Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Has Science Buried God? An Open Forum with Professor John Lennox at Chicago Universitly

According to Professor Lennox more than half of the latest Nobel Prize winners were Christians, and yet it is the claim of outspoken atheists like the renown Professor Shephen Hawkings that people must choose between science and God. But given that so many of the worlds brightest minds see no contradiction between their Christian faith and their chosen field- is that a reasonable ultimatum?

In the following open forum Lennox reveals where the conflict really lies.

Sunday, April 17, 2016

The Crusades- What really happened? Islam- Has it really expanded through peaceful means?

In this piece we look at the history of the Crusades and an alternative view to what has commonly been perceived as Christendoms darkest hour as interpreted by Stephan Molyneux.  We also examine the history of one of the worlds major religions- Islam through the eyes of Dr. Bill Warner.

Stephan Molyneux is a blogger, a self confessed atheist, libertarian and political anarchist who has degrees in history (a B.A. in History from McGill University in 1991 and an M.A. in History from University of Toronto) and is best known for his podcasts on "Freedomain Radio" and his youtube channel. (Wikipedia)




Dr. Bill Warner holds a PhD in physics and math, NC State University, 1968. He has been a university professor, businessman, and applied physicist.

He was a Member of the Technical Staff in solid-state physics at the Sarnoff Princeton Laboratories in the area of integrated circuit structures. During the energy crisis of the 80’s he founded and ran a company that specialized in energy efficient homes. For eight years he was a professor at Tennessee State University in the Engineering School.

"Dr. Warner has had a life-long interest in religion and its effects on history. He has studied the source texts of the major religions for decades. Even before the destruction of the World Trade Center he had predicted the war between Islam and America. The day after 9/11 he decided to make the source texts of Islam available for the average person." (Political Islam)

While I might agree that this is an accurate representation of the history of Islamic conquest, "the war between Islam and America" is by no means a foregone conclusion. The present opposition is not against Islam per se, but against those extremists who are propogating violence and terror in the name of Islam. Having clarified that, with such a history of military conquest and expansionism by force so closely allied to Islam, the case must be carefully explored whether in fact Islam does promote violence and force.

The first video gives a visual comparison to the Crusades vs. the Islamification of the Classical world.


The second details a more detailed synopsis:




“And You Were Worried About Trump” - A war of words.

A recent editorial appearing in the New Zealand Herald is headed “And You Were Worried About Trump”, followed by the subheading- “It's Republican hopeful Ted Cruz who has team with a history of religious bigotry and attacks on Islam”, written by Arnold R Isaacs. (New Zealand Herald, Saturday Apr 16, 2016) The piece was originally presented by the Washington Post (April 14) under the moniker: “Meet the radical anti-Islam conspiracy theorists advising Ted Cruz- They believe Islam is evil and that sharia may soon conquer America”


Even in peacetime there is war.

It was in the context of war, or at least impending war. that the inimitable Winston Churchill said:

“The truth is the most valuable thing in the world. Indeed it is so valuable that it is often protected by a bodyguard of lies.” 

There is no surer way of endearing yourself to the hearts of those who are prejudiced against conservatives than by referring to “religious bigotry” and accusations of being a "conspiracy theorist". In a blatant act of demagoguery Isaacs immediately recommends himself and is guaranteed his piece gets aired. Interestingly it is within Churchill's own historical context that we receive the greatest insights to the painful reality of what he speaks of here, having had his warnings of impending aggression ignored for years and labelled a "warmonger".  The overtones of aggression and expansionism expressed by Hitlers fascist Nationalism went painfully unheeded by Britain for quite some time.

Press Bigotry

The much quoted adage- "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" applies here. It seems that in certain quarters any and all criticism of Islam is out of bounds and labelled Islamophobic. It isn’t often that I find myself agreeing with atheists but in this exceptional case I agree.

NothingImmuneToCriticism.png

Isaacs seems to have a track record for being one-eyed. And a survey of previous work, vouchsafes all too clearly on what side of the political/ideological spectrum he resides.  I refer the reader to another piece by Isaacs called “Remembering Vietnam” and a response to it written by William L. Stearman Phd in the publication “Military Review” ( September-October 2013).

“William Lloyd Stearman, Ph.D., is a retired [flag rank] senior U.S. Foreign Service officer who served on the National Security Council staff under four presidents. He was the director of the National Security Council Indochina staff from January 1973 to January 1976. He was also an adjunct professor of international affairs at Georgetown University from 1977 to 1992.”
It is Stearman’s contention that Isaacs promotes a one sided view that America’s involvement in the Vietnam war was “immoral”, “unwinnable”, and “should never have been fought”. Right there I have to admit that that summation was pretty much my own assessment and probably that of the majority of Kiwis as well, and indeed that of most Americans. After all- that was the standard perspective of most of the press wasn't it? This is a continuing narrative of the Western press and one cannot help but acknowledge that this has similar overtones to the way the West has always characterized the Crusades. The truth of the matter is perhaps somewhat different.

My Lai Massacre

As an argument against the bigotry of the press in handling aspects of the war, and their unabating criticism of the U.S.A’s involvement in Vietnam, Stearman relates the following incidents:

There were, of course, atrocities committed by U.S. troops, the most notable being the My Lai massacre on 16 March 1968, when a company from the America Division shot hundreds of unarmed men, women, and children. The division suppressed the bloody episode for over a year. When the massacre was finally revealed, there was a feeding frenzy by the Western media, especially the Americans. Soon the whole world knew about it.”

We are not here to film anti-Communist propaganda 

However, in comparison, Stearman noted the distinctly arbitrary coverage by the American press on atrocities committed by the the Viet Cong:
On 30 January 1968, during the Tet Offensive, the North Vietnamese captured the imperial capital of Hue and executed an estimated 6,000 civilians.
On retaking Hue, American troops discovered a mass grave containing about 2,800 bodies; there was clear evidence that a number of them had been buried alive. When German correspondent Uwe Siemon-Netto (Springer papers), accompanied by Washington Post correspondent Peter Braestrup, visited the mass grave, they noted an American television camera crew standing by doing nothing. Peter asked them, “Why don’t you film this?” he was told, “We are not here to film anti-Communist propaganda.” This view was typical.

After I returned to the states, I was assigned to speak about Vietnam to audiences all over the country. As I finished each talk, I would ask, “Who has heard of My Lai?” all hands would go up. When I next asked, “Who has heard of the Hue massacre?” not a single hand would go up. I use this as an example of how our media insufficiently covered or ignored the misdeeds of the enemy. I remember that in World War II, all Americans were convinced the German and Japanese regimes were intrinsically evil, oppressive, and aggressive. This also aptly described the Hanoi regime, but how many people knew it by depending on our news media?
The increasing role of the means of media to manipulate public perception is well documented.
"the relation between the media and the government during Vietnam was in fact one of conflict: the media contradicted the more positive view of the war officials sought to project, and for better or for worse it was the journalists' view that prevailed with the public, whose disenchantment forced an end to American involvement"
"a study authorized by the Trilateral Commission in 1975 to examine the "governability" of American democracy found that "the most notable new source of national power in 1970, as compared to 1950, was the national media," suggesting also that there was "considerable evidence to suggest that the development of television journalism contributed to the undermining of governmental authority."  Although this report was commissioned on the heels of the messy conflict of the war itself, the sentiment that the development of new journalistic media such as television supplanted governmental authority in attaining the support of the American public during the Vietnam War has been accepted and upheld by many scholars through present day." (U.S. news media and the Vietnam War)
It seems the West has always looked upon its own history with regrets,  and that in itself is not an unhealthy thing. The one thing we must not do is ignore history, and hence be bound to repeat its mistakes. However, while there is no doubt there are things to be ashamed of, these must always be held in a healthy perspective- what were the alternatives? What would the world look like today if certain decisions had not been made, regrettable as they sometimes were?

“The first casualty of war is truth” Hiram Johnston

The world today is a welter of words, but I would far rather this war of words that is naturally stayed and limited by the power of reason, than the all too common tendency for ideological warfare to escalate to actual violence.

One of the ways that truth gets lost in a welter of words is by conflating the issues. Here is a prime example of this in the article of Isaacs, kindly emphasized by the New Zealand Herald as a standout quote (although in my wildest dreams I don’t think the sub editors actually made it a standout for the same reasons that I wish to draw attention to it):
“If a leading presidential campaign included advisers who made comparable statements about Jews or African Americans, it is a safe bet the outcry would have been far more intense and lasted a lot longer.”
But Mr. Isaacs, in case you hadn’t noticed, this isn’t a question of race, it is a question of beliefs. Islam is not a race, it is a religion. A set of ideas, and prescriptions for living. A worldview with overt political aspirations. Of course one cannot criticize, and should not be criticized over a question of what race one belongs to. We have no choice in the matter, so how can one either be blameworthy or praiseworthy according to race? One’s race is a sacred inheritance, and it is therefore impossible for any thinking person to impugn people on the basis of race. This tactic is simply playing the emotive race card to muddy the waters and get the blood up. However what may be legitimately criticized (and should be) are the ideas which we choose to believe, the ideas that gain traction in the soul, and the shared cultural values and meaning that lead us inexorably to certain behaviors. There is a vast need for respectful dialogue with those of other persuasions, with clear boundaries between the value of the person, and the value or otherwise of the ideas they espouse. Oh, and by the way, one of the legitimate criticisms that can be levelled at Islam is:


Are its subjects free to disbelieve it?


Set aside even- for the time being- any cultural difficulties such as the idea that if you happen to be born in a Muslim country to a Muslim family, the idea of not being a Muslim is not contemplated. The social pressures (not to mention the all too common legal constraints) are so enormous. No, just suppose that Islam was being presented as a set of legitimate ideas, just as Christianity, or atheism, or agnosticism is in the context of the West. If, having once made a decision to follow Islam under these circumstances, a further consideration of its tenets and beliefs became no longer viable to be believed, does this belief-system allow for a change of heart? No, it is not tolerated in Islam. All major schools of thought within Islam do not countenance apostasy- will not tolerate its rejection.

Any religion or worldview worth believing needs to stand up to the strictures of objective truth, and I venture to say that is why Christianity has proved so resilient amongst the most divergent of cultural mileus. That essentially is what is so wrong with the whole thrust of this article of Isaacs. It is born out of the basic (and self-defeating) idea that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Therefore no religion can claim to be objectively true, that they are all culturally situated and only true to those who espouse it. In giving all religions equal claim to reality, it has by the same token devalued all religion and the idea of objective truth.  It is this relativisation of truth that stultifies the genuine inquiry after truth and results in the attempts by the author and others like him to demonize anyone that dares to criticize a religion. This is distinctly a secularist ideal and one that desperately needs addressing because it is destroying the civilization that we hold dear.