
Even in ideal settings, killing can take place. Murder began in the first family when a brother could not stand the success of his sibling. The entire history of the Middle East–five millennia–is a tale of two brothers. Centuries of killing has not settled the score. Maybe in Adam Lanza’s case we will find a deep psychological reason behind what he did. But that does not diminish the reality that there lurks many a killer whose moment will come and the nation will be brought to tears again. We can almost be certain of that. Yes, we can discuss all the symptomatic issues—security, gun control, early detection signs, and so on. These are all worthy of discussion. But it’s always easier to deal with the symptoms rather than with the cause.
I wish to share what I think we must address or we head down the slope to a precipitous edge of brutality. The fiscal cliff is tame by comparison to the moral devastation ahead if we do not recognize the malady for what it is. Hate is the precursor to murder. Jesus made that very clear. Playing God is the dangerous second step where we feel we are the ultimate judge of all things and that we have the right to level the score.
Here, I would like to address our political leaders and media elite: You may personally have the moral strength to restrict your ideas to mere words but many who listen to you do not. To take the most sacred privilege of democracy and transform it into the language of aggression plays right into the hands of hate-mongers. This is not the language of a civil society or of wise leadership. It is not the ethos of a culture of co-existence. It is not the verbal coinage with which we can spend our way into the future. Our political rhetoric is fraught with division, hate, blame, and verbal murder. Our young are listening. Remember that what you win them with is what you win them to.
As for the entertainment world, what does one even say at a time like this? Calling for gun control and then entertaining the masses with bloodshed is only shifting the locus from law to entertainment. Do our entertainers ever pause to ask what debased values emerge from their stories? The death of decency is audible and visible in what passes as movie entertainment and political speech. This is the same culture that wishes to take away Nativity scenes and Christmas carols from our children. God is evicted from our culture and then He is blamed for our carnages. America is lost on the high seas of time, without chart or compass. The storms that await us will sink this nation beyond recognition if we do not awaken to the rapid repudiation of the values that shaped this nation. The handwriting is on the wall. Freedom is not just destroyed by its retraction. It is destroyed even more painfully by its abuse.
There is one more thing. It is so obvious but is seldom ever addressed. All these recent mass murders have been done by men. Many of them young men, yes, even mere boys.  Jonesboro, Columbine, Virginia Tech, now Newtown. Is there something within our culture that doesn’t know how to raise strength with dignity and respect? Is this how boys are meant to be? From bloodletting in hockey games while thousands cheer to savagery in school shootings while thousands weep, we must ask ourselves what has gone wrong with us men? Where are the role models in the home? Is knocking somebody down the only test left for strength? Is there no demonstration now of kindness, gentleness, courtesy, and respect for our fellow human beings? One young man on death row in Angola Prison told me that he started his carnage as a teenager. Now in his thirties with the end of the road in sight, he reached his hand out to me and asked me to pray with him. Life was lost at the altar of power and strength.
The Bible only speaks of one remedy for this: the transformation of the heart by making Christ the center. Those who mock the simplicity of the remedy have made evil more complex and unexplainable. Every heart has the potential for murder. Every heart needs a redeemer. That is the message of Christmas. The world took that child and crucified Him. But by his triumph over death He brings life to our dead souls and begins the transformation within. Unto us a child is born and He shall save us from our sins.
Before the first murder was committed, the Lord said to Cain, “If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.” To gain mastery over sin there is only one way.  Just as Victoria Soto put herself in the way so that the children in her class might live, Jesus Christ put himself in the way that we all might live. That is the beginning of the cure for us as individuals and as a nation. All the laws in the world will never change the heart. Only God is big enough for that.

Relativismo

El relativismo es tal vez una de las posiciones más fáciles para refutar. Cuando alguien declara que toda verdad es relativa o que no hay verdades absolutas, es sencillo demostrar lo ilógico de la posición de ellos. Estas respuestas cortas a sus declaraciones son las que Usted necesita.


Seguidamente hay algunas declaraciones para aquellos en el relativismo. Encuentre una respuesta que encaje, cópiela y péguela en una ventana y mire lo que ellos responden.
“Toda verdad es relativa”
Si toda verdad es relativa, entonces la declaración “Toda verdad es relativa” sería totalmente verdad. Si ésta es totalmente verdad entonces no todas las cosas son relativas y la declaración es sí es falsa.
“No existen verdades absolutas”
La declaración “No existen verdades absolutas” es una declaración absoluta la cual se supone que sea verdad. Por lo tanto ésta es una verdad absoluta y la declaración “No existen verdades absolutas es falsa.
Si no existen verdades absolutas, entonces Usted no puede definitivamente creer en algo, incluyendo que no existen las verdades absolutas. Por lo tanto, nada podría ser verdadero para Usted; incluyendo el relativismo.
“Lo que es verdad para Usted no lo es para mí”
Si para mí es cierto que el relativismo es falso, ¿es falso entonces el relativismo?
Si Usted dice no, entonces, lo que es verdad para mí no es la verdad y el relativismo es falso. Si Usted dice que si, entonces el relativismo es falso.
Si Usted dice que el relativismo es falso sólo para mí, entonces, estoy creyendo en algo más que el relativismo; es decir, que el relativismo es falso. Si esto es verdad, entonces, ¿cómo puede ser verdad el relativismo?
Si Usted dice que el relativismo es falso sólo para mí, entonces estoy creyendo una premisa que es, ¿verdad o falsa o ninguna?
Si para mí es verdad que el relativismo es falso, entonces, el relativismo (dentro de mí) sostiene la posición de que el relativismo es falso. Esto en si mismo es contradictorio y no puede ser verdad.
Si para mí es falso que el relativismo es falso, entonces, el relativismo no es verdad ya que lo que es verdad para mí no dice que sea verdad para mí.
Si Usted dice que lo que es verdad para mí no es realmente ni verdad o falso; entonces, el relativismo no es verdad ya que éste declara que todos los puntos de vista son igualmente válidos y por no ser, al menos verdad, el relativismo muestra estar equivocado.
Si yo creo que el relativismo es falso, y es verdad sólo para mí de que éste es falso, entonces Usted debe admitir que éste es totalmente verdadero de que estoy creyendo que el relativismo es falso.
Si Usted admite que es totalmente verdadero de que estoy creyendo que el relativismo es falso, entonces, el relativismo es vencido ya que Usted admite que hay algo que es verdaderamente cierto.
Si estoy creyendo en algo más que es verdad diferente al relativismo, entonces, hay algo más que el relativismo que es verdad; si aún esto sea sólo para mí.
Si hay algo más que es verdad diferente al relativismo, entonces, el relativismo es falso.
“Nadie puede saber algo con seguridad”
Si esto es cierto, entonces, podemos saber que no podemos saber algo con seguridad lo cual en sí es rechazado.
“Esa es su realidad, no la mía”
¿Es mi realidad realmente real o no? Si es así, entonces, mi realidad indica que el relativismo es falso. Si mi realidad no es cierta, entonces el relativismo no es cierto ya que éste declara que mi realidad es cierta.
Si mi realidad es diferente a la suya, ¿cómo puede mi realidad contradecir su realidad? Si la suya y la mía son igualmente reales, ¿cómo pueden dos realidades opuestas que se excluyen una a la otra existir realmente al mismo tiempo; especialmente debido a que la realidad es aquella que es verdad?
“Todos percibimos lo que queremos”
Si todos percibimos lo que queremos, entonces, ¿cómo sabe Usted que esa declaración es cierta debido a que yo puedo querer percibir que su declaración es falsa?
Si todos percibimos lo que queremos, entonces, ¿qué está esperando percibir?
Si Usted dice que quiere percibir la verdad, ¿cómo sabe Usted si no se está engañando? Simplemente, por desear la verdad esto no prueba que Usted la tenga.
“Usted no puede usar la lógica para refutar el relativismo”
¿Por qué no puedo usar la lógica para refutar el relativismo? ¿Tiene Usted una razón lógica para su declaración? Si no, entonces, Usted no está siendo lógico. Si la tiene, entonces, Usted está usando la lógica para refutar la lógica y eso no puede suceder.
¿Puede Usted darme una razón lógica del porqué no se puede usar la lógica?
Si Usted usa el relativismo para refutar la lógica, sobre la base de lo que es el relativismo (que nada es totalmente cierto), entonces, puede refutar la lógica la cual está basada en la verdad debido a que Usted debe asumir que el relativismo es absolutamente verdadero para poder refutar la lógica.
Si Usted usa el relativismo para refutar la lógica, entonces, el relativismo ha perdido su estatus relativo ya que es usado para refutar totalmente la verdad de algo más.
“Estamos solo percibiendo aspectos diferentes de la misma realidad”
Si nuestras percepciones de la realidad son contradictorias, ¿puede ser creída la percepción?
¿Es la verdad contradictoria en sí misma? Si fuera, entonces la verdad no sería verdad debido a que se refutaría a sí misma. Si algo se refuta en sí, entonces, esto no es cierto.
Si es cierto que estamos percibiendo aspectos diferentes de la misma realidad, entonces, ¿estoy creyendo algo que es falso debido a que creo que su realidad no es verdadera? Entonces, ¿cómo podrían ser la misma realidad?
Si Usted está diciendo que simplemente mi percepción no es verdadera, entonces el relativismo es refutado. Si estoy creyendo en algo que es falso, entonces el relativismo no es verdadero ya que este sostiene que todos los puntos de vista son igualmente válidos.
Si mi realidad es que su realidad es falsa, entonces ambas no pueden ser ciertas. Si ambas no son ciertas, entonces uno de los dos, o ambos, estamos en error. Si uno o ambos estamos en error, entonces, el relativismo no es cierto.
“El relativismo en sí mismo está excluido de la crítica que es absoluto y en sí mismo refutado”


¿Sobre qué base excluye Usted al relativismo de la crítica de la lógica? ¿Es éste un acto arbitrario? Si es así, ¿justifica éste su posición? Si éste no es arbitrario, ¿qué criterio usó para excluirlo? Para excluir en sí desde el principio es una admisión de los problemas lógicos inherentes en su sistema de pensamiento.

What is Post-modernism and Why should I care?

Many are wondering what has happened to our world, not just the secular world- but even the Christian worldview has not gone unblemished.

I listen to various speakers who affectionately speak of their Christian mentors from a forgotten age and- with something of a start- I realize that though they speak fondly of them, and read of their sacrificial lives, they don't seem to realize that the Gospel of these saints from another age, is quite different from the Gospel of today. And different in some very important respects.

The name given to this state of affairs is "Post-modernity" a prodigy of Modernity.

The answer to at least some of the reasons for the different way the Gospel is now interpreted is that the Gospel is now- for many- interpreted through a worldview influenced by a post-modern understanding of reality. The philosophers early on were cognizant of the need for objective truth in our quest for knowledge coupled with the fact that- as Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman put it-:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." 

William A. Dembski writes:

"If Socrates taught us anything, it's that we always know a lot less than we think we know." 

Interestingly what shows up early in the quest is this need for humility...

No doubt Rene Descartes in his struggles to arrive at certainty bore this deceptiveness of appearances in mind- as is also reflected in his reference to the idea Archimedes expressed:

“Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable.”

They all recognized, in their struggle for knowledge, for truth, and  for certainty (in whatever their sphere of endeavour) the absolute necessity for an ultimate, immovable, fixed and transcendent reference point from which to begin.

As a recreational sailor I like to use the analogy of navigation. We are all on a journey and it helps not only to know where you've come from, but where you are now- and also where you are heading.

In the days of old, sailing on the high seas was a hazardous exercise. Navigation was all about local conditions, the weather- wind, cloud formations, wave direction and height, recognizing various flora and fauna- these all gave indication of the proximity of land, but it was all very hit and miss. Quite a lot of both hit and miss- in fact, but often not at the most prodigious moment. Then people began to see the advantage of looking beyond their locality to the seemingly fixed stars, and celestial navigation brought immense advantages to the certainty of one's position, because of their objective predictability. Now a days we have G.P.S and your position (geographically) any place any time, is as easy as owning a smartphone. A Global Positioning System works because your position is referenced from Geo-stationary sattelites fixed above the earth. It is their absolutely fixed position in relation to the Earth, from which yours can be accurately ascertained at any given moment anywhere on the surface of the earth.

The culmination of this search for certainty, truth and knowledge of objective reality reached its zenith in the time now known as "Modernity". It was the age of reason and rationality. If we were to characterize the postmodern mind  by a slogan it would have to have at least some mention of a retreat from the possibility of objective truth or absolutes. A throwing up of the hands and the exclamation of "Whatever" is perhaps the most succinct defining mood of our age.  "Post-modernity" is a strong reaction against the failures of "Modernity" and as I hope the reader will come to recognize, we have all been caught up, to some degree or other, in its octopus like grip.

G.K. Chesterton, coyly remarked on the stance taken by post modernists (as a determined rejection of any possibility of objective reality and truth) when he said:

"The post modernist has his feet firmly planted in mid air"

 Dr. Jerram Barrs:

"If there is no acknowledgement of God- someone transcendent who knows all things there is no possibility of our knowing what is objectively real- how can we know truly and surely- that what we think we know is accurate? Post-modernism plays on that problem, and because it doesn't acknowledge God-who-knows- it's led to a place of deepest ignorance and darkness...

Postmodernism says: When I try to know anything- I am never free I always come with prejudices, beliefs with a background and these glasses- these spectacles- determine what I see. Without them I can't see anything, because its impossible to have a human being without perspectives, without prejudices, without convictions, we all have them. But with them everything I see is distorted they determine what I see as an individual as a member of a community, and so it says I cannot know anything objectively or absolutely...

Even among Christians this rejection to the possibility of knowing truth surely is very widespread, the figures are something like this- almost two thirds of people who claim to be evangelical believers- who claim to be born again- say that they do not know absolute truth- that whatever one believes if one is sincere God will accept that- I will get to heaven...Christians are deeply shaped by this...."

...postmodernism says all beliefs are equally valid ...one might just as well say invalid . Because once you say that all religiouis beliefs are equally true your saying that none of them are true..."

(emphasis mine)

The eminent Christian scholar D.A. Carson gives a poetic lament to the post modern here. 

  Today's Western  culture has a built in defense mechanism towards truth claims. This is an inherited position involving philosophies of intense skepticism. This incredulity is not just towards Biblical inerrancy or religious claims but a skepticism which even doubts whether any statement in general and metaphysical statements in particular could possibly be universally true; that is, true for all people in any time frame. It is no longer a case of arguing about what is true (or not) but whether there is such a thing as universal truth itself,  and whether it is at all communicable, and knowable. In this state of affairs agnosticism flourishes, as a consequence dogmatic truth claims are avoided, creedal teaching is shunned and exclusive claims to truth are scorned and derided as arrogant propaganda, a ploy to make merchandise of people. A post modern attitude has had ramifications for language as well. It questions whether language is even capable of conveying truth. For instance take any book (and this includes the Bible) and the authority of what the writer(s) intended or wished to convey no longer rests with the author(s), the authority now resides in the person reading it, the reader decides what is meant and her authority is final. This strangely echoes, and should sound a warning siren, to a situation in the Garden of Eden.  Strangely, the advocates of this view wax eloquently on this subject apparently without giving a lot of thought to the medium they use, this irony is not lost on Ravi Zacharias.

In the Blog- Contra Celsum, John Turtullian, commenting on Statism  writes:

"When the West turned away from the Living God, philosophical scepticism was the inevitable long term outcome. Knowledge lost its point of integration and so fractured into thousands of pieces. Three hundred years of post-Enlightenment maturation has allowed scepticism to reap a prodigious harvest. Unbelief now understands that it can no longer talk about culture, but only multi-cultural reality. It can no longer speak of truth, but only of perspectives. Rather than knowledge, it is reduced to telling stories about the world. It can no longer speak intelligibly about mankind; rather, more “accurately” only an emerging life-form. Correspondence between what we think we know and the actual world is declared impossible.

Truth is prejudice. Knowledge is opinion.

Any claims for either beyond these is nothing more than adding ignorance and stubbornness and arrogance to the mix.

The end result of scepticism is pluralism. You can have as many truths as there are people or opinions. This drive to pluriformity is relentless. We have now been gravely informed by Stephen Hawking that we must no longer speak of a universe, but multiverses.

Scepticism means that education is impossible in the sense of a teacher imparting actual truth and knowledge to students. This is why state school systems are failing–and will continue to do so. In a philosophically sceptical world to attempt to teach someone can never rise beyond being an act of arrogant, presumptuous intellectual imperialism.

The only course–and this is now the current paradigm in education–is constructivism. This refers to education being made subservient to pedagogy, and a particular kind of pedagogy at that. It is a way of “teaching” where the “teacher” becomes merely a facilitator, enabling the pupil to construct their own meaning, truth, and perspectives. In this sceptical world-view–which now dominates the West–to impart knowledge is to impose and enslave; it is to do serious damage to the pupil. It impedes true enlightenment which is self-discovery and individual perspectival sovereignty. The only recourse of state education systems is to affirm everything, which is to deny nothing.

Above all, the child must be affirmed, rather than taught.

Making children feel good about themselves has been one of the main objectives of US schools during the past three decades. By the time they are seven or eight years of age, American children have internalised the prevailing psychobabble and can proclaim the importance of avoiding negative emotions and of high self-esteem. Yet this has had no perceptible impact on their school performance. Robert Whelan, ed, The Corruption of the Curriculum, (London: Civitas, 2007) p. 9

Maybe not, but the child will be well on the way to constructing their own private curriculum–and that is the whole point in a culture which is both democratic and Unbelieving. Scepticism can only mean self-discovery–whatever that might mean–not conformity to an authoritative Truth." (emphasis mine)

While he is speaking of the demise of education and its function as a State program in particular, it is not hard to see that the tenets of Post-modernity are what has brought this about.

The following video clips characterize post-modernity and give clear expression as to the destructive nature and all pervasive influence not only in society but through clear intrusions into the worldview of believers. Where this phenomenon of debased human understanding is correctly addressed -and the underlying assumptions challenged- there is a renewed interest in, and appreciation for the Gospel. The indubitable successes of Ravi Zacharias and other Christian apologists are tangible evidence that if the intellectual challenges that hinder an acceptance of the truth of the Gospel are dispelled- the way is made clear for the Holy Spirit to sovereignly work repentance and faith in the hearts of people who would otherwise find the Gospel just too far from reality.

For more thoughts on The Cumulative Effects Of Postmodernity Today On Christianity follow the link.

Two of the most vociferous children of post-modernity are the twins Relativism and Tolerance. Follow the links. For more specific thoughts on Moral Relativism (a close cousin) follow the link.

------------------

Listen to Dr. Jerram Barrs speak on Apologetic Evangelism With Postmodern People
 96 minutes, an excellent presentation for understanding the Post-modern Mind

In light of the above:

• If “post-modernism” is a reaction against “modernism”, then what in modernism is it reacting against?

• What world events have been mentioned which may have helped trigger this reaction?

• Thinking in terms of the laws of non-contradiction what characterizes the mood of post-modernism?

• If the enlightenment age was the age of reason- and confidence in mankind one of its hallmarks, what can be said concerning postmodernism?

• What has been the effect of post-modern thinking on such words as: Truth and Language?

• It has been said that post-modernity not only causes divisions between people groups but causes internal conflict, why might this be so?

• If the influence of post-modern thinking is all pervasive what evidence could we point to in the evangelical church to demonstrate it s effect?

• Why should a Christian be interested in the effects of a post-modern worldview?

• In recent times we have seen the gradual and increasing “privatization of belief” where less and less meaningful dialogue takes place with others of a different persuasion. In the context of this discussion what might we attribute as a reason for this post-modern tendency?

• What do you consider to be a defining, pivotal objection from within a post-modern worldview that would need to be overcome in order for an individual to accept the veracity of a Judeo/Christian worldview?

“ Madam, thou doest protest too much!” spoken by Queen Gertrude in William Shakespeare's "Hamlet"

 I have watched, thought and listened to the campaign to swing cultural attitudes away from the traditional meaning of “marriage” to a more so called “liberal” attitude towards homosexual unions. The first casualty in the public relations exercise was the meaning of the word “gay” which was put in harness to work for the homosexual lobby, and then the big issue was the recognition of equal rights, particularly legal equality so the term “civil union” came into being. Then there was the concerted effort to shack up with everybody’s favorite word- “love”. I mean if it is love- it has to be good and wholesome doesn’t it? It seems that fuddy-duddy word “lust” doesn’t enter the picture anymore.

Before you switch channels just give me a little more of your time. The real issue at stake here, and what few seem to be talking about is this: Are the laws at large in our society merely the result of human constructs, are they just mere creaturely conventions or are there laws that go deeper and transcend the authority of government?

Is marriage just society’s way of rubber stamping a heterosexual relationship or does it reflect a concurrent law that is working deep within our humanity? If you’re unsure of what I’m getting at look at another example: When children are abused by those to whom they are entrusted we have laws that govern and protect the most vulnerable of our society. And rightly so of course.

But why “of course”?

When twin infants die at the hands of a family member and no one is brought to justice we are outraged (and who wouldn’t be?) is this merely the reflection of our love for good government or is it a natural hatred of injustice? Is this sense of justice something that resonates within our souls? I put it to you that good laws are good not because they are fashionable or fashioned out of pragmatism by clever people, but because they are consistent with a universal law written within us that they harmonize with.

We knew when those twins died that someone should be held to account, but the experts at law said that one that has been acquitted of murder, even a double murder (after only one minute of deliberation by the jury) does not have to stand trial again, even after the coroners report said a few years later: ‘that the twins had suffered the brain injuries which led to their deaths … at a time "whilst they were in the sole custody, care and control of their father"’

We knew that when impeached President Clinton claimed he had not had sex with Lewinsky (she had sex with him) natural justice had been thwarted by semantics.

We know that when the experts at law convicted the experts at seismology for not correctly prophesying the recent Italian earthquake that natural justice had been suspended.

We know that while the world reels and staggers with unbelief as those who have perpetuated financial misery upon countless millions facing an austere future are given obscene bonuses as they quit their polluted office- justice has not been served.

I have heard (because I don’t know many) that homosexuals are some of the nicest people that one could hope to meet, they exhibit effusive good manners, friendliness, civic responsibility and indeed one might see them as model citizens. And I have no reason to question that, it makes sense to me.  

If this campaign to change the definition of marriage succeeds, will it be the hollow triumph of a vocal minority manipulating public opinion? Will it achieve what they really want? But what do they really want? They already have equal rights under the law in matters of property and so forth, they even have a term nicely invented for them (civil union) but no, they want it all, they want to force on the rest of us the idea that the word “marriage” applies to them, but why?

Could it be that inside them as well as in all of us that when we do wrong there is a sense of justice- of right and wrong that will not give us peace, even when the laws of the land justify us, even when society in unison applauds and affirms our way of life? Is it that even when we have at a certain level convinced ourselves we are right- we are harangued by a sense of justice that will not be appeased, that will not stay silent, but will quietly but insistently whisper to us above all the deafening throng; the quiet, incontrovertible voice that says that what we do is not OK?

“Two things fill the mind with ever-increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more intensely the mind of thought is drawn to them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.” Immanuel Kant

If they succeed will they be at peace? I think not, but thankfully there is one to go to for peace, indeed he is called the prince of Peace.

Perhaps they do protest too much!

Now here is a video clip giving strictly biological reasons why governments should continue to promote marriage as unique between a man and a woman.

The following video is more recent development of this cultural engineering by a minority that further seeks to erode and marginalize- and finally criminalize Christians.

LATEST RESULTS IN THE QUEST FOR THE BIG "TOE" (theory of everything)

This post has been copied from Infowars.com. (Some paragraphs omitted for brevity.)

The Higgs boson ‘God Particle’ discovery explained in the context of conscious cosmology

Mike Adams
Natural News
Thursday, July 5, 2012

The ultimate goal of the study of physics is to decode the rules and laws of the universe; to understand what “makes it all tick,” so to speak. That goal, of course, has remained elusive, but great strides have been made toward it over the last few thousand years. Newton’s formulations of the laws of gravity, Kepler’s laws of motion, Bohr’s modeling of the atom, Maxwell’s equations on electromagnetic behavior… these all contributed to a deeper understanding of the very fabric of reality. Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity, and then General Relativity, soon followed.

Our understanding of physics accelerated throughout the 20th century with theories on the Big Bang, inflation and the inflaton field, string theory, M-theory, supersymmetry, quantum mechanics, parallel worlds, bubble universes and much more. It’s truly fascinating to observe all this as a conscious being sitting inside the very universe we’re all trying to figure out, and one thing I really appreciate about physicists in general is that they require an extraordinarily convincing burden of proof before they announce something to be “discovered.”

The quest for particles (while ignoring consciousness)

Why would anyone want to spend a few billion dollars smashing atoms together and analyzing the results of the splatter? To find out what atoms are made of, of course. But more importantly, to find out what the universe is made of. That’s what CERN is all about, and as long as its results are understood in the proper context, it’s valuable science.

There’s a huge gap in all this, unfortunately, and that gap has its origins in the thinking that atoms are made entirely of particles. The wildly misnamed “God particle” known as Higgs boson has been the single most sought-after particle by physicists in their quest to find physical evidence to back up their mathematical equations of the “Standard Model” of the universe.

To understand why that matters, let’s back up for a minute. Physicists and especially cosmologists spend an enormous amount of time working in the abstract realm of mathematics. The purpose of the mathematics is to attempt to model physical reality, which is, of course, engineered into the fabric of the universe with the language of mathematics. (Consciousness is also woven into the fabric of reality, many argue, but that’s a subject I’ll revisit later.)

What’s often lacking in this scientific quest is physical experimental evidence that backs up the math. So it only makes sense to attempt to conduct real-world experiments to either prove or disprove what the theory predicts. That’s what CERN is all about. Now that the Higgs particle has been convincingly demonstrated to exist, this helps nail down all sorts of answers, thereby leading to a deeper exploration of other questions, each of which grants a measure of understanding to human civilization.

Ultimately, physicists are attempting to understand the origins of the universe, which has turned out to be a tricky question for lots of reasons, some of which are almost impossible to imagine. In addition to the parallel worlds and multiverse theories that have joined the complexities, there is also “brane theory” to deal with. It’s a theory that says, in a nutshell, multiple universescoexist intertwined with each other but not interacting. You can’t touch another brane world even though it may exist right alongside our own brane world.

What’s important to realize in all this is that even the so-called “Standard Model” of explaining everything is currently an unsatisfactory patchwork of equations and mathematical transformations that don’t play well together when it comes to different physical contexts such as really small things or really large, massive things. Try to meld large-scale equations of gravity, for example, with really small phenomena such as quantum fluctuations of atomic nuclei, and you get nonsensical mathematical answers such as “the answer is X divided by zero!”

Virtually all present-day reality modeling equations break down at singularity events such as black holes, too. The Standard Model is seriously lacking, in other words, and one of the reasons there is so much excitement about Higgs boson is because it would help fill in the gaps of the Standard Model explanation.

There’s little doubt that the Standard Model is only a temporary quick fix in the bigger picture, of course. It’s not “wrong” in the sense of being terribly incorrect; it’s most likely just incomplete.Ultimately, physicists hope to find a “unified theory” that explains everything with a single set of mathematical understandings and equations that apply to all observable phenomena in the universe: electromagnetism, gravity, mass, light and so on. Einstein spent a considerable portion of his life in search of the unification of these fundamental forces but was unable to achieve it. This is a goal of understanding that may yet take lifetimes to achieve.

If it were achieved, it would represent one of the most profound achievements in the history of humankind.

Conscious cosmology

Yet, as I hinted above, there’s still something missing from all this: Consciousness. Without consciousness, the universe cannot be fully explained, as consciousness is increasingly emerging as a fundamental force impacting the very fabric of reality. This is really, really frustrating for many scientists because, for starters, the majority of them don’t even believe in the existence of consciousness. Stephen Hawking is famous for his rather short-sighted remarks that people are mindless, soulless beings — “biological robots” — and that religion / spirituality is a realm for “people who are afraid of the dark.”

He titles chapters of his book, “The Theory of Everything” and yet does not even acknowledge the existence of consciousness or free will — two things that are fundamentally tied into quantum theory equations in the context of the “Observer.” It goes without saying that until modern-day physicists can embrace and attempt to understand consciousness and the role of the Observer in shaping the physical universe, even their most determined efforts to find a unified theory of everything will come up short.

This is frustrating for physicists because, to date, there are no equations that describe the behavior or properties of consciousness. Although consciousness can be experienced first-hand by conscious beings, it so far has defied measurement and experimental validation. How can anyone prove consciousness exists? Other than the fact that it is self-evident to those who possess it, is there an independent way to measure it and thereby confirm its existence?

This may ultimately prove impossible because of an error in the question. An “independent” measurement, in classical physics, describes a measurement being conducted by a mechanism that has no ties to any conscious observer. Yet in order to become aware of the measurements, a conscious being must, one way or another, interact with the results of the experiment. This interaction, as quantum theorists are increasingly realizing, is itself part of the experimentand may alter its outcomes even after the fact. The Observer cannot be isolated from the events observed.

This also means that all of today’s science is, in fact, biased toward consciousness. All the evidence that makes up the entire history of known science suffers from a glaring “selection bias” because it was all observed and selected by conscious beings. Even this recent Higgs boson discovery may have been brought into existence solely because so many conscious beings were focused on bringing into reality what they imagined to be real. I know this almost starts to sound New-Agey, but such is the nature of things in a conscious universe: All science being conducted today is carried out under the influence of “consciousness bias.” And so we need to understand what this means and how it impacts our understanding of reality.

Gaining a deep understanding of this may be exceedingly difficult for human beings to achieve. It may, in fact, be beyond the capabilities of biological beings with limited neurological capacity. Nevertheless, I believe that the more modern science understands about the Higgs boson, quantum theory, particle physics and cosmology, the closer science will be to initiating a scientific study of consciousness.

