Category: Philosophy


Hey bloggers… have you heard of the LVCAB award? No? Well then, who’s heard of a “misere ouvert“?

download (6)

Misere Ouvert is a rule in some card games which gives you a chance to win, even if you happen to have been dealt the worst hand possible. By intentionally losing every trick, you win. You need conviction, tenacity, sharp thinking, and a bad hand to take advantage of the rule.

I sometimes like to apply the misere ouvert principle to my life in creative ways. For example, by achieving the lowest view count in all of Blogdom, I may actually win the “Lowest View Count In All Blogdom” award, or the LVCAB. This award is affectionately known in my house, or rather, in my head, as the “LOV-CAB”.

Is there such an award? As far as I know, there isn’t. But I think it’s a good idea…

Advertisements

How do you lead people to conclude that there’s only one truth, without showing them any real evidence to support it? Answer: you keep them from all dissenting alternatives…

blindfold

I was listening to a BBC radio discussion on the subject of parasitism recently (1), the panel being a gathering of very learned and highly credentialed evolutionary scientists. One of the comments which stood out to me was from Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College, London. In the course of the discussion host Melvyn Bragg asked the Prof:

So you’re definitely saying that sometimes parasites can have a positive and good effect?

The answer:

Well the trouble is that words like “positive” and “good” don’t really belong in biology-it turns into “theology” then.

In Nick Fisher-ese, the answer was, Hey, lay off of that filthy religious language, and stay well away from that “God” thing: we’re talking “science” now, and the two things  are and must remain separate…

We can sum this up in one word: bias. Or we could call it “intentional ignorance”. Or we could call it the language of propaganda.

I went to school: I was taught the state-sponsored view of our origins. I’ve seen all those glossy, realistic TV specials promoting and pushing the pill of evolution ex-nihilo down our throats with the sugar of awesome special effects and incredible extinct animals . But I’ve also been fortunate and blessed enough to see the other side, and in my view, God is the master-scientist. No God-no science. In fact, no God, no universe. Great scientists of the past such as Isaac Newton had no mind to censor or hide their beliefs, and no motive to do so.

Don’t forget that according to honest evolutionary philosophy you are just another animal, no more important in the universe than a tape-worm, a tadpole, a tomato, a tree or a tic.

In science-if we really want to see science and evolution as being synonymous-there’s no such thing as “good” or “bad” in any absolute sense. Remember, according to the learned Prof quoted above, words like “positive” and “good” don’t really belong in science. At least he’s being consistent with his beliefs. So all this whining about who colluded with who and who gassed who and who shot who is superfluous and unnecessary, since there is no such thing as “good” or “bad” but only what we decide is good or bad at any given time in history. Hitler and Stalin were no more “wrong” than we are. Death is not a “bad” thing, since it weeds out the weak.

FISH

Picture Copyright © by Nick Fisher

We’re led to believe that scientists have disproved the existence of God-which is actually impossible-and instead they’ve scientifically shown that everything came into existence by itself and evolved all on its own. The truth is that scientists, including those who may quietly be questioning the politically correct view of origins and evolution (and there are some) are all but forbidden to even suggest the possibility that there could be the remotest chance that there may just be something to that “God” thing, for fear of loss of employment, of tenure, of recognition, or of funding.

Stephen Meyer, a leader in the Intelligent Design movement, with a PhD in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge, writes about a principle of evolutionary science in his book, “Darwin’s Doubt” (2). “Methodological naturalism”, aka “methodological materialism” is a presumed rule of science, he says. It asserts that to qualify as scientific, a theory must explain phenomena and events in nature…by reference to strictly material causes only:

“According to this principle, scientists may not invoke the activity of a mind or, as one philosopher of science puts it, any “creative intelligence”.

Evolutionary science intentionally dismisses the remotest suggestion of Creation and possibility of intelligent design. No researcher or professor who wants to keep his job or his funding can factor any hint of divinity or design into his work or his pronouncements. The most polite designation by evolutionists for these two views of science and anything like them, held by many fine scientists and scientifically trained individuals in the Creation and Intelligent Design movements, is that they are “unscientific”.

Evolutionists, who hold the political and legal upper hand in all areas of education and the media, intentionally bar the slightest hint of any evidence, opinion, interpretation or line of inquiry which points towards a designer or a creator. In other words, you-and your children, with the help of your tax money, are purposely kept from considering any alternative interpretation of science to the politically correct one which may lead you to conclude that there is a Designer, unless it’s a controlled exposure designed (!) to ridicule and belittle.

Meyer relates a now famous (or infamous) quote by Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin, laying out his own version of the “ban God” rule:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism…for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

Over nineteen hundred years ago the apostle Peter described this blinkered attitude by saying that people are “willingly ignorant” (KJV): they “deliberately overlook” (ESV) the facts of creation…and the judgment to come (2 Peter 3:5-7).

Thanks for reading. This post is an edited version of one I wrote last year.

NOTES

1: BBC Radio 4 “In Our Time”: “Parasitism”-broadcast January 26th 2017.

2: DARWIN’S DOUBT: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. See also the follow-up, “Debating Darwin’s Doubt” in which Meyer answers his critics.