We’ve got to get the hard sciences out of the way first, in other words, before the interaction between mind and matter can even be approached.

Consciousness, parallel worlds and more

Consciousness, you see, isn’t made of particles. Thus, you can’t smash consciousness in a particle accelerator and hope to see the tiny bits of what it’s made of. (You can crush free will, of course, but that takes a government.) Yet there is increasingly compelling evidence that consciousness interacts with the physical world and may even create parallel physical worlds when it is exercised. Hints of this are emerging from the study of quantum physics, which immediately leads to the possibility of “multiple worlds” and parallel realities.

The search for Higgs boson, ultimately, is an important one, but the approach is incomplete if our civilization seeks to uncover the fundamental forces that unify our observable universe. Those forces do not exist in a vacuum absent the minds of the conscious inhabitants of the universe. Where there is life, there appears to be consciousness, and if there’s one thing most physicists and cosmologists agree on, it’s that life is ridiculously abundant across the cosmos. Not in terms of units of life per square meter, of course, since most of the universe is, physically speaking, just empty space. The average density of the known universe (roughly 28 billion light years across) has been estimated at 6 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. That’s a lot of empty space, but it’s filled with literally trillions of stars, each of which may harbor life and therefore consciousness.

To achieve a fundamental understanding of the origins and mechanisms of our known universe without factoring in the impact of consciousness and the conscious observer is, to put it bluntly, a blind approach to ultimate understanding. It’s like trying to bake a cake but leaving out the flour. The recipe of reality from which our universe has sprung must take into account consciousness. If it does not, no unification of fundamental forces will ever be complete, I believe.

Who or what created our reality?

Then there is the question of the Architect of this reality. Even if humankind manages to decode the fundamental laws which govern the physical universe, there’s not only the question of “Who or what created the universe in the first place” but the even more difficult question, “Who or what created the laws of physics that govern the universe?”

Because on that question, even a particle accelerator the size of the entire planet can’t shed a single photon of light on the question. The consensus view in physics circles today — which is dominated, remember, by people who don’t believe in consciousness or free will — is that our universe created itself out of nothing, without any intelligent intervention. This is a strange argument of “effect without a cause,” and it simply doesn’t add up.

The far more believable argument is that our universe was created by a Great Intelligence— an Architect or Creator, if you will. The explanations for this Creator run the gamut. Several prominent physicists are right now suggesting that our universe is a simulation, a physics experiment created by a vastly superior race of beings who inhabit a higher dimension. On the more spiritual side, the explanation quickly centers on a single consciousness known as God. There are seemingly endless additional theories and thoughts on this subject involving a vast array of philosophical and religious beliefs, but they all have in common one idea which should be obvious to even a brilliant physicist: The reason there is something rather than nothing is becausesomeone (or something) had to put it there, and that means there is an intelligence — a consciousness — that exists above and beyond our known universe. Something with the power to create our known universe, in other words.

That creative force / intelligence / consciousness is what I call The Divine. It is divine because it is a Creator in every sense of the word. It creates realities. It carefully selects cosmological constants so that those realities have the capacity to support life. It imbues that life with small slices of consciousness and grants that life the capacity for self awareness and self determination.

These are divine concepts that underpin the deepest inner workings of our universe… far beyond Higgs boson or any theory of particle physics. This gets to the Creator behind the very laws of physics. How was the framework of quantum mechanics created in the first place? Who selected and fine-tuned the cosmological constants to support the formation of stars? How was the framework of dark matter and dark energy engineered?

I intend to begin exploring precisely these questions in a series of upcoming videos and articles on NaturalNews and other websites. I call this “exploring conscious cosmology,” and in my view, it dwarfs the importance of almost anything else that might normally concern us, including politics, nutrition and even exposing fraud.

Watch for announcements on “conscious cosmology” here on NaturalNews.com.

And yes, for the record, in case you were wondering, I am trained in the sciences and have long been a student of many fields of knowledge, including physics, philosophy, cosmology, anthropology, neurology and spirituality. I’m not a master in any of these fields but rather a student of them all. My strength is in understanding complex concepts and explaining them in simple, everyday terms, usually in a way that’s interesting to read. I intend to bring that skill to the forefront as I spend more time focusing on conscious cosmology which necessarily encompasses philosophy, spirituality, quantum theory, physics and more.

After all, if we are conscious beings, shouldn’t we exercise our consciousness and do something with it?