 

The efforts of mankind in and out of “religion” are aimed at shrinking God to a manageable size, so that he’s no longer God but “a” god, and only one of many…

download (5)

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING GOD

Even in the professing Christian world there are many individuals and organizations claiming to represent him who want the rest of us to see God as they do: small, ineffectual, effeminate, powerless, weak-minded and irrelevant. He can’t create and he certainly couldn’t do it in six days. He can’t say anything truthful and he has no ability or will to preserve even what he does say. He has no power over death, he doesn’t know his own mind, his promises are empty and vacuous, and his standards sway in the winds of time, opinion and fashion. In the words of a certain world-leading, head-of-the-Church type person, God “doesn’t have a magic wand”.

The message of the Bible is totally opposite to this attitude of “experts”. God, according to everyone from Genesis to Revelation, is unimaginably huge, powerful and holy. He is so amazing in his being, his character and his standards that were we able to get a glimpse of him in our present form we would immediately die-if only from the shock and awe of seeing him.

…who is able to build a temple for him, since the heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain him? (2 Chronicles 2:6).

The most intense target of the “Make God small” movement is Jesus Christ. Entire religions and pseudo-Christian cults fiercely contest and deny the idea that Jesus was anything more that a prophet, a teacher, a radical, a revolutionary…a man.

 

Any reading of the New Testament to an open mind demonstrates the complete antithesis of this view. Not only is Jesus Christ declared to be the Son of God, but God incarnate, and the creator of all that exists:

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him (Colossians 1:16).

800px-po_vodam

The diminishers not only work to wipe away or allegorize indispensable Old Testament books such as Genesis, but fundamental New Testament books also. John’s gospel, they say, is a fantasy. Paul’s writings are faulty. The gospels are flawed and need to be hugely edited, or to use a popular political tool these days-“redacted”. It  makes me wonder why people claim to even be Christian when they don’t actually believe anything of it. Why don’t they take up Buddhism or origami instead?

John Doe’s writing are far more reliable they say, and proceed to create their own version of the ancient Scriptures, when the originals claim to be the very Word of God…a dangerous risk and miscalculation.

John wrote,

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

Paul said that Jesus Christ is:

“The image of the invisible God…” (Colossians 1:15).

Philip, one of the twelve disciples, said to Jesus one evening:

“Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

Jesus answered:

“Don’t you know me Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:8-9).

The present-day deniers of Jesus’ divinity claim that John’s gospel is unreliable, so we can’t believe what it says. Really? Then take a look at the other gospel authors, and the writings of Paul, who all preached the same message. In fact, Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God and therefore God was the reason he was crucified:

“The high priest said to him, I charge you under oath by the living God: tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

“Yes, it is as you say, Jesus replied. But I say to all of you: in the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered (Matthew 26:63-66).

Jesus Christ was crucified because he was claiming to be God’s one and only Son. He was “blaspheming”. Therefore, in their minds, he had to be shrunk. The fact that he had worked incredible miracles meant nothing to them. After all, anyone can walk on water, right? Anyone can turn water into wine and make a blind man see and a lame man walk, right?

I’m so glad that my God is much, much bigger than theirs. And I’ll say to him, with Thomas,

“My Lord and my God!”

Up to now I’ve never shared my personal feelings on my blog. That may be partly because I’m in touch with who I really am, and what I’m really like, and how un-like the majority of people I am, and so how few people can tolerate me! As my brother once said to me so succinctly, “You’re weird!”.

1200px-Auguste_Rodin_-_Grubleren_2005-02

He didn’t realize it, but that was one of the nicest things anyone’s ever said to me. Weirdness has its benefits. Give me “weird” any time…

I remarked to someone the other day on the importance of talking to yourself. In open conversation we all make fun of the practice, but I suspect the reality is that a good many or most of us do it. After all, sometimes it’s the only way to have an intelligent conversation, right? So I said to this person, who I won’t name, that by talking to ourselves we stay in contact with who we really are. We reconcile ourselves to an otherwise hostile world. We organize our thoughts and make them more solid in our consciousness. We pragmatically consider both or all sides of the issues at hand (if we have any sense), and we provide friendship for ourselves which may not otherwise be available. Who can we trust if we can’t trust ourselves?

We may be afraid of being considered to be slightly insane if others see us talking to ourselves, and that’s understandable, because we all feel that those who do so with no self-consciousness at all may well be unhinged in some way. But surely we all have thought-conversations with ourselves, inside our minds, don’t we? It’s impossible not to (I think). And we don’t consider ourselves to be mad for that. So what’s the harm, now and then, with a little one-on-one conversation, when nobody else is around? We talk to our pets, we talk to the television, we talk to the driver in front of us: why not talk to our best friends-ourselves?

Looking at my view count lately, I may well be talking to myself now…

Ah, but someone else is always around-God. Statements like that one make the atheist and the unbeliever become certain that I and others like me are not playing with a full deck. They forget all the many benefits believers with great minds have given the world-men like Pascal, Francis Bacon, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Tolkein, C.S Lewis and countless others.

God hears us. In fact, he knows our thoughts, and hears all our words. Herein is one of the potentially huge benefits of talking to ourselves, whether in our minds or out loud. When we do it within the knowledge and control of God’s spirit, and while also talking to our God, we can talk ourselves into a right way of thinking:

…be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans 12:2).

Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name. Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits (Psalm 103:1-2).

 

 

%d bloggers like this: